Items
| No. |
Item |
124. |
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments
To note any apologies for absence and
temporary appointments.
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were
received from Councillors Alaa Al-Yousuf, Rizvana Poole, Rosie
Pearson and Dean Temple.
Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt
substituted for Councillor Rosie Pearson.
Councillor Colin Dingwall
substituted for Councillor Dean Temple.
|
125. |
Declarations of Interest
To receive any declarations
from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the
meeting.
Minutes:
Declarations of Interest were received as
follows
23/01402/FUL Woodstock Bowls
and Tennis Club, Cadogan Park,
Woodstock.
Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt
declared that she was a member of Woodstock Town Council and would
leave the room when the application was debated.
|
126. |
Minutes of Previous Meeting  PDF 54 KB
To approve the minutes of the
meeting held on Monday 15 January 2024.
Minutes:
Councillor Jeff Haine proposed that the minutes of the previous
meeting, held on Monday 15 January 2024 be agreed by the
Sub-Committee as a true and accurate record.
This was seconded by Councillor Andrew Beaney and was put to the
vote.
There were 6 votes in favour, no votes against 3 abstentions.
The vote was carried.
The
Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Agree the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Monday 15
January 2024, as a true and accurate record.
|
127. |
Applications for Development PDF 340 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
|
|
11-20
|
23/01184/FUL
|
Coopers Croft Barn, Priory
Road, Chipping Norton.
|
James Nelson
|
|
21-28
|
23/01402/FUL
|
Woodstock Bowls And Tennis
Club, Cadogan Park,
Woodstock.
|
Sarah Hegerty
|
|
29-35
|
23/02188/LBC
|
The Great Barn, 14 Home Farm
Close, Shipton-under-Wychwood.
|
Tara Hayek
|
|
36-44
|
23/02653/FUL
|
Stonesfield Sports And Social
Club, Field Close, Stonesfield.
|
James Nelson
|
|
128. |
23/01184/FUL Coopers Croft Barn, Priory Road, Chipping Norton.
Minutes:
James Nelson, Senior Planning
Officer, presented the application for a temporary siting of a
mobile home for farm worker (retrospective) (amended
plans).
David Burson, spoke on behalf of the
applicant.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to ask any questions of
clarification, which raised the following points:
- The agent confirmed
that the mobile home would be static for the duration of 2 years.
The mobile home was for the worker and their family only and
included all services such as rest room and drainage. The applicant
would like to establish a working farm and home on the site, the
application was for a short term with a view to establishing
a business.
The Senior Planning Officer
continued with their presentation which clarified the following
points:
- The application was
for a dwelling in a rural area with a view to establishing a farm.
Policies OS2 and H2 of the Local Plan and paragraph 84 of the
National Planning Policy Framework, (NPPF) were relevant to the
application given the isolated location of the site.
- The applicant was to
demonstrate an essential operational need on the site to enable the
family to live on site on a temporary basis. The applicant had
submitted a business plan to support the application.
- Livestock enterprises
were expected to expand over the coming years and the onsite
accommodation would support the rearing of livestock.
- There would be a
period of proving to enable the applicant to demonstrate the
expansion of the business and for the Council to review the need
for accommodation on the land.
- The Council had
commissioned an independent assessment which had found that on
balance there was a need for accommodation on the site. It was
found that the intention was to rear livestock which could find an
increase in livestock numbers reaching 90 per annum.
- Onsite accommodation
would be needed to cover animal welfare issues, including any
emergencies.
- The application
demonstrated financial viability in line with polices OS2, H2 and
Paragraph 84 of the NPPF. Officers found that there would be a
sufficient profit margin based on the applicant’s financial
projections, which would support a worker on a minimum wage. A
proving period would provide a review over time where the figures
would be evaluated based on the business in the coming
years.
- Officers recommended
the approval subject to conditions, in line with the
officer’s report.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application which raised the following
points:
- The application was
called in by a Councillor Haine due to concerns over the
accommodation needs on site.
- Clarification on
condition 3 regarding dependants, including any widowed. The
Officer confirmed that this was to protect the occupants if the
situation was to arise where in event of a death, the occupants
would not be made homeless, which was a standard condition. The
Officer brought the Sub-Committee’s attention to the
application being for a 2-year period only.
- The Sub-Committee
asked if it would be more practical to retain the mobile home
...
view the full minutes text for item 128.
|
129. |
23/01402/FUL Woodstock Bowls And Tennis Club, Cadogan Park, Woodstock.
Minutes:
2.26pm Councillor Elizabeth
Poskitt left the Chamber.
Joan Desmond, Principal
Planner, presented the application for installation of sports
lighting to serve a block of three tennis courts and a separately
enclosed single tennis court.
Mr Anmod Gujral spoke in
objection to the application.
