The Committee considered an application (23/00326/FUL) for partial demolition of the existing building; erection of a three storey building to create 6 x 1 bed flats (Use Class C3); alterations to fenestration of the west elevation; provision of bin and bicycle stores; and alterations to landscaping and ancillary works at 39 South Parade, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        There was a minor error in the officer’s report in that paragraphs 10.68 – 10.70 suggested that only part of the roof would be used for photovoltaic solar panels.  In fact, solar panels would be maximised over most of the roof.  The figures given in the report were correct, and the scheme was policy compliant with regard to energy efficiency measures.

·        The application was a resubmission of two previously refused applications (22/01994/FUL and (22/00393/FUL).  Application 22/00393/FUL had been the subject of an appeal decision, details of which were provided in the report.

Rosalind Philps (local resident) spoke against the application.

Nik Lyzba (agent) and Bruce Coburn (architect) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·      The new application sought to overcome the existing basis for the development being found to be unacceptable, as determined by the Planning Inspector.  The proposal before the Committee only significantly differed from the previous application with respect to the proposed rear staircase which would be enclosed, with light provided by high level windows only.

·      With the exception of the outstanding issue of privacy (which had now been addressed), the judgement of the Planning Inspector overrode all previous reasons for refusal.

·      There had been no material change to national or local planning policy since the Planning Inspector’s judgement, nor had anything factually changed on ground.  This application only significantly differed from the previous in respect of the proposed rear enclosed staircase, to deal with the privacy issue.  Refusal of this application risked the decision being appealed and under the circumstances discussed it was suggested that a refusal relating to the design and amenity impacts of the development would be unlikely to be upheld by a Planning Inspector with a further risk of costs being awarded against the Council.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved 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; and

2.      delegate authority to the 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 Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.