Site Address: 36 38 40 London Road And 2 Latimer Road, Headington

Proposal: Demolition of residential houses at 36, 38 and 40 London Road and 2 Latimer Road. Erection of 167 student study rooms and ancillary facilities on 4 and 5 levels plus basement, together with 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed maisonettes. Provision of 4 car parking spaces, 88 cycle parking spaces, landscaped areas and ancillary works. (Amended description, amended plans and additional information)

Officer recommendation: to approve the application subject to the following conditions:

1.     Development begun within time limit.

2.     Develop in accordance with approved plans.

3.     Samples.

4.     Tree Protection Plan.

5.     Arboricultural Method Statement.

6.     Utilities and Services Plan.

7.     Hard Surfaces Plans (sections).

8.     Landscape plan.

9.     Landscape plan completion.

10.  Landscape Management Plan.

11.  Travel plans.

12.  Students no cars.

13.  Construction Travel Plan.

14.  Strategy for arrivals and departures.

15.  Bin and bike stores.

16.  Car/cycle parking provision before use.

17.  Variation of Road Traffic Order.

18.  Bio-diversity enhancement.

Legal Agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Affordable housing contributions are required in two respects in relation to this proposal:

·           Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy and Policy HP6 of the Sites and Housing Plan, supported by the Affordable Housing and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which describe the circumstances under which contributions to affordable housing are required from student accommodation. The amount of contribution will be calculated in accordance with Appendix 4 of the Sites and Housing Plan, that is, £140 per m² internal residential floorspace; and,

·           Policy HP4 of the Sites and Housing Plan, which requires a financial contribution from sites providing between 4 and 9 dwellings towards the provision of affordable housing elsewhere in the City. The amount of contribution will be calculated in accordance with Appendix 2 of the Sites and Housing Plan, that is, 15% of the total sale value of the properties to be built.

The applicant has made an offer in line with those policies which will be of the order of some £573,000 and £285,000 respectively (index linked) which will be secured via a S106 planning agreement in the event that this application is approved.

A legal agreement is also required to secure Travel Plan monitoring fees of £1,240.

The Committee considered an application for planning permission for the demolition of residential houses at 36, 38 and 40 London Road and 2 Latimer Road; erection of 167 student study rooms and ancillary facilities on 4 and 5 levels plus basement, together with 2 x 2-bed and 2 x 3-bed maisonettes; and provision of 4 car parking spaces, 88 cycle parking spaces, landscaped areas and ancillary works on a site at 36, 38, 40 London Road and 2 Latimer Road, Headington.

The planning officer corrected the address in paragraph 7 to ‘The Brambles’ and confirmed that comments received after the close of the formal consultation period could legitimately be taken into account. She proposed and the committee accepted a revised recommendation ‘to approve the application, subject to the conditions and a S106 Legal Agreement in the terms outlined below, and delegate to officers the completion of that legal agreement and the issuing of the notice of permission subject to these conditions’.

The Chair extended the speaking time on this application to ten minutes for each group.

Tony Joyce, Gareth Jones, Richard Couzens, Richard Burden and Jeremy Burgess, representing local residents, Headington School and St Luke’s, spoke objecting to the application.

Roger Smith and David Maddden, representing the applicants, and Sarah Reynolds, representing Unite students, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and the speakers to clarify a number of matters

The Committee considered that:

·         Trees should be a mixture of evergreen and deciduous species to ensure all year round screening.

·         parking spaces that are resident only should be preserved

·         Cycle storage should be increased and electric bike charging points provided; students should not be permitted to bring motorbikes.

·         The ward councillors should be consulted on construction travel plans given the busy location and multiple large building works planned

·         There were concerns about the overlooking Headington school playground and the council’s safeguarding officer should be consulted.

·         A parking barrier should be installed to prevent parking at Latimer Grange.

·         The ratio of disabled parking spaces to disabled rooms (1:9) was inadequate; and Brookes Disability Service should be consulted on likely numbers of disabled students needing parking space for vehicles/carers.

·         The siting of the development would exacerbate dangers for cyclists, pedestrians and motorists in this congested area. There was anecdotal evidence of a concerning number of accidents and near-misses in this area.

·         The height and mass of the building, on a raised site, were of concern, and was considered to be overbearing and adversely impact the adjacent lower buildings. Given this, the design was not considered of sufficient quality for this site.

·         The building did not sit well in this location and did not form appropriate relationships with nearby buildings. It did not preserve the privacy, outlook and amenity of these.

A motion to approve the application on the terms recommended; with additional conditions (to prevent overlooking by screening the western elevation and approval of any CCTV scheme) and informatives (provide parking barrier; electric bike charging point; and protection of residents parking) was lost on being put to the vote.

A motion to refuse the application for the reasons set out below was carried on being put to the vote.

The Committee resolved to refuse permission for application 15/00858/FUL for the following reasons:

1.    The height mass and bulk of the main building is overbearing and does not form an appropriate relationship to the street. The design does not appropriately relate to the context of its surroundings and does not show the high standard required for a building of this size on this prominent key location. The height and design has a significant adverse impact on the privacy, outlook and amenity of neighbouring buildings. This is contrary to policies CP1, CP6, CP8, CP10 and CS18 of the adopted local plan.

2.    The development has an unacceptable adverse impact on community safety by reason of overlooking of the adjacent school playground and because of traffic movements and which seriously reduces the safety of pedestrians and cyclists, contrary to policy CS19.