Agenda and minutes
PDF 258 KBVenue: Virtual Meeting
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2021 Minutes: RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 1 February 2021, copies of which had been circulated, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes: There were no apologies for absence or temporary appointments notified. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the meeting Minutes: Councillor Owen declared an interest in respect of application 20/02848/FUL, as the property neighboured his own property and his wife had written an objection letter inrespect of the application. He advised that he had not contributed to the representation and would not take part in the discussion of the application.
Councillor Cooper declared an interest in respect of application 20/023367/HHD, as the property was opposite his own property.
Councillor Postan declared an interest in respect of application 29/03444/S73, as the applicant had been the best man at his wedding but he had not spoken or met the applicant for over 20 years since. |
|
|
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.
Minutes: The Sub-Committee received the report of the Business Manager – Development Management, giving details of applications for development, copies of which had been circulated.
RESOLVED: That the decisions on the following applications be as indicated, the reasons for refusal or conditions related to a permission to be as recommended in the report of the Business Manager – Development Management, subject to any amendments as detailed below:-
(i) 20/02830/FUL – Chevrons, Swan Lane, Burford
The Senior Planning Officer, Chloe Jacobs, introduced the application. =
Councillor Cotterill as the local Member was invited to address the Committee. Councillor Cotterill advised that the Town Council objected to the application, as the new aperture would rob two parking spaces, which were regularly used by the nearby art gallery. He reported that the renovation of the property was welcome, though he questioned the proposed glass extension and the reasoning behind why an additional parking space was required for the addition of a garden room. He added that the existing wall did need repointing but that it was complete. Councillor Cotterill continued that the public benefit arising from the proposals was debatable and that he considered the application was noncompliant with the NPPF, paragraph 182 and that he considered Officers should remove the second aperture and retain the existing two parking spaces. He concluded that the Committee should refuse or defer the application.
In response to various questions from Members, Officers reported that the resulting parking loss from the application if approved would be one on-street parking space, but that the application would create two off-street spaces. Officers highlighted that the Highway Officers had raised no objection to the application and that the glass extension and the issue of heat was not a material planning consideration. Members were also informed that Officers considered that the application did have a heritage benefit.
Councillor Postan questioned the location of the proposed oil tank and if Officers could confirm the location.
Councillor Beaney commented that he had no concerns regarding the proposed works to the house, but with the proposals regarding the extra ancillary accommodation. He also commented that the Council should not be seen to be allowing properties to become rundown to then enable applications to be presented to renovate them. He also highlighted that he considered the application was in contrary to policies OS2, OS4, EC1, AH10 and NPPF paragraph 182. Councillor Beaney then proposed that the application be refused.
Councillor Cotterill seconded the proposal by Councillor Beaney.
Councillor Jackson questioned why a second entrance was required for the site. In response, Officers explained this had been proposed by the application and no concerns had been raised by Officers during pre-application advice.
Various Members supported the proposal to refuse the application on what they considered were solid reasons.
Mr Shaw advised that if Members should be minded to refuse the application, stronger reasons would be in relation to the second entrance and not on highways grounds, given Highway Officers had raised no objection.
Councillor Cotterill agreed ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
|
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 to the report be noted. Minutes: The report giving details of current situation and progress in respect of enforcement investigations, was received and noted. |
|
|
Purpose: To inform the Sub-Committee of applications either determined under delegated powers or withdrawn, together with appeal decisions. Recommendation: Minutes: The report giving details of (i) applications determined under delegated powers or withdrawn; and (ii) appeal decisions, was received and noted. |