The Committee considered an application (21/03241/FUL) for demolition of an existing garage and erection of a single storey outbuilding to be used as an ancillary home office and gym (amended plans) at Julianstow Cottage, 10 Harberton Mead, Oxford OX3 0DB.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was brought to the Committee for probity reasons, as the applicant is a member of staff at Oxford City Council.

The Planning Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that:

·         The main dwellinghouse had recently been built following the demolition of the original dwelling, for which planning permission had been granted a few years previously.  The original garage at the south of the site still existed, but was not large enough to accommodate a vehicle, did not meet modern size requirements, and was currently empty and unused.  It was also in a poor state of repair;

·         The proposed replacement outbuilding was in a like for like siting, but very slightly larger (0.5m wider and 0.5m taller) than the existing garage.  Proposed uses were as a home office, gym, storage and associated facilities.  It was very similar in form to the existing garage, with a pitched roof and simple form.  Solar panels were included on the southern elevation; the outbuilding, including the solar panels, would be largely screened from public view by existing mature trees;

·         The proposal was considered to be acceptable in design.  Officers were of the view that a low level of less than substantial harm which would be caused to the low density character and appearance of the Headington Hill Conservation Area would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.  These included benefits to the amenity of the area, and increased renewable energy provision by virtue of the solar panels.  The proposal would not cause any detrimental impacts to the amenity of any neighbouring dwellings, nor any impact on vehicle parking or highways safety.  It was considered to be acceptable with regards to drainage, biodiversity, trees and land quality.

A committee member drew attention to the wording of condition 8, which specified that the outbuilding ‘shall not be used as a separate dwelling or for any business, commercial or industrial purposes, including short term letting’.  Given that the outbuilding’s intended use was as a home office, there was concern that this wording might mean the condition could be argued as unreasonable, thus jeopardising the intended protection against using the outbuilding for purposes such as a separate dwelling, a short term let, or for commercial use.  The Planning Lawyer responded that the officer recommendations in the report included delegation of authority to the Head of Planning Services to finalise the recommended conditions, and the wording of this condition could be reviewed to ensure the point made was addressed.

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 approve the application, subject to review of the wording of condition 8 to better define the permitted uses of the outbuilding.

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 review of the wording of condition 8, and grant the 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.