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:
21/03720/FUL – 44 Common Road, North Leigh.
The Senior Planner, David Ditchett introduced the application for the demolition of an existing residential property; along with the erection of ten detached and semi-detached, two storey dwellings, construction of a new access, with associated garaging, parking, landscaping and all enabling works.
The following members of the public addressed the meeting:
Ms Sarah Veasey – North Leigh Parish Council, objecting;
Mr Soave – local resident objecting; and
Mr Tim Northey – applicant.
A copy of Ms Veasey’s submission is attached to these minutes, however a summary of the other speakers is as follows:
Mr Soave advised that he was objecting on behalf of a number of residents who had raised concerns about the removal of trees which could have protected their views. He advised that consultation with the local community should have been considered, the ridge heights of some proposed dwellings were too high and there would be a loss of amenity due to the new access road.
Mr Northey described this as previously developed land and a sustainable site. The proposed designs were in keeping with the character and appearance of the area, similar to Common Close but lower density. He also referred to the need of more affordable, three bedroomed properties and highlighted the biodiversity net gain.
Following a question from Councillor Fenton, Mr Northey confirmed that the biodiversity net gain on and off site would be achieved by installing swift and bat boxes alongside native planting. Offsite provision would be achieved via a credit with a third party operator within West Oxfordshire.
The local ward member Councillor St John addressed the committee in objection to the application. In his address he referred to the historic use of number 44, previous applications and the removal of mature trees and loss of ecology. Councillor St John also made reference to S106 contributions, the impact on the linear character and previous refusal reasons. He therefore asked the committee to consider deferring the application to allow a site visit to take place.
In response to a question from Councillor Crossland, Councillor St John advised that none of the mature trees that had been removed had been protected.
The Senior Planner then presented his report containing a recommendation of provisional approval. He provided clarification on the previous applications relating to the site and how the refusal reasons for those had been addressed by the applicant. Officers were satisfied that two of the refusal reasons had been overcome, one (drainage) could be overcome, and two were partly overcome.
Councillor Langridge addressed the meeting and thanked the officer for the clear summation of the case. He felt the application was finely balanced and noted the concerns of the objectors and the Parish Council. He therefore proposed that the application be deferred to allow a site visit to take place and this was seconded by Councillor Haine.
Councillor Leverton highlighted the need to ensure that any drainage conditions agreed by officer were robust and could be achieved by Thames Water. Officers confirmed that the aim was always to achieve the best outcome but reminded Members that Thames Water were the specialist, technical consultee.
The proposal to defer the application was then put to the vote and was carried.
Deferred
21/03643/FUL – 46 Market Square, Witney.
The Planning Officer, Esther Hill introduced the application for the demolition of the existing outbuilding; erection of a one and half storey, three bedroom dwelling, associated amenity area and two car parking spaces.
This application was taken in conjunction with 21/03644/LBC, as minuted below, which dealt with the listed building consent for the proposal. Ms Hill advised that the application was in front of Committee because Witney Town Council held a contrary view to officers.
The following members of the public addressed the meeting:
Ms Jo Druce-Harding – applicant.
Copies of her submissions are attached to these minutes.
The Planning Officer then presented her report containing a recommendation of refusal and explained the refusal reasons in full. She advised that there was insufficient evidence to back up the claim that the site could not be re-used for employment purposes.
Councillor Enright addressed the meeting and noted that there had been redevelopment of similar buildings in the past and, whilst this had an irregular curtilage, could be liveable. He queried if the deconstruction of the building could be conditioned and noted that it could be difficult to re-let as business use in the current climate.
Councillor Langridge agreed with the comments and noted that there was no objection from the Town Council. He did not feel that despite being Grade II listed the barn was attractive but noted there was a lack of evidence relating to the employment use.
Following a comment from Councillor Crossland, officers advised that pre-application advice had been offered but the applicant had not taken this up.
Councillor Haine agreed with the officers’ recommendation and highlighted that as a Grade II listed building, it could not be demolished. He did not feel there had been enough evidence produced to show that the building could not be used for employment purposes and proposed the officers recommendations as laid out. This was seconded by Councillor Leverton who congratulated the officers on a clear and concise presentation. He advised that he could not support the demolition of a listed building.
Councillor Rylett felt that the views of local members should be considered and felt that agreement could be achieved with further discussion. Councillor Poskitt suggested that conversations with the Conservation Officer and Listed Building officer about the loss of historic fabric could be explored.
The officers’ recommendation of refusal was then put to the vote and was carried.
Refused
(Councillors Langridge and Enright requested that their votes against the proposal be recorded)
21/03644/LBC – 46 Market Square, Witney.
The Planning Officer, Esther Hill introduced the application for the demolition of the existing outbuilding. Erection of a one and half storey, three bedroom dwelling, associated amenity area and two car parking spaces.
This application was taken in conjunction with 21/03643/FUL, as minuted above, which dealt with the planning approval. As the two applications were presented together, all discussions and debate is as detailed above.
The following members of the public addressed the meeting:
Ms Jo Druce-Harding – applicant.
Copies of her submissions are attached to these minutes.
Councillor Haine agreed with the officers’ recommendation and highlighted that as a Grade II listed building, it could not be demolished. He did not feel there had been enough evidence produced to show that the building could not be used for employment purposes and proposed the officers recommendations as laid out. This was seconded by Councillor Leverton who congratulated the officers on a clear and concise presentation. He advised that he could not support the demolition of a listed building.
The officers’ recommendation of refusal was then put to the vote and was carried.
Refused
(Councillors Langridge and Enright requested that their votes against the proposal be recorded)
21/01963/RES – Clover Court, Bushey Drive, Clanfield, Bampton.
Senior Planner, David Ditchett introduced the reserved matters application for the erection of four residential dwellings. This dealt with the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the site, pursuant to outline permission 19/00115/OUT.
Mr Ditchett outlined the previous outline permission for four dwellings at the site and requested that, should the Committee be minded to grant, authority be delegated to officers to agree the drainage details.
Councillor Fenton queried the concern raised by the Parish Council and Councillor Crossland asked that the materials to be used, matched the character of the area. Mr Ditchett confirmed that this would be agreed by condition.
Councillor Langridge proposed that the application begranted and this was seconded by Councillor Enright.
Councillor Prosser reiterated the importance of ensuring the sewage issues were addressed and that there was no impact to other residents. Officers confirmed that these details would be delegated to them for agreement.
The officers’ recommendation of approval was then put to the vote and was carried subject to authority being delegated to officers to agree the drainage details.
Approved
Supporting documents:
PDF 528 KB