Agenda item
26/00374/FUL 5A West End Witney
Minutes:
Clare Anscombe, Senior Planner, presented the application for the demolition of a timber workshop and the erection of a replacement building comprising of 2x one-bedroom apartments and associated works.
The Senior Planner brought Members attention to the Additional Representations report which related to a letter submitted the previous week. A minor correction was also noted to the refusal reasons: the reference to the Environment Agency's standing advice should be updated from 2024 to 2026.
The application was before the Sub-Committee because the officer’s recommendation differed from the views of the Town Council and a local ward member had concerns regarding the impact on the neighbouring properties in particular flood risk, loss of light and the enclosing effect. The local ward member had subsequently called in the application.
The Senior Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:
- The site was located at the junction of West End and Bridge Street, just behind the old Court Public House. The building was being used as a timber workshop and would be replaced with 2 one bed apartments and associated works. The access to the site would be from the corner of Bridge street and West end.
- The site wass located partly within areas at risk of flooding. According to the Environment Agency’s latest flood map planning data. A small corner of the application site falls within Flood Zone 3, while part of the access route from Bridge Street was within Flood Zone 2. The site also benefits from an alternative access from West End to the north, which is located within Flood Zone 1.
- The site was within the Witney and Cogges conservation areas and was surrounded by other residential properties, the Senior Planner explained the heights of the roof in relation to neighbouring properties. The location of windows and the floor space which fell just below the national requirements.
- The Council were unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), however the benefits of the scheme did not outweigh the harms when assessed against the NPPF.
- The site was partially within flood zones 2 and 3. National planning policy required a Sequential Test to be undertaken in such circumstances. While the NPPF allowed an exemption where a flood risk assessment showed no built development would be at risk from flooding now or in the future, planning practice guidance and Environment Agency standing advice stated that this exemption did not apply to flooding sources other than surface water. There was a history of flooding in properties including 5A West End.
- The Environment Agency’s (EA) Flood Map for Planning had recently been updated and was used within the report as a legitimate source of evidence when assessing flood risk. Any challenge to the accuracy of the EA’s mapping should be taken up directly with the EA.
- There was concern that the proposal would have a negative impact on living conditions of the neighbouring properties as well as the future occupants. It would cause excessive enclosure for residents of number 7 and have an overbearing effect on the residents of number 5E.
The officer acknowledged the benefits of the scheme including 2 one bed apartments, removal of a derelict workshop, redevelopment of site generating employment opportunities. The benefits were considered to be significantly outweighed by the adverse impact and the application was recommended for refusal.
Guy Plowman spoke in objection to the application and raised the following points: As a resident the proposed property would have a significant impact on his home and garden, as his property was already enclosed on three sides. Mr Plowman also raised concerns regarding flooding and gave an example of the basement of his property and the property owned by the applicant flooded in 2020.
Debbie Jones, agent for the applicant raised the following points: the two proposed properties would contribute to the housing delivery on previously developed brownfield land. The proposed properties would be situated close to the town centre within walking distance of employment and services. There had been no statutory objections to the application, the orientation and internal layout of the existing buildings mean that the proposed development would not appear overbearing to neighbouring residents and the site was within flood zone 1 and a sequential test was not required.
Councillor Andrew Prosser spoke as ward member for West End and Witney and raised the following points: Councillor Prosser objected to the application due to concerns of flooding and overdevelopment by replacing a single-story barn with a two-storey building. Flood risk came from the River Windrush as well as risking ground water during periods of high-water levels. Councillor Prosser also gave a history of flooding within the area and for this reason the proposal would be unsuitable for this site.
The Chair invited the members of the sub-committee to debate the application. The following points were raised:
- The flood risk on the site when considering the history of flooding in the area, with more foundations being added to the site it could exacerbate the flood risk.
- The size of the properties being below the national requirements, with the second floor having minimal windows.
- The impact on the neighbouring residential properties with risk of loss of light.
Councillor Andrew Beaney proposed that the application be refused in line with the officer’s recommendations. Councillor Jack Treloar seconded the proposal and put to the vote.
Voting Record: For 11 Against 0 Abstention 0.
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Refuse the application in line with the officer’s recommendations.