sly and calculated is our landlord /the priory leasee, as he's 'bought' 2/3 or his requested 6-month delay /extension. By applying for a 6-month extension to carry out repairs, the legal process running its course has handed 2/3 of the time he asked for to him!
The condition as originally imposed under 05/00287/FUL and subsequently varied at the request of the applicant under 15/02836/VAR is considered to meet the respective tests for imposing a condition and there would be no material planning reason to agree to its removal. The condition requires a survey to be undertaken of the Grade II* Listed Building (The Priory) which is a building that was in use at the time of the original application but has been vacant since 2013 and is now considered to be at risk. The condition is relevant to the approved scheme on the basis that the hotel development had a direct impact upon the setting of this Grade II* Listed Building, and the planning statement made clear that the proposal would help secure the continued maintenance and preservation of this designated heritage asset and enable it to become the fulcrum of the whole development. The consideration of how the hotel development passed the statutory test of preserving the setting of the listed building was a material planning consideration of great weight in the determination of the original planning application. The absence of a clear set of proposals for the Grade II* Listed Building within the application to demonstrate how it would deliver what was set out within the planning statement made it necessary to secure these works by condition in order to ensure that the hotel development met its statutory duty to preserve the setting of the listed building and enhanced the area around the Priory respecting what is important in historic and visual terms about the setting of the building. The retention of this condition to secure a scheme of repair works for the Grade II* Listed Building would still be considered necessary to assist in securing the long term viable use for the future conservation of this designated heritage asset and assisting the building to become the fulcrum of this development as part of the justification in heritage terms which formed the basis for granting planning permission for the development.
It's good reading. I hope OCC can enforce the refurbishment of the entire building not just the facade.
indeed ....both the owners (Oxford City Council) and the leaseholder (Firoka- owned by OGB) are jointly responsible for the upkeep and maintanance of the grade II listed Priory . Shame on both of them
OGB IMO presumes that if it starts to fall down he will get the green light from Ox City Council to demolish it, replacing it with an annexe for his Hamton Hotel ( which is SOOO in keeping with the Priory. NOT! - the very reason that incompetant women on Oxford City Council cited as why the marquee outside the Priory was no longer permitted! How two faced are Oxford City Council planning dept, especially when it comes to a tax exiled property magnate)