Items
| No. |
Item |
41. |
Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for
absence from members of Sub-Committee.
The quorum for the
Sub-Committee is 4 members.
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were
received from Councillor Steve Cosier.
Councillor Dan Levy substituted
for Councillor Cosier.
|
42. |
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of
interest from members of the Sub-Committee on any items to be
considered at the meeting.
Minutes:
Councillor Andrew Lyon declared
an interest in application 23/03056/FUL – Welcome Evangelical
Church, High Street, Witney, stating that the site was within their
ward, and that they did not have a reason to leave the meeting or
not to vote on the application.
Councillor Alistair Wray
declared an interest in applications 24/00126/FUL Culfre, Bampton
Road, Clanfield and 24/0147/FUL Land West of Colt House, Aston
Road, Bampton, stating that both the sites were within their ward,
and that they did not have a reason to leave the meeting or not to
vote on the applications.
Councillor Sarah
Veasey declared an interest in application 24/01616/FUL 36 Common
Road, North Leigh, stating that the site was within their ward, and
that they did not have a reason to leave the meeting or not to vote
on the application.
|
43. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting  PDF 52 KB
To approve the minutes of the
previous meeting, held on Monday 12 August 2024.
Minutes:
Councillor Adrian Walsh
proposed that the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Monday
12 August 2024, be agreed by the Sub-Committee as a true and
accurate record. This was seconded by Councillor Joy Aitman, was
put to a vote, and was unanimously agreed by the
Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee
Resolved to:
1.
Agree the minutes of the previous meeting, held on
Monday 12 August 2024, as a true and accurate record.
|
44. |
Applications for Development PDF 623 KB
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.
|
Pages
|
Application No.
|
Address
|
Planning Officer
|
|
11-28
|
23/03056/FUL
|
Welcome Evangelical Church
High Street
Witney
|
James Nelson
|
|
29-43
|
24/00126/FUL
|
Culfre
Bampton Road
Clanfield
Bampton
|
Clare Anscombe
|
|
44-66
|
24/0147/FUL
|
Land West Of Colt House
Aston Road
Bampton
|
James Nelson
|
|
67-78
|
24/01616/FUL
|
36 Common Road
North Leigh
Witney
|
Sarah Hegerty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional documents:
|
45. |
24/00126/FUL Culfre, Bampton Road, Clanfield, Bampton.
Minutes:
Clare Anscombe, Senior Planner, introduced the
application, for the change of use from dwelling to letting rooms,
proposed rear extension, enlargement of the rear car park and
alterations to the access and associated internal works (amended
plans).
Councillor Alaric
Smith addressed the Sub-Committee as the local district ward member
in objection to the application.
Giles Haughton,
Chair of Clanfield Parish Council,
addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the
application.
Ian Smith, local
resident, addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the
application.
Sharon de
Bru addressed the Sub-Committee on
behalf of the applicant, which raised clarification points
regarding staffing levels at the site, car parking provision,
accommodation offering and pedestrian safety.
The Senior Planner’s
presentation clarified the following points:
- The application site
was contained within the village of Clanfield, which was designated as a village in
accordance with Local Plan Policy OS2, and would help to maintain
the vitality of communities;
- Adherence to Local
Plan Policy H6 – The application would bring a positive
contribution to local services and facilities within the
Clanfield village;
- The application site
was considered acceptable as the site and renovations to the
existing dwelling would interlink with The Double Red Duke Public
House;
- The application site
would compliment the existing character
of the street scene and would further compliment the character of
the village;
- The development site
would not have a detrimental affect to
the street scene, as the change of dwelling use and associated
works would be of an acceptable nature;
- The application would
respect the existing character of the area and heritage assets
which lie within close proximity of the site;
- The application would
enhance the local viability and future employment opportunities of
the Clanfield village, which was
considered acceptable by officers and supported by national
policy.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised
the
following points:
- Intended use of
dwelling – Officers confirmed that the application would
enable the dwelling to become a multi-occupant facility, with
common shared space identified within the proposals;
- Officers highlighted
to the Sub-Committee the difficulties with controlling the number
of guests staying at the property at any given time;
- Vehicle parking
provision at the site – Officers confirmed to Members that
the application site would contain adequate parking facilities, and
that no objections had been made by the local highways authority
when consulted on the application;
- Proposed events space
– Members highlighted concerns that the dwelling would become
a destination for large gatherings and for parties to be held.
Officers advised that the Agent had confirmed that the use of the
site would be for a hotel use;
- Officers also
highlighted the difficulty in being able to place conditions on the
application to restrict gatherings inside the dwelling and advised
that it would be unreasonable to impose a condition restricting
outdoor events and functions as this is controlled by separate
legislation under the Licensing Act;
- Loss of housing
– Officers clarified that the application was considered to
comply with policy H6 regarding ...
view the full minutes text for item 45.
|
46. |
23/03056/FUL Welcome Evangelical Church, High Street, Witney.
Minutes:
James Nelson, Principal Planner, introduced the
application, for alterations and extensions to church building
(amended plans). The Principal Planner drew the
Sub-Committee’s attention to the additional representations
report circulated ahead of the meeting,
The Principal Planner continued with their
presentation, which clarified the following points:
-
Building Design – The amended proposal was in keeping with
the host building, and would be consistent with design and
appearance;
- Use
of Existing Land – Officers had accepted the principles of
alteration connected with the extension;
-
Officers were content that the proposals would not harm the
existing conservation area or heritage and listed building adjacent
to the site;
- The
proposals had been amended so that extensions to existing
elevations did not impact residential settings at Farriers
Court;
- The
proposals would not block direct sunlight at any point throughout
the year, owing to the northerly facing proposed elevations;
- The
existing use of the site would not be altered as a result of the
application;
-
Flood Zones 2 and 3 – the application had been subject to
consultation and re-consultation with the Environment Agency, who
had raised no objections.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised
the
following points:
-
Surface Water Drainage – Officers, in conjunction with the
Environment Agency, had ensured that surface water drainage would
be dealt with appropriately as a result of the application;
-
Parking Provision – The application would result in a loss of
parking spaces at the site, although the overall impact was deemed
to be minimal, and was subject to no objections by the highways
authority;
Councillor Nick Leverton proposed that the
application be refused, in line with Local Plan policy OS2. This
was seconded by Councillor Alistair Wray and was put to a vote.
