Items
| No. |
Item |
22. |
Apologies for Absence
To receive any
apologies for absence from members of Sub-Committee.
The quorum for the Sub-Committee is 3
members.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were
received from Councillor Adam Clements, Councillor David Jackson,
Councillor Genny Early and Councillor
Andy Goodwin.
Councillor Tim Sumner
substituted for Councillor David Jackson.
|
23. |
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations of
interest from members of the Sub-Committee on any items to be
considered at the meeting.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Declarations of Interest were
received as follows:
25/00333/OUT Land East of
Wroslyn Road, Freeland.
Councillors Faulkner and
Arcizsewska declared that the
Wroslyn Road application was in their
ward.
|
24. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting  PDF 86 KB
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on
Monday 21 July 2025.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Page 13, The Chair asked that
the time of the site visit be removed as it was not decided at the
meeting.
The Chair proposed that the
minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 21 July 2025 be agreed by the
Sub-Committee as a true and accurate record. The was seconded by
Councillor Roger Faulkner, was put to the vote and agreed by the
Sub-Committee.
The Sub-Committee Resolved
to:
- Agree the
minutes of the previous meeting held on Monday 21 July 2025 as a true and accurate
record.
|
25. |
Applications for Development PDF 1 MB
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 Head of
Planning.
|
Pages
|
Application No.
|
Address
|
Planning Officer
|
|
17-38
|
24/00592/FUL
|
Land And Barns South Of Mill
Farm
Widford
Burford
|
Clare Anscombe
|
|
39-83
|
24/02171/FUL
|
Land North of Woodstock
Road
Charlbury
|
Mike Cassidy
|
|
84-110
|
25/00333/OUT
|
Land East Of 87 - 123
Wroslyn Road
Freeland
|
Stephanie Eldridge
|
|
111-126
|
25/01227/OUT
|
Broadstone Farm
Ditchley Road
Charlbury
|
Emile Baldauf-Clark
|
|
127-130
|
25/01319/LBC
|
Feathers Hotel
16 - 20 Market Street
Woodstock
|
Rebekah Orriss
|
Additional documents:
|
26. |
24/005921/FUL Land and Barns South of Mill Farm, Widford, Burford.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Clare Anscombe, Senior Planner, presented the application
for the conversion of existing buildings to provide an office and
dwelling (live-work accommodation) with associated works and
landscaping. Alterations to existing access (amended
plans).
The Senior Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The Senior Planner
drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the Additional
Representations report. The Biodiversity Officer had been consulted
and had no objections to the application.
- The site is within
the hamlet of Widford, consisted of two
former agricultural barns and hard standing. Within the Cotswold
National Landscape and residential dwellings were beside the
site.
- The application was
before the Sub-Committee due to objections from the Parish
Council.
- The proposed
development would convert the existing buildings to provide an
office and a 3-bedroom dwelling with associated works and
landscaping, including alterations to the existing
access.
- Part of the barn
would be demolished to allow for parking to be provided. 3 parking
spaces would be provided and bicycle storage.
- The materials to be
used included glazing with perforated steel sheet cladding.
The original position of the
barns would be retained.
Mike Hayson on behalf of, Residents of Widford addressed the Sub-Committee and raised the
following points;
·
The proposed development was in a rural area and
proposed materials were not in keeping with the surrounding
properties and character of the area.
- The square footage of
the proposed dwelling was excessive and dominated the neighbouring
properties.
- No public transport
would result in more cars to the site and the site access was
unsuitable for large vehicles.
Lisa Harrop, Widford Parish
Council addressed the Sub-Committee and raised the following
points;
- Widford was a hamlet
with no transport or amenities so any future residents would be
reliant on cars, as would any employees.
- The design and
proposed materials were not in keeping with the landscape and
character of the area.
- From an ecological
perspective there was limited data on Great Crested
Newts.
- A smaller scheme
would reduce harm.
Members asked about objections
to the original scheme. Lisa
Harrop explained that after the Parish
Council’s discussions with residents, concerns were raised
over size and provision of parking and over development. The Parish
Council requested comments from Oxfordshire County Council (OCC)
highways but did not receive a response.
David Burson, agent for the applicant, addressed the
Sub-Committee and raised the following points;
- The development was
for a family with an office to support the business currently
located in Burford, this would create a
better work life balance.
- The Council could not
demonstrate a 5 Year housing land supply; the proposed development
would provide housing and reuse an existing building.
