The Committee considered an application (23/00272/FUL) for demolition of the existing retail store (Use Class E); erection of new building at 1 to 4 storeys containing a retail store (Use Class E) and hotel (Use Class C1); service area, landscaping, cycle parking and drop off bays on Stile Road at 152 London Road, Headington, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·      The application had missed its statutory target decision date due to awaiting consultation responses and further information from the applicant, and the timing of committee dates.  The applicant had decided to lodge an appeal for non-determination. This meant that the Council could no longer determine the application.  Instead, the Committee was asked to give an indication of its likely decision, had it been in a position to determine the application, which officers could use in the Council’s submission to the appeal.

·      The application site was on the east side of London Road on the edge of the Headington District Centre, with Bury Knowle Park to the north and Stile Road, which was residential, to the west of the site.  St Andrew’s Primary School, a non-designated heritage asset, was situated to the east of the site.

·      Planning permission was sought for the demolition of the existing single storey retail store which was currently occupied by the Co-Op, and erection of a part three, part four storey building containing a new hotel with a retail unit at the ground floor.  There would be two operational parking spaces and manoeuvring spaces to the front of the development, and a service yard to the rear (accessed via Stile Road).  The application also included some hard and soft landscaping.

Michael Dent and Bruce Huggett, Governors of St Andrew’s Primary School, spoke against 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:

·     Reasons why officers had reached a recommendation to refuse the application were set out in full in the report, and included some shortcomings and lack of information in the submitted application.   Planning Officers considered that some of these may have been able to be addressed through conditions; however, the potential for this had been superseded by the commencement of the appeal process.  Recommended conditions would be included within the Council’s appeal statement.

·     The applicant had sought to address privacy issues through the use of opaque glass on windows (including opaque corridor windows to avoid overlooking of St Andrew’s School), which officers considered would cause loss of outlook to hotel residents.

·     The site was inside the district centre, and the Local Plan included policies which encouraged increases in density and careful increases in height within district centres.  There was therefore potential for a well-designed and respectful development on the site.  However, it was not considered that this proposal met those criteria.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation that had an appeal not been lodged, the application would have been refused for the reasons given in the report.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.      agree that if an appeal had not been lodged the application would have been refused for the reasons given in the report; and

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

·      finalise the recommended reasons for refusal in the report for the purposes of defending the appeal,  including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.