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

9-17

23/013226/FUL

The Pump Depot, Field Assarts, Witney

Kelly Murray

18-23

23/01723/FUL

Burford House Hotel, 99 High Street, Burford

Kate Adler

24-28

23/01724/LBC

Burford House Hotel, 99 High Street, Burford

Kate Adler

 

 

Minutes:

23/013265/FUL The Pump Depot, Field Assarts, Witney.

Kelly Murray Principal Planner for Enforcement and Appeals introduced the application for the temporary change of use and operational development in association with business and storage operations (Retrospective).

Councillor Lynn Hughson, Asthall Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Councillor Hughson asked that the hush alarms for forklift trucks be arranged due to the hamlet being small and quiet.

Dominic Grace, local resident, spoke in objection to the application.

Councillor Rosie Pearson spoke in objection to the application.

Graham Soames spoke on behalf of the application. The Committee asked for clarification regarding the lighting outside of the barn area.  Mr Soames confirmed that the lighting was in the temporary site area and was only in use during the agreed times for staff safety.

The Committee asked for clarification on why the dates for the clearance of the site went beyond December 2023. The applicant, Andrew Coles, confirmed that the work converting the barn would be done in line with the planning that had been approved however the moving in of the equipment and clearing of the site could take longer than the set date, so that by asking for a deadline of April 2024 the applicant would have more time to complete the work.  

 

The Principal Planner continued with the presentation which clarified the following points;

·         The site was adjacent to a disused concrete barn which had planning permission for a material change of use to light industrial use.  A previous consent allowed cladding of the structure.

·         The site was close to residential dwellings and the noise created by the work on the conversion of the barn and the setting up of the temporary site was a major concern to residents.

·         The site was in an area of outstanding natural beauty AONB, the temporary structures were considered to cause visual harm and would not be permitted on a permanent basis under planning policies.

·         However, the visual harm would cease once the site was cleared at the end of the temporary consent period.

·         The temporary consent would permit light industrial (B1/E(g)) use and on this basis should not cause harm to the amenity of the nearby residential dwellings.  

·         The Environmental Health team have not made any objections to the application however they asked that a condition be imposed that required hush alarms be added to forklifts which would reduce disturbance.

·         The proposed hours would limit the noise and disturbance to local residents.

·         Other conditions were proposed to minimise harm.  

 

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

 

  • Idling vehicle engines would contribute to the noise on site and have an impact on the local residents.
  • Whether provision needed to be made for emergency access to the site outside the stipulated hours. The Principal Planner confirmed that this condition would usually only be enforced in the event of a material breach.
  • The time period given for the site clearance. The Committee debated whether to allow the temporary period to provide for all stages of site clearance or to strictly keep to the deadline laid out in the Officer’s report.
  • The provision of an environmental plan relating to the reinstatement of the land at the end of the consent period was discussed.
  • The provision of a contact number to allow residents to report any breaches of the conditions was suggested. Residents were encouraged to report any noise and disturbance that were in breach of the conditions.
  • Committee questioned whether there should be a limit on the size of larger vehicle such as lorries accessing the site. The Principal Planner stated that such a condition would not be justified in the circumstances, in particular given that County Highways had not objected to the application.
  • There was no construction management plan in relation to the barn conversion. The applicant had however changed the refuse company it used in order to minimise the number of lorries accessing the site.

 

It was agreed that authority would be delegated to Officers to amend /draft further conditions dealing with the hush alarms, idling vehicles and reinstatement of the site (now drafted and as set out below). Councillor Haine proposed that the application be approved as per the Officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by the Chair, Councillor Julian Cooper, was put to the vote 6 for and 3 against and was approved by the Committee.

 

Committee Resolved to;

 

1. The use hereby permitted is for a limited period being the period of 5 months from the date of this decision. The use shall be discontinued, all structures and hardstanding removed and the land restored to the condition of the adjoining land in agricultural use on or before the date which is 5 months from the date of this decision. 

 

REASON: This development would not be appropriate in this location on a permanent basis.

 

2. No items shall be stored on the site except within the structures authorised by this permission.

 

REASON: To protect the residential and visual amenities of the locality and to ensure there is no interference with the circulation and manoeuvring of vehicles on the site.

 

3. The temporary use hereby permitted shall take place only during the hours of

0830 - 17:30 on weekdays only.

 

REASON: In order to protect residential amenity.

 

4. All forklift trucks on the site shall use only “hush” type alarms when reversing.

 

REASON: In order to protect residential amenity.

 

5. No external lighting shall be put in place or operated on the site at any time, other than lighting the details of which have been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include location, height, type and direction of light sources and intensity of illumination. Any lighting which is so installed shall not thereafter be altered without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: To safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to protect residential

amenity.

 

6. Drivers of vehicles visiting the site shall be directed if waiting to switch off their engines.

 

REASON: To minimise the noise and fumes created by idling motor vehicle engines.

 

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the use permitted is for light industrial Class E(g) only (as set out in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended). No development shall be carried out other than that expressly authorised by this permission.

 

REASON: Control is needed on the site as further development is likely to be inappropriate due to the temporary nature of the permission, the unsustainable location, impact on neighbouring amenity, residential amenity and visual amenity within the AONB.

 

 

23/013226/FUL and 23/01724/LBC Burford House Hotel, 99 High Street, Burford.

Kelly Murray Principal Planner for Enforcement and Appeals introduced the applications for the retention and staining of front door (partially retrospective) 23/013226/FUL and for retention and staining of front door and alteration to internal partition wall (partially retrospective) 23/01724/LBC.

 

The Principal Planner continued with the presentation which clarified the following points;

 

  • The Officer’s report had a recommendation of retaining the wooden-framed front door (with staining) and removal of the internal wall.
  • The building was a grade II listed building and the applications were listed building consent and the planning permission.
  • The Committee was shown photos and the planning and enforcement history was explained.
  • There was an application in 2019 for removal of a part of a partition wall internally and for removal of the wooden-framed door and installation of an external glass door. The application was not implemented and had expired.
  • Consideration of the impact of the works on the character of the conservation area and on the character of the listed building.
  • The Conservation Officer considered that there would not be a detrimental impact on the exterior of the building or surrounding area from the staining of the door.

 

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

  • The Committee considered that retaining the existing door would be advantageous when heat loss was taken into consideration.
  • The dark stain on the door would be a practical solution.
  • The Committee acknowledged the change of ownership of the hotel and had an understanding of the situation and application.
  • It was thought by some members that the glass door proposed in the 2019 application would look out of place externally.

 

23/013226/FUL Burford House Hotel, 99 High Street, Burford.

Councillor Hugo Ashton proposed that the application be approved, in line with the Officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Haine, was put to the vote and was unanimous and was approved by the Committee.

Committee Resolved to:

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

 

 

 

23/01724/LBC Burford House Hotel, 99 High Street, Burford.

Councillor Hugo Ashton proposed that the application be approved, in line with the Officer’s recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Jeff Haine, was put to the vote and was unanimous and was approved by the Committee.

Committee Resolved to:

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

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages