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:

That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.

 

Page

Application Number

Address

Officer

9 - 20                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

21/02570/FUL

Land West Of Greenacres Churchill Road

James Nelson                                                                                                          

21 - 26

 

21/03602/HHD

Jasmine House The Green

Kirk Denton

27 – 30

21/03603/LBC

Jasmine House The Green

Kirk Denton

 

31 – 34

21/03649/LBC

Ground Floor 112 High Street

Naresh Kajoo

35 – 41

21/03794/FUL

Lower Court Farm Green End

James Nelson

42 – 52

21/03948/FUL

Burford Comprehensive School Cheltenham Road

James Nelson

 

 

 

Minutes:

Application 21/02570/FUL – Land West of Greenacres, Churchill Road, Kingham

 

The Planning Officer, James Nelson introduced the application for the construction of a dwelling together with associated outbuildings and landscaping, close existing and formation of a new vehicular access in revised position (as per amended plans).

The following people addressed the Committee:

Ms Dawn Brodie, on behalf of the applicant, supporting.

Information contained in the follow on report advised that one additional letter in opposition to the scheme had been received, relating to the ecological assessment and a disregard for the environment.

Following a question from Councillor Poskitt, Ms Brodie confirmed that the barn at the front of the development would be used for garaging and a workshop.

The Planning Officer then presented his report containing a recommendation of approval.  He outlined the planning principles and advised that officers felt the application adhered to Local Plan Policy H2, relating to the development of new dwellings.  Mr Nelson referred to the Burford-Charlbury Sub-Area Strategy which advised that delivery of homes should reach 774 by the end of the plan period.  The applicant had received pre-application advice and following negotiations with officers and the Conservation Officer, amendments had been made to reduce the height of the property. 

Therefore, officers were of the opinion that the application accorded with the Local Plan Policies listed in paragraph 5.22 of the report and was recommended for approval subject to the proposed drainage matters being resolved by officers using delegated authority.

Councillor Beaney addressed the meeting, and having requested the image of the street scene be displayed, he advised that he did not see how the proposal complied with policy OS2.  He felt that there was extensive glazed units and was concerned about light spill.  In addition, he did not feel that sufficient ecological mitigations were being requested. 

Councillor Beaney therefore proposed that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place.  This was seconded by Councillor Davies.

Councillor Davies agreed with the comments made, thought the size of the development was too large and could not see how it would fit with surrounding properties.

Councillor Jackson also welcomed a site visit.

Councillor Postan queried if details of the stonework and lintels could be more detailed.  In response, Mr Nelson advised that this was covered in Condition 3 and the details would be agreed in consultation with the Conservation Design Architect.

Following a question from Councillor Poskitt regarding the single dormer, Mr Nelson advised that this fitted with the local characteristic and was in accordance with the design guide.

The proposal that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place was put to the vote and was carried.

Deferred

 

Application 21/03602/HHD – Jasmine House, The Green, Kingham, Chipping Norton

The Interim Development Manager, Abby Fettes introduced the application for alterations to the external rear elevation and alterations to the ground floor internals.

This application was taken in conjunction with 21/03603/LBC which dealt with the Listed Building Consent.

The following people addressed the Committee:

Mr Tim Bennett, the agent on behalf of the applicant.

The Interim Development Manager then presented the report containing a recommendation of approval.  She advised that the two applications would have been approved under officers delegated authority, however, the parish council had submitted an objection to the listed building consent.  Mrs Fettes advised that no objection had been received from the Conservation Officer and it was felt that the alterations respected the listed building.  With regards to the objection raised regarding overlooking, Members noted that the sky light was 1.7 metres above floor level and the existing boundary treatment was also highlighted.  Officers therefore felt that the application should be approved as it was conserving the historical fabric of the building and was not altering the existing use.

Councillor Beaney clarified that the roof light could be opened and felt that as this matched the other existing rooflights, no additional noise would occur.  He therefore proposed that the application be granted as per officers recommendations.

This was seconded by Councillor Poskitt who, having queried what a ‘conservation rooflight’, was advised that these sat more flush to the roofline, in a traditional manner.

Committee members agreed with the comments made and felt the alterations were tasteful and modest.

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

Approved

Application 21/03603/LBC – Jasmine House, The Green, Kingham, Chipping Norton

The Interim development Manager, Abby Fettes, introduced the application for alterations to the external rear elevation and alterations to the ground floor internals.

This application was taken in conjunction with 21/03602/HHD which dealt with the Householder Development consent.

The following people addressed the Committee:

Mr Tim Bennett, the applicant.

The Interim Development Manager then presented the report containing a recommendation of approval. 

Councillor Beaney proposed that the application be granted as per officers and this was seconded by Councillor Poskitt.

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

Approved

 

Application 21/03649/LBC – Ground Floor, 112 High Street, Burford

The Planning Officer, Naresh Kajoo introduced the retrospective application for the installation of a non-illuminated hanging sign.

The following people addressed the Committee:

Mr Ian Danne, the applicant.