There were 10 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 2 abstentions.
The vote was carried.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
-
Refuse the application, in line with Local Plan policy OS2.
REASON: Local Plan Policy OS2 states that new
development should be compatible with adjoining uses and not have a
harmful impact on the amenity of existing occupants.
The application would also have impacts on a
loss of light and overbearing impacts on
occupiers of Farriers Court. The Sub-Committee believed this
application was not in keeping with Policy OS2.
|
47. |
24/0147/FUL Land West of Colt House, Aston Road, Bampton.
Minutes:
James Nelson, Principal Planner, introduced the
application, for the erection of three single storey age restricted
dwellings (55 years) with access, landscaping and associated
infrastructure.
Janette Bone
addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application, which
raised clarification points regarding building construction and
comments made by the Planning Inspectorate related to a previous
application at the site.
Simon Tofts
addressed the Sub-Committee as the applicant, which raised a
clarification point regarding pedestrian access.
The Principal Planner’s
presentation clarified the following points:
- Use of Agricultural
Land – The site included agricultural land separated from the
main built-up area and was not considered to adjoin the service
centre of Bampton. Therefore, although the application site was in
close proximity to the built-up area of Bampton, the site was
considered to be 'open countryside' for the purposes of the
strategic housing policies;
- Location of proposed
dwelling – Policy H2 stated that new dwellings would only be
permitted in the small villages, hamlets and open countryside where
they complied with the general principles set out in the policy,
and in a small number of specific circumstances which were
contained in the report under section 5.17;
- Tilted Balance
– As directed by paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it was the opinion
of officers that the adverse impacts of granting planning
permission to the application would not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits and that planning permission
should be granted, with the application approved subject to the
suggested conditions set out in the original report.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the
following points:
- Flood Risk –
Flooding related issues were not a reason to object the application
on its own merit, commensurate with the opinions of officer and
drainage experts;
- Previous Application
– The development was to the south of the previous
development and closer to the flood risk area, and that it was a
marginal development which should not be approved. It was explained
that the Government had dictated within the updated NPPF that the
flood risks be referenced with the local waterways authority to
ensure issues were being addressed – The Principal Planner
confirmed that the conditions associated with the report addressed
the issue.
- Vehicle Access
– Members questioned whether there was road access that would
enable bin lorries and fire vehicles through. The Principal Planner
explained that highways had seen this as accessible and there were
conditions added to address this issue.
Councillor Dan Levy proposed that the application be
approved, in line with Officer recommendations. This was seconded
by Councillor Adrian Walsh and was put to a vote. There were 8
votes in favour, 4 votes against and 2 abstentions. The vote was
carried.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
-
Approve the application in line with Officer recommendations.
Councillor Adrian
Walsh left the meeting at 3.40pm.
|
48. |
24/01616/FUL 36, Common Road, North Leigh.
Minutes:
Sarah Hegerty, Planning Officer, introduced the
application, for the erection of a detached dwelling and associated
works.
The Planning Officer’s
presentation clarified the following points:
- The site was located
in a prominent location on the main thoroughfare through North
Leigh which rose northwards;
- The plot occupied a
corner allowing views from various vantage points. The properties
in the immediate vicinity were one and half storey and two storey
dwellings with varying designs on relatively generous plots with a
very loose grain and a varied build line and large gaps between
dwellings which allowed for an open and low density
appearance;
- The site was not
within any area of special designation. The existing dwelling on
site was a one and half storey dwelling which is part of a
semi-detached pair finished in render under a tile roof which was
consistent with the other materials in the area;
- The proposed
development would not, in officers’ view, adversely affect
protected areas or assets of particular importance and therefore
the 'tilted balance' as directed by paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF was
engaged.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised
the
following points:
- Limited development
– It was deemed under Policy OS2 that the application was not
limited development there would be problems with parking and it
didn’t fit with OS4; Thames Water had not responded to this
application;
- Members noted that
the additional dwelling would create additional, unnecessary
capacity on the local sewage works, which were deemed to be already
under resourced;
- Members noted that
Thames Water had not been responding to West Oxfordshire planning
applications and felt that it was vital for independent expert
advice be sought on sewage and drainage.
Councillor Andrew Prosser proposed that the
application be approved, in line with Officer recommendations. This
was seconded by Councillor Joy Aitman and was put to a vote. There
were 11 votes for, 1 vote against and 1 abstention.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
1.
Approve the application in line with
Officer recommendations.
|
49. |
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers PDF 115 KB
Purpose:
To inform the Sub-Committee of
applications determined under delegated powers.
Recommendation:
- That the
report be noted by the Sub-Committee.
Minutes:
The report giving details of
applications determined under delegated powers was received,
explained by Planning Officers, and noted by the
Sub-Committee.
|
50. |
Appeal Decisions PDF 25 KB
Purpose:
To inform the Sub-Committee of any appeal
decisions.
Recommendation:
1.
That the report be noted by the Sub-Committee.
Minutes:
The
report giving details of appeal decisions was received, explained
by Planning Officers, and noted by the Sub-Committee.
|