Appeal 3314302

The description of development was changed following submission of the application. The amended description better describes the proposed development and therefore that is the description I have utilised for the purposes of the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, and; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site is an end of terrace dwelling situated in [address], a small housing development off the A4144 [address], a main arterial route between north Oxford and the city centre. [address] comprises of terraced houses and apartment buildings, with separate garage blocks. [address] is fronted by a variety of building types and sizes, and it comprises various mixed uses including residential, commercial, and institutional. The prevailing character of the [address] is of spaciousness across the road and between plots and a verdant urban area interspersed with development.

[address] is predominantly residential and has a tighter grain of development which turns its back to, and is predominantly enclosed from the more spacious and massive development along [address]. As such, the character of [address] is somewhat insulated from that of [address].

The appeal site terrace has a distinctive design with a vertical emphasis, exemplified by several steep half-pitched roofs staggered to create interest. The opposite end of the terrace flanks Ridgemont close and all of the dwellings in the terrace front a pedestrian path leading back towards the road. As such, the appeal site’s rear elevation and rear garden front [address].

The appeal scheme would introduce a large single storey extension onto the front elevation of the property, almost entirely occupying the front garden space. The front extension would span almost the entire width of the ground floor and would have more than half the depth of the house, which would have a massive appearance. It would be an overly dominant form of extension and would be incongruous with the proportions of the terrace as a whole and would project even further forward on the already staggered building line. Moreover, it would create a strong horizontal emphasis, at odds with the design of the host dwelling.

The appeal scheme would effectively swap the functions of the elevations. As such, the main private amenity space to the rear of the dwelling would be lost to a driveway and open front garden, fronting the busy [address]. This would entirely alter the way that the dwelling and the terrace interacts with the [address]. There are many existing vehicular accesses leading off [address], however, they generally serve larger detached dwellings or dwellings with a greater setback from the road. The new driveway and dropped kerb would open [address] up to the [address] in an incongruous manner. The impact of this on the local character would be exacerbated by the unusual design of the terrace itself which would not integrate well with the surrounding development of [address].

As such, the scheme would conflict with policy DH1 of the Oxford Local Plan (OLP), adopted 2020, and policy HOS2 of the Summertown and St Margaret’s Neighbourhood Plan (NP), made 2019, as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies seek, amongst other things, high quality design which creates or enhances local character and distinctiveness.

The scheme would introduce a new vehicular access to the road. Whilst there are several vehicular accesses off [address], the appeal site is situated opposite a junction to [address] and in close proximity to the junction with [address] itself. The access would also lead vehicles across the existing bus lane, and in very close proximity to a bus stop which is outside of the rear boundary of the appeal site. As such, the new access would have potentially complex and multiple vehicle manoeuvres taking place close by at the same time, creating a potential hazard to highway safety.

The Appellant contends that the benefit of providing a vehicle parking space to allow for an electrical charging point would overcome the potential harm to highway safety. The Appellant considers that the proposal would reduce congestion on the road; however, the proposal would in no way reduce vehicular movements on the road network and the site is located in a very good location for sustainable modes of transport other than private motor vehicles. As such, I give limited weight to the environmental sustainability merits of the scheme. Moreover, the appeal property has an existing parking space at its garage block, which could theoretically provide for the same benefits of off-road electrical vehicle charging without the highway safety impact.

As such, the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety which would not be outweighed by the sustainability credentials of the scheme. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies M3, DH1 and RE7 of the OLP, and the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other things, high quality of design for development which takes into account electric vehicle charging as well as the transport impact of schemes.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the relevant policies of the development plan and no material considerations indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.