The Planning Officer then presented his report containing a recommendation of refusal.  He advised that the sign had been made of plastic rather than the more acceptable material of timber painted board in line with paragraph 17.7 of the West Oxfordshire Design Guide.  In addition, the style of bracket was not felt to be appropriate as detailed in paragraph 5.9 of the report.

Following a question from Councillor Haine, Mr Kajoo advised that there were other hanging signs along the High Street but the concern was that approving this would set a precedent.

Councillor Postan agreed with the officer recommendations and reminded the meeting of the origins of hanging signs, which were used as a visual indicator of where to shop. He felt it was important to maintain the pattern and therefore proposed that the application be refused as per officers recommendations.  This was seconded by Councillor Cooper who stated that Burford was a very special location, the historical character should be retained and highlighted that the sign was contrary to the design guide.

Councillor Beaney disagreed as he felt the sign and brackets used by other shops was very similar and noted that plastic would weather better than wood.  He also felt it was important to support local businesses.  Councillor Davies agreed and felt this was in keeping with other signs on the High Street.

Councillor Jackson advised that he had driven past the premises and could not see any problem with the existing sign.

Councillor Saul expressed sympathy for the applicant and noted that wooden signs did not last, however, he felt the guidance had been available but had not been accessed by the applicant.

Councillor Temple agreed that the design guide should be adhered to.

The officer recommendation of refusal was then put to the vote and was lost.

 Councillor Beaney proposed that the application be approved, contrary to officer recommendation, and this was seconded by Councillor Davies.  On being put to the vote, this proposal was carried.

Approved

 

Application 00/03794/FUL – Lower Court Farm, Green End, Chadlington

The Planning Officer, James Nelson introduced the application for a change of use of land from agricultural to domestic, along with the formation of a tennis court, erection of a greenhouse and associated landscaping.

The following people addressed the Committee:

Mr Neil Warner, on behalf of the applicant, supporting.

Following a question from Councillor Postan, Mr Warner advised that the application site was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The Planning Officer then presented his report containing a recommendation of refusal.  He advised that policies OS4, EH1, EH9, EH11 and EH13 were relevant due to the proximity of the site to the Grade II listed farmhouse and its location in the AONB.  Mr Nelson highlighted that proposal would be prominent in views from Green End and would have an impact on the heritage asset.  In addition, officers did not feel the impact was outweighed by any public benefits and the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Councillor Temple was inclined to agree with officers but having undertaken an independent site visit, had some queries as to how the proposal related to the street scene.  He noted that the site was located some way outside of the village and felt that the proposed location of the tennis court would be better than the alternative which would sit in front of the Grade 2 listed farmhouse.

Councillor Jackson agreed that a site visit would help and proposed that the application be deferred.  This was seconded by Councillor Temple.

The proposal that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place was put to the vote and was carried.

Deferred

(Councillor Davies left the meeting during the deliberation of this item)

 

Application 21/03948/FUL – Burford Comprehensive School, Cheltenham Road, Burford

 

The Planning Officer, James Nelson introduced the application for the creation of an All Weather sports pitch within a fenced enclosure and an outdoor activity zone.  Works to include the installation of floodlights and landscaping works.

Mr Nelson advised that the site was close to the boundary of the Conservation Area and AONB.  He highlighted the existing, established planting on the southern and eastern boundaries and explained that the light spillage would be restricted to inside the site.  Burford Town Council strongly supported the application and it was noted that a Community Use Agreement would be established.  Mr Nelson concluded by requesting that authority be delegated to officers to agree drainage details, once received.

Councillor Cooper noted that the site was located outside of the Conservation Area and AONB but highlighted that the images of the site did not communicate the difference in levels.  He noted that the site was located at the top of the hill and therefore felt that the development would be too intrusive onto the countryside.  Whilst he recognised that this was an ‘on balance’ application, he felt the light pollution would be too great and the views on entering the town from Gloucester would be impacted.

Councillor Cooper proposed that the application be refused contrary to officers recommendations and this was seconded by Councillor Haine.  Councillor Haine noted that the height of the floodlight poles was twice the height of a house, the site was located on the highest piece of ground and was in the vicinity of a Grade 1 listed church.

Councillor Saul expressed a different view and thanked Mr Nelson for a comprehensive report.  He felt that sporting facilities, especially within school grounds, should be supported and he noted the adequate screening of the site.  He felt that the benefits available outweighed any potential harm and reminded the meeting that the District was in need of sports pitches, especially for hockey.

Councillor Poskitt queried the light spill from the floodlights and Mr Nelson provided clarification on the correlation between the height of the poles and downward trajectory of the light.  With regards to a question raised regarding car parking, Mr Nelson stated that the Highways department had been consulted and were satisfied that sufficient capacity was available on the existing school site.  In addition, the community use would most likely operate outside of school hours, freeing up further car parking capacity.

Councillor Haine reminded Members that the floodlights would be in use seven days a week until 2230 hours.

Councillor Postan agreed that hockey facilities should be supported and advised Members that a good example of floodlighting existed at Carterton Recreational Ground.

A proposal to refuse the application, contrary to officer’s recommendations, was put to the vote and was lost.

Councillor Saul proposed that the application be approved in line with the report and this was seconded by Councillor Jackson.

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

Approved

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages