Skip to main content

Agenda item

Applications for Development

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

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.

Minutes:

20/01165/FUL – Mill House Hotel, Station Road, Kingham, Chipping Norton

The Business Manager – Development Management, Mr Phil Shaw introduced the application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a new 33 bedroom hotel; ancillary facilities including restaurant, spa, gym, swimming pool, alehouse and bakehouse; servicing together with associated parking, landscaping and reinstatement of former mill leat.

Mr Shaw advised that the officers’ recommendation was one of refusal for the reasons outlined on pages 34 and 35 of the report.

The following members of the public addressed the meeting:

Mr Roberts and Mr Westerman, of Edgars Limited, supporting on behalf of the applicant.  Mr Roberts explained that this proposal was on the site of an existing hotel with prior permission for five units.  He advised that the applicant was happy to work with the local authority, the current plans were open to negotiation on the size, scale and form of hotel and hoped to provide employment opportunities.

Following a question from Councillor Postan, Mr Roberts confirmed that the existing planning permission was still valid.

Councillor Haine proposed that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place and this was seconded by Councillor Cooper.  Councillor Haine provided his point of view from the Chair and highlighted paragraph 5.21 of the report which argued that the application was not ‘major development’ as it was replacing what was there.  Councillor Haine also referred to the viability information, the landscaping on the north eastern boundary, tree TS2 detailed on the plans and car parking details on site.

In response, Mr Shaw recognised that there were conflicting views as to whether this was major development or not and noted that the permission had lapsed.

In response to a query from Councillor Davies, it was confirmed that the permission was for five, four bedroom houses plus 21 bedrooms in the Mill Building along with seven in the Lodge Building.

The recommendation of deferral, to allow a site visit to take place, was then put to the vote and was carried.  The Chairman advised that the site visit would take place on Thursday 24 June 2021 at 0930 hours.

 

Deferred

 

20/001958/FUL – Southfield House, Manor Road, Sandford St Martin, Chipping Norton

The Planning Officer, Mr James Nelson introduced the part-retrospective application for changes to the design of the pool house, roof material and front elevation (alternative to 19/01227/HHD); re-cladding of an existing outbuilding used for plant and storage and its continued use ancillary to the dwelling house; re-siting of an existing outbuilding to provide an Apiary Hut and associated landscaping.

Mr Nelson advised that the site was located in a Conservation Area off Manor Road and officers felt the changes were acceptable, subject to landscaping and maintenance plans.  The recommendation in the report was one of approval subjecting to conditions 1 to 6, informatives and notes to the applicant as detailed in the report.

Councillor Jackson addressed the meeting as Ward Councillor and noted that he had been contact by residents with a number of concerns relating to previous works on the site.  Councillor Jackson noted the Parish Council’s concerns relating to whether the paddock would receive Conservation Area protection and the potential for the Apiary hut to be left as the applicant did not reside their permanently.  He noted that there was a lack of trust between neighbours and the applicant but was reassured that the officers were content with the proposal, subject to conditions.  He therefore proposed that the application be granted as per officers recommendations.

This was seconded by Councillor Postan who asked if a condition could be added to request the applicant to submit a bi-annual report to the parish council on the production levels of honey on site.  Officers advised that this should be included as informative not as a condition.

Councillor Beaney asked for clarification on the inclusion of a fibreglass roof in a Conservation Area and Mr Nelson explained that this was not visible and did not have an impact on the landscape.

The Officer recommendation of approval, subject to the inclusion of an additional informative relating to production of honey, was then put to the vote and was carried.

Approved

 

21/00879/FUL – Enstone Airline Hangars, Enstone Airfield North

The Planning Officer, Ms Kim Smith introduced the retrospective application for the extension of an existing aircraft maintenance hangar to form 'lean to' hangar for indoor aircraft maintenance.

 

The following members of the public addressed the meeting:

Mr Nigel Adamson, objecting.  He stated that as a local resident it was upsetting that planning permission had not been sought previously and concerns raised included additional aeroplane movements, previous Police visits to site, a recent survey of local residents and new flying routes.

Information contained in the follow on report advised that a further representation had been received from ENCON and a summary of the comments made was provided.

The Planning Officer presented her report containing a recommendation of approval.  She advised that officers had undertaken a number of visits over the past twelve months and had identified a number of breaches of planning permission.  She explained the use and layout of the existing hangar and extension to this.  She advised that officers were satisfied with the development subject to the conditions laid out in the report.  Ms Smith noted the large body of objections but it was noted that the aircraft were already on site and therefore there would be no increase in numbers.

Members were advised that a separate investigation could be undertaken into the existing consents on site and any conditions that had been ‘tweaked’ over time. 

The Chairman, Councillor Haine agreed with the officers report and noted the residents concerns.  He requested that officers undertake an investigation as described above and look at the overall activity on the site.

Councillor Beaney stated that he felt the officer recommendation was correct and proposed the recommendation, subject to the conditions listed.  This was seconded by Councillor Postan who reminded the committee that private aviation was an important factor of social and economic growth.  He noted that hangars could be camouflaged if necessary.

In response to the comments made regarding a potential investigation of the overall site, the Business Manager – Development Management reminded the meeting that the permissions attached to the site were labyrinthine, with different limitations applying to different runways.  He advised that this piece of work would take an enormous amount of monitoring and suggested that neighbouring residents could also keep logs of aircraft movement.

It was noted that page 47 of the report should read EH8.

Officers were requested to undertake a separate investigation into the adherence to the existing conditions attached to the consent.

The Officer recommendation of approval was then put to the vote and was carried.

Approved

 

21/01303/FUL – Enstone Flying Club, Enstone Airfield North

The Planning Officer, Ms Kim Smith introduced the retrospective application for the erection of a hangar.  She advised that officers were content with the application subject to the condition detailed in the report.

Information contained in the follow on report advised that a further representation had been received from ENCON and a summary of the comments made was provided.

Councillor Beaney asked if the use of the hangar could be restricted to the storage of aircraft only and once the building was no longer used for that purpose, the permission could cease.  Officers agreed that this could be included.  Councillor Beaney therefore proposed approval subject to the condition in the report and an additional condition restricting the use of the building to the storage and servicing of aircraft.  This was seconded by Councillor Postan.

The Officer recommendation of approval was then put to the vote and was carried, subject to an additional condition restricting the use of the building to the storage and servicing of aircraft.  Once the building ceased to be used for this purpose, the permission would cease.

Approved

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages