Site address:                   Seacourt Park And Ride, Botley Road, Oxford  

Proposal:                        Extension to the existing Seacourt Park and Ride to accommodate new car parking, a single storey building to provide a waiting area and toilets for customers, cycle parking, lighting, CCTV, ticket machines, new pedestrian and cycle access, landscaping together with reorganisation of the layout of existing car parking spaces, repositioning of turning circle, bus pickup and drop-off and other works incidental to the development.       

Recommendation:

The West Area Planning Committee is recommended to:

(a) Agree to grant planning permission for the reasons given in the report and subject to:

1. Decision subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State that the application is not required to be ‘called in’ in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009;

 (b) Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

1. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.

Adrian Rosser made a video recording of this agenda item.

The Committee considered an application (16/02745/CT3) from the City Council for planning permission for an extension to the existing Seacourt Park and Ride to accommodate new car parking spaces, a single storey building to provide a waiting area and toilets for customers, cycle parking, lighting, CCTV, ticket machines, new pedestrian and cycle access, landscaping together with reorganisation of the layout of existing car parking spaces, repositioning of turning circle, bus pickup and drop-off and other works incidental to the development.

The Planning Officer presented the report and apologised that the Natural England comments of the 23 November 2017 had been omitted from the officer report.  In summary the Natural England position was that:

·       they have no comment to make on this application although they had said in another response that they do not object

·       That NE has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species

·       The lack of comment does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated conservation sites or landscapes.

The Planning Officer said that it was officers’ view that these comments do not change any of the recommendations and conclusions within the biodiversity section of the report.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee of two updates since the publication of the report:

·       there had been a further representation from OPT who confirmed that their previous comments stand

·       the local Highways Authority and Highways England had raised no objections  to the application

The Planning Officer said that, in reaching their recommendation to approve the application, officers had to balance out a number of significant material planning matters, notably:

·       Green Belt policies

·       Flood Risk

·       Transport

·       Ecology

The Planning Officer then described these considerations in detail drawing on the material presented in the report.

Debbie Dance (Oxford Preservation Trust), Liz Sawyer (Oxford Flood Alliance), Adrian Rosser and Councillor Craig Simmons spoke against the application and answered questions from the Committee. 

Caroline Green (Oxford City Council), Michael Lowndes (agent), Paul Walker (Oxford Bus Company) and Brendon Hattam (Westgate Alliance) spoke in favour of the application and answered questions from the Committee. 

The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application.   In discussion the Committee considered the arguments for and against the following issues:

·       whether the application meets the NPPF test for granting planning permission for inappropriate development on the basis of very special circumstances

·       whether the application meets the requirements of the NPPF exception test for Essential Infrastructure within Flood Zone 3b

·       whether the application meets the NPPG requirement that essential infrastructure should remain operational and safe for users in times of flood

·       the conclusions of the sequential assessment of 118 potential alternative sites undertaken by the applicant, in particular with regard to the site owned by the Co-operative Group

·       whether the siting and layout of the waiting area and terminal building could be operational in times of flood

·       the views expressed by local residents and the Oxford Flood Alliance about the nature, extent and frequency of flooding at the site

·       whether the applicant had proven the need for the development

·       what factors had changed since the Secretary of State refused the previous application on appeal in 1999

·       whether sufficient consideration had been given to capacity at the existing Park & Ride and the impact that parking by employees of the offices surrounding the car park had on capacity

·       the adequacy of emergency planning arrangements for public safety in the event of a significant flood situation

·       the impact of the development on air quality and traffic congestion in the local area

·       the impact of the development on ecology and wildlife in the local area

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.

Notwithstanding the officer recommendation for approval a motion to refuse the application, for the reasons stated below, was moved and seconded:

1.     The application was contrary to Green Belt policy because the “need” case was not sufficient to warrant very special circumstances , as there is capacity at Redbridge P/Ride and alternative sites and other options had not been explored sufficiently.

2.     The application site could not be considered to be essential infrastructure within Flood Zone 3b as required by the NPPF exception test

3.     The application site could not be considered to be operational in times of flood as required by NPPF

On being put to the vote the Committee were equally divided in support and opposition for the Committee recommendation to reject the application.

The Chair exercised her casting vote against the Committee motion to reject the application.

A motion to approve the application on the basis of the officer recommendation was then moved and seconded.

On being put to the vote the Committee were equally divided in support and opposition for the officer recommendation to approve the application.

The Chair exercised her casting vote in support of the officer recommendation to approve the application.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

(a) Agree to grant planning permission for the reasons given in the report and subject to:

1. Decision subject to confirmation from the Secretary of State that the application is not required to be ‘called in’ in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009;

(b) Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

1. Finalise the 23 recommended conditions and 2 informatives as set out in section 11 of the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.

Councillor Hollingsworth returned to the meeting on the conclusion of this item.