The Head of City Development submitted to West Area Planning Committee on 8^th December 2011 a report which detailed a planning application for the demolition of rearmost building, erection of 5 storey building consisting of 9x2 bed flats with cycle parking, bin stores and landscaping.

The officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

West Area Planning Committee discussed the item as follows:-

The Planning Officer reported that the comments made by Oxford Civic Society had subsequently been withdrawn, and that the figure of £19,738 to be sought by planning agreement for library facilities was included in error and should be deleted as the West End contribution also indicated represented an all inclusive figure for contributions from the development.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Nik Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee considered all submissions both written and oral and it was:

Resolved to

(1)   Support the development in principle, subject to the conditions in the officer’s reports, but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement as outlined in the offers’ report and to delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of planning permission on its completion.

(2)   Add the additional Informatives as follows:

                                            i.            To encourage the use if solar PVT panels where possible

                                          ii.            Grey water

                                        iii.            To make provision to encourage the nesting of Kingfisher and Sand martin varieties of bird.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Cook, supported by Councillors Sinclair, Turner, Coulter, Hazell, Rowley, McManners, Wilkinson, Humberstone, Jones, Brown and Pressel; for the following reason:-

This proposal for 9 number two-bed flats i.e. one flat short of triggering a social housing requirement. It is my contention that this site is perfectly capable of taking 10no. flats and that the developers have deliberately under-developed this site in order to avoid making a contribution to social housing contrary to policy CP.6 in the Affordable Housing SPD.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning a planning application for the demolition of the rearmost building, erection of 5 storey building consisting of 9 x 2-bed flats with cycle parking, bin stores and landscaping at Cantay House, Park End Street.

The application was approved by West Area Planning Committee as follows:-

(1)   Support the development in principle, subject to the conditions in the officer’s reports, but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement as outlined in the offers’ report and to delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of planning permission on its completion.

(2)   Add the additional Informatives as follows:

                                            i.            To encourage the use if solar PVT panels where possible

                                          ii.            Grey water

                                        iii.            To make provision to encourage the nesting of Kingfisher and Sand martin varieties of bird.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Cook, supported by Councillors Sinclair, Turner, Coulter, Hazell, Rowley, McManners, Wilkinson, Humberstone, Jones, Brown and Pressel; for the following reason:-

This proposal for 9 number two-bed flats i.e. one flat short of triggering a social housing requirement. It is my contention that this site is perfectly capable of taking 10no. flats and that the developers have deliberately under-developed this site in order to avoid making a contribution to social housing contrary to policy CP.6 in the Affordable Housing SPD.

Murray Hancock presented the report to the Committee. Nik Lyzba (agent for the applicant) spoke in favour of it. No-one spoke against it.

In speaking in favour of the application, Mr Lyzba made the following points:-

• The scheme has been the subject of extensive discussions with planning officers and the Conference centre;
• The development would help kick-start development in the West End; to which it was close; and the aim was to have a high quality development in that area;
• There were several constraints on the site, with buildings nearby, student accommodation, and neighbouring flats;
• It was not possible to have a larger building footprint because of the flooding risks;
• The West End Area Action Plan required a high proportion of 2-bed flats, which this development provided. These would be high quality flats with balconies or gardens. The density would be 126 per hectare, which was in excess of that demanded by the City Council’s policy CP6;
• The scheme would be car free;
• The service yard would be landscaped, which would improve the view from Stream Edge properties
• The applicant was not persuaded the make changes to the scheme that would increase the density at the expense of the quality or amenity of the development.

Councillor Cook was still of the opinion that this was an underdevelopment of the site. He pointed out that Council at its meeting on 19^th December 2011 resolved to send out for public consultation the Sites and Housing Development Planning Document, and he felt that the criteria outlined in this document should be applied to this development. This would allow the Council to seek a developer contribution of up to 15% of the total sale value of the development as a contribution towards affordable housing. The applicant could be given the chance to do this or explain why it was not possible.  Therefore, he suggested that the application be deferred to allow such consultations with the developer to take place.

Daniel Smith (Legal) advised that a Council resolution such as that outlined above carried some weight; but as it was not yet an adopted policy of the Council that weight was limited. The developer had formulated his scheme and submitted his application before the advent of this document, and certainly before its adoption, and therefore he could be said to have a legitimate expectation that the application would be considered free from its constraints. Murray Hancock agreed that a draft document would carry limited weight, although it might be a material consideration. The Committee had to judge how much weight to give to it. If the application was deferred, the applicant could have the right to appeal on grounds of non-determination.

The Committee RESOLVED to DEFER the application in order to allow discussions concerning the size of the developer contribution, in line with the Sites and Housing DPD, to be held; or information to be received demonstrating that the development would not be viable with such a contribution