Agenda and minutes
PDF 60 KBVenue: Council Chamber
Contact: Democratic Services
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 August and 12 September. Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15 August and Monday 12 September were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apologies for Absence To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Michael Brooker, Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt and Councillor Lysette Nicholls. Councillor Ben Woodruff substituted for Councillor Lysette Nicholls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the meeting. Minutes: Declarations of Interest were received as follows;
1. Councillor Fenton knew the applicants for the following applications on Item 5 Delegated Decisions. Page 102, 43 22/01672/HHD Ivy Cottage Lower End Alvescot Page 116, 127 22/02210/CLP Manor Farmhouse Woodbridge Close Aston.
2. The Chair declared a corporate interest on behalf of all Members on the Committee on application 22/01593/FUL Kilkenny Lane Country Park the Council own the land.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Applications for Development Purpose: To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached schedule. Recommendation: That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair announced that due to the public participants who wished to speak the applications would be heard in a revised order.
22/01593/FUL Kilkenny Lane Country Park Elmhurst Way, Carterton
The Planning Officer, Elloise Street introduced the application is for the extension of the existing car park.
Three people had registered to speak on this application. Mr Les Goble and Councillor Rosie Pearson spoke against the application and Councillor Bull spoke in favour. Their presentations are attached to the original copy of the minutes.
In discussion, it was clarified that there was no dispute that additional parking was needed at this well used Country Park. The questions arose around the number of spaces, the location of the car park and the materials used, in particular that the surface of the car park should be suited to less abled people.
It was suggested that the application should be reconsidered to take account of;
6. Reduction of parking spaces
Committee resolved to defer the application to enable the planning officer to explore points listed above with the applicant
Councillor Woodruff left the meeting at 3.15pm.
22/01434/FUL The Horse and Radish, Burford Road. Minister Lovell
Principal Planning Officer David Ditchett introduced the application is for the siting of 8 no shepherds huts together with hard and soft landscaping to include provision of a pond, access track, external lighting and associated services
Two people had registered to speak on this application. Councillor Jean King, Minister Lovell Parish Council, spoke against the application. Mr Brian, applicant, spoke in favour. Their presentations are attached to the original copy of the minutes.
In discussion Councillors asked whether there would be any condition requiring the removal of the huts should they not be successful. Mr Ditchett confirmed that a suitable worded condition could be applied. It was noted that an additional 8 parking spaces were to be provided, there was no objection from OCC Highways and that there was screening on the northern side of the plot which would help screen the development from the valley.
Committee resolved that the application should be approved subject to the addition of a condition requiring that the shepherd’s huts should be removed in their entirety within 12 months of the cessation of their use.
22/01674/FUL Oakwood Place Lew Road, Curbridge
Principal Planning Officer, David Ditchett introduced this application is for the erection of a single dwelling and associated ancillary works. Creation of visitor parking spaces.
Mr Ditchett reminded Members of the late representations previously circulated recommending that the wording of condition 3 be changed.
Nicky Pugh spoke in favour of this application and a copy of her speaking notes is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
Councillor Fenton declared an non – pecuniary interest.
Mr Ditchett said that conditions could not be placed on trees to ensure their protection as they were not within the red line boundary. However the trees ... view the full minutes text for item 88. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers and Appeal Decisions Purpose: To inform the Sub-Committee of applications determined under delegated powers and any appeal decisions. Recommendation: That the reports be noted.
Additional documents: Minutes: The report giving details of applications determined under delegated powers was received and noted. The report giving details of appeals was received and noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Progress on Enforcement Cases Purpose: To inform the Sub-Committee of the current situation and progress in respect of enforcement investigations.
Recommendation: That the progress and nature of the outstanding enforcement investigations detailed in Sections A – C of Annex A be noted. Minutes: Kelly Murray, Principal Planner (Enforcement and Appeals) introduced the paper. She highlighted first Dove House, Cassington in respect of which the enforcement notice had not been complied with and the case had been referred for prosecution. A number of cases had enforcement notice appeals outstanding. In respect of Little Willow, Eynsham, there were two issues; the number of units on site (a recent appeal against the refusal had been refused on a technical ground); the other was the extension on to the neighbouring site.
A site visit to land at Mount Pleasant Farm was being arranged to check that the notices had now been complied with.
Councillor Dingwall asked about Lavender Cottage, Minster Lovell. Kelly Murray advised there were two contraventions on site. She had sent several letters but with no response. She agreed to contact the Clerk of Minster Lovell Parish Council.
Councillor Alaric Smith asked about the Paddocks. Kelly Murray said it was a multi-agency case due to different issues and ERS were involved in the matter of site licensing. The Council was monitoring the numbers of units on each plot and a retrospective planning application for plot 12 was currently under consideration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Purpose: To enable members to advise officers as to whether they wish to continue to defend appeals, that were refused when the council was claiming a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), but which have now gone to appeal and will be defended in the absence of a 5YHLS.
Recommendation: That the Committee consider the two cases and advise as to whether they wish to defend the appeals.
Minutes: Phil Shaw (Business Manager Planning) introduced this item which was to establish whether the Committee wished to continue to defend refusals issued at a time when the council was claiming a five year housing land supply (5YHLS), but which had now gone to appeal and which would now be defended in the absence of a demonstrable 5YHLS. He emphasised that the Committee was not being asked to revisit the earlier decisions.
In discussion, Mr Shaw confirmed that there was money in the budget to defend appeals and the Council was not yet near the limit where the percentage of failed appeals risked loss of LPA status.
Site A 21/03720/FUL 44 Common Road, North Leigh. Councillors considered the original reasons for refusal and unanimously agreed to defend the case.
Committee resolved to defend the case.
Site B Land South West of Downs Road, Witney. Councillors Woodruff and Maynard spoke in favour of not pursing the appeal as they felt that the site would provide much needed housing to the rear of existing housing development. Other Councillors felt that the site was not suitable for housing as it was adjacent to an industrial area.
Committee resolved to defend the case. Councillor Woodruff asked that his vote for not defending the appeal be recorded.
|