Appeal 6001985

The appeal is dismissed.

I understand the appeal property is operating as a licensed House in [name] (HMO) albeit without planning permission. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would make adequate provision for bicycle storage in line with local plan policies.

The appeal property is a ground and first floor maisonette in a 1970s flat block. In common with other dwellings on the estate, the front façade of [site address] has large windows interspersed with panels of cladding. To the front, it has a recessed ground floor and a small garden, accessed off a hard-landscaped communal area.

The Landscape Plan shows an area to the front of the building, within the recess to the ground floor, marked as bicycle storage. As part of the appeal process the appellant has submitted additional information, including indicative images of a metal bicycle storage shed, described as being of about 2x1m footprint and about 1.2m in height. Although a detailed specification has not been provided, the image shows three bicycles in the shed. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this through the appeal process.

Policy M5 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036, (the Local Plan) adopted 2020, requires at least one bicycle parking space per occupant of a HMO. It also requires the bicycle storage to be well designed and located, convenient, secure, covered and, where possible, enclosed. Bicycle parking should also be designed to accommodate an appropriate amount of parking for the needs of disabled people, bicycle trailers, and cargo bicycles, as well as facilities for electric charging infrastructure. Policy DH7 of the Local Plan requires that bicycle storage is provided in a way that does not detract from the overall design of the scheme or the surrounding area, and is positioned in a way to minimise its impact.

The Council consider that the proposal would result in a dwelling which could be occupied by up to four people, which would require at least four secure bicycle places. This is not disputed by the appellant and I have no reason to find otherwise. The indicative image shows a container that can accommodate three bicycles in a secure manner, but no evidence has been provided to indicate that it could accommodate four bicycles. It has not, therefore, been demonstrated that it would meet the minimum requirements for a HMO which could be occupied by four tenants; nor would it provide for the needs of disabled people, bicycle trailers, and cargo bicycles, or electric charging infrastructure.

The proposed storage shed would be located within the recessed ground floor area, immediately to the front of the main façade. Drawings of the storage shed in situ have not been provided. However, at my site visit I was able to observe that, whilst it would be likely to obscure the lower sections of windows to the front elevation, it would certainly be a dominant addition to the front of the building at ground floor level. Due to its size, materials, and utilitarian nature its design would not be well integrated with the host dwelling. Its prominence would be increased due to the small size of the front garden area and it would be highly visible from public areas within the housing estate. It would not be well-located and would detract from the appeal site and the surrounding area.

Given the constraints of the site and the uncertainty as to whether four spaces could reasonably be achieved, it would not be appropriate to condition details for submission at a later date.

For the reasons given above the proposed development does not make adequate provision for bicycle storage and is, therefore, contrary to Policies M5 and DH7 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two planning approvals1 for the change of use from a dwelling house to C4 use. Insufficient details have been provided to understand the relevance of these cases to the development before me, but evidence has been submitted that in both cases adequate bicycle storage facilities were provided, or could be secured, as part of the planning applications.

The appellant has also drawn attention to two appeal decisions2 in the Oxford area which were allowed. Neither relate to applications for change of use to HMOs or to the provision of adequate bicycle storage. They are therefore of limited relevance to the case before me and do not lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.