Agenda item

27A Church Road, Cowley - 74287/APP/2019/2378

Erection of two storey building with habitable roof space to create 4 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats, with associated refuse and cycle storage and parking, involving demolition of existing bungalow

 

Recommendation: Refusal

Decision:

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Minutes:

Erection of two storey building with habitable roof space to create 4 x 1-bed and 2 x 2-bed self-contained flats, with associated refuse and cycle storage and parking, involving demolition of existing bungalow

 

Officers introduced the report and highlighted the addendum, which confirmed that revised plans had been received which set out the erection of privacy screens on the rear balconies and the provision of roof lights with an outlook to habitable rooms within the roof space. The revised plans were considered to address the concerns raised in respect of overlooking, loss of privacy and a lack of light, so it was recommended that refusal reasons 3 and 6 be removed. In addition, it was felt that refusal reason 2 could not be defended, so was also recommended to be removed.

 

The application itself was considered unacceptable in principle as it failed to harmonise with its surroundings and would result in an unacceptable impact on the Conservation Area and adjacent listed buildings. The proposal was also considered unacceptable in highways safety terms, and would provide inadequate on-site parking, an unneighbourly form of development, and a poor standard of residential amenity to future occupiers. For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be refused.

 

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points raised included:

 

·         The petitioner agreed with all the non-standard reasons for refusal given in the posted Planning Officers report.

·         The side facing windows at ground floor level at 25 Church Road were not secondary windows.

·         There were several misrepresentations and inaccuracies contained within the developer’s planning statement, and concerns remained over the heritage document commissioned in support of that planning statement.

·         Issues with the proposal included its failure to harmonise with the character of the existing area, the lack of on-site parking, the scale and size of the building, and its impact on health, quality of life and human rights of nearby residents.

·         Ancient Rights would be impacted as two of the petitioner’s lounge windows would be blocked by the proposed side brick wall. These were primary windows, which provided in excess of 30% of the total light.

·         The entrance to the site was hazardous, as motorists would be required to turn into oncoming traffic.

·         Land Registry documents for 27A Church Road showed restrictive covenants that stated that no houses were to be erected, save for detached houses. The proposal was not for a detached house.

 

Councillor Richard Mills addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor for Brunel. Key points raised included:

 

·         The proposal constituted overdevelopment that was not in keeping with the character of the area or prevailing street scene.

·         The proposal would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings.

·         Parking provision was insufficient.

·         The increase in vehicle movements would have an adverse impact on pedestrian safety, including users of the nearby bus stop.

·         The proposal was not aesthetically pleasing and was not congruent with the size and bulk of other nearby buildings.

·         The proposal would result in a poor standard of living for future occupiers.

 

In response to the petitioner, the Legal representative confirmed that both Ancient Rights and Restricted Covenants were not matters for the Committee to consider.

 

In response to a Member query, officers confirmed that the proposed privacy screens were 1.8m in height, which was a standard screening height.

 

Members agreed with the refusal reasons set out in the report, and moved the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the application be refused.

Supporting documents: