Agenda item
Applications for Development
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.
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee received the report of the Business Manager – Development Management, giving details of an application 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) 20/03185/FUL Hacketts Wesley Walk
The officer informed the meeting that revised plans for this application had been received from the agent and recommended that the item be deferred.
The Chairman agreed with the officers and proposed that the application be deferred. This was seconded by Councillor Rylett.
Deferred
(ii) 21/00028/FUL 2 Springfield Park Witney
The Senior Planner (Development Management)?introduced the application for the construction of a detached dwelling and formation of new access onto Burford Road.
A public submission had been received and was read out on behalf of the agent, Mike Gilbert of Mike Gilbert Planning. The submission indicated that the application had been amended after rejection at the pre-application stage. The development’s hipped roof, building span, eaves and ridge heights were the same as the existing pattern of development. The submission also noted that there were no objections to the application and that the applicant would be happy to discuss details of the development.
Officers then highlighted to the Committee that the application was for a detached dwelling and was considered to form an incongruous feature within the established character of semi-detached dwellings along this part of Burford Road. In addition, due to the siting of the dwelling, the proposed development would result in perceived overlooking and a direct loss of privacy to adjacent neighbouring properties at Burford Road and Springfield Oval. As such, the proposal was considered to be contrary to Policies OS2 and OS4 of the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.
The officer recommended that the application be refused.
Councillor Langridge noted that there were no Town Council or neighbour objections despite the impact on neighbour privacy and was not convinced that the application was incongruous. Councillor Langridge thought that approval of the application may be possible with some amendments.
Councillor Ted Fenton noted that the adjacent property was owned by the applicant.
Councillor Good stated that he supported the officer’s recommendation to refuse and proposed that the application be refused.
Councillor Postan expressed the view that mixed development was in the nature of the Cotswolds and felt this application would create variety in a currently entirely semi-detached road. Councillor Postan expressed his support for Councillor Langridge’s view.
Councillor Haine expressed his support for the officers recommendation, that the application was incongruous and overlooked the adjacent property as well as reducing the amenity space of both properties. He, therefore, seconded Councillor Good’s proposal.
Councillors Langridge and Postan did not support the proposition and abstained.
Refused
Post Meeting Note: After the meeting the officer advised that the text on page 21 of the document pack outlining theconditions/reasons for refusal was incorrect. The text should read,
“The proposed development by reason of its positioning and design, is considered to form an incongruous feature within the established character of semi-detached dwellings along this part of Burford Road. In addition due to the siting of the dwelling, the proposed development will result in perceived overlooking and a direct loss of privacy to adjacent neighbouring properties at Burford Road and Springfield Oval. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policies OS2 and OS4 of the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.”
(iii) 21/00322/HHD 38 Park Road Ducklington
Chloe Jacobs, Career Grade Planner introduced the application for the erection of a first floor front and side extension. The officer noted that this application had been brought to the sub-Committee because the applicant was a former staff member of West Oxfordshire District Council. The officer noted that the application was not an overbearing development; had no overlooking windows; and the parking space would be unaffected.
The officer recommended that the application be granted.
Following a query from Councillor Enright, officers confirmed that the recommendation would be the same if the applicant had not been a former staff member.
Councillor Enright proposed that the application be approved and this was seconded by Councillor Collins.
Approved
Supporting documents:
PDF 229 KB