Skip to main content

Agenda and draft minutes

Uplands Area Planning Sub-Committee - Monday, 21st July, 2025 2.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Woodgreen, Witney, Oxfordshire OX28 1NB. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

13.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence from members of Sub-Committee. The quorum for the Sub-Committee is 4 members.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Adam Clements, Genny Early and Elizabeth Poskitt.

14.

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:

There were no declarations of interest received.

15.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 76 KB

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Wednesday 28 May 2025.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair of the Sub-Committee, Councillor Julian Cooper, asked that the minutes of the meeting on Wednesday 28 May 2025 be amended so that they included the attendance (remotely) of James Felton, West Oxfordshire District Council Solicitor.

Councillor Andrew Beaney proposed the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 28 May 2025 be approved by the Sub-Committee. This was seconded by Councillor Julian Cooper, subject to the amendment, was put to the vote and agreed by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

1.    Agree the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 28 May 2025.

16.

Applications for Development pdf icon PDF 704 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 Head of Planning.

 

Pages

Application No.

Address

Planning Officer

15-45

23/03071/FUL

Land South of Forest Road,

Charlbury

Mike Cassidy

46-101

23/01422/FUL

Land West Of

Greenwich Lane

Leafield

Stephanie Eldridge

 

 

 

Additional documents:

17.

23/01422/FUL Land West Of Greenwich Lane Leafield

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Stephanie Eldridge, Principal Planner, presented the application for the development of seven houses and a two-storey block of four flats and associated works to include widening of Greenwich Lane. The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points:

 

  • The application was submitted to the Council in 2023. At that time Leafield Parish Council had raised some concerns but had not objected. The Officer recommendation had been to approve the application subject to a s106 agreement. This would have been a delegated decision in accordance with the Council’s scheme of delegation because the Parish Council had not objected to the proposals. The delegated report was drafted by officers and the legal team were instructed to draft the S106 agreement. This had been carried out over the last year and was ready for completion.
  • However, within the last couple of months local concerns had grown. In particular around works being undertaken on the site prior to permission being granted and insufficient capacity in local water infrastructure.
  • The Parish Council had subsequently written to Officers to update their response to object to the application.
  • Since the 2023 application there had been changes in the planning approach and conditioning of matters around water infrastructure. In addition, the Council could no longer demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, which it could at the time of the initial application.
  • For these reasons, in accordance with the scheme of delegation, the application had been brought before Members of the Sub-Committee.
  • The scheme was for 100% affordable housing.
  • Works would be undertaken to widen Greenwich Lane to improve access to the site.
  • The site was within the Cotswold National Landscape. There was one Listed Building near the site, however this would not be impacted. The rest of the existing housing in the vicinity was relatively modern. 
  • An additional planting area would be provided.
  • Materials would be reconstituted stone and Cotswold tiles.
  • There was one public right of way within view of the site however there would be limited views of the development from it.

 

Mike Nelson spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

  • The scale and content of residents’ concerns had been underestimated.
  • The Officer report was misleading in relation to Policy EH1 and EH2 and the identification of exceptional circumstances and special protection.
  • The development would not enhance and preserve the protected landscape, instead it would destroy it.
  • Unless water infrastructure improvements were made before construction commenced the fresh water supply in the village would get worse with the development.
  • An explanation of the historic applications and objections on the site was given.
  • Work had now begun on the site and some of the key features that the objectors were seeking to protect had been destroyed.

 

The Principal Planner continued with her presentation which addressed the following points:

 

  • Due to the scale of the proposal this site was not considered major development in the Cotswold National Landscape and therefore the exceptional circumstances test did not apply.
  • As the Council did not have a 5-year housing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

18.

23/03071/FUL Land South of Forest Road, Charlbury

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Mike Cassidy, Principal Planner, presented the application for the erection of thirty-seven dwellings including access road, landscaping, and associated earthworks. The Principal Planner’s presentation addressed the following points:

 

  • Amendments had been made to conditions 8 and 9 relating to cycling and car parking as set out in the additional representations report.
  • The application was initially brought to the Sub-Committee in May 2025 where it was deferred. The Report had subsequently been updated to address the matters raised at that meeting.
  • The application site was to the west of Charlbury, it adjoined the development to the rear of the Railway Station. Rushy Bank Ancient Woodland marked the western boundary. The site was within the Cotswold National Landscape. Charlbury Conservation Area was on the opposite side of the railway line. Charlbury Railway Station was a Grade 2 listed building approximately 350 metres from the site. 
  • A material consideration for this application was the lapsed permission granted in January 2020. Part of this permission included a five-metre ecology buffer zone between the development and ancient woodland.
  • The current application proposed 37 new dwellings. This was the same number as previously approved, albeit in a differing arrangement and lower form of development, with single storey bungalows and two-storey buildings proposed.
  • All existing trees were being retained, additional woodland was proposed with a five-metre landscape buffer zone between the development and existing ancient woodland and a further ten metre zone kept free from development.
  • Improvement to the footpaths on Forest Road were proposed.
  • The proposal was a mixture of one to four bedroom dwellings. Twenty-one affordable units were proposed (57% of the total), and these included seven assisted living bungalows.
  • The proposed parking and garages on the site were in accordance with OCC Parking Standards.
  • The dwellings would have a simple massing and a vernacular in keeping with the area.

 

James Whitehead spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points:

 

  • There were no extant planning consents for development.
  • Weight could not be given to previous approvals as they predated the Neighbourhood Plan, ignored harm to ancient woodland and the conservation area and were for a dementia unit not housing.
  • The site did not adjoin the settlement.
  • With regard to the Woodland, National Policy and Guidance was being set aside and the proposed mitigation could not be considered acceptable.
  • The pedestrian connection did not meet policy requirements and was dangerous and unsustainable.
  • The National Landscape Board had identified the proposal as a major development due to its detached and elevated position.
  • The “tilted balance” was not engaged due to the understated protected harms.

 

Laura Bisby spoke on behalf of Harper Crewe Ltd in support of the application and raised the following points:

 

  • The benefits of the scheme had been provided to Members previously.
  • King’s Council opinion had been sought on the principle points raised at the last meeting of the Sub-Committee and had found the following: there was no fall-back position following the previous judicial review decisions; those decisions did not stray  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

19.

25/00333/OUT Land East Of 87 - 123 Wroslyn Road, Freeland - Site Visit pdf icon PDF 54 KB

Purpose:

To allow members to see the site in context prior to the official committee determination in August or September.

 

Recommendation:

1.    To agree to the site visit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Stephanie Eldridge, Principal Planner, presented the report to seek agreement by the Sub-Committee to site visits to both, land east of 87-123 Wroslyn Road, Freeland and land north of Woodstock Road, Charlbury.

 

Councillor Julian Cooper proposed the site visit to take place on Thursday 14 August 2025. This was agreed by the Sub-Committee.

 

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

1.    Agree to site visits by members, to be held on Thursday 14 August 2025.

20.

Applications Determined under Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 267 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 applications determined under Delegated Powers was received, explained by Officers and noted by the Sub-Committee.

 

25/01141/PN42 Down Hill Farm, Worton Road, Middle Barton. Councillor David Jackson noted that the application decision was listed as “P4REF” and sought clarification as to what this meant.

 

The Principal Planner advised that this denoted a Prior Approval Application. In cases where householders proposed a ‘larger home extension’ under Permitted Development Rights such an application was required. This process gave neighbours the opportunity to review plans and make representations. If an objection was received the application could not be dealt with as a prior approval and would need to follow the householder application process. In this case the proposed extension had triggered this process.

21.

Appeal Decisions pdf icon PDF 339 KB

Purpose:

To inform the Sub-Committee of any appeal decisions.

 

Recommendation:

1.    That the report be noted by the Sub-Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report giving details of the appeals decisions was received, explained by Officers and noted by the Sub-Committee.

 

Councillor Cooper noted that the item, Westfield Lodge, Road Through Shilton, Shilton was in the Lowlands Sub-Committee area.

 

The Principal Planner, noted that this site was in the Lowlands area but the appeal was reported  to both the Lowlands and Uplands Sub-Committees because the Brize Norton and Shilton Ward in which it sits was split across the two planning areas. The appeal had been dismissed by the Inspector as it would represent poor design and would significantly harm the character and appearance of the area. The benefit of a single dwelling was not considered to outweigh the visual impact.

 

Regarding the dismissed appeal at Land north of Woodstock Road Charlbury the Officer advised that this related to the site to be visited by Members in August. Reasons for dismissal of the appeal cited by the Inspector were: poor layout and design, amenities and living conditions of future occupiers. 

 

 

Related Pages