Elmswood, No 26 Lathbury Road
The rejected development proposal inserted
The trees on Lathbury Road
Page 5 (Click here for other pages)
Public representations for application reference 09/02175/FUL, last updated 4 December 2009.
City of Oxford
Lathbury Road
1 G+SB Objection. Fails to preserve or enhance the NOVSCA; essentially the same as previous proposal that was refused for conservation reasons not adequately minuted.
6 GS Objection. House of historical significance making a positive contribution to the conservation area, This proposal detrimental.
6 VK Objection. House of historical significance making a positive contribution to the conservation area, This proposal detrimental.
8 RA Objection. Reduction of garden and encroachment on Lathbury Road; verdant residential area in danger of losing its character.
9 BM Objection. A building given local special interest by the Council in an area recorded as being "one of the most complete Victorian suburbs in England"; and a house described by English heritage as being "a splendid family house...not under any threat" when at the time of inspection, the applicant had already submitted plans for its demolition.
10 StC Objection. Negative impact; particular value of this land to conservation area; threat to specimen trees by effective reduction of plot size.
11 LE Objection. Qualities of the conservation area are being lost, bit by bit.
12 StC Objection. As for 10.
13 StC Objection. As for 10.
14 StC Objection. As for 10.
16 StC Objection. As for 10.
18 RM Objection. Re-applying for an unacceptable previously refused application in a piecemeal fashion does not make the proposal any more acceptable. Proposal offends in appearance ("graceless and pedestrian"), the historical connections would be lost and the relation of the house to its garden would be damaged.
18 FA Objection. The house is unique and special, both architecturally and historically. The proposed extensions would ruin it. That other areas have been damaged by over-development makes the preservation of this plot the more important. The proposed work would go against the City Council's publication: "Conservation Areas - a Guide to the Law". The contribution that this house makes to our joint heritage should be preserved.
19 JC Objection. Local Plan must be read as a whole. Policies HE6 and HE7. Unnecessary and inappropriate over-development; corner plot vital component to conservation area, screening higher density cross streets
19 JC Objection. 70% extension obliterates the chapel of Bishop Herford; trees will have to be cut back to provide sufficient light; policies NE7 and HE7.
20 VF+SM Objection. Scheme is a "max-out"; destroys essential nature of plot; "sensitivity" to architecture of Morley Horder a ploy - disrespectful parody; produces house of terrace form which will dominate the street scene.
21 A+VA Objection. Destruction, and glib redevelopment. Plot is vital to the city's wellbeing.
22 CG Objection. General erosion of valuable corner plots; leafy nature; Council does not always follow its own policy (examples). Oak tree is not open grown - tree officer incorrect in his assessment.
22 AG Objection. General erosion of valuable corner plots; leafy nature; Council does not always follow its own policy (examples).
23 AvdM+DG Objection. 70% extension will adversely affect appearance; damage to trees; loss of important aspects of the house; loss of aesthetic contribution of house and garden to conservation area; loss of historical connection; Policy HE7.
24 VS Objection. Planned suburb of extensive gardens on corner plots; young but large trees likely to be damaged; skyline; vistas; loss of unique character; absolute rule of conservation policy EN7; extracts from CA Appraisal to illustrate damage and City Council's own view of harm; application of PPG15 - house to be treated in the same way as listed building; no material considerations available to make exception.
24 IS Objection. Appraisal of the conservation area; Elmswood in its garden setting; planning history; past planning failures in the conservation area; the present application; breach of Local Plan Policies (12 listed); the duty to apply Local Plan Policies; the lack of any "material consideration"; the meaning of "preserve or enhance"; the duty to consider demolition as if the house were listed.
24 MS Observation. Unauthorised changes and leaning wall.
25 VP Objection. Loss of the front garden; huge opening in the wall. Reference to planning appeal, 190 Banbury Road.
27 P+MG Objection. There are no new thoughts in this application. Application does not meet the concerns arising from the previous proposal, nor is it an accurate interpretation of the views of the committee. HE7 allows that consent be given only where the special character and setting of the conservation area is preserved or enhanced. There is no enhancement and no authority to allow for a valid change of opinion.
29 BS Objection. Loss of the contribution of corner plots to the conservation area generally, but this one special; house in its setting particularly valuable; damage to "leafy character"; no special consideration to warrant a departure from the rule; loss of the distinctiveness of the historic garden suburb at stake. Point in relation to appeal (29 Charlbury Road): loss of amenity of view.
Woodstock Road
126 WPS Objection. Integrity of intent - does the application give the owners' full intention for the site? integrity of site - the application violates a key site in a conservation area; integrity of policy - acceptance of application would re-interpret planning policy and counter recent precedent; threat to trees; traffic.