Nigel Bryant, Chair of
Woodstock Bowls and Tennis Club, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
The Chair then invited the Sub-Committee to ask any questions of
clarification, which raised the following points:
- The design of the
lighting on the court was changed to strip lighting to prevent
leakage of light outside the court.
- The timing of the
lighting going off would not be past 9.30pm. When not in use the
lights would remain off. The lighting would enable later lessons
for younger players during the winter months and create more use
over the year rather than limited to daylight hours during the
summer.
The Principal Planner continued
with the presentation, which clarified the following
points:
- The application was
in line with policy of E5 of the Local Plan to enable the community
access to high quality sport.
- The access to sport
supports community well-being.
- The lighting would
provide sporting facilities through-out the year and would be more
inclusive for younger members of the community as well enabling the
hosting of visiting sports teams.
- There were no
objections from highways.
- Biodiversity would be
covered in a condition to ensure protection of bats and nesting
birds.
- The officer
recommended the application for approval as set out in the
report.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application,
which raised the following
points:
- There were concerns
that the lighting would intrude on surrounding properties near the
Woodstock Bowls and Tennis Club. The lighting was downward lit onto
the courts and would therefore limit the spillage of light to
surrounding areas.
- Condition 5 in the
officer’s report covered the times and months when the
lighting could be used. When the courts were not in use the
lighting should be turned off.
- The Sub-Committee
felt that the lights design and quality had been well researched
and resourced.
- Clarification on
whether the highball lighting was included in the application. The
officer advised that there appeared to be some confusion on this
matter but a condition could be imposed to ensure that no high
level lighting could be installed.
The Chair proposed that the
application should be refused against officer’s
recommendations due to lighting intruding on surrounding
properties. There were no seconders for this proposal.
Councillor Lidia Arciszewska
proposed the application be approved in line with officer
recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Dave Jackson. This
was put to the vote, 7 for the proposal, 1 against, the vote was
carried.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Approve the
application in line with officer’s recommendations with the
additional conditions as discussed.
Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt
returned to the Chamber at 2.58pm.
|
130. |
23/02188/LBC The Great Barn, 14 Home Farm Close, Shipton-under-Wychwood.
Minutes:
Tara Hayek, Senior Conservation
and Design Officer, presented the application for internal and
external alterations to replace all casement windows, the dining
room door and lounge double door with flush heritage casement
windows and doors.
Nicholas Bowman spoke as the
applicant for the application.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to ask any questions of clarification, which raised
the following points:
- Wooden windows were
not as sustainable as UPVC. The windows would not be white but
would be a heritage alternative and not easily distinguishable from
wooden version.
The Senior Conservation and
Design Officer continued with the presentation, which clarified the
following points:
- The applicant wished
to place the current windows which were in poor quality, with UPVC
wooden alternative. These were not in keeping with the character of
the agricultural style building.
- The building was of
historical architectural significance and UPVC was not suitable for
the type of building. Use of timber of metal frames was sustainable
and supported in listed buildings.
- The design guidance
and relevant policies EH9 EH10 and EH11 had not been considered and
the use of UPVC would be of no heritage benefit, only of private
benefit.
- The use of UPVC
windows would result in a high level of harm to the character and
heritage of the building.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application,
which raised the following
points:
- The Council had a
statutory duty to protect listed buildings.
- Looking forwards
there was a need to find sustainable materials as wooden materials
would not be as available. Agreeing to UPVC would be setting a
precedence and would not reflect the heritage of the
building.
- The longevity of UPVC
windows was shorter than wooden windows.
- There had been
similar applications for UPVC windows for Grade II listed
buildings, but they have not been approved due to not meeting the
guidance or policies.
Councillor Jeff Haine proposed
the application be refused in line with the officer’s
recommendations. This was seconded by
Councillor Hugo Ashton, was put to the vote and was agreed
unanimously. The vote was carried.
The Sub-Committee
Resolved to:
- To refuse the
application in line with officer's recommendations.
|
131. |
23/02653/FUL Stonesfield Sports And Social Club, Field Close, Stonesfield.
Minutes:
James Nelson, Senior Planning
Officer, presented the application for the erection of 6 lighting
columns with 6 floodlighting illuminations with associated
works.
The Senior Planning Officer
continued with the presentation, which clarified the following
points:
- The application
covered two tennis courts, with the proposed lighting system to
feature 8-metre-high columns.
- The site was in the
Cotswold National Landscape area.
- On the site there
were 3 tennis courts, but the application covered the 2 westernmost
tennis courts. There was associated parking on the site however the
tennis courts were separated from the parking by a general
recreation ground.
- There was screening
to the tennis courts by landscaping which helped with limiting the
light spillage to the surrounding area.
- The Officer showed
the Sub-Committee a light-spill plan and confirmed that artificial
light would be contained.
- In accordance with
Local Plan policy E5 the Council support outdoor sports for
community needs and well-being.
