Skip to main content

Agenda and draft minutes

Development Management Sub-Committee - Monday, 6th July, 2026 2.00 pm

Venue: Committee Rooms 1 & 2, Council Offices, Woodgreen, Witney, Oxfordshire OX28 1NB. View directions

Note: 25/01897/OUT Officers will now be proposing deferral due to a change in the application 

Media

Items
No. Item

23.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence from members of the Sub-Committee. The quorum for the Sub-Committee is 3 members.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andy Goodwin, Genny Early, Andrew Lyon and Roger Faulkner. 

Councillor Sandra Simpson substituted for Councillor Genny Early.

Councillor Rachel Crouch substituted for Councillor Andrew Lyon.

Councillor Jack Treloar substituted for Councillor Roger Faulkner.

 

24.

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.

25.

Minutes of the Previous meeting pdf icon PDF 85 KB

To approve the minutes of the previous meetings, held on Monday 8 June 2026 and Monday 15 June 2026.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 8 June 2026.

  Councillor Jackson asked that the following be amended.

Pg 11 Councillor Steve Ferrelly, was from West Barton Parish. 

Councillor Steve Cosier proposed the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 8 June 2026. Councillor Sarah Veasey seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee resolved to:

  1. Agree the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 8 June 2026.

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15 June 2026.

Councillor Sarah Veasey proposed the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15 June 2026. Councillor Poskitt seconded the proposal which was put to the vote and agreed by the Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee resolved to:

  1. Agree the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15 June 2026.

2.03pm Lorna McShane, Lead Property Lawyer joined the meeting.

 

 

26.

Applications for Development pdf icon PDF 982 KB

Purpose:

To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached report.

 

Recommendation:

That the application be determined with the recommendations of the Head of Planning.

 

Pages

Application No.

Address

Planning Officer

25-64

25/01897/OUT

Land West of Combe Road

Mike Cassidy

65-81

26/00374/FUL

5A West End Witney

Clare Anscombe

82-88

26/00419/FUL

63 Barrington Close Witney

Clare Anscombe

89-94

26/01180/FUL

37 Wilkins Close Brize Norton

Chris Mitchell

 

 

Additional documents:

27.

25/01897/OUT Land West of Combe Road

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planner, Fern Lynch, spoke on behalf of the case officer - Mike Cassidy, Principal Planner. Fern Lynch recommended deferring the application because a significant change to the proposal had been identified late last week. This change related to the provision of public open space and differed substantially from what officers originally assessed when weighing the planning merits. Officers required additional time to review the implications of this change and assess its impact before the application can be properly considered.

The Chair proposed the Sub-Committee defer the application in line with officer’s recommendations. Councillor Steve Cosier seconded the proposal, and this was put to the vote.

Voting Record: For 11, Against 0, Abstentions 0

The Sub-Committee resolved to:

  1. Defer the application in line with the officer’s recommendations.

Councillor Steve Cosier asked for clarification on whether those speaking in objection and the Parish council were aware of the proposal to defer the application. Democratic Services confirmed that speakers, including the Parish Council were notified of the change last week.

 

28.

26/00374/FUL 5A West End Witney

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Clare Anscombe, Senior Planner, presented the application for the demolition of a timber workshop and the erection of a replacement building comprising of 2x one-bedroom apartments and associated works.

The Senior Planner brought Members attention to the Additional Representations report which related to a letter submitted the previous week. A minor correction was also noted to the refusal reasons: the reference to the Environment Agency's standing advice should be updated from 2024 to 2026.

The application was before the Sub-Committee because the officer’s recommendation differed from the views of the Town Council and a local ward member had concerns regarding the impact on the neighbouring properties in particular flood risk, loss of light and the enclosing effect. The local ward member had subsequently called in the application.

The Senior Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:

  • The site was located at the junction of West End and Bridge Street, just behind the old Court Public House. The building was being used as a timber workshop and would be replaced with 2 one bed apartments and associated works. The access to the site would be from the corner of Bridge street and West end.
  • The site wass located partly within areas at risk of flooding. According to the Environment Agency’s latest flood map planning data. A small corner of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3, while part of the access route from Bridge Street was within Flood Zone 2. The site also benefits from an alternative access from West End to the north, which is located within Flood Zone 1.
  • The site was within the Witney and Cogges conservation areas and was surrounded by other residential properties, the Senior Planner explained the heights of the roof in relation to neighbouring properties. The location of windows and the floor space which fell just below the national requirements.
  • The Council were unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), however the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harms when assessed against the NPPF.
  • The site was partially within flood zones 2 and 3. National planning policy required a Sequential Test to be undertaken in such circumstances. While the NPPF allowed an exemption where a flood risk assessment showed no built development would be at risk from flooding now or in the future, planning practice guidance and Environment Agency standing advice stated that this exemption did not apply to flooding sources other than surface water. There was a history of flooding in properties including 5A West End.
  • The Environment Agency’s (EA) Flood Map for Planning had recently been updated and was used within the report as a legitimate source of evidence when assessing flood risk. Any challenge to the accuracy of the EA’s mapping should be taken up directly with the EA.
  •  There was concern that the proposal would have a negative impact on living conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

29.

26/00419/FUL 63 Barrington Close Witney

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Clare Anscombe, Senior Planner, presented the application for the change of use of a parcel of land from amenity to residential and erection of a boundary fence to enclose the garden.

