Agenda item

Further to the report, it was noted that the Environment Agency had objected raising concerns regarding the foul water proposing a risk  and also to the culverting of the water course which it was considered could increase the risk of flooding resulting in the destroying of wildlife habitats.

The Officers quoted from Planning Policy Guidance 14 in response to comments made regarding unstable land, the points to consider and the developer’s liability in this regard.  It was suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an informative could be added to any permission setting out the requirements.

Mr Philip Hawtin made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding adverse impact on the character of the area in terms of density and design resulting in overlooking, adverse visual impact, and the design being out of character and keeping;  surface water and foul effluent drainage it being noted by the County Council that drainage from this site contributed directly to the routine flooding in Eynsham Road, the management of surface water run off was not clear in the application, there were concerns by Thames Water regarding the capacity of the foul water drainage system and the lack of an agreed long term drainage strategy; and access and parking, it being noted that the track was steep and narrow with poor visibility.

Jill Turner made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns regarding the speed of water flow in the stream; the slope of the site; the positioning of flats against the stream; the lack of trees on one side of the stream; the lack of a hedge and there being inadequate space to plant one; the possibility of the river bank becoming destabilised and the risk of flooding; damage to property; adverse impact of the amenity of neighbouring properties; impact of the wild life habitat; mud and land slides; the proposal being dominating; traffic; vehicle manoeuvring and pollution.

Mr Ross also made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns regarding heights; slab levels; adverse impact; loss of amenity; inaccurate drawings; lack of trees and harm to existing trees and land instability.

Mr J Philcox the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting that there had been extensive pre-application discussions.  He reported that there had been a full topographic survey.  He explained that as part of the discussions the applicant had been kept updated on the Thames Water report which was still awaited.  However with regard to flood risk, the applicant had engaged a specialist to provide advice who had reported that there were no problems or causes for concern identified.  He reported that a satisfactory solution could be made to address water drainage.  He reported that the applicant was willing to make a financial contribution towards the Section 106 unilateral undertaken which it was noted was a reason for refusal.  He commented that the layout was indicative but was based on the advice of the structural engineer and that there was no evidence of land slippage on site.  He commented that these issues could be considered at the detailed design stage.  Finally, he asked the Committee to look on the principle of development favourably.

One of the local Members commented that he had no objection to the principle of development but he was concerned regarding the scale of the proposal and the civil engineering works.  He commented that this was a “difficult” site and that it was necessary to know the detail of the proposal at the outset in view of this as the number of units and the extent of the development was critical.  He referred to the slope of the site and commented that the eaves line shown for some of the dwellings would be the same height as the back of the quarry and that in his view this would lead to adverse impact on amenity through loss of light.   He noted that the proposal included indicative drawings only but he had concerns regarding how much development could be accommodated on the site. Finally, he suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application an informative should be added regarding the stability of the site .

Some Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    There were known drainage problems in this area and this proposal would add to those.

·                    The access to the site would be difficult.

·                    The number of units whilst indicative only, was considered excessive for this site.

·                    Members were not convinced that the development as illustrated could be built having regard to the short distances between walls and given that it was a very steep quarry site with a steep access.

·                    There was concern regarding the stability of the site.

Members considered that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report plus an additional reason specifying that due to the lack of information provided there was doubt that 13 units could be accommodated on the site.

Furthermore, it was suggested that an informative be added to the reasons for refusal regarding the need to require a slope stability report to accompany any resubmission.

By 15 votes to nil, it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) be delegated authority in consultation with the Chair / Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee to refuse application CUM/16152/1 subject to: -

(1)       the reasons set out in the report; 

(2)       an additional reason specifying that due to the lack of information provided there is doubt that 13 units can be accommodated on the site; and

(3)       an informative regarding the need to require a slope stability report.