Agenda item
26/01180/FUL 37 Wilkins Close Brize Norton
Minutes:
James Nelson, Principal Planner, presented the application on behalf of Chris Mitchell, Planner, for the erection of a detached outbuilding for the use of a beauty salon and relocation of an existing shed.
The Principal Planner explained that the application was before the Sub-Committee as the applicant was a spouse of an officer at West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC).
The Senior Planner gave an overview of the application and highlighted the following points:
- The application relates to a semi-detached property with a rear garden and an existing outbuilding. The proposal included a new outbuilding in the position of the existing shed which would be relocated to the southwest corner of the plot.
- The relocated shed would have a height of less than 2.5 metres. The proposed studio building was a small, flat-roofed structure with doors that opened onto the garden. It had a simple design and a modest footprint of just over 3 square metres, which made it comparable in scale to a typical garden shed.
- Parking provision consisted of two on-site parking spaces arranged in tandem, with additional visitor parking available nearby, although this was outside the applicant's control.
- There have been no objections from the neighbouring properties or the Parish Council. The main concern was noise, disturbance and visitor numbers and times to the property. Conditions had been included in the report for one visitor to the property at a time with a handover period between appointments.
- Officers proposed a stricter closing time than requested by the applicant, which required appointments to cease at 6.00pm rather than 7.00pm. This reflected the residential nature of the area and helped protect neighbours' amenity during the evening. Condition 3 proposed the following opening hours: 09.00-18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 – 13.00 Saturdays, closed Sundays and Bank Holidays.
- With the appointment times staggered and opening times proposed, onsite parking would be sufficient. There had been no objections from Oxfordshire County Council Highways. The recommendation was to approve the application.
The Chair invited the members of the sub-committee to debate the application. The following points were raised:
- Members asked if there was plumbing included in the application. Officers advised that the submitted floor plan was very simple and did not identify details of this nature. They explained that information relating to specific services or internal fittings would not normally be required as part of a planning application for a development of this scale and type, as such details are not generally material to the planning assessment.
- Members asked how enforceable the times of visitors attending appointments would be. The concern was whether the condition limiting visits to a single customer at a time could be effectively monitored and enforced in practice. Officers advised that conditions were enforceable through the Council's normal monitoring and enforcement processes. This could include investigating complaints from neighbours, reviewing records or logs, and observing evidence such as multiple vehicles attending the site at the same time. Officers also highlighted the size of the building itself which made it more unlikely that more than one visitor would be able to attend at any one time. The business would be operated by the resident of the property and prevented the possibility of a second practitioner working from the studio.
- Members asked for clarification on drainage provision. Officers advised that the site was not in an area of flood risk. The proposed site was on an already developed area and was replacing a shed, as a result, any additional surface water runoff was considered negligible and insufficient to justify a specific planning condition.
- Members asked if the applicant had not been a spouse of a WODC officer, would the application be before the sub-committee. The application was referred to committee because of the applicant's connection to a council officer, in line with the Council's procedures for maintaining transparency and avoiding any perception of bias. The planning merits of the proposal were assessed in the normal way, and the recommendation for approval was based solely on planning considerations.
Councillor David Jackson proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation. The was seconded by Councillor Steve Cosier and put to the vote.
Voting Record - For 11 Against 0 Abstentions 0
The Sub-Committee Resolved to:
- Approve the application in line with Officer’s recommendations.