Site address: 17 Harbord Road, Oxford, OX2 8LH

Proposal: Erection of a single storey rear extension. Alterations to roof to form hip to gable. Formation of 1no. rear dormer in association with a loft conversion. Installation of solar panels to front elevation. Installation of render. Removal of existing front bay and associated porch roof. Removal of 1no. rear chimney. Insertion of 1no. chimney flue. Insertion of 2no. front rooflights. Alterations to garage door and fenestration. Associated landscaping (amended plans and description, amended documents including an updated Design and Access statement, A Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment).

Reason at Committee: Called in by Councillors

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City 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 this report and grant planning permission

2.     Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services to:

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

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 this report and grant planning permission

2.     Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services to:

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

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a single storey rear extension. Alterations to roof to form hip to gable. Formation of 1no. rear dormer in association with a loft conversion. Installation of solar panels to front elevation. Installation of render. Removal of existing front bay and associated porch roof. Removal of 1no. rear chimney. Insertion of 1no. chimney flue. Insertion of 2no. front rooflights. Alterations to garage door and fenestration. Associated landscaping (amended plans and description, amended documents including an updated Design and Access statement, A Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment and Flood Risk Assessment).

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the location and the proposal. This included site photos and existing and proposed elevations and plans:

• The application sought planning permission for a single-story rear extension, alterations to the roof and several other alterations aimed at improving the building’s energy efficiency and aligning with the Council’s net zero carbon objectives.
• Following the application being called in, Officers worked closely to address Councillors’ concerns and coordinated with the applicant to revise the proposals. These amendments included replacing the existing hipped roof with a pitched gabbled roof, reducing the number of solar panels on the front elevation, shortening the length of the rear extension and simplifying the rear elevation. The rear would now be finished in a peddle dash render instead of metal. Additionally, the canopies above the windows were removed and the design of the windows and doors were simplified. External thermal blinds originally proposed, were also removed from the updated plans.
• A number of objections were received, particularly regarding the removal of the front bay window, the scale of rear extension and inclusion of a rear dormer window. However, Officers noted that the property does not lie within a designated heritage asset, Conservation Area, or any defined character area, nor is it a listed building. As such, the removal of the bay window was considered acceptable in design terms. It was further acknowledged that this alteration formed part of the applicant’s efforts to enhance the thermal efficiency of the property, which is proposed to be finished in insulated render.
• The change to a gabled roof was deemed appropriate, as similar pitched roof forms exist elsewhere on the street, including the neighbouring property.
• Concerns were also raised regarding the depth of the rear extension, which would extend further than some other properties nearby. However, Officers noted that various properties on the same street and adjacent roads such as Hayward Road have had rear extensions of up to 5 metres in depth. Taking this into account, the proposed extensions was considered to be of an acceptable scale and design, reading as a subservient addition to the main dwelling and in keeping with the character of the area.
• Concerns raised in regard to impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposed extension would pass the 45/25 degree guidelines outlined in Policy H14 and therefore acceptable. Proposed extension would be set off boundaries and would not be significantly overbearing or result in tunnelling./enclosure impacts. One window in west elevation would not overlook neighbour given existing boundary treatments. Other windows face towards rear garden and therefore acceptable in amenity terms.
• Overall, the proposal was deemed acceptable in design and amenity terms and considered to comply with policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and Paragraph 167 of the NPPF.
• Concerns were also raised regarding potential surface level flooding impacts. However, the site is located within Flood Zone 1, and it was therefore concluded that the development would not increase flood risk
• Bat surveys carried out, identified that works need to be carried out under a license from Natural England. Officers conclude unlikely a license would not be granted in this instance.
• Therefore, officers recommended approval of the proposed development, subject to conditions listed in the report.

Oliver Jackson spoke in favour of 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:

• Questions were raised about the material grounds for the call in. The Development Management Team Leader responded that the concerns related to the perceived bulk of the proposal compared to neighbouring properties, and to conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan. These included objections to the original metal roof, the removal of the tiled canopy over the front door, and the addition of window shutters, features considered out of character for the area. There were also concerns that the footprint of the development could exacerbate groundwater and surface flooding issues affecting neighbouring properties. However, the Development Management Team Leader clarified that these concerns were directed at the originally submitted plans, and not the revised proposals currently under consideration.
• Further questions were raised regarding the timeline of the application, specifically about when the original site notices were posted and whether delays were solely due to bats. The Planning Officer explained that revisions to the application had been prompted by efforts to respond to feedback from both neighbours and Councillors. The only thing contributing to the delay was the need to carry out bat assessment.
• Concerns were raised regarding the proposed development not being in accordance with the Wolvercote Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Officer clarified that the amended application was now in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan.

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.

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 this report and grant planning permission

2.     Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services to:

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