The Senior Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:

  • The property was within a cul-de-sac on the Deer Park Estate with an area of public open space to the left. The property was located on a corner plot.
  • The amenity grass would be enclosed by a five-foot timber fence with a trellis top and would be in line with the footpath that runs alongside the property. The size of the land is small and the loss on balance was acceptable.
  • Officers acknowledged that approval of the application may set a precedent for future development. By removing some of the permitted development rights this would prevent building or structures in the garden a sense of openness would be maintained.

The Senior Planner concluded that officers considered the proposed application was acceptable in principle subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Chair invited the members of the sub-committee to debate the application. The following points were raised:

  • Members asked for clarification on where a precedent would be set; on the property or in the surrounding area. The officer confirmed that the matter of precedence related to other similar developments elsewhere and not specifically to that property. 
  • Members asked for clarification on what bio-diversity information was provided by the applicants. The officer explained that the applicant had met the requirements and the site was small. The applicant had to demonstrate why the site did not meet the required biodiversity net gain and a condition was included to show that the development was carried out in accordance with enhancement features.

Councillor Jack Treloar proposed that the application be approved in line with officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Godfrey and put to the vote.

Voting Record – For 11  Against 0  Abstentions 0

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

  1. Approve the application in line with the officer’s recommendations.

 

30.

26/01180/FUL 37 Wilkins Close Brize Norton

Additional documents:

Minutes:

James Nelson, Principal Planner, presented the application on behalf of Chris Mitchell, Planner, for the erection of a detached outbuilding for the use of a beauty salon and relocation of an existing shed.

The Principal Planner explained that the application was before the Sub-Committee as the applicant was a spouse of an officer at West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC).

The Senior Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:

  • The application relates to a semi-detached property with a rear garden and an existing outbuilding. The proposal included a new outbuilding in the position of the existing shed which would be relocated to the southwest corner of the plot.

 

  • The relocated shed would have a height of less than 2.5 metres. The proposed studio building was a small, flat-roofed structure with doors that opened onto the garden. It had a simple design and a modest footprint of just over 3 square metres, which made it comparable in scale to a typical garden shed.
  • Parking provision consisted of two on-site parking spaces arranged in tandem, with additional visitor parking available nearby, although this was outside the applicant's control.
  • There have been no objections from the neighbouring properties or the Parish Council. The main concern was noise, disturbance and visitor numbers and times to the property. Conditions had been included in the report for one visitor to the property at a time with a handover period between appointments.
  • Officers proposed a stricter closing time than requested by the applicant, which required appointments to cease at 6.00pm rather than 7.00pm. This reflected the residential nature of the area and helped protect neighbours' amenity during the evening. Condition 3 proposed the following opening hours: 09.00-18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 Saturdays, closed Sundays and Bank Holidays.
  •  With the appointment times staggered and opening times proposed, onsite parking would be sufficient. There had been no objections from Oxfordshire County Council Highways. The recommendation was to approve the application.

The Chair invited the members of the sub-committee to debate the application. The following points were raised:

  • Members asked if there was plumbing included in the application. Officers advised that the submitted floor plan was very simple and did not identify details of this nature. They explained that information relating to specific services or internal fittings would not normally be required as part of a planning application for a development of this scale and type, as such details are not generally material to the planning assessment.
  • Members asked how enforceable the times of visitors attending appointments would be. The concern was whether the condition limiting visits to a single customer at a time could be effectively monitored and enforced in practice. Officers advised that conditions were enforceable through the Council's normal monitoring and enforcement processes. This could include investigating complaints from neighbours, reviewing records or logs, and observing evidence such as multiple vehicles attending the site at the same time. Officers also highlighted the size of the building itself which made it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

31.

Progress on Enforcement Cases pdf icon PDF 477 KB

Purpose:

To provide an update on progress in respect of priority enforcement investigations.

 

Recommendation:

1.    That the progress and nature of the outstanding enforcement investigations be noted by the Sub-Committee.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Kelly Murray, Principal Planner for Enforcement and Appeals presented the report on the progress of priority enforcement cases. The officer explained that the purpose of the enforcement update was to provide Development Management Sub-Committee members with a progress report on planning enforcement activity twice each year. The update did not cover every enforcement case; instead, it focused on selected priority cases.

Priority cases typically were those of greater significance, had attracted the attention of councillors, or were of particular public or political interest. Rather than delivering a detailed, case-by-case review of the full enforcement schedule included in the agenda papers, officers intended to provide members with an overview of the key developments and highlights.

Members were invited to raise questions on any specific cases listed in the report, and officers indicated they would provide further information where possible.

Members expressed support for the new planning enforcement reporting system, and thanked officers for the improved approach to providing updates on enforcement cases. They commented that the regular communication and clearer information on the status of cases had been very effective, and helped members stay informed about ongoing enforcement matters.

Members noted that the improved reporting process has reduced the need for members to make separate enquiries to officers for updates, thereby reducing workload for both members and staff. Overall, they considered the new system to be working well and welcomed its continued use. Members thanked officers for all their hard work on enforcement cases.

 

32.

Applications Determined under Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 245 KB

Purpose:

To inform the Sub-Committee of applications determined under delegated powers.

 

Recommendation:

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The report giving details of the applications determined under Delegated Powers was received, explained by officers and noted by the Sub-Committee.  

 

33.

Appeal Decisions: pdf icon PDF 122 KB

Purpose:

To inform the Sub-Committee of any appeal decisions.

 

Recommendation:

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

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

 

34.

Site Visits

Purpose:

To outline sites which in the Officer’s opinion, the Sub-Committee should visit prior to the Sub-Committee’s determination of that application at a future meeting.

 

Recommendation:

1.     To agree any site visits outlined by officers

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Officers confirmed that there were no planned site visits.

 

Related Pages