Agenda item

Redevelopment to provide 1 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedroom flats, and a 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette (amended plans received 7 August 2020)

Demolition of curtilage listed buildings and boundary walls.

Councillor Robert Maddison, a local ward councillor, stood down from the committee for consideration of this item.

Owing to telecommunication difficulties, Councillor Jerry Avery did not hear the whole debate and did not vote on this application.

The committee considered applications P19/V3185/FUL & P20/V2131/LB for a  redevelopment to provide 1 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 1-bedroom flats, and a 1 x 2-bedroom maisonette (amended plans received 7 August 2020), with demolition of curtilage listed buildings and boundary walls at 39a and 39b Ock Street Abingdon.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that a site visit had been held at these properties on Tuesday 9 February 2021. The application site was an old commercial yard with vehicular access via an archway. The site contained four single storey buildings that were generally in a poor state of repair. The proposal was to demolish all of the existing buildings and boundary walls and to erect new pitched roof buildings of one- and one-and-a-half storeys, in a courtyard arrangement. With reference to the density of the proposal, the planning officer reported that Policy CP23 of Local Plan Policy 1 (LPP1) required a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare. Higher densities were encouraged in locations where it would result in the optimum use of land, where there was good access to services and public transport, and where it would contribute to enhancing the character of a place. In the view of planning officers, this brownfield site was in a sustainable location.

The planning officer reported that a heritage impact assessment (HIA) had been submitted, which had identified that two of the existing buildings on the east boundary, together with the east and north boundary walls, were curtilage listed. The HIA stated that the structures had been considerably altered over recent time, to have minimal heritage interest, and that therefore, their removal was deemed acceptable. It was also considered that the design and scale of the proposal represented an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Abingdon Town Centre Conservation Area and on the setting of the Albert Park Conservation Area.

The planning officer reported that the conservation officer agreed with much of the HIA, but considered that the impact of the development on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings had been underestimated. The conservation officer did not support the proposed removal of the east boundary wall which, although recently altered, provided heritage interest as a record of the historic burgage plots that existed behind the Ock Street frontages. Employing the recognised national heritage measure, the officer considered that the harm arising from the scheme was “less than substantial, minor”. Following the advice provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 196), this harm should be balanced against the public benefits of the proposal.

Mr. Nick Barnes, representing the Ock Street Clinic (dentists), at 45 Ock Street, and a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. Richard Tamplin, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. The democratic services officer had sent Mr. Tamplin’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Mr. Paul Marland, a local resident, who had registered to speak in objection to these applications for the planning committee meeting on 27 January 2021 (the committee had run out of time to consider the application on that occasion), was unable to speak to this committee meeting, but his joint statement with Danielle Marland had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to this meeting (11 February 2021).

Mr. Anthony Pettorino, the agent, spoke in support of the application. The democratic services officer had sent Mr. Pettorino’s statement to the committee prior to the meeting.

Councillor Robert Maddison a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee considered that the proposed construction management plan would not adequately safeguard residents from the loss of amenity as a result of out of hours delivery vehicle movements. The committee also considered that, by reason of its scale and massing, and the number of intended dwellings, the proposals represented overdevelopment. Additionally, the committee contended that the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the locality. The committee took the view that proposed development caused harm to the amenity of neighbours through overshadowing and dominance. It also considered that the proposed development provided an inadequate amount, and poor quality, of outdoor space for future occupiers, to the detriment of their amenity. The committee expressed concern at the probable heritage loss caused by the intended removal of the east boundary wall.  For these reasons the committee concluded that planning permission and listed building consent should be refused.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P19/V3185/FUL, for the following reasons;

1.    The proposed development, by reason of its scale and massing, and the number of dwellings proposed, represents an overdevelopment of the site that is inappropriate within its context, thereby causing harm to the character and appearance of the locality, contrary to policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1.

2.    The proposed development causes harm to the amenities of neighbours through overshadowing and dominance, contrary to policy DP23 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2.

3.    The proposed development provides an inadequate amount and a poor quality of outdoor space for future occupiers, to the detriment of their levels of amenity, and does not function well. As such, it is contrary to policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1.

4.    The proposed development, by reason of its scale and massing, and the removal of the curtilage listed east boundary wall, causes harm to the character and appearance of the Abingdon Town Centre Conservation Area and harm to the setting of the Albert Park Conservation Area, and fails to preserve the special interest of, and the setting of, adjacent listed buildings. As such, the proposal is contrary to policy CP39 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1, to policies DP36, DP37 and DP38 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2, and to advice in the NPPF.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse listed building consent was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse listed building consent for application P20/V21315/LB, for the following reason;

1.    The demolition of the curtilage listed east boundary wall does not have clear or convincing justification and fails to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building, and its setting. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies DP36 and DP38 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and advice in the NPPF.