Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber
Contact: Democratic Services
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2022.
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2022 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to a change on the 3rd from last paragraph of application 21/01565/FUL 35 Taphouse Avenue Witney, change the word “roof” to the word “room”.
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
Councillor Martin McBride substituted for Councillor Nick Leverton, and Councillor Alex Postan substituted for Councillor Steve Good.
Senior Planning Officer David Ditchett.
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the meeting.
There were no declarations of interest received.
To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached schedule.
That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.
As there were a large attendance from the public the Chairman announced that the 21/03405/OUT Land East Of Witney Road, Ducklington application, would be the first application to be determined.
21/03405/OUT Land East Of Witney Road, Ducklington
The Interim Development Manager Abby Fettes introduced the application for outline planning permission for up to 120 dwellings, with associated landscaping and infrastructure with detailed vehicular access from Witney Road (with all other matters including other access arrangements reserved).
Matthew Barker from the Ducklington Parish Council spoke as an objector to the application.
Charlie Maynard spoke as an objector to the application.
Jenny Brow of Turley’s spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. A copy of her statement is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
The Interim Development Manager continues with her presentation, she drew attention to the late representation report and concluded that Officers were recommending refusal, as in the original report for reasons 1 and reason 4, that do not change. However Officers were seeking delegated authority from the committee Members to refuse the application subject to addressing outstanding highway/access and archaeology matters, for Officers to remove or amend reasons 2 and 3.
Councillors had a discussion about flood plains and concerns re flooding at the site in the future. Councillors were in support of the Officers report, and were concerned about the extra traffic the site would bring, and the loss of the greenspace area which was used by locals to walk and exercise dogs.
Councillor Woodruff stated that he had visited the site several times, and he could not see benefits of additional buildings and was surprised the application had got so far in the process. He also thought that the Officers had produced a thorough report and agreed with the policy reasons for refusal and the delegated decision sought. He therefore proposed that the committee accept the recommendation for refusal and request for delegated authority.
The Chair clarified the proposal to accept the Officers recommendation to refuse under reason 1 and 4, and accept the request for delegated authority for refusal reasons 2 and 3. Depending on the content of the County Council Highways Team consultation reply relating to the Highways Technical Note, Officers would remove/amend refusal reason 2 on the decision notice. Depending on the content of the County Council Archaeology Team consultation reply relating to the updated Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, Officers would remove/amend refusal reason 3 on the decision notice.
Councillor Langridge seconded the proposal, the Chair put the proposal to the Committee and vote was carried unanimously.
Application was refused as per Officers recommendation in the report for reason 1 and 4, with delegated authority for Officers to remove or amend refusal reasons 2 and 3.
Following the conclusion of the meeting, the application was refused in line with delegated authority:
1 The proposed development is not limited development which respects the village character and local distinctiveness. It is not of a proportionate and appropriate scale ... view the full minutes text for item 50.
To inform the Sub-Committee of applications determined under delegated powers and any appeal decisions.
That the reports be noted.
The report giving details of applications determined under delegated powers was received and noted, with the following comments:
1 on Page 89 - Councillor Levy noted Section 106 money and wanted to know what that was for. The Officer confirmed it was contribution towards a bus stop.
4 on Page 90 - Councillor Crossland noted this was withdrawn, and asked why this was. The Officer was unsure of the reason and agreed to look into the application and report back.
94 on Page 104 – Councillor Levy noted refusal yet again as this application had come up 3 times before, and just wanted this to be noted.
The Interim Development Manager Abby Fettes outlined the Appeal Decisions report and provided an update on the current position with each application.
It was agreed that it would be useful for Councillors in future if a summary of Appeals could be included in the report rather than the full inspection judgment.
Councillor Postan wanted it noted that only 3 appeals had been lost in the last year and wanted his thanks relayed to the Planning Team.
The Interim Development Manager Abby Fettes concluded by introducing the two new Planners to the team.