11-bedroom HMO at 28 Eynsham Road, Botley, Oxford

The site

The detached dwelling fronts Eynsham Road in a mainly residential area, with vehicle access from Owlington Close at the rear.

“The application site comprises a detached dwelling, fronting onto Eynsham Road, with access off Owlington Close to the rear. The site is within a predominantly residential area in the Dean Court / Botley area, on the western edge of Oxford. The dwelling is set back from the main road; frontages of nos 28 – 34 are characterised by large, open areas of lawn. To the rear of the plots are rear gardens and driveways, with private vehicular accesses onto the close.”

“The site is shown on the location plan above, and is attached at Appendix 2. There are no area designations or site constraints relevant to the proposal.”

Officer report

Planning history

Earlier permissions covered several dwelling extensions, but the built work was connected to the HMO and the current application was retrospective.

“It is noted that work has already been carried out on site, and the change of use and extensions appear to be complete. Officers are aware that rooms are being marketed online in advance of a planning decision being made. The application is therefore made under S73A of the Town and Country planning Act 1990 as a retrospective application.”

“Over the past 2 years a series of extensions to the dwelling have been permitted, through various routes; householder planning permission, proposed lawful works using householder permitted development rights and a householder prior approval application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the location, housing use, amenity, access, parking and biodiversity measures were considered acceptable subject to conditions.

“PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION 8.1 The principle of a house in multiple occupation in this location, for a maximum of 11 individuals, complies with the spatial strategy of the district in being a well- connected sustainable location on the edge of Oxford.”

“In conclusion, subject to the recommended conditions the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected over access, parking and the swept path, while highways, environmental protection, waste and ecology consultees raised no objection subject to a condition.

“Revised consultation: March 2026 – Objection The swept path analysis does not accurately show what has been carried out on site. The PC objects until the Oxfordshire Highways is satisfied with the swept path analysis, the apparent removal of the designated parking places, and whether the existing vehicular access is suitable to facilitate the proposed intensification of use. It is unclear whether the proposal meets the VWHDC HMO Standards 2024.”

Officer report

Residents’ concerns

Twenty-one objections raised concerns about character, overdevelopment, noise, parking, traffic, biodiversity, living conditions and the loss of family housing.

“Traffic and parking pressure • Increased traffic movements travelling along the narrow, residential streets of Deanfield Road and Owlington Close, from residents and delivery vehicles. • Parking pressures associated with occupancy on this scale. • The parking arrangement can only be achieved through loss over established boundary treatment, thereby adversely affecting the visual character of the close.”

“Parking pressure • Demolition of sections of walls onto Owlington Close is an unsatisfactory solution to addressing the parking issue on site, and parking pressure in the close. • All traffic associated with the development will have to travel the length of the close and cul-de-sac. • There is already significant parking pressure in Owlington Close from drivers parking and travelling into Oxford, and vehicles being parked into the turning area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative, an objector, a supporter and the ward member spoke during the committee’s consideration.

What members discussed

Members considered bedroom size, kitchen arrangements, outdoor space, parking, cycling storage and the number of bedrooms, but found no planning reason to refuse.

“Members asked about the lack of outdoor amenity space citing that the front garden was open and would have a lack of privacy. The committee were advised that this had been weighed against the harm of not providing car parking at the rear of the property. It was decided that the harm of not having outdoor amenity space was not sufficient to conflict with policy.”

“Members acknowledged the lack of technical objections and that there was no material planning reason to refuse the application. A member queried the available cycling storage facilities and asked whether the wording of condition seven could be amended to require details of the storage. It was agreed that this would be possible.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to approve the application with amended cycle and waste storage conditions was moved, seconded and carried.

“Vale of White Horse District Council - Planning Committee Minutes - Wednesday, 10 June 2026 A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application with amended wording for condition seven and a new condition ten, was carried on being put to the vote.”

Minutes