Agenda item

Agenda item

16/01726/FUL: Unit 5, Ashville Way, Oxford, OX4 6TU

Site Address: Unit 5 Ashville Way

 

Proposal: Change of use from Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) to Assemble and Leisure (Use Class D2) on ground floor and Offices (Use Class B1a) on first floor. Provision of additional car parking, bin and cycle store.

 

The application was considered at East Area Planning Committee on 12 October 2016. It is before the Committee for a fresh determination following advertisement of the development as a departure from the development plan and a new consultation period.

 

Officer recommendation: to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

 

The proposed development would result in the loss of a key protected employment site, which would be harmful to the range of job opportunities in the city and contrary to Policy CS28 of the Oxford Core Strategy 2026.

 

Minutes:

Councillor Clarkson arrived shortly after the start of the officer’s presentation on this item and in accordance with the Constitution took no part in the discussion or voting on this item.

 

The Committee considered an application for planning permission for the change of use from Storage and Distribution (Use Class B8) to Assemble and Leisure (Use Class D2) on ground floor and Offices (Use Class B1a) on first floor; and provision of additional car parking, bin and cycle store at Unit 5 Ashville Way.

 

The application was considered at East Area Planning Committee on 12 October 2016. The Committee noted it was before them for a fresh determination following advertisement of the development as a departure from the development plan and a new consultation period, and noted the officer’s supplementary report.

 

Cameron Thomson, representing Mayfield Press, occupants of the neighbouring units, spoke against the application. He explained the firm’s recent merger and potential for a further merger and their proposals to expand their current premises into Unit 5 and retain the unit in Use Class B8. He explained that the second increase in employees (from 85 to 110) would not be possible in the existing space and that the firm may need to relocate outside the city with the consequent costs to the firm and loss of employment within the city. He commented on traffic problems at the site after 6pm caused by large delivery lorries and parked BMW lorries.

 

Michael Crofton Briggs, the agent, and Hazel Walsh, the club chairman, spoke in support of the application. They explained the reason for the club’s decision to apply for permission; the gymnastic club’s ability to provide facilities at this location for a large number of young people; that the provision of a new sporting facility met a number of local and national policies on leisure and exercise; the unique nature and needs of the club; their difficulty in finding a permanent home; and that they considered the change of use retained the site for employment use by providing office and leisure jobs. They explained the activities on the site, the proposals for letting the office space, and their management of traffic by staggering class times and encouraging cycling and car sharing.

 

The Committee asked questions of the officers and the speakers to clarify the material planning issues. They took account of the different employment uses proposed by the gymnastics club and the printing firm, the loss of employment sites elsewhere in the area, and the relevance of policy CS28. They accepted the officer advice that policy CS21 did not in fact apply in this case. In considering the evidence before them from the officer’s report, supplementary report including advice on policy and presentation, and from the speakers, and the material planning considerations, the Committee determined that permission for the application should be refused.

 

The Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for application 16/01726/FUL the following reason:

 

The proposed development would result in the loss of a key protected employment site, which would be harmful to the range of job opportunities in the city and contrary to Policy CS28 of the Oxford Core Strategy 2026.

Supporting documents: