19/01123/FUL: land to rear of 167 Howard Street, Oxford, OX4 3BA
Site address: land to rear of 167 Howard St, Oxford, OX4 3BA
Proposal: Demolition of existing garages. Erection of 3no. single storey buildings to provide 2 x 1-bed dwellings and 1 x 2-bed dwelling (Use Class C3). Provision of amenity space, bin and cycle stores.
Reason at Committee: This application was called in by Councillors Tarver, Fry, Rowley, Clarkson, Kennedy, Curran and Munkonge due to concerns regarding overlooking, County Council safety concerns, design, access, flood risk and land ownership.
The West Area Planning Committee is recommended to:
1. approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and grant planning permission.
2. agree to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.
The Committee considered an application (19/01123/FUL) for planning permission for the demolition of existing garages; erection of 3no. single storey buildings to provide 2 x 1-bed dwellings and 1 x 2-bed dwelling (Use Class C3) and the provision of amenity space, bin and cycle stores.
The application was called in by Councillors Tarver, Fry, Rowley, Clarkson, Kennedy, Curran and Munkonge due to concerns regarding overlooking, County safety concerns, design, access flood risk and land ownership.
The Planning Officer presented the report and briefed the Committee on the issues raised in two late representations which had been submitted by local residents. The Planning Officer said that most of these points had been considered within the report but offered the following supplementary comments:
Land ownership: One of the late representations stated that no consideration had been paid to land ownership or restrictive covenants within the report on the application. The Planning Officer confirmed that land ownership is not a material planning consideration and therefore does not form part of the consideration of the application. Notwithstanding this, with regard to procedure, it transpired that the owner of the site had not served notice of the application on the individual owners of the property and therefore there was a requirement for this notice to be served. If the application was to be approved, the decision notice would not be issued until 21 days had passed from the notices being served. The recommendation was therefore amended accordingly.
Thames Valley Police: Thames Valley Police had raised some concerns with the scheme and offered suggested improvements but they raised no objection to the application subject to a condition requiring that the development achieve a secured by design accreditation’. The suggested condition will therefore be included on any approval. Thames Valley Police also suggested that the gate to the site should be retained. This request would be contrary to policy HP9 of the Sites and Housing Plan which seeks to resist gated communities and therefore would not be appropriate. Given this, a condition will be added to ensure that the entrance gate is removed as part of the proposal.
Rooflights and Privacy: the roof lights are proposed to be high level .The cills of the roof lights will be located 2.7m above the finished floor level and therefore they will be at such a height that occupiers are unlikely to be able to look out on to the private amenity space of neighbouring properties. Given the angle of the roof any views from the rooflights would be angled and not direct. It is not uncommon for these types of relationships given that rooflights can usually be installed under permitted development.
Table of planning policies: A number of policies were referenced within the report but were not detailed within the table at paragraph 8.1. The Planning Officer confirmed that where the policy was not named directly the relevant issue had been considered as part of the drafting of the report.
Biodiversity: The biodiversity officer had reviewed the comments raised regarding the biodiversity appraisal submitted with the application and was satisfied that the report was accurate and proportionate for the type of application, and that the condition proposed would allow for enhancements to be achieved on the site.
Energy Efficiency: Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy requires applications to demonstrate how sustainable design and construction methods will be incorporated. The application details that energy efficiencies have been considered as part of the submission in section 5 of the Design & Access statement. The proposal seeks to provide good levels of insulation in line with part L of the building regulations and proposes low energy type fittings throughout the development. In addition the buildings’ heating systems will incorporate management and energy efficiency systems and officers are satisfied with the details submitted for a scheme of 3 dwellings.
The Planning Officer confirmed that condition 11 would be amended on any approval to require a boundary to the front of the dwellings in the form of a low fence or wall to be kept in perpetuity in order to prevent parking within the site.
Dominic Woodfield, local resident, spoke against the application.
Huw Mellor, agent, spoke in favour of the application.
The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application.
The Committee was satisfied that this was an acceptable development which made good use of a poor quality, previously developed site in a city with a recognised housing shortage.
In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.
After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application subject to the following additional and amended conditions:
· a condition requiring the development to achieve ‘secured by design accreditation’.;
· a condition requiring the removal of the gate to the site in compliance with policy HP9;
· an amendment to Condition 11 to require a front boundary to the dwellings in perpetuity.
The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:
1. approve application 19/01123/FUL subject to 2(i) below for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 15 required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and the 2 additional conditions and the amendment to condition 11 as detailed above; and grant planning permission; and
2. delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:
i. i. consider and deal with any new material planning considerations that may be raised through the consultation period of 21 days as a result of the notice of the application being served on the owners of the application site including deciding whether it is necessary to refer the application back to the committee prior to issuing the permission;
ii. finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and
iii. issue the planning permission.
- 167 Howard Street - 19-01123-FUL, item 13. PDF 357 KB
- Appendix 1 Howard Street 19-01123-FUL, item 13. PDF 86 KB
- Presentation 167 Howard Street 19-01123-FUL, item 13. PDF 1 MB