Applications for Development
To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached schedule.
That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.
Netherby Farm Banbury Road
The Plough High Street
21/02024/FUL - Netherby Farm Banbury Road, Swerford, Chipping Norton
James Nelson the Planning Officer introduced the part retrospective application for the retention of a mobile home for a full time agricultural worker, and change of use of the land to allow two bell tents and one mobile unit for glamping.
There were no speakers registered for this application, Mr Nelson continued with his presentation, concluding that planning officers were recommending approval as per the conditions listed in the original report.
Councillor Beaney stated he was concerned about the living quarters and thought it looked unfit for residential use. He also thought the conditions within the report were not strong enough and his thought process was more in line with the Parish Council’s conclusions. Councillor Wilson shared the same concerns.
Councillor Saul disagreed and thought that the Council should encourage diversity in new business initiatives, and therefore proposed that the application be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Postan.
Councillor Postan felt that the services for the tents should not be fixed in the future and asked if there could be a condition proposed to cover so that it did not lead to permanent drainage. The Planning Officers confirmed that an informative could be added.
Councillor Davies thought that the applicants should be given a chance and that the planners’ recommendations should be supported, especially as diversity was in the WODC plan.
Councillor Beaney advised that he had recently looked after animals which had smart technology to support them. He thought this could be used when not in the lambing season.
The Chairman asked if there were any more points to be raised, as there were none, The proposal from Councillor Saul that the application be approved, seconded by Councillor Postan was put to the vote and resulted in a tie. The Chair used his casting vote to vote against - the proposal was lost.
It was proposed that the application be refused as he felt it was contrary to Policies EH2, H2, OS2 and EH13. Councillor Cooper seconded the proposal and on being put to the vote the motion was passed on the Chair’s casting vote.
Refused for the following reasons:
1) The supporting information submitted with the application does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the LPA that there is a proven essential operational need for a residential caravan to be located on the land in the open countryside some distance from local services and facilities. It is considered that the conditional planning permission for a 'mess facility' under ref 18/03198/FUL can satisfy the animal husbandry needs of the agricultural unit. In light of the above the development is considered contrary to policy H2 and OS2 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.
2) By reason of the loss of roadside hedgerow planting in order to provide the requisite vision splay, the bell tents and shepherds hut together with the car parking associated with the Glamping use will appear as urbanising and alien features within the open countryside to the detriment of the rural character and appearance of the area. As such the development is considered contrary to policies OS2, EH2 and EH13 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.
22/00015/FUL - The Plough High Street, Finstock, Chipping Norton
James Nelson the Planning Officer introduced the application for a change of use of the land to extend an external dining area and siting of glamping pods together with associated works and landscaping.
Mr Peter Smith spoke on behalf of the applicant, a copy of his submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
Councillor Postan asked Mr Smith about additional noise to the neighbours and what measures would be put in to monitor noise on site. Mr Smith clarified the distance from the site to the nearest neighbours, where he felt the additional noise would be minimal, and advised that a noise management plan would be in place, with planner’s approval.
Mr Nelson confirmed that any issues with noise and disturbance would come under a noise management plan and screening by mature vegetation would help.
Mr Nelson continued with his presentation, concluding that officers’ recommendation was to approve the application with the conditions listed in the original report, plus delegated authority for planners to resolve outstanding drainage issues.
Councillor Graham raised that noise at this pub had been an issue before this application was submitted. He asked if engagement with the neighbours could be in place as soon as possible, so it could be agreed up front what level of noise was deemed reasonable, and what level would be deemed unacceptable. Councillor Graham was also concerned about light pollution, referred to suitable controls detailed in the report but he felt that the site was at a higher point and light would travel. He was also concerned about drainage issues as this area had flooded before on a number of occasions and asked if Thames Water had resolved this issue yet.
The Chairman reminded Councillors that planners were seeking delegated authority whilst drainage issues were being resolved, and that the lighting issue was dealt with within the report.
Mr Nelson clarified that the noise management plan needed to be signed off by planning authority.
Councillor Temple thought that noise levels would be raised in the garden dining area, but noted that some drinkers would be in a garden area.
Councillor Postan asked how the noise control would be monitored.
Mr Nelson confirmed that this would be managed in consultation with the Environment Regularity Services (ERS) Team. Stephanie Eldridge, Senior Planner in attendancereminded the meeting that noise control came under the remit of ERS who had the equipment, authority and experience. All ERS legislation would have to be complied with and this could be added as a condition.
Councillor Postan proposed that the application be accepted as per officers’ recommendation, Councillor Jackson seconded the proposal.
Councillor Cooper felt that a site visit may be helpful, especially to view the level where the tents would be sited and Councillor Graham agreed. The Chair highlighted that a site visit on a Thursday morning at 9:30am would not give the Councillors a true reflection of diners and an evening atmosphere.
Councillor Fenton thought the applicants had picked a good way to enhance the business. Councillor Saul had been swayed by the business case and was supportive of the application.
Councillor Beaney wanted clarity of the colours and materials used. Mr Nelson confirmed they would be working with the applicants to ensure certain timbers and colours would be used so they were not visible from the street.
Councillor Davies noted that five pods directly in a village seemed to be a lot. Stephanie Eldridge confirmed that if the use of the pods ceased, the land would need to be returned to its’ original use.
Councillor Postan’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Jackson, was put to the vote and carried subject to additional conditions.
Approved subject to the following conditions:.
a) If the pods are out of use for three months, they are to be removed and the land returned to its’ original use; and
b) Authority is delegated to the planning officers to resolve the outstanding drainage issues.