The Committee considered a report on the above outline application to determine access and layout for a two storey dwelling with car parking facilities, and the provision of a car port for the donor dwelling.

Officers made two corrections to their report: the distance between the proposed and the donor dwellings would be 10.5 metres and not 7.5 metres; and the reference to the bungalow under the section dealing with sustainability measures should refer to the house.

The application had been de-delegated by Councillor Terry Faulds.

Councillor Terry Faulds, a ward councillor, addressed the meeting under Standing Order 33 and the applicant, Mr Les Whitehouse, replied.

The principal issues raised by Councillor Faulds were:-

• The proposal represented only a small improvement on the previously refused application
• The over-riding reason for refusal was that the application was out of keeping with nearby properties and the area of special local character
• The proposed dwelling would be too close to the donor dwelling
• The proposal was only possible because there would be no garage for the donor dwelling
• No other properties in the area had a front to back relationship
• The amenity space suggested that it would not comply with policy B4, and would be wholly out of keeping with the area
• Loss of privacy because of the proximity of the donor dwelling
• The difficulty in enforcing the retention of obscure glazing in the donor dwelling
• Over-development

In response to questions Councillor Faulds said that the rear garden of the proposed dwelling would be significantly smaller than others in the area, but a member suggested that there would not be a significant difference between the rear garden of the proposed dwelling and those at Nos. 61-67 Great Woodcote Park.

The principal issues raised by Mr Whitehouse were:-

• It was the officers’ view that the proposal would be in keeping with the area of special local character
• The plot size of Nos. 61-67 Great Woodcote Park was, on average, 300m² and the proposed plot would be 375m²
• The average width of plots on the nearby Goldcrest estate was 10m, and plots opposite the application site had widths of 10m, 13.5m and 18.5m
• The width of the proposed plot would be 15m
• The proposed plot would be larger than others in the area, with the exception of the immediate neighbour
• Planning permission had been granted seven years previously for No.47 Great Woodcote Park, where the plot width was 13m
• The car port for the donor dwelling would have an opaque roof to maintain light to adjoining ground floor windows
• First floor front windows on the donor dwelling would be obscure glazed
• The officers’ report stated that car parking provision should be kept to a minimum

In response to a question Mr Whitehouse stated that the plot width of the donor dwelling would be 8m at the highway.

Some members noted that the donor dwelling was in a unique situation, and believed that the proposal was not unacceptable and that it would not be out of keeping with the area, bearing in mind other developments that had been carried out.  However, it was pointed out that the nearby Goldcrest estate was an anomaly in the area of special local character and had been included only because its boundary was also the Borough boundary.  It was suggested that it was not representative of the area of special local character.  It was acknowledged that there were some unusual developments in the area, but it was felt that the application was contrary to the spirit of the area of special local character.  It was noted that it was an outline application, for which they could approve only access and layout, and it was suggested that a full planning application might have allayed some members’ concerns.

A poll vote on the officers’ recommendation to grant permission was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:

To grant (3)            Councillors Ian Chapman, Paddy Kane and Hamish Pollock,

Against (6)            Councillors Moira Butt, Cliff Carter, John Leach, Janet Lowne, Paul Newman and Graham Whitham.

A poll vote on a motion to refuse permission on the grounds that the proposal would constitute over-development and have an adverse effect on the area of special local character because of the proximity of the two houses was held in accordance with Standing Order 33.4, when there voted:-

To refuse (9)            Councillors Moira Butt, Cliff Carter, Ian Chapman, Paddy Kane, John Leach, Janet Lowne, Paul Newman, Hamish Pollock and Graham Whitham.

Resolved: That planning permission be refused for application No. D2008/60611/OUT for the reasons set out in the Appendix to these Minutes.