Agenda item

Proposed new dwelling (as amplified by energy statement received 31 August 2021).

The committee considered application P21/S2637/FUL for a proposed new dwelling (as amplified by energy statement received 31 August 2021) on land at 4 Ernest Road, Didcot.

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 the meeting.

The planning officer reported that a site visit by members of the committee had taken place at the location on Monday 25 October 2021. The proposal entailed a single storey dwelling of modern design, in part of the rear garden of an existing semi-detached house, with an integral garage and car port, pitched roofs and timber cladding. The committee was advised that permitted development rights at this site could allow for a dwelling of a similar size. It was considered that the impacts of the proposed development would be mainly at the rear boundary, bordering Edmond Court, where the development would be visible, but with no direct overlooking from it. Council officers contended that there would not be a material level of harm to neighbouring properties.

Councillor Eleanor Hards, a representative of Didcot Town Council, spoke objecting to the application.

Mr. James Adams, a local resident, at 2A Ernest Road, spoke objecting to the application.

A statement from Nina Phillips, a local resident, had been sent to the committee by the democratic services officer prior to the meeting.

The committee sought clarification regarding whether the proposal represented a one or two-bedroom property. The planning officer replied that the plans with the application indicated one bedroom. However, the depicted ‘study room’ could be used as a bedroom, if the occupier so chose. The report to the committee acknowledged possible use as a two-bedroom dwelling. The planning officer advised the committee that the South Oxfordshire Design Guide set out the minimum amount of private amenity space (i.e., rear garden) based on the number bedrooms the property had; 1 bedroom units should provide for 35m², and 50m² for two bedroom units. The rear garden of the proposed dwelling allowed for 55m², which exceeded provision for a two bedroom dwelling.

The planning officer drew the committee’s attention to paragraph 6.22 of the report. In respect of this application, Didcot Town Council has raised the concern that by creating a dwelling and access onto Edmond Court, it would reduce the ability to park on the highway. The planning officer made an analogous reference to a similar matter being raised previously for another dwelling in Didcot, which had been the subject of an appeal. Here the planning inspector had allowed the development and awarded costs against the council to the applicant on the grounds of ‘unreasonableness’.  In the view of council officers, this was not a reason to resist this development. Additionally, the area affected at Edmond Court by the proposed access was used for manoeuvring rather than for parking.

The committee was concerned about ecological aspects of the proposal. With reference to paragraph 6.17 of the report, it noted that policy ENV3 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP) stated that development should not result in a net loss of biodiversity and should result in a net gain. The proposal would in fact result in the loss of some garden land. The report stated that in ecological terms, the impact was not likely to be significant. However, a condition was proposed to ensure the provision of a bird box on the new dwelling, providing a net gain required by Policy ENV3. The committee took the view that the provision of a bird box was inadequate compensation for the loss of garden tree cover. In response to a question, the planning officer confirmed that a landscaping condition could be added to ensure a suitable replacement tree.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission failed on being put to the vote.

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

RESOLVED: that planning permission for application P21/S2637/FUL is refused for the following reasons;

1.    Out of keeping with local character, owing to size and proximity to neighbours’ boundaries.

2.    Oppressive and unneighbourly, especially to Edmond Court residents.

3.    Reduction in quality of neighbours’ amenity space.