Agenda item

Report to follow.

Councillor Matthew Barber, Roger Cox and Alison Thomson had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee was advised that the applicant was willing to address concerns raised regarding additional on-street parking, but could not agree because it would lead to a loss of open space which would be in conflict with the amount of public open space specified in the outline planning permission.  Moreover, removal of the passageways would prevent the scheme receiving accreditation under the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Dr Mike Wise made a statement on behalf of the Town Council raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly raised concerns regarding screening of the site; 3 storey dwellings on the ridge; visual impact; the contrast of development; the proposal being out of keeping; lack of consideration given to the wind in this area; pedestrian safety; traffic congestion; parking; vehicle manoeuvring; the access being  dangerous; traffic speed; sewage disposal; low water pressure; over development of the site; the proposal being out of keeping with the character of the area and the standard of the houses being built in terms of design and quality. Finally, he commented that the Town Council was not against the principle of development but this proposal was unacceptable.

Mr D Belcher made a statement objecting to the application on behalf of the residents of Tollington Court and Carters Crescent reiterating concerns previously raised as set out in the report.  He particularly referred to concerns regarding impact; the need to change the orientation of the layout; the height and adverse impact of the 3 storey dwellings; over looking; loss of privacy; footpaths and pedestrian safety; layout; orientation; lack of sufficient consideration of concerns raised.  He commented that he had contacted his MP about the application and Ed Vaizey had visited the site and had agreed that there would be over looking and over shadowing. Mr Belcher raised further concerns regarding the devaluation of existing houses and suggested that the proposal should be re-orientated on the site.

The local Members spoke against the application making the following comments: -

·                    It was not agreed that this was the type of development the Planning Inspector had envisaged for this site.

·                    Analogies with Radcot Road were not accepted.

·                    The three storey buildings were too high.

·                    If Members were minded to approve the application the first floor changing room window on plot 30 should be obscure glazed.

·                    The developer did not appear willing to address concerns raised.

·                    The passage ways were inappropriate.

·                    There would be closed boarded fences along Carters Crescent to separate gardens from the passageway and this would be harmful.

·                    There was inadequate parking.

·                    Shared surfaces was unacceptable in a development of this size.

·                    The height of the dwellings would be out of keeping.

·                    There would be a lack of screening.

·                    There was concerns regarding traffic speed and the need for traffic calming measures.

·                    There would be loss of privacy to the residents of Tollington Court.

·                    The design was unacceptable.

·                    There were concerns regarding safety.

The Officers clarified that the access had already been approved under a previous planning permission and that the principle of up to 50 dwellings had been agreed.  It was noted that the number of dwellings was a guideline only and that the County Engineer had raised no objection.

Some Members spoke in support of the application making the following comments: -

·                    The consultant architect had raised no objection to the scheme.

·                    The shared surfaces and parking were supported by the County Engineer

·                    The three storey element was acceptable for modern developments.

·                    The Crime prevention Design Advisor had no objection to the rear passageways.

By 8 votes to 5 it was

RESOLVED

that application GFA/19649/2 – D be approved subject to the conditions set out in the report.