Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/04163/FUL- The Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6SD

Summary

Erection of eight units of overnight accommodation and associated works at the Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6SD

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Cunningham

 

Recommendation:

PERMIT

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the report. The application was for the erection of eight units of overnight accommodation and associated works at the Feathered Nest Inn, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire, OX7 6S.

 

The public speakers were then invited to address the Committee.

 

Trevor Bigg, the Chair of Westcote Parish Meeting, addressed the Committee, raising objections to the application citing concerns over  the location of the accommodation, stating that a closer proximity to the nearby building would have been preferable to prevent increased light pollution and visibility from the village.

 

Victoria Taylor, an Objector addressed the Committee, raising objections over road traffic, and the Conservation Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

 

Neil Warner from JPPC, the agent for the application, addressed the application. They stated that the overarching purpose of the application was to ensure the financial sustainability of the pub business.

 

Councillor David Cunningham addressed the committee as the Ward Member and raised concerns on the lack of public benefit to the application, and the impact on the AONB and Conservation Area.

 

Members who had attended the Site Inspection Briefing commented on the application;

  • There were strong examples of local vernacular in the nearby architecture but the impact of the application did not seem to be as impactful as initially expected.
  • The new buildings would be partially screened by nearby vegetation.
  • It was useful to see and hear residents’ concerns.

 

Member Questions

 

There were various questions from Members, which the Case Officer and the Interim Development Management Manager responded to;

  • The conditions aimed to regiment parking spaces, but the management of these was down to the applicant to execute. The Case Officer added that the level of traffic was not expected to substantially increase from current levels.
  • The planning history of the site involved multiple past permissions, some of which included use by caravans. The Case Officer stated that each application should be considered on its own merits, and these would have been acceptable at the time.
  • Members asked if the new buildings were very far away from the principal pub building in order to make it easier to convert them into dwellings in the future. The Case Officer stated that they didn’t believe this to be the case as the accommodation units were intended to be serviced units and ancillary to the pub, but that the applicant could bring such a future application forward. If a future application was brought forward, it would need to be judged on its own merits.
  • The Case Officer stated that the application’s impact on the setting of the conservation area should be taken into consideration, but that the proposed was considered not to harm the heritage asset.
  • The Case Officer did not consider that there was any harm to dark skies.
  • The public benefit was discussed as per the Ward Member’s comments. The Case Officer stated that this would be a material planning consideration in the case of impact on a heritage asset, when harm was identified.

 

Member Comments

 

Members discussed the application, stating the following points;

  • The Case Officer had negotiated with the applicant to improve the proposal comparative to what had initially been applied for, with particular note to the reduced footprint of the application.
  • It was felt by some that the units would not be visible from the public right of way.
  • Businesses needed to be supported in being economically viable, but this needed to be balanced with the needs of the community, with some stating that the village would be harmed by the proposal.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed permitting the application, agreeing with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Coleman stated that no statutory consultees had objected and that he could not see a reason to refuse.

 

Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal.

 

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application.

 

Voting Record

 

7 For, 2 Against, 0 Abstentions, 2 Absent/Did not vote

 

For

Against

Abstain

Absent/Did not vote

Ray Brassington

Daryl Corps

 

Andrew Maclean

Patrick Coleman

David Fowles

 

Ian Watson

Dilys Neill

 

 

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

 

Julia Judd

 

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

 

 

After voting on the item, the Committee adjourned at 15.24, returning at 15.30.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages