The Committee considered an application (21/03361/FUL) for the demolition of an existing retail store (Use Class E); erection of new building at 1 to 5 storeys containing retail store (Use Class E) and hotel (Use Class C1), service area, landscaping, cycle parking, and drop-off bays on Stile Road.

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

·      The Tree Officer comments referred to in section 10.118 of the report had been received.  The Tree Officer had advised that the additional information which had been submitted had helped to address the previous comments made, and suitably worded conditions could be imposed to secure further measures and information in respect of the trees were the application otherwise considered acceptable;

·      Clarification was required with regard to the final two sentences of section 10.28 of the report relating to building height.  These sentences were misleading as they implied that the proposed building was higher than others, notably Holyoake Hall along London Road, when in fact it was not.  These sentences should therefore be deleted and replaced as follows: ‘Moreover, what is clear is that where this height is in the locality it is limited in its width and/or depth.  Where there is this depth this quickly transitions down to the domestic scale buildings behind.  By comparison, the proposal with the size, height and massing due to its significant height, width and depth would cumulatively appear as an incongruous and bulky addition in an area characterised by low scale buildings.’

·      Reason for refusal no. 5 relating to the amenity impacts of the scheme should also refer to shading as an unacceptable impact on the adjacent school.  This had been detailed in the report, but not carried through to the reason for refusal.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that officers considered that the scale and massing of the building, occupying a wide and deep frontage, along with the overall height of 16.3 metres would be unacceptable and out of character in its setting, given the suburban two-storey character of the surrounding uses.  The development also failed to take into account the significance of the non-designated heritage asset of St Andrew’s School.  There were highway concerns with the proposal in that the application had not been supported by an appropriate assessment of the existing trip rate of the retail store, nor had local car parks been surveyed to assess whether there was capacity to meet the demands of the development.  Officers were concerned that the lack of operational parking on site to service hotel drop-offs and pick-ups could lead to indiscriminate parking on the highway and thus obstruction, which would be detrimental to highway safety.  There were also significant amenity concerns as detailed in the report.  These included a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and the school from the hotel windows; the proposal would be overbearing and intrusive and would impact on sunlight to the school and cause undue shade.  The proposed hotel was heavily reliant on obscured glazing in an attempt to reduce overlooking, which in turn compromised the amenity of the occupiers of the hotel rooms.  There were also deficiencies in the health impact assessment, and in relation to energy efficiency; in particular achieving the BREEAM excellent standard.

Dr Sanja Thompson and Trish Elphinstone, local residents, spoke against the application.

Nik Lyzba, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered all the information put before it.

After being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.     refuse the application for the reasons considered fully in the report and stated to be:

1.   The proposed development by reason of its scale, height and massing would result in an inappropriate overdevelopment of this open and prominent peripheral edge of District Centre, location at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the area.  The development would be highly visible and a strident building in the street scene, visually discordant in views on London Road and Stile Road resulting in a form of development that would fail to be locally distinctive, and would not be of high quality design.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policies DH1 and DH2 of the Oxford Local Plan, Policies CIP1, CIP2, CIP3 and GSP4 of the Headington Neighbourhood Plan, and guidance in the NPPF. 

2.   The proposed development fails to take into account the effect of the proposal on the significance of St Andrews CE Primary School, as a non-designated heritage asset.  The proposal, by reason of its scale, siting, massing and height will dominate this Victorian school building and will reduce the school’s prominence in views on London Road, resulting in a low to moderate level of less than substantial harm to the significance of this heritage asset.  The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DH3 of the Oxford Local Plan, policy CIP4 of the Headington Neighbourhood Plan 2017 and paragraph 203 of the NPPF.

3.   The proposed development, by reason of failure to provide operational parking on site and drop off/pick up layby could result in indiscriminate parking on street, by those visitors to the site, resulting in hazard and obstruction to the detriment of highway safety.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to policies M2 and M3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036and guidance in the NPPF.

4.   The proposed development fails to adequately provide accurate trip generation of the existing retail store and appropriate TRICS data for the proposed development to accurately assess highway impact.  The proposed development has failed to provide any assessment of the capacity of public car parks in Headington to meet the demands of the proposal.  The failure to undertake and provide such assessment could result in adverse highway impacts to the detriment of highway safety and infrastructure contrary to policies M2 and M3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and guidance in the NPPF.

5.   The proposed development by reason of its siting, scale, massing and height, and windows, will create an intrusive and overbearing form of development and a loss of privacy through overlooking and shading detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent school and neighbouring dwellings on Stile Road.  The development would thus have an unacceptable impact on these neighbouring occupiers contrary to policy RE7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.

6.   The proposed development by reason of its use of opaque glass will result in a poor outlook and amenity for the occupiers of the hotel, and a substandard level of accommodation, contrary to policy RE7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.

7.   The proposed development fails to demonstrate that the proposal will meet BREEAM Excellent standard and be a sustainable design and construction, contrary to policy RE1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.

8.   Had the above overriding reasons for refusal not applied, an amended Health Impact Assessment would have been sought to address how measures in the assessment would be monitored and implemented.  Without a robust Health Impact Assessment, the proposed development is contrary to policy RE5 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and the objectives to promote a strong and healthy community and to reduce health inequalities.

2.   agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to:

·   finalise the recommended reasons for refusing the application as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.