The Committee considered an application (23/01046/FUL) for the demolition of existing garage; erection of a part single, part two storey side extension and front porch; change of use from a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) to a larger house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis); and erection of bike storage at 75 Langley Close, Oxford.

The application was before the Committee as the applicant is an Oxford City Councillor.

The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the following:

·        Planning permission had already been granted for the change of use to a Use Class C4 House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) which allowed occupation by up to 6 occupants.  The application sought to allow additional occupants as a sui generis use. 

·        Planning permission had also already been granted for a part single, part two storey side extension at the property.  However, during the course of the application it was noticed that the extension already built on the site was not in accordance with the approved plans, being 0.5m wider to the front of the side extension.  There was also a hipped roof on the single storey element rather than a flat roof as approved.  Additionally a front porch had been built at the property.  The application therefore sought part retrospective approval;

·        The development was considered acceptable in principle, complying with the concentration of HMOs allowed in the local area. It was considered that it would not result in a change of character of the area.  The proposal would provide a good standard of accommodation which would comply with the City Council’s Landlord’s Guide to Amenities and Facilities for Houses in Multiple Occupation;

·        The proposed development was considered to be acceptable in terms of its design, and not to cause any harm to the character or appearance of Langley Close or the dwelling itself;

·        The extension would not cause any detrimental impacts on the amenity of any neighbouring dwelling, nor would it cause any impact in respect of drainage, biodiversity or trees subject to the recommended conditions;

·        The development would be car-free due to its sustainable location within a Controlled Parking Zone and would be suitable to provide good quality bin storage and bicycle parking subject to conditions including the removal of the existing bin store at the front of the site within three months, as officers deemed it to be unacceptably harmful to the street scene;

·        The development would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in respect of public highways.  Overall, the proposal was considered to comply with the policies of the Local Plan, the Headington Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

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

·        The detail and location of the bin store had been conditioned, to be provided prior to occupation;

·        A Committee Member recommended that an informative be added to recommend that the distance between adjacent Sheffield stands was 1.2m, in order to ensure that they could accommodate larger bikes or those with panniers, etc. and was compliant with LTN 120.

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, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the inclusion of an informative relating to a recommended distance between bicycle parking stands.

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 an informative relating to a recommended distance between bicycle parking stands 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.