Agenda item

Demolition of existing house and erection of two detached dwellings. (As amplified by additional tree protection information received 18 January 2024, and as amended by plan raising rooflight sill height received 23 February 2024, and as amended by plan redrawing application boundary to meet public highway received 4 March 2024 and updated application form received 6 March 2024.)

The committee considered planning application P23/V2226/FUL for the demolition of existing house and erection of two detached dwellings. (As amplified by additional tree protection information received 18 January 2024, and as amended by plan raising rooflight sill height received 23 February 2024, and as amended by plan redrawing application boundary to meet public highway received 4 March 2024 and updated application form received 6 March 2024.) at Gateways, Harcourt Hill, Oxford, OX2 9AS.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application sought permission for two 4-bedroom dwellings. The planning officer highlighted that there was a correction required to the plans list condition. Plans OP1001, OP1002, OP1003 and OP1004, which were drafts, were to be removed as condition 6 secured a tree protection plan and methodology which superseded the draft plans.

The planning officer informed the committee that there had been a series of applications on the site. She went on to inform the committee that three of these applications sought to subdivide the site and all of the previous applications had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The basis for which these applications had been refused centred around design, scale, conflicts between the layout and established character and impact on amenity.

The planning officer advised the committee of the character of Harcourt Hill being made up of large dwellings set in spacious plots and being broken up with planting on the frontages and gardens. The planning officer confirmed that the committee report set out why the proposal before the committee, having been assessed on its own merits, complied with policy. She detailed that the proposal was of a similar height to other properties in the area, the removal of garages from the proposal opened up the frontage in keeping with the area and the accommodation and windows in the roof as previously proposed had been removed. The planning officer went on to advise that the proposed properties now read as two storey dwellings and the space around the dwellings ensured trees could be retained. In coming to this conclusion, the planning officer confirmed regard had been had to policies CP37 of the adopted local plan, HS1 and HS2 of the North Hinksey Neighbourhood Plan and the character assessment which underpins it and the general built form principles of the joint design guide.

The planning officer confirmed it was officers’ opinion that whilst the proposed dwellings were narrower and deeper than neighbouring properties, these differences respected the local character and would contribute positively to the mix of dwellings in the local area without detracting from the established character.

The planning officer also advised that an additional condition was proposed in relation to levels on the site. Whilst both dwellings were below 8.4 metres in height with neighbourhood plan policy requiring them to be below 12 metres, due to the ground level rising up away from Southfield this condition would ensure that the dwellings were built at the agreed height as measured from the existing ground level.

Adam Rankin spoke on behalf of Botley and North Hinksey Parish Council, objecting to the application. 

David Wyatt spoke objecting to the application. 

Duncan Wolage, the agent representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

The committee asked the planning officer to confirm that the access condition was prior to occupation and what information would need to be supplied at this stage. The planning officer confirmed that the design was as set out in the submitted plans and this would not change but that materials could be requested to ensure quality and that they relate to the local area. The committee went on to ask if it was possible to require whether specific materials could be used to ensure the dwellings were relatively distinct from one another. The planning officer advised that it would not be possible to require specific materials and that it would be for the applicant and agent to propose the materials which would be used.

The committee asked the planning officer to explain why it was they had concluded that the proposal was not out of keeping with the character of the local area. The planning officer was of the view that the spacing was similar to that of neighbouring properties and, whilst the green space to the front was less than other properties, there was still space to the front and green character with the rear space being comparable. She went on to advise that even though the design of the two proposed dwellings was similar this was not harmful to the character of the area due to the small scale of the proposal.

The committee asked why the parking arrangements for the proposal were subject to condition and not being considered as part of the application before them. The planning officer advised that requiring this information prior to occupation was a standard approach and what had to be assessed at this stage was that there was sufficient room on site for the required level of parking. The planning officer confirmed that the local highways authority had been consulted and was happy there was sufficient space on the site to deliver the required level of parking.

The committee enquired as to why the permitted development rights on plot one were being restricted. The planning officer confirmed that whilst the proposed roof lights as set out in the application posed no risk to privacy or overlooking that adding any additional roof lights to this plot had the potential to cause harm in these areas. She confirmed that whilst it may be possible to add these it would require a planning application to be made. The planning officer confirmed that as there was no equivalent restriction proposed on plot two it would be possible for a loft conversion to be carried out and rear dormers to be installed without the need to apply for planning permission. The committee asked if it would be possible to also restrict the permitted development rights on plot two but the planning officer advised this would not be a reasonable condition in the context of the site.

The committee asked for confirmation as to how the biodiversity and landscaping condition would be enforced to ensure that bat boxes were installed and not subsequently removed and that trees identified as being retained were not removed. The planning officer advised that the condition required these to be installed before occupation and that they were maintained as such and confirmed it would be planning enforcement who would be responsible for ensuring this.

A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse the application was carried on being put to the vote.

The committee were of the view that although steps had been taken to reduce the impact of the development it was still not possible to site two dwellings on the site in an acceptable way. The committee was of the view that narrowing the frontages was not in keeping with the character of the area. Some of the committee were of the view that the best development for the plot would be a single dwelling.

The committee highlighted that there were no technical objections to the application.

The committee commented that the condition in relation to the sill height of the proposed first floor windows on plot one was not overly restrictive at 1.8 metres.

The committee reflected that the North Hinksey Neighbourhood Plan made specific reference to distinctiveness and were of the view that the two properties were insufficiently distinctive from one another so as to be in keeping with the local area. The committee made reference to the fact that there were other paired properties in the area, however.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P23/V2226/FUL for the following reason:

The proposed development would cause harm to the locally distinctive character and appearance of the surrounding area by reason of the incongruous narrow plots and small front garden areas, particularly prominent due to the corner plot location, and due to the similarity of the dwelling designs proposed, which are not visually distinct from one another. As such, the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP37 of the adopted Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 part 1, Policy HS1 of the North Hinksey Neighbourhood Plan, the adopted Joint Design Guide SPD (Design Principles: 1.6, 1.9, 4.8, 4.14, 4.15, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.10, 5.11, 5.14, 5.107, 5.112) and to the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraphs 131, 135(c) and 139).