Agenda item

Erection of three-storey building incorporating one 1-bedroom apartment, two 2-bedroom apartments and two 3-bedroom apartments including associated parking and amenity space (removal of south-west-facing window from Flat 4, increase in height of screen wall for Flat 2 terrace adjacent to the front of No.18 and additional sections and 3D images as shown on plans received 18th June 2020 and site area increased along north-eastern boundary, retention of two sheds in garden of Flat 1, increase in height of parapet roof over Flat 1 and alterations to north-western and north-eastern boundary treatment as shown on amended plans received 21st October 2020 and changes to levels and introduction of boundary hedging to garden of Flat 1, as shown on amended plans received 17th December 2020 and Flat 5 reduced from two to one bedrooms as shown on amended plan received 5th March 2021 and ground floor north facing window to Flat 1 removed and sections updated to include first floor angles of outlook and a true view from 57 Deanfield Road as shown on amended plans received 26th April 2021).

Councillor Peter Dragonetti experienced communication difficulties and did not hear the whole debate on this application and did not participate in the vote upon it. 

The committee considered application  P20/S0740/FUL for the erection of three-storey building incorporating one 1-bedroom apartment, two 2-bedroom apartments and two 3-bedroom apartments including associated parking and amenity space (removal of south-west-facing window from Flat 4, increase in height of screen wall for Flat 2 terrace adjacent to the front of No.18 and additional sections and 3D images as shown on plans received 18th June 2020 and site area increased along north-eastern boundary, retention of two sheds in garden of Flat 1, increase in height of parapet roof over Flat 1 and alterations to north-western and north-eastern boundary treatment as shown on amended plans received 21st October 2020 and changes to levels and introduction of boundary hedging to garden of Flat 1, as shown on amended plans received 17th December 2020 and Flat 5 reduced from two to one bedrooms as shown on amended plan received 5th March 2021 and ground floor north facing window to Flat 1 removed and sections updated to include first floor angles of outlook and a true view from 57 Deanfield Road as shown on amended plans received 26th April 2021) at 18 Harcourt Close, Henley-on-Thames..

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report which formed part of the agenda pack for this meeting.

The planning officer explained that the site was supported by policy H3 of the local plan and H4 of the neighbourhood plan. The planning officer clarified that the density of more than 45 dwellings per hectare could be supported in principle, depending on the constraints of the local site. Internal space standards were below design guide minimum standards but were considered sustainable as a result of the pre-existing public open space. Whilst the development’s finished appearance  would be different from the present configuration, it was not considered to cause visual harm due to the positioning of the development, with the wider view of the site only being seen within the context of the surrounding dwellings. The planning officer also confirmed that the council’s tree officer was satisfied that this application would not impact the surrounding important trees.

While there was some noticeable impact on the privacy, light and outlook of the neighbouring properties, the planning officer concluded that it complied with local plan policy DES6. The planning officer also advised the committee that each flat would have its own private amenity space, and whilst these would be below the design guide minimum standards, such a shortfall was considered acceptable, as the area was nearby to a local open space. The officer also added that while Oxfordshire County Council (OCC), the local highway authority, was aware of the known traffic and road issues, it had not raised an objection to the amended proposal and thus district council officers had concluded that the highway authority was not significantly concerned with further impacts on the surrounding roads.

Councillor Ken Arlett, a representative of Henley Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Louise Dodd, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application.

Andy Meader, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Stefan Gawrysiak, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee asked a question to Louise Dodd relating to the saleability of existing houses and flats in the area. Louise Dodd responded that 27 of the nearby flats had taken a considerable time to be sold on the market.

A question was also raised with the applicant regarding concerns surrounding the lack of amenity space, namely whether the sheds would be a communal area for residents. Andy Meader responded that all flats would have access to the open space, however the shed was allocated to a single flat. He also confirmed, upon additional questioning, that the parking space would not be impacted by the location of the bins and that there would be sufficient room for nine parking spaces and for vehicles to manoeuvre safely. In response to a question regarding paragraph 6.20 of the report, there was sufficient space for emergency vehicles and waste collection vehicles to access the development.

The committee asked officers questions relating to the location of the garden and trees. The planning officer explained that the amenity space would be the balconies, patio terrace and the shed space. Further questions were asked on whether there were any existing apartment blocks on the same street. The planning officer was not aware of any, however they commented that one aspect of their judgment was on whether it would impact the local character of the area from a planning permission viewpoint.

The committee was concerned at the proposal’s impact upon the character and appearance of the local area and considered that it represented overdevelopment through massing and bulk. The development was considered to have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity, through its impact upon neighbours’ privacy. The quality of the living environment would also be adversely affected through the lack of amenity space and soft landscaping.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P20/S0740/FUL for the following reasons;

1        The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing and

amount of hard landscaping, would represent an over intensive overdevelopment of the site that would be out of keeping with the established character and appearance of the surrounding built form.

2.       The proposed development, by virtue of the shortfall in private outdoor amenity space, the shading of internal and external living spaces and the limited areas available for soft landscaping, would provide a substandard quality of living environment for future occupiers of the proposed apartments.