Agenda and draft minutes
PDF 235 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, Woodgreen, Witney, Oxfordshire OX28 1NB. View directions
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 the following councillors: Andy Goodwin, Tammy Abarno, Steve Cosier, Elizabeth Poskitt, Phil Godfrey and Dave Jackson.
Councillor Hannah Massie substituted for Councillor Elizabeth Poskitt Councillor David Melvin substituted for Councillor Phil Godfrey Councillor Jan Lund substituted for Councillor David Jackson. Councillor Liam Walker substituted for Councillor Tammy Abarno.
The Chair noted that Councillors Liam Walker and Jan Lund were not present and advised that if they arrived after the start of the presentation, they would not be eligible to vote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
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: 24/03100/OUT, Land (E) 438356 (N) 212268 Common Road, North Leigh Councillor Sarah Veasey stated that she was the ward member for North Leigh. Councillor Liam Walker stated that he was the County Council ward member for Hanborough and Hailey which also covered North Leigh. 25/02688/POROW - Proposed diversion of the part of the public right of way Shipton under Wychwood - Footpath No. 343/7/10 (part) Public footpath stopping up and creation order 2026. Councillor Jan Lund stated that she was a member of the Parish Council.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting To approve the minutes of the previous meeting, held on Monday 6 July 2026. Additional documents: Minutes: Page 7 – typo “wass” mis-spelt.
Councillor Sarah Veasey proposed the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 6 July 2026. Councillor Andrew Beaney 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 6 July 2026.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Applications for Development 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.
Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
24/03100/OUT, Land (E) 438356 (N) 212268 Common Road, North Leigh Additional documents: Minutes: James Nelson, Principal Planner presented the application for an outlined planning application for a residential development for up to 80 dwellings (Use Class C3), including vehicular access and pedestrian link from Common Road, public open space, car parking, drainage, landscaping and other associated infrastructure. All matters reserved for access. 2.04pm Councillors Liam Walker and Jan Lund joined the meeting. The Principal Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points: The main constraints identified on the south-western edge of North Leigh were:
The details of the site were:
The Principal Planner brought member’s attention to the Additional Representation report which proposed minor changes to the conditions and ensured that the planning conditions and Section 106 obligations reflected the amended number of houses proposed. The merits of the application: · The site was not allocated for development and the proposal conflicted with the Local Plan 2031 spatial strategy however, officers considered that substantial weight should be given due to the Council not being able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. · The development would provide up to 80 homes which included 32 affordable homes. This would contribute to both market and affordable housing needs and addressed the need for affordable housing in the area. · Officers acknowledged that the development would extend the village into open countryside and have some harm to the rural setting of North Leigh. An independently commissioned landscape review had informed amendments to the application, including restrictions on development in the southern field and reduction in its spread westwards. · Planting and green infrastructure would ... view the full minutes text for item 39. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
26/00946/FUL, Hillside, Station Road, Kingham Additional documents: Minutes: Stephanie Elderidge, Principal Planner presented the application for the erection of two detached self-build dwellings to replace an existing dwelling, including landscaping and associated infrastructure. The Principal Planner brought Members attention to the Additional Representations report which included updated planning conditions. The self-build plots were expected to be sold separately and developed by different parties. The revised conditions therefore provided flexibility for the necessary details and approvals to be submitted and considered for each plot at the appropriate stage of development, rather than requiring all details to be dealt with collectively from the outset.
Councillor Liam Walker proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendations to include the updated conditions in the additional representations report and the condition for construction management plan. This was seconded by Councillor Sarah Veasey and put to the vote. The Voting Record: For 9 Against 0 Abstention 0 The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
26/01276/HHD The Coach House, Asthall Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
26/01277/LBC, The Coach House, Asthall Additional documents: Minutes: The applications for 26/01276/HHD The Coach House, Asthall and 26/01277/LBC, The Coach House, Asthall were heard together but voted on separately. The Principal Planner presented the applications 26/01276/HHD (household) and 26/01277/LBC (listed building consent), The Coach House for alterations and extensions to the Grade II listed Coach House and Stables, including internal and external alterations, a modest extension to the former stables and a lightweight open sided link structure.
The officer’s recommendation was to approve the applications.
There were no speakers. The Chair invited the members to debate the applications, and the following points were raised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Purpose: 1. To seek authority for Officers to make a Public Path Diversion Order under Section 257 the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and carry out the required statutory consultation upon it. 2. The diversion is necessary to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission applied for under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 namely: Construction of an agricultural storage barn 3. The path will remain accessible and enjoyable to the public as a consequence of the diversion. Recommendation: That the Development Manager be authorised i) to make the Order and carry out public consultation, consistent with the drafted Order attached to this report; and ii) to confirm the Order if it is unopposed
Additional documents: Minutes: Stephanie Eldridge presented the report for the proposed diversion of part of the public right of way in Shipton under Wychwood. The report asked members to authorise officers to make and advertise a Public Footpath Diversion Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Members were not being asked to decide on whether the footpath diversion should go ahead. It was to allow the formal statutory process to start. An informal consultation had already taken place to gather initial views. The diversion had been requested due to it being necessary to enable development that had already received planning permission. If authorised, the Council would formally advertise the proposed diversion and undertake a statutory consultation allowing members of the public, consultees and other groups who use the public right of way to submit comments or objections. If there are no objections received the Council would be able to confirm the order. If objections were received and remained unresolved the matter would be referred to the Planning Inspectorate for a decision. Members were advised that approving the recommendation did not predetermine the final outcome, it simply allowed the statutory consultation and decision-making process to proceed. The Principal Planner showed the Sub-Committee slides of the site and the where on the location the planning permission had been approved. The members were advised that there were on-going enforcement investigations relating to the wider Dash Grange site however these were separate from the matter before the sub-committee and should not influence the member’s decisions on the proposed public footpath diversion order. During the informal consultation, some objectors had raised concerns over the use of the proposed agricultural building. The members were advised that these concerns were speculative and related to possible future planning breaches and enforcement issues. Members were asked to determine the footpath diversion recommendation based solely on the planning permission already granted and the statutory test under section 257 of the Town and Planning Act. Members asked for clarification on what grounds the report had been brought to the Sub-Committee when other changes to footpaths in the area had not been before the Sub-Committee. The Principal Planner explained that if planning permission had been granted and a diversion was needed to be able to implement that consent then the applicant could apply to the local planning authority under Section 257. Other diversions could be submitted under the Highways Act and that would be done through the County Council. If this application was not authorised, then the applicant would be able to apply under a separate act through the County Council to be considered under different legislation. The proposal was put to the vote and was agreed unanimously. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers 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 the applications determined under Delegated Powers was received, explained by officers and noted by the Sub-Committee.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Purpose: To inform the Sub-Committee of any appeals decisions.
Recommendation: 1. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Site Visits Purpose: To outline sites which in the Officer’s opinion, the Sub-Committee should visit prior to the Sub-Committee’s determined of that application at a future meeting.
Recommendation: 1. To agree any site visits outlined by officers. Additional documents: Minutes: Stephanie Eldridge, Principal Planner, proposed a site visit before the consideration of an upcoming planning application. The planning application was for an outlined proposal of up to 100 dwelling on the land at the edge of Enstone, accessed from Lidstone Road. The site visit would be beneficial to members and help with understanding the site and the surrounding area before the application came to the sub-committee for determination. The site visit on Thursday 3 September 2026 at 9.30am was agreed. Democratic Services would sent the invite and relevant information to members.
|