Site address:           Bardwell Court, Bardwell Road, Oxford, OX2 6SX     

Proposal:                Partial demolition of existing building, alteration and extension to create a new link, rear extension and provision of bin and cycle stores. Removal of trees and landscaping.  (amended plans)                      

Recommendation:

The West Area Planning Committee is recommended to:

(a) Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of this report and grant planning permission

(b) Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

1. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.

The Chair took this item next.

The Committee considered an application (17/02109/FUL) for planning permission for the partial demolition of existing building, alteration and extension to create a new link, rear extension and provision of bin and cycle stores and the removal of trees and landscaping.

The application was brought back to West Area Planning Committee for determination following agreement by the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services.

The Planning Officer presented the report and advised the Committee that, following publication of the report, the City Council had received representation from Anthony Crean QC about how the development had been assessed. The specific concerns were that the planning officer report failed to apply correct weight to the harm when addressing the balance of harm caused to a designated heritage asset against the benefits. The second concern raised was that the report treated viability as a benefit.

The Planning Officer explained in detail the methodology and approach taken by planning officers in assessing the weight to attribute to the designated heritage assets,  being the Conservation Area and setting of listed buildings.  The Planning Officer confirmed that, although not explicitly stated in the report, officers had followed the approach set out in paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF. 

With regard to the issue of viability the Planning Officer said that officers did not consider that the viability of the site being improved made the development acceptable in isolation and referred the Committee to paragraphs 10.17, 10.18 and 10.21 of the report which detailed the wider benefits of the development. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the officer recommendation remained as stated in the published report: there is less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets but weighing that against the public benefits from the proposal the development would be acceptable.

Philip Allen and Anthony Crean spoke against the application.  Mr Crean presented his arguments regarding the planning officers’ assessment of harm to the designated heritage assets. In summary he said that he believed that the assessment overstated the benefit and understated the harm caused by the development.

The Committee discussion included, but was not limited to, the following points:

·       any further expansion of the approved roof terraces onto the flat roof areas adjacent would be restricted by Condition 15

·       The construction of roof terraces would not set a precedent for similar developments in the North Oxford Conservation Area; some balconies or roof terraces already existed; any future application would be judged on its own merits

·       although it was regrettable that the occupants of the top floor properties would not have access to the rear gardens or roof terraces it was felt that the improvements to the front elevation of the development outweighed those concerns

·       the parking issues raised by local residents during the consultation were noted and it was suggested that there might be some merit in undertaking a traffic survey in the area but that would be a matter for local residents to pursue with the Highways Authority

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it and were satisfied that planning officers had followed the requirements of paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF.

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

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

a.     Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 15 required planning conditions and 5 informatives set out in section 12 of this report and grant planning permission; and

b.    Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.