Many residents have written to Ruth and myself in the last week in support of Jacobs & Field on Old High Street. They have applied for retrospective permission to legalise the cafe element of their deli. The problem is that there is a Council planning policy in place that is intended to protect a district shopping centre like Headington from sliding away from a good range of retail stores into being a range of hotfood takeaways and cafes. The policy (RC4) works by setting a threshold for the number of retail outlets in the centre and Headington is already below that threshold and so the officers’ recommendation had to be to refuse J&F’s retrospective application.

There are issues with that policy, which I might discuss at another point. For now, I’ll concentrate on this particular issue because it has concerned many of you. It seemed to me that we had a case of the law of unintended consequences where a well-meaning policy could actually harm (not close, but harm) a well-liked outlet which adds to the variety and vitality of the centre. The challenge has been to find a way not to contravene policy RC4 and, at the same time, support a welcome addition to the centre.

I think we’ve found a way to do this. There is another Council planning policy, RC2, that says proposals will only be accepted that ‘maintain and enhance’ the nature of the district shopping centre. This seems clearly to be what J&F do with their deli adding to the range of shops and — as we heard from many residents — providing locally sourced food with good nutritional value. In other words, the two policies are potentially in tension. The spirit of the Council’s policy is to promote the district centre and this is what J&F seems to be doing.

There are, some may think ironically, parallels between this situation and that of Starbucks. The chain cafe likewise did not have planning permission — in that case, they were refused it retrospectively (and I remember voting for refusal) — but they won it on appeal. The Appeal Inspector said that his decision should not be taken as setting a precedent to undermine policy RC4 and that any future application would have to show material considerations making an even stronger case for the specific application. It seemed to me at the meeting that this is exactly what the J&F application can do: it can show it is in accordance with RC2; like Starbucks it is at the edge of the centre, being not on London Rd itself, and if Starbucks could get positive comments from its customers, which it did at appeal, J&F can certainly muster up much stronger and broader-based support. In other words, if councillors had rejected the application, it is likely that J&F could win on appeal.

So, with all this in mind, and with their agent offering up some conditions to make the permission personal to the present owners of J&F, limit the seats and ensure that its appearance is primarily as a deli, I proposed that the Committee should support the application. I emphasised that in doing this, we were mindful of policy RC4 and did not want to undermine it, but argued that there were exceptional elements in this single case, as I’ve just outlined. The vote was unanimous in support of this.

But, before you rush off to buy a hamper from J&F in celebration, let me add a warning note: this is not over yet. There is a centralised planning committee at the City Council which can review decisions made at a local level (a centralised committee which can be a brake on good decision-making locally and which I hope will be abolished in the next round of cuts). Officers will certainly be considering the decision and may, most likely, encourage councillors to ensure that this decision is reviewed at that centralised committee. There it could be upheld or overturned, so watch this space!

The City Council’s latest list of planning matters includes two. The first is a minor application for an extension to the first floor of 4A Gardiner Street (application number: 10/02867/FUL DEL). The second issue returns to a subject that some of you will recall has, in the past, been controversial: that is the telephone mast at Rock Edge, with a new submission by Vodafone, planning to replace the present mast with one 3 metres higher (10/02945/T56 DEL). If you know about the history of this, you will also remember that planning law gives very limited powers to the City Council: the Council can not simply accept or reject the issue; it has, instead, ‘to determine whether prior approval is required for siting and appearance of 15m high telecommunications mast’. This one is intended to be decided by officers under their delegated powers.

There is, understandably, a lot of talk about what might happen about Dorset House. Here’s what Ruth and I know about it:

• the plan is to build 316 student bedrooms, including 50 self-contained student flats
• no. 42 London Rd is to be retained, but no. 44 to be demolished and replaced with a gatehouse to the site
•  the buildings are to be set back from the road, behind a wall and fence
• the height of the buildings is planned to rise to four storeys as they move back on the site
• the intention is to have very limited car access to the site, with only a few disabled parking spaces available – all vehicular access to be from London Road
• the hope is that Brookes will rent the accommodation for the majority of the year, with the expectation of summer lets

It must be stressed that none of this is set in stone: the developers have outline plans and are talking to some residents, but we will only know the full detail when it is submitted as a planning application. When will that be? Within the month is the best guess.