Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/00596/S73 North Leigh Football Club, Eynsham Park, North Leigh.

Minutes:

James Nelson, Principal Planner, introduced the application for a variation of condition 1 of permission to extend the use of the temporary car park on the existing football pitch for a further 12 months until 31st March 2025.

The Principal Planner’s presentation to the Sub-Committee drew attention to the nature of the temporary car park, and stated that even with the extended timeline, officers were of the opinion that the proposal would not give rise to any adverse impacts in regard to neighbouring amenity. The car park was to be a sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties in which the effects of comings and goings would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Ray Plowman addressed the Sub-Committee in objection to the application.

Keith Chichester addressed the Sub-Committee as the agent to the applicant.

The Planning Officer continued with their presentation which clarified the following points:

  • The use of the temporary car park hereby permitted would cease on 31 March 2025. Within 3 months of removal of the temporary car park, the playing field was to be reinstated as per the White Horse Contractor's report dated 1 February 2024. This would ensure that the use was only justified by the special and temporary need for the development;
  • The temporary car park permitted would only be used by members of staff employed at Estelle Manor, which would ensure a safe and adequate parking provision;
  • Officers had carefully considered the residential amenity concerns that would arise from a development and had concluded that there were minimal concerns which were considered acceptable in terms of residential amenity;
  • Officers noted that there had been third party objection comments noting the unsafe access. However, OCC Highways had been fully consulted on the application, and stated that the application was considered acceptable in the first instance. It was considered that the intensified use would not warrant a detrimental harm to highway safety whilst also considering its initial use of a football club.

 

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

  • Members enquired how the additional condition on page 28 of the officer’s report regarding using the car park by staff, would be enforced and how officers would know if it was indeed hotel staff only using the car park. The Principal Planner explained if it was deemed necessary, enforcement action could be taken;
  • Members queried the reinstatement of time limits related to the sports pitches. The Principal Planner confirmed there was a report referred to in section 5.9 of the officer’s report relating to an agreement made by Sport England on a temporary basis;
  • Members asked how assurances could be given that the application was not extended in future – The Principal Planner suggested that an informative could be placed on the decision;
  • Members queried a past application, questioning would the application still have been approved if a larger number of spaces would have been requested at the time. The Principal Planner explained that a past application may have been considered as a Section 73 application, and could not give a definitive answer. The current plan had not changed, only the specified timeframe;
  • Members enquired when the site had last been visited. The Principal Planner confirmed that the site had last been visited in March 2024. Members requested that Officers revisit the site, to clarify the current position and to map the situation to be used as a benchmark for referencing in future. Officers confirmed that a check of the site would be carried out before the permission was issued;
  • Members questioned whether the current parking provisions meant that there was one less football pitch in use. The Principal Planner explained that the sports pitch would be reinstated as soon as possible, and confirmed the current state of the car park was not currently having an adverse effect on local football matches;
  • Members queried why there was not a travel plan in place for the site. The Principal Planner Officer suggested a travel plan was an ongoing process and that it was a separate issue included in the original application for the consent to the wider works of the site, as opposed to a car park. A new travel plan was being developed for the wider works to the site.

 

Councillor Andy Goodwin proposed that the application be approved, in line with Officer recommendations. This was seconded by Councillor Michele Mead and was put to a vote. There were 12 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 1 abstention. The vote was carried.

The Sub-Committee Resolved to:

  1. Approve the application in line with Officer recommendations.