Site address:                   8 Hollybush Row, Oxford, OX1 1JH

Proposal:                        Demolition of existing building. Erection of a four storey building to create 5 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats. Provision of amenity space, bin and bicycle storage.                  

Recommendation:

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, and;

2.     agree to 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.

The Committee considered an application (19/03013/FUL) for planning permission for the demolition of existing building; erection of a four storey building to create 5 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats; and provision of amenity space, bin and bicycle storage.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave the following verbal updates:

• Officers proposed to add a new condition to limit construction hours to between 8am – 5pm on Monday to Friday
• Local Plan Policy RE1 (Sustainable Design and Construction): the applicant had submitted an energy statement which demonstrated compliance with the policy requirement
• Public Consultation: The Planning Officer referred the Committee to paragraph 9.1 of the officer report which set out that public consultation on the application had been carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements. A concern had been raised by a member of the public that some comments made in relation to the public consultation for this application were not available on the City Council’s planning consultation portal and that the officer report only referred to three of the four comments.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the fourth comment was received after the publication of the officer report but that all of the issues raised had been fully considered and addressed and did not alter the recommendation in the report. That same public objection also raised concerns that the building could be used for short-stay accommodation; officers raised this matter with the applicant and it was understood that the proposals were for dwellings in use Class C3 and not for short-term lets. No other additional comments were sent by objectors directly to officers. Copies of all four public consultation responses that were sent to officers had been circulated to the Committee in advance of the meeting.
• Castle Mews Freeholder: The Planning Officer said that earlier that afternoon he had received an email, forwarded by a member of the West Area Planning Committee, from the freeholder of Castle Mews flats. This email was not sent to Planning Officers but only to members of the Committee. The comments made by the freeholder endorsed the comments which had been already received and considered by officers as part of the application.  Planning Officers were satisfied that all the points raised in objection had been addressed and that the late objections raised did not alter the officer recommendation set out in the report.

Ms Malcomson (representing local residents) and Ms Wooley (representing the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society) spoke against the application. 

Neil Warner, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers about the details of the application.

In discussion the Committee noted the following points:

• the application was a resubmission of the scheme approved under planning consent 16/03189/FUL and differed from the approved application only in that it sought to remove the planning obligation for affordable housing contributions which were previously required in accordance with Sites and Housing Plan Policy HP4.
• the ‘fallback position’ attributed by previous planning permissions was a material planning consideration in the determination of the new application.

The Committee noted the challenge made by one of the objectors concerning the accuracy of the measurements of the distance between the proposed buildings and the existing buildings at Castle Mews and asked Planning Officers to clarify the position.  The Planning Officer referred the Committee to a site plan in the presentation and confirmed that the measurements on the application plans were as stated in paragraphs 10.46 – 10.52 of the officer report. Officers were satisfied that due to the siting of the proposed building in relation to the Castle Mews development, i.e. to the north, and the sun path, the proposal was unlikely to significantly impact on the amount of sunlight available for the Castle Mews blocks or external space.

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, as amended above, to approve the application.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions and two informatives set out in section 12 of the report and as amended above to include a further condition on construction hours; 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.