Ruskin planning application submitted

Three new planning applications this week – two on the same site at 142 Headley Way, and one by Ruskin for student accommodation. Please select Planning Applications from top menu for more details

If anyone is wondering why there are two applications for the same site in Headley Way, here is the response we received from the Planning Officer:

Yes there are two applications in. One is for a two storey 2 bedroom dwelling and one is for a single storey 1 bedroom dwelling as an alternative proposal. They would not be able to implement both, if allowed, as they are on the same footprint.

Latest Headington planning decision

17/01853/CPU PERMITTED

Application to certify that the proposed erection of single storey extension to south east elevation, enlargement of 1no. window on ground floor north east elevation, replacement external door to north east elevation and alterations to 2no. windows on 1st floor south east elevation is lawful development.

35 Langley Close Oxford

 

Parking entitlement in car-free developments

Should permission be granted to build car-free accommodation in Headington?

If you agree, then should anyone moving into that accommodation be entitled to ask retrospectively for CPZ visitor permits?

This is a hot topic in Headington. Currently those living in “car-free” accommodation are not eligible for parking permits but a planning inspector has ruled in the favour of a developer who has asked retrospectively for the decision on one of his flats to be overruled.

This and other issues of concern will be debated in the Open Session at our next Ward Focus Meeting on Tuesday 26th September at 6pm in Headington Baptist Church Hall after the presentation by the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Oxford Local Plan – Lib Dem Group response

The full response runs to 58 pages, but here is a summary of comments.

Liberal Democrat group response to Oxford City Council Local Plan preferred options

Summary

There is much to welcome in this document. However, the balance between housing targets, site allocations and the environment is wrong. The cumulative effect of these policies will be to deliver large developments of highly-priced market housing, which is not necessary or desirable, in return for social housing, which is. They do little or nothing for people in the middle- ordinary working families. They will cause lasting damage to Oxford’s natural setting by being far too ready to discount the essential features of Green Belt- its permanence, and the inviolability of the five founding principles. We are also extremely concerned about the joint effect of this plan and those of neighbouring authorities, for example the potential for coalescence and pressure on services and infrastructure, and see little to reassure us that those factors have been sufficiently considered. Too many sites are safeguarded for employment which could happen elsewhere.

We welcome the commitment to green infrastructure, open space and biodiversity corridors and their importance for human wellbeing, but believe this could go further and align more specifically with the government’s emerging narrative around Natural Capital and the 25-year plan for the environment. We welcome moves towards an appropriate level of densification and the discussion around height limits, with the aim of creating a healthy, high-quality, mixed urban environment for all. We support the direction of policies on student housing and HMOs (with some caveats around, for example, vocational courses).

Liberal Democrats propose greater flexibility around ownership models, design, balance of dwellings and percentages of housing types in order to bring housing, both for sale and rent, more within the reach of teachers, nurses and many others who are essential to Oxford’s continued wellbeing. Plenty of good models work elsewhere. We would include specific commitments to neighbourhood planning, community-led housing, and certain specified types of tenure. We will reallocate a number of category 2 employment sites for housing, and seek to bring forward new ones, including back plots and brownfield. In certain circumstances, where a site has been safeguarded for recreational use but is not actually functioning as such, we would potentially support allocating part of the site for housing if the recreational, environmental and public access benefits of the site as a whole were maintained or enhanced. We will follow some other local authorities in including a specific policy on basements. We support, and will continue to support, developments which deliver benefits for the people of Oxford.

We support moves to enhance protection of Oxford’s unique architectural heritage. Better use should be made of instruments like Conservation Areas and World Heritage Status. We are concerned about the potential impact of development on Oxford’s less obvious treasures like St Thomas’s and St Ebbe’s churches, as well as its more brazen glories.

Transport planning has not always delivered the best solutions for the people of Oxford. We note (and the document acknowledges) that this Local Plan process can only address matters within the competency of Oxford City Council. A different form of local government organisation would do these things better. However, we seek better and more joined-up forward infrastructure planning. For example, we expressed concerns about infrastructure at Northern Gateway when the AAP was adopted. We do not believe that those concerns have been met. Similarly, transport planning for the new Westgate has clearly been late and inadequate, as last-minute attempts to address on-street parking, carpark charges, congestion, bus access and much else show. We support the removal of tourist buses from St Giles’.

Latest planning decisions in Headington Ward

Two refusals by planning officers on delegated authority this week.

  • 17/01636/CPU  REFUSED

Application to certify that the proposed erection of single storey rear extension, formation of 1no. dormer to rear roofslope and infill of existing door to side elevation is lawful development.

12 Piper Street Oxford

  • 17/01686/FUL REFUSED Affecting a Conservation Area

Partial demolition of existing house and demolition of existing garages and outbuildings. Erection of two storey side and rear extension. Provision of new access, car parking and turning area. Rebuilding of stone boundary wall fronting Old High Street.
29 Old High Street Oxford

Planning decision latest – as many refusals as permissions

17/01254/FUL REFUSED

Erection of a single storey rear extension.

9 Sandfield Road Oxford

 

17/01407/FUL REFUSED

Demolition of existing front boundary wall

28 Norton Close Oxford

 

17/01419/FUL PERMITTED

Retention of vanguard unit and corridor for temporary period of 2 years.

John Radcliffe Hospital Headley Way

 

17/01508/CPU REFUSED

Application to certify that the proposed erection of single storey rear extension, the formation of rear dormer and replacement of garage is lawful development.

9 Gardiner Street Oxford


 

17/00894/FUL  PERMITTED

Change of use of ground floor from Doctors Surgery (Use Class D1) to 1 x 1-bed and 1 x 2-bed flats (Use Class C3). Provision of car parking and private amenity space, and bin and cycle store.

12 Old High Street 

 

17/01353/CPU  PERMITTED

Application to certify that the proposed hip to gable loft conversion, with rear and side single storey extension is lawful development.

92 Sandfield Road 

 

H42 applications

We get asked questions about H42 planning applications. Householder Prior Approval applications (H42) can only be refused where representations have been received from neighbours sharing a boundary with the application site and the Council considers there to be significant harm on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

We have asked the City Council’s planning department for more information and here is its response.

There are three potential outcomes for H42s. Firstly, prior approval not required which is for cases where there are no objections from neighbours. In these cases we don’t assess the development at all other than to check that it meets the parameters of permitted development. If they don’t meet the requirements of permitted development we normally point this out and return the applications (which you can see accounts for a few in the stats below). The great majority of H42s are ‘prior approval not required’. Where there are objections we assess the development and its impact on neighbouring amenity,  we do refuse some of these and of course it depends on the size of the extensions, orientation of the plot and the relationship with neighbouring windows. These decisions are ‘prior approval required and granted’ and ‘prior approval required and refused’.

2015 – Total of 141 applications:

Prior approval not required – 104

Prior approval required and granted – 22

Prior approval required and refused – 4

Withdrawn/returned – 14

 

2016 – Total of 115 applications:

Prior approval not required – 72

Prior approval required and granted – 13

Prior approval required and refused – 9

Withdrawn/returned – 21

 

2017 (so far) – Total of 91 applications:

Prior approval not required – 52

Prior approval required and granted – 5

Prior approval required and refused – 4

Withdrawn/returned/not yet determined – 30