Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Committee Room 1

Contact: Democratic Services 

Items
No. Item

102.

Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments

To receive any apologies for absence, and to advise of any temporary appointments.

Minutes:

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillors Andrew Beaney and Hugo Ashton.

 

Councillor Tim Sumner substituted for Councillor Hugo Ashton.

103.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the meeting

Minutes:

There were no Declarations of Interest made by Members of the sub-Committee.

104.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 59 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 16 October 2023.

Minutes:

Councillor Rizvana Poole proposed that the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Monday 16 October 2023, be agreed by the sub-Committee as a true and accurate record, and signed by the Chair.

This was seconded by Councillor Mark Walker and was put to a vote.

There were 8 votes in favour, no votes against, and two abstentions. The vote was carried.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

1.      Agree the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Monday 16 October 2023, as a true and accurate record.

105.

Applications for Development pdf icon PDF 330 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.

 

Page

Application No.

Address

Planning Officer

13 - 36

23/00818/OUT

Land North Of

Holliers Crescent

Middle Barton

Joan Desmond

37 - 52

23/01569/FUL

Land And Building (E) 439518 (N) 226211

Enstone Airfield North

Banbury Road

Enstone

James Nelson

 

 

106.

23/00818/OUT Land North Of Holliers Crescent, Middle Barton.

Minutes:

Joan Desmond, Principal Planner, introduced the outline application, with some matters reserved, for residential and associated development (up to 80 dwellings) including means of access, access roads, green infrastructure, drainage, and other infrastructure.

 

Jane McRobie addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of Steeple Barton Parish Council.

 

Andy Birch addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the applicant, which raised a point of clarification surrounding growth of the development within the Chipping Norton area, in line with local needs, and also regarding local waiting lists.

 

The Principal Planner continued with their presentation, which clarified the following points:

  • Identifying housing needs – No evidence of housing or community need had been provided;
  • Housing location within Chipping Norton sub-area strategy – Development limited to meeting local community and business needs;
  • The Council’ ability to demonstrate a 5 Year Housing Land Supply, using the standard method calculation;
  • The development would be poorly related to adjoining development in the area and would not form a logical compliment to the existing pattern of development and the character of the area;
  • The development would fail to protect or enhance the local landscape and setting of the village;
  • The development would have a negligible impact on the conservation area but no archaeological field evaluation had been completed;
  • Limitations of public transport provisions in the area – The proposed site would lie within an area where there are insufficient public transport options, and residents would be reliant on using private transport;
  • Further clarification was still required regarding Biodiversity Impacts of the site including potential significant effects on the Middle Barton SSSI.

 

The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:

  • The projected 15% increase in size of the development within a perceived smaller District Council ward;
  • The Sub-Committee’s appreciation for objection comments received and submitted by Steeple Barton Parish Council;
  • Differences between a previously refused application – A previous application was deemed to be ‘more discreet’;
  • Limited access to the proposed site, and a lack of public transport options;
  • Related site impacts to current residents in the area, such as land being taken away from dog-walkers and younger persons for recreational purposes;
  • Proposed infrastructure implications, such as sewage treatment works and wastewater management;
  • A lack of associated Section 106 agreements, including access to healthcare provisions, and the contribution to levels of affordable housing within the development.

Councillor David Jackson proposed that application 23/00818/OUT be refused, in line with officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Alaa Al-Yousuf, was put to a vote, and was agreed unanimously by the sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

1.      Refuse the outline application, in line with officer recommendations.

107.

23/01569/FUL Land And Building (E) 439518 (N) 226211, Enstone Airfield North, Banbury Road, Enstone.

Minutes:

James Nelson, Planning Officer, introduced the application for the erection of detached, single and two storey air traffic control facility, including associated offices for staff and flying school users, WC facilities and garage for fire and rescue vehicle (amended plans).

 

Max Thompson, Senior Democratic Services Officer, read out a pre-submitted statement to the Sub-Committee on behalf of Michael Ergatoudis of the Great Tew Estate, in objection to the application, which raised clarification points surrounding the merits of applications submitted on land that is not owned by applicants.

 

John Pritchard addressed the Sub-Committee in objection the application, which raised a point of clarification surrounding limitations of activity within the aerodrome.

 

Huw Mellor addressed the Sub-Committee on behalf of the Agent for the application, which raised points of clarification surrounding the intended use of the proposed building, potential increases in flying activity, and safety provisions related to flying activity within the aerodrome.

 

Councillor Julian Cooper proposed that application 23/01569/FUL be deferred for a site visit by the sub-Committee. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Haine and was put to a vote. There were 6 votes in favour, 2 against and 2 abstentions. The vote was carried.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

1.      Defer the application for a site visit by the Committee, to take place on 7 December 2023 at 9.30am.

108.

Applications Determined under Delegated Powers and Appeal Decisions pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Purpose:

To inform the Sub-Committee of applications determined under delegated powers and any appeal decisions.

Recommendation:

That the reports be noted.

Minutes:

The report giving details of applications, determined under delegated powers, and decisions taken to appeal, was received and noted by the Sub-Committee.

109.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

If the Sub-Committee wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during

consideration of any of the items on the exempt from publication part of the agenda, it

will be necessary for the Sub-Committee to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that their presence

could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in paragraph 3 of

Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

The Sub-Committee may maintain the exemption if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in

disclosing the information.

 

 

 

110.

Appeal at Hill Rise, Woodstock

Purpose:

To allow the sub-committee to discuss the appealed decision, in particular the effect on the World Heritage Site (Blenheim), and to receive advice on whether this part of the decision is challengeable in the courts.

Minutes:

Councillor Julian Cooper introduced the item, stating that the exempt report contained within the agenda reports pack need not be considered on its own merit.

 

Councillor Cooper stated he believed that the best course of action would be that the Sub-Committee request that, for the forthcoming Local Plan, a full and comprehensive report on the Blenheim World Heritage Site is produced with comparisons made to other World Heritage Sites.

 

In debate, Officers stated that the proposal would be best represented by the Local Plan Cross-Party Member Working Group, and that representations would need to be made by Members to the Council’s Planning Policy Manager.

 

Councillor Julian Cooper proposed that the Sub-Committee note the exempt report, and request that for the forthcoming Local Plan, a full and comprehensive report of the Blenheim World Heritage Site is produced with comparisons made to other World Heritage Sites. This was seconded by Councillor Tim Sumner, and was put to a vote. There were 6 votes in favour, 1 vote against with 3 abstentions. The vote was carried.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

  1. Note the exempt report;
  2. Request that planning policy officers produce a full and comprehensive report on the Blenheim World Heritage Site, with comparisons made to other World Heritage Sites, to inform the Local Plan review process.