Two one-bedroom apartments at 5A West End, Witney

What was proposed

The application sought to demolish a timber workshop and build two one-bedroom apartments with associated works.

“Application Details: Demolition of a timber workshop and erection of a replacement building comprising 2 x 1-bedroom apartments and associated works.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a single-storey workshop in a conservation area, near listed buildings, with parts in flood-risk areas.

“The application site relates to an existing, single-storey timber workshop located in the Witney and Cogges Conservation Area with pedestrian access from Bridge Street.”

“The site is situated within close proximity of a number of listed buildings, such as Number 5/5a West End and Number 1-3 West End. The south-western corner of the site lies in Flood Zone 2. To the north-west is Number 9a West End. The Old Court Hotel and car park is to the south and to the north-east is Number 7 West End. Numbers 5 West End are to the east and 5d/e are to the south- east.”

Officer report

Earlier application

A previous application for two apartments was refused in January 2025 because of flood-risk evidence, amenity, design and biodiversity concerns.

“The application is a resubmission of application reference 24/02592/FUL, which was refused in January 2025. The application is before members because the Planning Officer's view is clearly contrary to the Town Councils. In addition, the application has been called-in by a local member for determination due to concerns about impact on other properties from flooding, and loss of light and enclosure to neighbouring properties.”

“The application was refused on the grounds that no Flood Risk Sequential Test had been submitted as part of the application and that no adequate evidence had been submitted to show that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because no sequential flood-risk test was submitted and the development would harm existing and future residents’ amenity.

“The application site and proposed building is identified by the Environment Agency as being partly within flood zone 2. No Flood Risk Sequential Test was submitted as part of the application. As such inadequate evidence has been submitted to show that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.”

“The adverse impacts of the proposed development, including the harm to the amenity of existing residents and future users of the development resulting from poor quality design, and the adverse impacts from failing to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The town council and several technical consultees raised no objection, subject to conditions or advice on drainage, biodiversity, contamination and construction hours.

“Env Health Contamination Given the proposed residential development please consider adding the following condition to any grant of permission as a precaution: 1. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority.”

“Env Health Noise And Amenity No objection, subject to a condition restricting construction hours to safeguard the amenity of residents.”

Officer report

Local objections

Residents objected over ecology, flooding, neighbourliness, overdevelopment, effects on a neighbour, parking, highway safety, character and living conditions.

“Objection comments have been received from local residents. Full details can be found on the online case file. In summary, the following concerns have been raised:”

“Impact on ecology • Increased danger of flooding • Neighbourliness • Overdevelopment • Harm to residential amenity of No. 7 • Parking and highways safety • Harm to character of the area contrary to policies OS4 and H6 • Harm to living conditions of existing residents…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A resident spoke against the proposal, the applicant’s agent spoke in support, and the ward member spoke against it.

Members’ debate

Members discussed flooding and its history, possible increased risk, undersized apartments, limited windows and effects on neighbouring light.

“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.”

Minutes