Skip to main content

Agenda item

Application for Development - 22/03415/FUL - The Driving Centre, Enstone Airfield OX7 4DR

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:

Phil Shaw, Business Manager (Development Management), introduced the application, for the construction of buildings for automotive museum with corporate hospitality (club space, accommodation for members, food and beverage and retail); museum exhibition building; workshops; store; energy centre; construction of supporting holiday homes; amenity facilities; formation of car exercise road; formation of landscaped grounds; associated site services and other works (as amended).

Phil Shaw drew the Committee’s attention to the additional representations circulated prior of the meeting, and summarised the main points of the additional subsequent representations made to the committee. Phil Shaw presented a large scale presentation relating to the application. Phil Shaw reminded the committee prior to the presentation what was previously approved when the outline application was considered.

Alex Postan, Roger Tyers, Michael Ergatoudis, Kieran Hedigan and Andrew Eaton spoke in favour of the application. Copies of the speeches are attached to the original copy of the minutes.

Councillor Paul North (Sandford St. Martin Parish Council), Councillor Philip Shaw (Enstone Parish Council), Emily Daley, Hamish Laing, and Frederick Hill spoke in objection to the application. Copies of the speeches are attached to the original copy of the minutes.

The Chair read out a pre-submitted statement from Westcote Barton Parish Council in support of the application. A copy of the speech is attached to the original copy of the minutes

John Mitchinson also spoke relating to the application, but was keen to stress that his statement, a copy of which is attached to the original copy of the minutes, was neither in support nor objection to the application.

Phil Shaw continued with the presentation which clarified the following points:

  • Representations received regarding the application;
  • Light pollution from the site;
  • Economic benefits of the site and area;
  • Traffic and highways impacts;
  • Non-Road traffic provisions;
  • Landscape and visual impacts;
  • Building heights;
  • Accommodation provisions;
  • Visitor attractions;
  • Biodiversity implications;
  • Noise mitigation;
  • History of the site;
  • Environmental impacts;
  • Section106 Agreements;
  • Security arrangements;
  • Impacts on Enstone Airfield;
  • Sustainability;
  • Alignment with the Local Plan;
  • Accessibility to the site.

Phil Shaw guided the Committee through the 2 stage planning balance exercise as applied to the assessment of the impact of the scheme on the heritage assets in the vicinity of the site

Phil Shaw concluded that the planning officer’s recommendations were for conditional approval, subject to the applicant first entering into a legal agreement, and to the resolution of AQMA & ecology matters as per the verbal updates that had arrived just before the meeting.

The Chair invited the Committee to discuss the application, which raised the following points:

  • Access to the site by means of non-road transport means;
  • Employment opportunities arising from the site;
  • Car parking at the site for employees;
  • Through routes in proximity to the site;
  • S106 implications;
  • Environmental implications;
  • Speed of traffic in the vicinity of the site;
  • Use of the site track for racing or procession of vehicles;
  • Provision of Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs);
  • Expansion limitation;
  • Management of excess surface water and sewage treatment with Thames Water;
  • Membership quantities of the site and motor club;
  • Potential community membership for local residents;
  • Sizing of accommodation units on the site;
  • Glare of windows from sunlight and brightness in summer months;
  • Potential disposal of subsequently identified unexploded ordinances;
  • Impact of affordable housing in the area;
  • Height of buildings compared to previous application;
  • Assessments of travel impacts on local area;
  • Electronic Vehicle (EV) charging provisions within site car parks.

Councillor Andrew Beaney proposed a deferral of the application to allow for more time to examine the application and its full detail. This was seconded by Councillor Alex Wilson.

In debate, the work of the officers was praised, and attention paid to were vast benefits of the application, such as tourism and benefit to the local economy. Deferral was not considered appropriate due to a perceived high level of detail being in front of the committee during the meeting, and there would be no benefit of delaying the application, thus risking non-determination. It was noted that finer details would need to be considered, and that sufficient time was available during the negotiations on the 106 agreement, and that deferral would not help such matters in order to reach a resolution.

The proposed deferral was put to a vote. There were 2 votes in favour, 17 against and 2 abstentions.

The deferral was defeated.

Councillor Ted Fenton proposed that the application be approved conditionally, in line with officer’s recommendations, subject to the final wording of the conditions as stated within the report being agreed to address some of the detailed points raised by Cllr Beaney. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Langridge and was put to a vote.

There were 18 votes in favour, 3 votes against and Nil abstentions. The vote carried.

Committee Resolved to:

  1. Conditionally approve the application in line with officer recommendations, subject to the conditions for approval as stated within the report being finalised by officers following discussion with Cllrs Poskitt, Beaney and Goodwin.

Councillors Beaney, Wilson and Prosser requested that their votes “against” were put on record. This was subsequently fulfilled by Democratic Services.

 

The Chair then adjourned the meeting for a 5 minute comfort break and to allow the public participants to leave the Council Chamber. The Meeting was adjourned at 12.44pm, and reconvened at 12.49pm.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages