2 new homes at 89 Queensway, Didcot

What was proposed

A two-storey side extension to create a new dwelling, plus subdividing the plot to create another new dwelling in the rear garden.

“Two storey side extension to create new dwelling together with creation of new dropped kerb on Queensway and provision of hardstanding at front of site and further subdivision of plot to create new dwelling in rear garden utilising existing vehicular access from Lockinge Close. (Amended information received 17 September 2025 and amended plan received 1 December showing revised front parking layout)”

“The application was for full planning permission for a two-storey side extension, which would become a separate dwelling, and the subdivision of the plot to create another new dwelling.”

Minutes

What officers recommended

Officers found the two new homes fit the area's character, caused no significant harm to neighbours, and recommended approval.

“The proposed two-storey side extension was considered to be in keeping with the design and character of the local area neighbouring properties. The rear garden was to be subdivided into three with a new chalet style bungalow which would use the existing access onto Lockinge Close and with space for parking two cars.”

“The proposal would meet the housing strategy and policies as set out within the local development plan for infill and did not have any sufficiently adverse impacts to outweigh the benefits of providing two new dwellings. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A supporter spoke in favour of the application.

What members debated

Members queried the parking arrangement and raised concerns about overdevelopment, but agreed the site suited a car-free household.

“A member asked about the parking arrangement querying why this proposal would only have two parking spaces out front while the neighbouring property had three. Members were advised that as the side extension dwelling was designed as a car-free development they would not need a third space. In addition, the location of a lamppost outside the application site would make the addition of a third parking space difficult.”

“A member expressed concern about potential overdevelopment of the site and a potential increase in on-street parking.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee approved the application subject to the conditions listed.

“A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.”

“RESOLVED: to approve planning application P25/S2226/FUL subject to the following conditions: Standard conditions: Commencement 3 years – Full Planning Permission 2. Approved plans * Pre-commencement conditions: Surface water drainage works (details required) 4. Foul drainage works (details required) Prior to slab level conditions:”

Minutes