The Committee considered an application (22/00040/PIP) for permission in principle for the redevelopment of the former public house for between 7no and up to 9no dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) at The Crown and Thistle, 132 Old Road, Headington.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        Following publication of the officer report, an additional representation had been received which had raised objection to the application on the grounds that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. The Planning Officer advised that the application had been advertised in accordance with the Council’s policies and the requirements of the Development Management Procedure Order (2015).  The representation did not change the considerations of planning officers as set out in the report.

·        The building was in an extremely poor state of repair and had not operated as a public house since its closure in 2011. Externally, the garden was in a dilapidated state and overgrown, and the associated buildings were in various states of disrepair.  There was also evidence of anti-social behaviour on the site. However, the dwelling at first and second floor level of the building remained in use.  The building was included on the Oxford Heritage Asset Register (OHAR).

·        The application site did not include the entirety of the curtilage of the pub, but only the pub itself and a small area of land surrounding it.

·        The application was for permission in principle.  Therefore, the Council could only consider matters relating to the location of the development, the proposed land use, and the amount of development being proposed. The application sought the redevelopment of the site for between 7 and 9 dwellings whilst retaining the pub building.  No additional details were required nor had been supplied by the applicant.

·        Officers considered that the amount of development was appropriate.  Retention of the pub building, which had a floor space of 268m², was proposed and officers considered that at least seven flats with a minimum floor space of 37m² could be accommodated. Officers also considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design, heritage and neighbourliness, as well as its location.  The site was in a sustainable location in an existing residential area, which would therefore be suitable for the conversion of the public house to dwellings.

·        However, officers did not consider that the proposal was acceptable in terms of the proposed land use, due to the loss of an existing public house which was contrary to Policy V6.  Policy V6 included three criteria where the loss of a public house would be accepted.  These were set out in the Policy and further clarified in the associated Technical Advice Note (TAN).

·        The first criteria related to a requirement for a marketing statement detailing the agents which had been used, the amount of time on the market, and the advertised price. Officers considered that this criteria had not been met as the site had not been marketed on a freehold basis.  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38