Apologies were received from:

Councillor Antonia Bance – Councillor Oscar Van Nooijen substituted;

Councillor Alan Armitage – Councillor Clark Brundin substituted;

Councillor Laurence Baxter – Councillor Scott Seamons substituted;

Councillor Ed Turner – Councillor Van Coulter substituted;

Councillor Mark Lygo.

Councillors serving on the Committee are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in any item on the agenda.

The following declarations of interest were made:

(1)   Councillor Oscar van Nooijen - personal interest in the planning application for 17-41 Mill Street (minute 9 refers), as he had chaired the West Area Planning Committee from which this item had been called in.

(2)   Councillor Mike Rowley – personal interest in the planning application for 17-41 Mill Street (minute 9 refers), as a member of the Civic Society which had made representations about the application.

It was noted that several Councillors had attended a site inspection on Monday 25^th July, accompanied by officers, the applicant’s agent and local residents.

The Head of City Development submitted a report to West Area Planning Committee held on 13^th July 2011. A copy of this is attached.

The application is as follows:-

17-41 Mill Street – Application for the erection of a 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms and wardens accommodation. Cycling facilities, bin store and landscaping.

The West Area Planning Committee made the following decision:-

Resolved to support the development in principle but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement and delegate Officers the issuing of planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

1          Development begun within time limit       

2          Develop in accordance with approved plans

3          Amended drawings

4          Samples       

5          On site management of students  

6          Occupancy restrictions

7          Student accommodation: out of term use

8          Tree protection plan

9         No felling, lopping, cutting

10       Landscape: underground services

11       Tree protection plan

12       Arboricultural method statement

13       Landscape plan required 

14        Landscape carry out after completion      

15        Landscape management plan

16        Students no cars

17        No car parking on site        

18        Control of access    

19       Restrict delivery / service times

20        Cycle parking

21       Bin stores: amended drawings      

22        Scheme of lighting and CCTV      

23        Boundary treatment            

24        Ground contamination        

25        Vibration: details to protect development

26        Noise from development   

27       Soundproofing of development from railway noise

28       Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

29        Sustainable drainage         

30        NRIA

31        Construction management plan   

32       Travel plan

33        Archaeology

34        Public art

35        Further habitat survey

36        Wildlife habitats       

37        Fire hydrants

The Committee also required details of the landscaping scheme (conditions 13 and 15 refer) be brought to a future Committee meeting for approval, and that in the event that there is additional demand for cycle parking then it should be provided accordingly.

The decision has now been called in to this Committee for further consideration by Councillor Benjamin, supported by Councillors Wilkinson, Morton, Young, Williams, Wolff, Pressel, Hazell, Clarkson, Armitage, Brundin and Craft.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the following planning application:-

17-41 Mill Street – Application for the erection of a 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms and wardens accommodation. Cycling facilities, bin store and landscaping.

West Area Planning Committee had resolved to support the development in principle, but to defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement, and delegate to officers the issuing of the planning permission subject to conditions outlined in the planning officer’s report.  The application was subsequently called in to the Planning Review Committee.

Murray Hancock (Planning) presented the report to the Committee and explained the background. The Chair, Councillor Brett, explained that he would allow 10 minutes for objectors to speak, and 10 minutes for those in favour to speak.

Speaking against the application

Mike Magee, John Rolfe, Brendan Carter, Andrew Sheridan, Gervaise Wood and Dr Jordan spoke against the application and made the following points:-

• The proposed building was monolithic and uninspiring, visually unattractive;
• Concern about loss of light;
• The site was unsuitable, being narrow and next to the railway;
• The proposal was overbearing and too high;
• Concern about loss of amenity and loss of privacy for residents of Mill Street;
• The proposal was an overdevelopment – it would lead to students outnumbering residents and affect the balance of the neighbourhood;
• Concern that the students would cause noise and disturbance at unsociable hours;
• Not convinced that this site is, or was, a brown field site;
• Concern at the lack of consultation with residents by the applicant – would like a full consultation to be carried out;
• Concern about students potentially parking cars in the area;
• Applicant’s comments about the building helping to lessen noise from the railway should be disregarded – noise during the 1940’s to 1960’s when there was more railway activity was never a concern;
• Concern about wildlife on the site – breeding hedgehogs have been found;
• The flats in Abbey Walk are much closer to the proposed building than the 21m specified by the Council’s guidelines, and the plans/drawings used in the presentation had omitted windows directly facing the proposed development that would be only 17.5 m from it.

Speaking in favour of the application

Nik Lyzba (Agent for the Applicant) and Adrian James (Architect) spoke in favour of the application and made the following points:-

• The site was a railway siding in the past and has been a developed plot;
• This is the sort of site that the Government encourages to be developed, and this is reflected in Oxford’s Core Strategy;
• All the students who would occupy the building would be international students in the 16-19 age range; it was not expected that any would have cars, and in any case many would be too young to drive;
• The site is adjacent to the campus that it would serve and within the defined central area of the city for transport purposes;
• Some trees would be removed but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd June 2011 are attached.

Resolved to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd June 2011.

Meetings are scheduled for the following dates, starting at 6pm:-

27^th July

31^st August

28^th September

26^th October

30^th November

22^nd December

25^th January 2012

29^th February

28^th March

25^th April

Resolved to note the following dates of future meetings:-

31^st August

28^th September

26^th October

30^th November

22^nd December

25^th January 2012

29^th February

28^th March

25^th April