Minutes:
NOTED
1. Receipt of an additional objection from a resident of Caversham Avenue, distributed to all Members of the Committee regarding the area intended to be used as a turning and manoeuvring point for vehicles, which it was felt would generate noise and pollution and would restrict use and enjoyment of existing residents’ gardens.
2. A typographical error on page 47 of the agenda pack with respect to character and appearance of the area, which should read “… their appearance within the site therefore is not acceptable”.
3. The deputation of Mr Chris Slamon (Agent) against the officer recommendation, illustrated by colour images, including:
a. He was Managing Director of Chetwoods Architects, one of the top practices in the country and winner of numerous design awards.
b. They had been involved in pre-application discussions with officers, and held a public meeting locally, and had changed the scheme as a result so it would be less dense and have less impact.
c. Pre-application advice had made no mention of architectural design. This scheme would provide a similar scale of buildings to those on Fox Lane, on the same building line and with a majority of similar materials.
d. Very clear officer advice had been received regarding access, and the points made in the report were considered unreasonable.
e. He would be happy to make amendments to garden depths.
f. The density would be similar to buildings in Caversham Avenue, and within the London Plan standards.
4. The response of Mr Adrian Bull in support of the officer recommendation, including:
a. He was speaking for himself and over 30 other Caversham Avenue residents.
b. They opposed the application on numerous planning grounds such as drainage, parking, loss of privacy and local character and lack of amenity space, but wished to highlight the three major concerns.
c. A large number of trees would be lost in the area proposed for development; these trees contributed greatly to the amenity value of the neighbourhood and environmental quality.
d. The new access road would be significantly closer to the bridge than the present site entry/exit, creating a highly dangerous traffic situation. Visibility would be limited and a survey on Fox Lane had recorded over 800 cars per hour passing at peak times, many at over 60 mph.
e. Proposed dwellings would have upper windows which directly overlooked Caversham Avenue gardens, and the small gardens proposed in this scheme would not be in keeping with the area.
5. The statement of Councillor Martin Prescott (Winchmore Hill Ward Councillor), including:
a. This was simply not an appropriate piece of land to build a number of houses on.
b. Officers had brought up all the issues in the report and Mr Bull had covered the major points.
c. He stressed concerns regarding the access on an already dangerous stretch of road, and that existing residents would lose the peaceful enjoyment of their own properties.
d. Officers had provided a number of reasons for refusal of the application and Mr Bull had provided additional reasons.
6. Members’ discussion regarding reasons why the proposal should be refused, with unanimous agreement that this scheme was unacceptable.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report.