Agenda item

P22/V2285/O - Land adjacent to 45 Northcourt Road, Abingdon, OX14 1PJ

Outline application to consider the matters of access, layout and scale for a 2 bedroom chalet bungalow, 2-storey with an integral single garage (as amended through revised plans).

Minutes:

The committee considered planning application P22/V2285/O for the outline application to consider the matters of access, layout and scale for a 2 bedroom chalet bungalow, 2-storey with an integral single garage (as amended through revised plans), on land adjacent to 45 Northcourt Road, 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 introduced the report and highlighted that the application was called into the committee by a local ward member, Councillor Helen Pighills. The planning officer also informed members that there had been several updates to the report since its publication; at 1.7 in the report there was doubt about the 2018 permission being extant as the bungalow element of the permission could not be carried out due to a measurement error, and in 5.7 of the report that the width of the site was 26 metres not 25 and the building would have a depth of 7.5 metres. 

         

The planning officer informed the committee that the proposal was an outline application for a single dwelling to determine if the principle of residential development on the site was acceptable. As it was an outline application, matters of scale, footprint, and height would be fixed if approved but the appearance of the building and landscaping would not be considered until the reserved matters stage. In addition, the planning offer noted that the site and No. 45 were accessed by a shared driveway, there was a protected tree located on the site’s northern boundary, and a grade II listed building to the south.

 

The planning officer informed members that permission was granted to build a dwelling on the site in 2018 but a recent topographical survey was taken which showed that this bungalow could not be built due to inaccuracies in the measurements and for this reason, this new application had been submitted.

 

The revised application reduced the width of the dwelling, increased the buffer between itself and No. 45 from 7 to 7.4 metres, would be the same height as previously approved, and would retain a 5-metre parking space. Based on this, the planning officer believed that there would be a sufficient separation distance between the proposed dwelling and No. 45 and that there would be appropriate garden space. The planning officer also informed members that that tree officer believed the protected tree to the north of the site would be protected and that there were no heritage concerns raised.

 

Overall, as the planning officer believed that the principle of development for a two bed bungalow was approved in the 2018, and that sufficient detail was provided in the current application, they recommended that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

 

 

Rosemary Buchan spoke objecting to the application. 

 

Councillor Helen Pighills, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application. 

 

 

The committee had conducted a site visit prior to the discussion of the application. Members asked if there were legal implications around the application due to an existing legal agreement between the applicant and the occupants of No. 45 around alterations to any application on the site, and in response the planning officer informed members that any legal proceedings relating to that agreement would take place outside the planning process and that any matters arising from that would be addressed separately. 

 

Members then asked about the distance between the bay window of No. 45 from the proposed house as some concerns were raised about neighbouring amenity. However, the planning officer confirmed that, as the site was originally measured incorrectly, the new application would not be further back in comparison to the bay window than the previous application and was therefore policy compliant regarding neighbouring amenity. Members also asked the planning officer if the proposed porch could be required to be open and not made of a solid material. However, as that would be included in a reserved matters application, the planning officer believed that such a requirement sat outside the matters considered at outline stage. A porch could be approved through reserved matters but further changes to it would be restricted by permitted development rights which would be secured through condition.

 

Some members remained concerned about the potential impact the dwelling would have on the neighbours due to the position of the property in relation to the bay windows of No. 45. However, the majority of the committee believed that the design was policy compliant and as the scale and massing of the dwelling was similar to the previously approved application in 2018, it was considered acceptable.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was not carried on being put to the vote. 

 

Overall, as the committee considered that there was a small change between this application and what was previously approved, and that there were not sufficient grounds to refuse the application, it be approved subject to conditions, including specific reference to the restricting of permitted development rights for porch enlargement.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote. 

 

 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P22/V2285/O, subject to the following conditions:

 

Standard:

 

1. Work to commence within 3 years, and only once reserved matters have

been submitted and approved in accordance with approved plans

 

Pre-commencement:

2. Tree protection (detailed)

3. Surface water drainage scheme

4. Construction method statement

 

Pre-occupation:

5. Implementation of parking and turning areas

 

Compliance:

6. Permitted development restriction – garage retained for parking

7. Permitted development restriction – no roof alterations, extensions or outbuildings

 

Supporting documents:

 

Vale of White Horse District Council