126 FPS Objection. Compromise of the garden setting of the corner plot. How can the proposal preserve or enhance the North Oxford Conservation Area.
199 HC Objection. Qualities of the conservation areas compromised. Recent developments elsewhere have overburdened the roads with traffic.
215 VB Objection. Proposal will erode the character of the area. This is a magical enclave giving a country woodland impression. A wide entrance and parking over tree roots will jeopardise the trees. Public parking will be lost.
221 DR Objection. The houses and gardens in the NOVSCA are irreplaceable; the Council must surely not allow them to be gradually degraded until vital architectural and landscape history, and unique beauty are irredeemably lost.
Apsley Road
8 MB-W Objection. Importance of the house and garden described; reasons why proposals are damaging - destroying the Morley Horder ensemble; extended house far too visible from the street.
Becket Street
6 IS Request for TPOs
Cunliffe Close
2 R+AL Objection. Proposals would violate the architect's design and damage the area. The reduction of the ornamental walling would be a needless degradation. Council members have put much emphasis of the positive contribution made by this house to the area, which also makes a significant impact on the overall attractiveness of the city. Return frontage sites are now rare, but the City authorities have been assiduous in saying they want them retained.
Davenant Road
15 Objection. The large garden, beautiful trees and unique house ... ruining forever this very special property and area.
Elsfield Road
2 PT Objection. Application is reduced but remains inappropriate. Fails to preserve or enhance the conservation area. Tree roots will be damaged. Proposal is without regard to aesthetic or conservation constraints.
2 RT Objection. The last of the beautiful corner plots that once so beautifully characterised the area. Disagrees with Tree Officer's assessment. Detailed and disparaging appraisal of the developer's earlier arboricultural report. (NB. This and the previous letter of objection have been scanned together by the City Council.)
Hobson Road
19 CL Objection. An important house and garden would be damaged in this corner of North Oxford, "an area of beauty to me an many others".
Leckford Road
34 SW Objection. Proposal will likely harm the trees. Lathbury Road embodies many of the best characteristics of the conservation area, which should not be lost bit by bit.
Marlborough Road
86 Objection. Another attempt to destroy this fine house in its setting which will make a travesty of the NOVSCA. 7 parking spaces suggests buy to lets, further eroding the character of Lathbury Road. Glorious trees will be stressed by parking areas. Proposed building in front is "in your face" and contravenes everything that Conservation corner plots exist for.
Moreton Road
13 N+SM Objection. (Only part of submission available) Corner plot enhances the whole neighbourhood; further development might be in contemplation.
Plater Drive
47 PR Objection. "Number 26 is a beautiful, interesting, unique and original house that sits comfortably in its plot and gives joy to those who cycle or walk or drive past it... [This] is surely what a conservation area is all about".
Staverton Road
24 TG Objection. Proposal would destroy the delightful nature of this key site. Development of other corner plots over the last 20-30 years illustrates the change in character brought about. No conceivable benefit to the area.
Out of Oxford
Kidlington
SA Objection. House will be too dark under the trees; danger to pedestrian traffic; damage to local economy; Phase 1 (the house extension) a ploy so as to achieve Phase 2, illustrating that Phase 1 harms the conservation area.
DS Objection. Additional accommodation does not meet any pressing social need. Loss of "secret garden".
Doncaster
JPS Objection. Unneighbourly proposal involving additional traffic and damage to tree roots. The amenity of the trees will be lost.
London
NP-J Objection. Application is squarely at odds with the requirement "to preserve or enhance the conservation area". This application is no different from earlier applications and so all previous objections are relevant to this. The [2008] application failed to meet planning requirements and was refused, and this application should therefore not avoid the same fate.
Totnes
MT Objection. "Thank goodness the Council Members themselves were alerted to the fact that this proposal, if allowed, would be a disaster of itself, and in its precedence, for the North Oxford Conservation Area."
Wantage
Objection. "We do so hope that ... some of the fast disappearing character of north Oxford will be retained."
Orkney
CA Objection. Development would lead, during the construction works, to the trees being damaged. They contribute to the special character of the area. This corner plot absorbs the noise and pollution of the Woodstock Road.
France
JP + MP Objection. Providing details of the house, its history and its architecture. Recounting several contradictions in the several applications, the applicant treating the house pejoratively when the application was to demolish it, but respectfully when it was to alter it. But the pastiche architecture of the alterations and extension cannot be an improvement. Credibility of the concept of "conservation area" is at stake, and the gain - one bedroom.
Link here to an archive page of the public representations made objecting to the last (withdrawn) application (09/01905/FUL).
This is page 5
The heavily pruned oak tree on Lathbury Road
The arched gate and the roofscape
The front garden, seen through the gate, will be lost.