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 Number |
Application Number |
Address |
Officer |
|
13-45 |
21/02627/OUT |
Land Of The West Side Of Wroslyn Road Freeland Witney
|
Joan Desmond
|
|
46-58 |
21/03290/FUL |
St James Close Churchfields Stonesfield Witney OX29 8PP
|
James Nelson
|
|
59-67 |
22/00524/HHD |
High Ridge 46 High Street Milton Under Wychwood Chipping Norton OX7 6LE
|
Alex Clarke
|
|
68-78 |
22/00571/FUL |
49 Lower End Leafield Witney OX29 9QH
|
James Nelson
|
|
79-85 |
22/00722/HHD |
10 Blackberry Way Woodstock OX20 1FQ
|
Sarah Hegerty
|
Minutes:
21/02627/OUT Land Of The West Side Of Wroslyn Road, Freeland
The Senior Planning Officer Joan Desmond introduced the application for outline planning for the erection of a retirement community of up to 160 extra care units (C2 use class), with associated communal facilities and open space, with access from Wroslyn Road, (all matters reserved except access) and retention of veterinary practice in the coach house.
The following addressed the Committee:
Councillor Al-Yousuf spoke against the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
Councillor Arciszewska spoke against the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
Dawn Brodie of Savills spoke in support of the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of the minutes.
Amy Jackson spoke as an objector against the application.
Councillor Al-Yousuf and Councillor Arciszewska left the Council Chambers.
Joan Desmond continued with her presentation, referring members to the late representations report, and concluding that planners were recommending refusal of the application, in accordance with the local plan.
Councillor Temple agreed with officers recommendations, adding we need to follow the rules laid out in the local plan, there is no affordable housing planned, and Thames Water comments are concerning.
Councillor Jackson also agreed with officers recommendations, although he did agree there was a need for this particular type of accommodation, and thought the facilities were grand, but had to note the Parish Councils comments were well thought out.
The extra traffic, clinical demands and sewage were all issues that could not be ignored. Councillor Saul thought the application was contrary to provisions of the local plan, and also supported officers recommendations. This was echoed by Councillor Haine who thought officers reports were spot on. Councillor Beaney agreed too.
Councillor Temple proposed refusal as per officers recommendation, this was seconded by Councillor Jackson. The proposal was put to the vote which was unanimous, and therefore
Resolved the application was refused as per officers recommendation in the original report. .
The Chair announced that the second application 21/03290/FUL will be heard last as there were no speakers registered, allowing the public to leave if they wished after the applications with speakers.
22/00524/HHD - High Ridge, 46 High Street, Milton Under Wychwood,
Chipping Norton
The planning officer Alex Clarke introduced the planning application to repair and rebuild an outbuilding to provide a home working and recreational space (amended plans).
Natasha Early addressed the committee in support of the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of these minutes.
Charles Hugill addressed the committee as an objector to the application, a copy of the submission is attached to the original copy of these minutes.
The planning officer continued with the presentation, stating that the Air Bed and Breakfast side of the business was not part of this application and that members need to ensure that the application before them today were for minor changes, which would improve the visual look of the site.
Following the planners presentation the Councillors entered into a discussion about the site overlooking neighbours and were concerned about parking in the area. Councillor Cahill had tried to visit the site but could not find any parking, and Councillor Beaney was concerned about additional noise. Councillor Haine was familiar with the site and the history, he then moved a motion to refuse the application. Councillor Temple was also concerned and proposed a site visit, this was seconded by Councillor Saul.
It was put to the vote where there were 9 votes in favour of a site visit and 3 abstentions, therefore the application was
Deferred for a site visit, which was set for Thursday 23 June 2022, time to be confirmed.
22/00571/FUL - 49 Lower End, Leafield, Witney
The planning officer James Nelson introduced the application for alterations to existing property, to include erection of single storey front extension and two storey and first floor rear extensions. Construction of a new dwelling together with associated works and provision of new vehicular accesses to serve existing and new houses.
Mr David Law spoke in support of the application.
The planning officer continued with the presentation, and summarising that the site was in a poor state of repair and that planners recommended approval with conditions as laid out in the original report.
Councillor Haine thought that the planners report was absolutely right and proposed the application to be approved, this was seconded by Councillor Jackson. Councillor Temple agreed and Councillor Beaney noted condition 3 was apt and acceptable.
The application was put to the vote, which was unanimously carried and therefore
Approved as per officers recommendations in the original report.
22/00722/HHD- 10 Blackberry Way, Woodstock
The planning officer Sarah Hegerty introduced the application for the erection of a first floor side extension above existing garage and parking space and single storey rear extension.
Vanessa Phillipson addressed the committee in objection to the application.
The planning officer continued with the presentation and drew Councillors attention to the late representation report, concluding that planners were recommending approval.
Councillor Beaney and Councillor Ashton asked the planner to clearly define which dwellings were the neighbours, number 9 and number 10. The planning officer was able to present a slide that showed the plan of the plot and pointed out the neighbours dwellings.
Councillor Haine proposed a site visit, this was seconded by the Chair, Councillor Poskitt. The proposal was duly put to the vote and was unanimous that the application be
Deferred for a site visit, which was set for 23 June 2022, time to be confirmed.
The Chair then thanked the members of the public for attending and gave them the opportunity to leave if they wished to do so. The Chair then directed the planners to go back to the second application 21/03290/FUL.
21/03290/FUL - St James Close, Churchfields, Stonesfield, Witney.
The planning officer James Nelson introduced the application for the erection of a replacement two storey dwelling with detached outbuilding along with the formation of a new access and associated landscaping works to include the replacement of existing front stone boundary wall.
The planning officer informed the committee that since the agenda had been published the Parish Council had withdrawn their objection with the amended plans submitted. He then concluded that the planning officers were recommending approval of the application.
Councillor Temple noted that now the Parish Council had no objections he would now propose that the application be approved as per officers recommendation in the original report. Councillor Saul seconded the proposal.
Councillor Beaney referred to condition 3 in the report and asked if the samples could be displayed on site clearly so residents close by could see what materials would be used. The planning officer confirmed that the condition could be updated to include the councillors suggestion.
The application was then put to the vote and carried unanimously, therefore it was
Approved subject to an addition to proposed Condition 3 requiring that a sample panel is erected on site during construction.
Supporting documents:
PDF 581 KB