Members asked about the
benefits of moving the family’s business from Burford to a more rural location. David
Burson explained that the development
would give security to the business and create a better work life
balance with the house providing a home for the family alongside an
office to run the business. The owners of the development were
invested in the area and keen ...
view the full minutes text for item 26.
|
27. |
24/02171/FUL Land North of Woodstock Road, Charlbury
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Mike Cassidy, Principal
Planner, presented the application for the erection of twenty six
dwellings (including 46% affordable housing), the provision of
public open space and landscaping, demolition of the existing
garages and provision of new vehicular access via Woodstock Road
and pedestrian access to Hughes Close and associated
works.
The Principal Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The application was
for 26 new dwellings of which 46% would be affordable housing.
Garages on the site would be demolished and new vehicular and
pedestrian/cycle accesses created.
- The site was on the
South East side of Charlbury in the
Charlbury Conservation Area and
Cotswolds National Landscape (AONB). The site adjoins existing
residential development on Hughes Close, Little Leas and Woodstock
Road.
- The site is bounded
on all sides by trees and hedgerows, some of which are protected by
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) some 50 years old.
- A previous refused
application had been dismissed on appeal with the Inspector raising
concerns in relation to adverse landscape impacts upon the
Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL); poor quality design and layout
with areas dominated by hard landscaping; a lack of surveillance to
some plots resulting in a ‘fear of crime’ and lack of
favourable living conditions for future occupiers; adverse impact
on the Charlbury Conservation Area; and
adverse impact on the neighbouring property, No.36 Little
Leas, by reason of being visually
overbearing only 2 metres from boundary, with a loss of outlook and
daylight.
- The application had
been reduced by 2 houses to 26 dwellings and a wider tree/hedge
planted boundary included with a buffer zone and managed
landscaping. The building/plots closest to Little Leas had been
pulled further back from the northern boundary and reorientated to address the concerns regarding loss
out outlook and daylight raised by the
appeal Inspector.
- The proposal includes
a mixture of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings with 12 affordable
housing units (46% of the total) proposed.
- In the appeal
decision, the Inspector noted there was no substantive evidence the
trees originally protected by the TPO (some 50 years old) remained
on site. Moreover, nearly three quarters of trees on the site were
of low quality showing signs of disease and decay with limited life
expectancy. The proposal would remove these trees and replace them
with new tree planting of much better quality.
Councillor Kenrick, Charlbury Town
Council addressed the Sub-Committee and raised the following
points;
- The Town Council had
engaged with the application in detail and information could be
found online.
·
Concerns regarding surface water drainage had been
raised by Thames Water, which highlighted the need for the
provision of rainwater capture and greywater recycling within e the
development.
- The need for
provision of defibrillators which the Council could not see this in
the application.
Grant Bayliss, agent for the applicant, addressed the
Sub-Committee and raised the following points;
|
28. |
25/00333/OUT Land East of 87-123 Wroslyn Road , Freeland
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Stephanie Eldridge, Principal
Planner, presented the application for the erection of up to 60
dwellings (Use Class C3), allotments, car parking and site access,
plus open space, landscaping, associated engineering works and
infrastructure (all matters reserved except means of access).
(Amended parameter plan).
The Principal Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The removal of
objection from OCC regarding the highway, as set out in the
additional representations report.
- The site was for 60
residential dwellings with provision of 50% affordable housing. The
site was a significant distance from the listed buildings in the
parish.
- The application was
before the Sub-Committee due to objections from the Parish
Council.
- The site would sit
behind a mixture of modern house designs and would form a logical
compliment to the edge of the village. The site would provide a
community orchard, allotments and parking for 25 cars for school
drop off and pick times.
Councillor Crocker, Freeland
Parish Council addressed the Sub-Committee and raised the following
points;
- The farmland opposite
was a green corridor.
- The Parish Council
had concerns about the capacity of the sewage works at Church
Hanborough.
- Access of a footpath
would require part of the hedgerow to be removed.
- Parking provision
would urbanise the character of the village.
- There were concerns
about flooding and the erosion of the gap between Long Hanborough
and Freeland villages.
Nigel Pugsley, agent for Pye
Homes addressed the Sub-Committee and raised the following
points;
·
Pye Homes partnered with Blenheim Estates in 2018,
the current application was for 16 hoes with parking and access and
would provide housing to meet the needs in the area with 50% of
affordable housing included with a careful design to preserve the
green gap and ecology.
