Skip to main content

Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual

Contact: Democratic Services 

No. Item


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 78 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1st March 2021.


The minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2021 were approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record, subject to the following additions and amendments:

The Business Manager – Development Management proposed a clarification to the minutes on item 52 (iv) 20/02848/FUL – Fardon House, Frog Lane, Milton under Wychwood.  The Business Manager – Development Management presented a plan defining a proposed boundary on the southern side of the site which varied between 7 metres and 14 metres in width.  Councillors agreed the proposed boundary.

Councillor Cotterill advised the Committee that following the last meeting discussions had taken place with the applicant for item 52(i) 20/02830/FUL – Chevrons, Swan Lane, Burford.  The applicant had agreed to leave the existing gates in place thus retaining the three existing on street parking spaces. 


Councillor Beaney noted that he had asked a question on agenda item 6 with respect to Delegated Powers No 46. 20/03286/FUL and was awaiting a response to his question from an officer.  The Chairman advised that officers would contact Councillor Beaney with a response.


Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments


Councillor Carter substituted for Councillor Saul.


Declarations of Interest

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


There were no declarations of interest received.


Applications for Development pdf icon PDF 167 KB


To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the following pages.


To determine the applications in accordance with the recommendations of the Strategic Director.  The recommendations contained in the following pages are all subject to amendments in the light of observations received between the preparation of the reports etc and the date of the meeting.

Additional documents:


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)           21/00801/FUL - Land North West Of 66 Over Norton Road


The Principal Planner (Enforcement), Kim Smith, introduced the part retrospective application to allow the already commenced engineering works,

construction of an access track, remodelling of an existing access onto the highway and the siting of four mobile caravans on the land. The caravans were presently occupied by an extended family of four households with children who had previously occupied plots at 'The Beeches'.


The Principal Planner (Enforcement) explained that the site was within to the Cotswolds AONB and close to the Over Norton conservation area. She advised that if the application was refused the family would be forced onto the roadside and highlighted that the children of the family attended school in the area.


Formal enforcement action in respect of the breaches of planning control had

been initiated by the issuing of an Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice.  However, this could be withdrawn if the application was approved.


The Committee noted the late representations report which included a response from County Footpaths raising no objection, subject to conditions, an Ecology Consultation response, an objection from Chipping Norton Town Council on a number of grounds.


The Principal Planner (Enforcement) recommended refusal of the application for the reasons and informative set out below:


1. The siting of the four caravans together with the engineering operations and construction of an access track and hardstanding on a highly visible, elevated and sensitive rural site located between the town of Chipping Norton and the village of Over Norton results in a harmful visual coalescence between the two settlements which appears extremely unsympathetic and incongruous within the rural landscape, contrary to policies OS2 and H7 of the WOLP 2031;


2. The site is located in the Cotswolds AONB which has the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty and the NPPF states that great weight must be afforded to achieving its conservation and enhancement. In this context both the change of use and the associated operational development are considered to cause landscape and visual harm contrary to policies EH1 and H7 of the WOLP 2031, The West Oxfordshire Landscape Assessment and paragraphs 170 and 172 of the NPPF. The benefits of the proposals are not, when having ascribed the correct weighting to them, considered to outweigh these harms;


3. By reason of the elevated siting of the caravans on the land and the visual impact of the caravans, associated engineering and enabling works from adjoining and other public vantage points, the change of use and associated operational development are considered to adversely urbanise the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.


Applications Determined under Delegated Powers and any Withdrawn Applications and Appeal Decisions pdf icon PDF 99 KB


To inform the Sub-Committee of applications either determined under delegated powers or withdrawn, together with appeal decisions.



That the report be noted.

Additional documents:


The reports giving details of (i) applications determined under delegated powers were received and noted.


Councillor Cooper commented on item 93 21/00234/HHD - Woodstock and Bladon advising that there had been some confusion at the Town and Parish Councils over the category of application that a Town Council could object to.  He also queried the category of application that could, following an objection, result in the application coming before a Planning sub-Committee; and which would not.  He asked that training on this matter be provided to Town and Parish Councillors. 


The Business Manager – Development Management informed the meeting that applications with an HHD or ADV suffix to the application number which was objected to by the Town or Parish Council would not automatically result in application coming to Committee, whereas objections to applications with other suffix’s would.  However, he reminded Members any District Councillor could request that applications be brought before this Planning sub-Committee.


The Business Manager – Development Management assured the meeting that this information was covered during training sessions for Town and Parish Councillors but agreed to include it in the next training sessions.


The reports giving details of (ii) appeal decisions were received and noted.


Councillor Haine thanked all Councillors and officers for the work carried out in this year’s meetings.