Site address:                       40 St Thomas Street, Oxford, OX1 1JP

Proposal:                             Demolition of existing building. Erection of three storey building plus basement to provide 8 x 1-bed flats and 1 x 2-bed flats (Use Class C3).

Officer recommendation:

West Area Planning Committee is recommended to refuse the application for the reasons stated in the report.

The Committee considered a report detailing an application (17/00858/FUL) for planning permission for the demolition of existing building. Erection of three storey building plus basement to provide 9 x 1-bed flats and 1 x 2-bed flats (Use Class C3).

The Planning Officer presented the report. He corrected an error on the agenda which referred to 8 x 1-bed flats when in fact there were 9 flats. He also informed the Committee that following further consideration of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, which raised concerns over the darkness of the amenity space due to the tree canopy, officers were of the opinion that this strengthened the case for refusal.

Neil Warner (agent) spoke in favour of the application and indicated some potential changes to the application which would mitigate the concerns about the quality of the amenity space and gave an assurance that the nursery facility would be re-provided. He confirmed that the applicant was not prepared to provide a financial contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.

In reaching their decision, the Committee considered the officer’s report, presentation and the views and information provided by the public speaker.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

Decision

The Committee resolved to refuse application (17/00858/FUL) for the following reasons as set out in the report:

1.    The proposed development, by virtue of its prominent siting, its increase in visual mass and its radically different external appearance that fails to adequately consider the context of the surrounding area would represent an alien and visually jarring addition to the streetscene as well as harm the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings (and in particular, the Church of St Thomas the Martyr and Coombe House). The development also fails to provide any landscaping that would soften the appearance of the development or contribute positively to the overall appearance of the site. As a result the development is contrary to Policies CP1, CP8, CP11 and HE3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016.

2.    The application seeks the development of more than three dwellings; as a result a financial contribution is required towards the provision of affordable housing as set out in Policy HP4 of the Sites and Housing Plan (2013). The applicant has indicated that they are not willing to provide a financial contribution. The development also fails to provide any on-site provision of affordable housing and no evidence has been provided to indicate that on-site provision or a financial contribution towards affordable housing would make the scheme unviable. As a result, the development is contrary to Policy HP4 of the Sites and Housing Plan (2013) and Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy (2011).

3.    The proposed shared outdoor amenity space that is proposed for the occupiers of some of the flats would be unacceptable for the number of flats it would serve and would provide a cramped and largely overlooked area that would have a very inconvenient and indirect access from the majority of dwellings in the building. As a result, the proposed development fails to provide acceptable provision of outdoor amenity space as required by Policy CP10 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 and Policy HP13 of the Sites and Housing Plan (2013).

4.    The existing building is in use as a nursery which is considered to be a community facility for the purposes of Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy (2011). Despite the recent granting of planning permission 16/03318/FUL that planning permission has not been implemented and the site lies outside of the application site. As a result there is insufficient confidence that the facility would be re-provided and in the absence of a legal agreement there is no opportunity to ensure that the replacement nursery could be required to be re-provided. As a result, the proposed development would result in a loss of a nursery and there is insufficient information to show that an alternative facility exists within equally accessible distance by walking, cycling and public transport. The development is contrary to Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy (2011).