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 No.

Address

Planning Officer

13-36

23/00860/FUL

 

Land Formerly Known As The Square Church Enstone

James Nelson

37-45

23/01493/FUL

 

7 Hughes Close Charlbury

 

Emile Baldauf-Clark

 

 

 

Minutes:

23/00860/FUL Land Formerly Known as The Square, Church Enstone.

James Nelson, Planning Officer, introduced the application for the erection of a single dwelling. The Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the Additional Representation Report with no objections from the Council’s Legal Team regarding a minor amendment to wording of clause 4.2 in the Unilateral Undertaking. The Planner continued with the presentation and highlight the key points of the application as follows:

 

  • Tree Preservation Orders;
  • Listed buildings in the surrounding area;
  • The site is presently undeveloped;
  • Public rights of way highlighted;
  • Proposed site plan with access;
  • Elevations which included a dual pitched design;
  • The proposed use of Zinc and Solar Panels;

 

John Pritchard spoke in objection to the application.  The Chair invited questions of clarification from the Committee. Of which there were none.

 

Roger Burton spoke as the applicant for the application. The Chair invited questions of clarification from the Committee. Councillors asked for the following points to be clarified;

 

  • Current application being similar to the design of a house built in Stockport in 2018 built by the applicant;
  • When using materials to keep the design net zero carbon, timber would be used to keep the building’s character with those in the surrounding area;
  • Materials used would be from a renewable resource;

 

The Planning Officer continued with the presentation which clarified the following points.

 

  • Brought Members attention to Policies OS2, H2 and H5 in the Local Plan and paragraph 11D of the NPPF. Members were to consider these policies when deciding on the application;
  • Proposed materials to be used including timber cladding, zinc and solar panels would give the building a contemporary look;
  • Potential impact on surrounding areas, dwellings and heritage assets. Due to the location of the site being set back from the road it would result in a neutral impact on the appearance of the area;
  • The site would provide ecological enhancements;
  • The dwelling would be self-custom built unit as secured agreed by legal agreement;

 

The Chair invited the Committee to discuss the application and the following points were raised:

 

  • The materials used were sustainable and renewable and were in keeping with the demands of changing environmental factors;
  • Retention of trees under the Tree Preservation Order;
  • The site was set back and had greenery surrounding it however was not in keeping with the local character of other dwellings within the local village;
  • Supportive of passive housing and fitted  quota for self builds;
  • Design in conflict with Local Plan Policies OS2, H2 and H5.
  • Design not in keeping with the local character of the village, especially the proposed materials to be used. Limestone not considered as a potential material for the design and build.

 

Councillor Haine proposed that the application be refused in line against the Officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Beaney and was put to the vote. There were 6 votes for and 4 against with 1 abstention and the application was therefore refused by the Committee.

 

Councillor Poskitt abstained from the vote.

 

Committee Resolved to:

 

1.    Refuse the application on the following grounds / in line with the following policies; 

 

1.1The proposed dwelling, by reason of its design, form and use of materials, would not respect the architectural and historic character of the locality and would appear as an incongruous addition in this location to the detriment of visual amenities of the area. The proposal would also result in ‘less than substantial’ harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Tulip Cottage, The Manor House, and Rose Cottage, that is not outweighed by the public benefits arising from the scheme. Therefore, the proposal does not accord with West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 Polices OS2, OS4, EH11 and EH13 as well as the guidance contained in the NPPF 2021 and Sections 4 and 11 of the West Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016.

 

1.2The proposed location of the dwelling within the ‘small village’ of Church Enstone would result in the provision of a unit of residential development in an unsustainable location in conflict with housing locational strategy of West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 Policies OS2 and H2. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OS2, H2 and H5 of the adopted West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.

 

 

23/01493/FUL 7 Hughes Close, Charlbury.

 

Councillor Colin Dingwall declared an interest as the application was in his son’s name and confirmed he would not be present for the hearing of the application. Councillor Dingwall left the Committee Room 1 at 2.45pm.

 

Emile Baldauf-Clark, Planning Officer, introduced the application for erection of detached dwelling and widening of existing dropped kerb, with amended plans.

Within the presentation the Planning Officer clarified the following points:

 

·         The new access would be from Sturt Close;

·         Currently the site is not in use and over grown;

·         The site is in the AONB and the Charlbury Conservation Area. There would be no impact on the AONB;

·         The garden has been separated from 7 Hughes Close;

·         The dwelling would be a brick build with a slate roof;

·         There had been a previously approved application but this had been amended;

·         The property was in keeping with the design and scale of other properties in the area;

·         The dwelling was suitable for the site as the land was previously developed;

·         Windows that overlook surrounding properties would have obscured glazing by condition;

 

Councillor Temple declared for the purpose of transparency, his that Aunts live in the same street as the application proposed.

 

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

 

·         Noted comments from Charlbury Town Council who did not object to the application;

·         No objections from Highways or neighbours;

·         Could have improved sustainability by including solar panels or heat pump;

·         Clarification over obscured glazing and fencing. The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no concerns over fencing and there had been an amendment from the previous application which had resulted in request for obscured glazing to be a condition;

 

The Chair proposed that the application be approved in line with the Officer’s recommendations.  This was seconded by Councillor Temple, was put to the vote and unanimously approved by the Committee.

 

Committee Resolved to;

 

1.    Approve the application in line with the Officer’s recommendations.

 

Councillor Dingwall returned to the meeting in Committee Room 1 at 3pm.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages