Application:
25/01078/FUL | Change of use of upper floors of 49-51 for private meeting space (Sui Generis). Part demolition of existing two storey rear extensions. Demolition of boundary wall. Erection of a single storey rear extension. Alterations to fenestration, roof and render. Installation of insulation. | 49 St Gile's Oxford Oxfordshire OX1 3LU
25/01079/LBC | Internal alterations and refurbishments to skirting boards, panelling and doors. Installation of flue liners and drained cavity membrane system to the basements. | 49 St Giles' Oxford Oxfordshire OX1 3LU
We object to certain elements of this planning application. Namely the removal of historic fabric in parts of 50/51 St Giles.
Our response:
June 2025
No’s 49-51 St Giles’ Street have high historic significance, prominently located on the primary route in to Oxford from the North, but also have cultural significance. The Eagle and Child public house was famously the regular haunt of the ‘Inklings’, an informal literary discussion group associated with J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis amongst others. 49 St Giles’s is also one of a small number of early Victorian purpose built public houses which still survive within the city centre, though recent isotope dendrochronology dates numbers 50-51 to the mid-18th century.
Whilst we support the revitalisation of the historic public house and the reinstatement of public amenities through the ground floor and to the rear of the site, we object to the loss of historic fabric in two instances.
The first instance is the removal of the historic ceiling in the rear room of 51b. Though now dated to the mid-18th century rather than the 17th, this remains the earliest part of the complex. The removal of its second floor would harm its significance and set an unfortunate precedent. Our view is that the benefit – which appears to be the creation of a loftier area of communal space – does not outweigh this harm.
The second instance is the removal of sections of partition on the first and second floors of 50/51 St Giles’. The creation of the large openings depicted in the proposed Second Floor Scholars Collaboration Space and First Floor Scholars Lounge will result in loss of historic fabric. This removal will harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Again, we do not consider that the proposed benefit outweighs this harm.
In both the above elements of the scheme, there are no public benefits arising from the loss of historic fabric.