- The lights would
enable the tennis courts to be used all year around, rather than
limiting the use summer months only in the evening.
- There would be no
adverse impact to the setting and there were no objections
regarding the ecology in the area.
- The officer
recommended the application for approval in line with the
recommendations in the officer’s report.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the application,
which raised the following
points:
- The tennis courts
would have lighting but the recreational ground between the car
park and the courts would not be illuminated for those walking to
and from the site.
- There were concerns
over the height of the columns and how much light spillage would
affect the local area despite the landscaping around the
courts.
- The Sub-Committee
asked for confirmation over the lighting at the football club and
whether this would impact the tennis courts. The lighting at the
football club may have been in place for a long period of time and
was not a part of the application.
- The application went
against policies OS1, OS2, OS4, EH1and EH8 and paragraph 182 of the
NPPF.
- The application
supported sports in the local area which was in line with
supporting the community and well-being.
- If the applicants
came back to the Sub-Committee with a different design of lighting
they would be happy to look at the application.
Councillor Jeff Haine proposed
to refuse the application against officer recommendations as the
application went against policies OS1, OS2, OS4, EH1, EH8 and
paragraph 184 of the NPPF. The Chair seconded the proposal. This
was put to the vote with 4 for the proposal, 4 against the proposal
and 1 abstention. The vote was tied the Chair cast the deciding
vote and voted for the proposal to refuse the application. The vote
was carried.
The Sub-Committee
Resolved to:
- To refuse the
application on the grounds that the application went against
policies OS1, OS2, OS4, EH2, EH2 and paragraph 176 of the
NPPF.
|
132. |
Outline Planning Application 23/01504/OUT PDF 54 KB
Purpose:
To consider the additional technical note
submitted on Flood Risk & Drainage and to confirm whether
refusal reason 3 on flood risk attached to application 23/01504/OUT
should still be pursued at the forth coming Appeal Inquiry.
Recommendation:
That the Sub-Committee resolves to:
1. Agree not to pursue refusal reason 3 on flood
risk grounds at the Appeal Inquiry.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Chair highlighted that the
Outline Planning Application 23/01504/OUT had come before the
Sub-Committee within the last 6 months and requested with the
agreement of the Sub-Committee to suspend Standing Order 16 of the
Council’s Constitution. The Sub-Committee agreed to suspend
Standing Order 16 of the Council’s Constitution.
Joan Desmond, Principal
Planner, outlined the history of the application. The outline application for the development for up
to 40 residential dwellings had come before the Sub-Committee in
August 2023. The Sub-Committee had voted to refuse the application
and given 4 reasons for their refusal. Refusal reason number 3 was
based on to flood risk due to ongoing problems in the
village.
Since the Sub-Committee’s
decision an appeal had been lodged against that particular refusal
reason and would be heard at a public inquiry later in February
2024.
At a Case Management Conference
with the inspectorate and the appellant, it was made clear that a
request for a partial award of costs would be made against the
Council for refusal reason number 3. However, the appellant
indicated they would like to avoid that situation. The appellant
had submitted a technical note regarding flooding and drainage,
with a focus on surface water drainage. The appellant would like to
demonstrate that a solution could be found, and this could be
covered by a condition which would be recommended to the
inspectorate at the public inquiry. The in-house technical officer
for the Council had looked at the technical note which had been
included in the additional representations report and concluded
that the flood risk and drainage could be resolved and covered by a
condition.
The Report had been to the
Sub-Committee for members to decide whether they would like the
Council to pursue refusal reason 3 at the Appeal Inquiry, which
would result in a partial award of costs to the appellant or to
agree not to pursue refusal reason 3 on flood risk grounds at the
Appeal Inquiry.
The Chair then invited the
Sub-Committee to discuss the report,
which raised the following
points:
- There were concerns
about the flooding in the village and the impact on surrounding
properties. Flooding had not been an issue in the
village.
- Concerns about the
Flood Risk Zone categorisation.
- The other refusal
reasons were; Lack of Section 106, Heritage impact and within the
Cotswold National Landscape.
- Improvement of
conditions to maintain drainage and support water systems. More
involvement from Thames Water and a Grampian condition when the
application comes to the public inquiry.
Councillor Jeff Haine proposed
to approve the recommendations in line with the Officer’s
report. Councillor Lidia Arciszewska Seconded the proposal and was
put to the vote. The vote was unanimous.
The Sub-Committee Resolved
to:
1.
Agree not to pursue refusal reason 3 on flood risk
grounds at the Appeal Inquiry.
|
133. |
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers PDF 143 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 was received and
noted by the Committee.
|
134. |
Appeal Decisions PDF 176 KB
Purpose:
To
inform the Sub-Committee of any appeal decisions.
Recommendation:
That the reports be
noted.
Minutes:
The report giving details of
Appeal Decisions was received and noted by the
Committee.
|