The Principal Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The Council cannot
demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and using the tilted
balance the application is considered to be acceptable.
- The application was
within the north side of Wroslyn Road and complimented the existing
pattern of development, the semi-rural character of the village
would be preserved and there would be limited impact on the
landscape.
- The site would
include provision for school parking, with a car park management
plan to ensure the correct usage.
- Local amenities
included a bus service to and from the train station and
neighbouring towns.
- Financial
contributions for the Parish Council were not yet agreed but could
be delegated to officers subject to conditions working with the
Parish Council for S106 contributions.
- The application was
recommended for approval.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the
following points:
- Concerns about the
modest size and rural character of the village being over
developed. 60 houses would undermine the proportion and scale of
the village. Concerns about the sewage capacity within this
area.
- Concerns about
ancient woodlands and the ecology corridors of the river Evenlode
to Witney and the need to protect these areas.
- The need for
affordable houses for younger generations who wish to remain in the
...
view the full minutes text for item 28.
|
29. |
25/01227/OUT Broadstone Farm, Charlbury
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Emile Baldauf-Clark, Planner, presented the application
for the outline planning permission (with some matters reserved
except for means of access and layout) to demolish the existing
agricultural building and erection of a self-build dwelling house
with associated operations.
The Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The application was
before the Sub-Committee due to objections from the Parish
Council.
- The site was on the
edge of Charlbury and within the
Cotswold National Landscape and the Charlbury Conservation Area.
- The current buildings
on the site would be removed and replaced with a modern self-build
dwelling.
- The design would have
an L shaped footprint that would sit comfortably within the plot
although it would be slightly larger than the current
building.
- The proposed dwelling
would be a single storey wooden clad barn style design with a flat
roof extension. Materials used would be wooden cladding and natural
stone.
Mr Blakesley-Grimes, applicant, addressed the
Sub-Committee which raised the following points;
- The house would be
for the applicant’s family who have lived in Charlbury for 15 years.
- The new design would
enhance the conservation area.
- Due to the family
plans to live in the dwelling there would not be further
development on the site.
The Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The Council could not
demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. The application was in
line with policy OS2.
- The design was modest
and did not encroach on the surrounding countryside. The site was
well screened.
- There would be short
term economic benefits whilst the dwelling was being
constructed.
- The application was
recommended for approval with the decision delegated back to
officers to secure the legal agreement regarding self-build
status.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the
following points:
- The Sub-Committee
agreed that the application was a development with merits and
encouraged self-building.
- Comments from the
Conservation Officer were positive however there was no up to date
information on self-build targets.
Councillor Mark Walker proposed
the Sub-Committee approve the application in line with officer
recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Lidia Arcizsewska, put to the vote and agreed by the
Sub-Committee.
Voting record –
Unanimous
The Sub-Committee resolved
to:
- Approve the
application in line with officer recommendations.
|
30. |
25/01319/LBC Feathers Hotel, 16-20 Market Street, Woodstock
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Rebekah Orriss, Planner, presented the application for the
addition of 2 poles and flags.
The Planner’s
presentation addressed the following points:
- The application
proposed two flag poles on the front elevation of the hotel above
the main pedestrian entrance.
- The application was
objected to by the Conservation and Design Officer due to size of
the flagpoles which would cause harm to the historic and
architectural design of the building.
- The scale of the flag
poles was not in keeping with the hotel style and an incongruous
addition to the frontage of the building giving a cluttered
appearance and did not preserve the character of the
building.
- The application was
recommended for refusal.
Councillor Elizabeth
Poskitt proposed the Sub-Committee
refuse the application in line with the officer’s
recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Roger Faulkner and
put to the vote.
Voting Record – For
Refusal 7; Against Refusal 2;
Abstentions 0.
The Sub-Committee Resolved
to:
- Refuse the
application in line with the officer’s
recommendations.
|
31. |
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers PDF 151 KB
Purpose:
To inform the Sub-Committee of
applications determined under delegated powers.
Recommendation:
1.
That the report be noted by the
Sub-Committee.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The report giving
details of the applications determined under Delegated Powers was
received, explained by the officers and noted by the
Sub-Committee.
|
32. |
Appeal Decisions
There are no appeal decisions since the
previous Lowlands Planning Sub-Committee.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
There were no appeal decisions since the
previous Uplands Area Planning Sub-Committee.
|