Appeal Decisions Hearing held on 19 June 2014 Site visit made on 19 June 2014 by Anthony Lyman BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 28 July 2014 Appeal A: Ref: APP/G3110/A/14/2215380 St Cross College, Pusey House, St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LZ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by St Cross College against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref 13/01800/FUL, dated 15 July 2013, was refused by notice dated 22 October 2013. • The development proposed is the erection of new college accommodation to include 53 study bedrooms, seminar/meeting rooms, lecture theatre, library and student facilities including a bar, café, common room and cycle storage, demolition and rebuilding of existing boundary walls. Appeal B: Ref: APP/G3110/E/14/2215384 St Cross College, Pusey House, St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LZ • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by St Cross College against the decision of Oxford City Council. • The application Ref 13/01801/LBD, dated 15 July 2013, was refused by notice dated 22 October 2013. • The works proposed are the demolition and rebuilding of existing boundary walls. Preliminary Matters 1. The two applications use the same full description of the proposed development. Only the listed walls require listed building consent and, therefore, for Appeal B I have used the reduced description as it appears on the Council’s Decision Notice and on the appeal form – ‘Demolition and Rebuilding of Existing Boundary Walls’. 2. The application forms certified that the appeal site was owned by the applicant, St Cross College. In a letter to the Planning Inspectorate dated 14 May 2014 the University of Oxford confirmed that the University is the registered owner of the site and that the correct notices had subsequently been served. With reference to a court case 1 the University confirmed that the applicant had not acted in bad faith and that the University had not been prejudiced in any way by the error on the ownership certificate. The University stated that the application complied with the University’s approval procedures and internal governance requirements, and requested that the appeal proceed. 1 R (O’Brien) v West Lancashire Borough Council [2012] EWHC 2376 (Admin) www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/A/14/2215380, APP/G3110/A/14/2215384 3. A completed Section 106 Undertaking committing the University to making certain financial contributions to Oxfordshire County Council, to mitigate the impact of the development, was submitted at the Hearing. I will refer to this later in my Decision. Decisions APPEAL A: 4. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of new college accommodation to include 53 study bedrooms, seminar/meeting rooms, lecture theatre, library and student facilities including a bar, café, common room and cycle storage, demolition and rebuilding of existing boundary walls at St Cross College, Pusey House, St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LZ, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 13/01800/FUL, dated 15 July 2013, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Annex 1. APPEAL B: 5. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for the demolition and rebuilding of existing boundary walls at St Cross College, Pusey House, St Giles, Oxford, OX1 3LZ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 13/01801/LBD dated 15 July 2013, subject to the conditions set out in Annex 3 attached. Application for Costs 6. At the Hearing an application for costs was made by St Cross College against Oxford City Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the significance of designated heritage assets. Reasons Background 8. The appeal site forms part of the grounds of St Cross College within Oxford’s Central Conservation Area. The site abuts Pusey Street to the north and Pusey Lane to the west and has historic stone walls along these boundaries, albeit with substantial unsightly gaps in them created in more recent times. There are a number of listed buildings within the vicinity of the appeal site. These include the early C20th Grade II* Pusey Chapel to the east, the adjacent Pusey House and the terraces of early C19th houses on St John Street, the rear elevations of which can be seen beyond an extensive row of C20th mews type properties and garages on the opposite side of Pusey Lane to the college. 9. Planning permission was granted in 1989 for an architecturally modest three sided extension to the college accommodation/facilities involving the creation of a new quadrangle. Only the southern wing of that scheme has been completed in the early 1990s. Although permission is extant for the remaining two wings, the appeal proposal seeks permission for an alternative, larger scheme which would complete the quadrangle. The proposal is to erect an ‘L’ shaped building to provide 53 study bedrooms and increased communal and www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/A/14/2215380, APP/G3110/A/14/2215384 educational facilities. In order to facilitate the development, the boundary walls to Pusey Street and Pusey Lane would be taken down and rebuilt. 10. The proposal would be a clearly contemporary building. It would have the appearance of being set immediately behind the reinstated historic walls, although in reality the rebuilt walls, complete with coping stones, would be incorporated into the facades of the building, with the inner stone faces exposed in some of the ground floor rooms such as the lecture theatre and the library. On the Pusey Street elevation, projecting windows would overhanging the walls. The building would have four storeys with the upper floor described by the architect as a regular row of dormer bay windows alternating with significant deep setbacks. 11. The smooth ashlar walls of the facades between projecting masonry window frames would rise to about level with the top of the third floor windows and would create a distinct shoulder below the deep recesses of the upper floor. This shoulder has been designed to be roughly level with the top of the vertical section of the pronounced buttresses which dominate the northern elevation of the adjacent chapel along Pusey Street. The flat roof of the new building would be significantly below the ridge height of the chapel and would be similar in height to the 1990’s wing on the southern side of the quadrangle. Policy approach to development and work 12. Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, (the Act) requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant listed building consent, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Section 66(1) of the Act takes a similar approach to development which affects a listed building or its setting. Section 72(1) of the Act sets out that, with regard to conservation areas, special attention shall be paid to preserving or enhancing their character or appearance. 13. The Council’s single reason for refusal of the planning application cites conflict with Policies CP8, CP9, HE3, and HE7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 (the Local Plan), Policy CS18 of the Oxford Core Strategy 2026 (the Core Strategy) and Policy HP9 of the Sites and Housing Plan (SHP). Policy CP8 requires, amongst other things, new buildings to relate to their setting, enhance and protect local character, and for the siting, massing and design of the proposed development to create an appropriate visual relationship with the form, grain, scale, materials and details of the surrounding area. Policy CP9 relates to creating successful living and working environments and achieving high quality public places. 14. Policy HE3 relates to listed buildings and their setting and amongst other things states that proposals involving demolition of a listed building will not be granted and that development must be appropriate in terms of its scale and location and have due regard to the setting of any listed building. Policy HE7 seeks to preserve or enhance the special character and appearance of conservation areas. Core Strategy Policy CS18 promotes high quality urban design that, amongst other things, responds appropriately to the site and its surroundings, is of high quality architecture and respects Oxford’s historic environment. Policy HP9 sets out a number of criteria relating to the design, character and context of residential development, including the requirement to www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 Appeal Decisions APP/G3110/A/14/2215380, APP/G3110/A/14/2215384 sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets and to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. 15. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 132 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. Substantial harm to or loss of a Grade II listed building should be exceptional and should be wholly exceptional in the case of a Grade II* listed building.