The Head of City Development submitted to the East Area Planning Committee on 6^th December 2011 a report which detailed a planning application for the refurbishment of Unit 1, John Allen Centre, comprising:

·                    External alterations to the eastern elevations of the building to match the rest of the shopping park to create 4 units, additional glazing and new frontage louvers; (Additional information);

·                    Mezzanine floor space within retail units 1A, 1B and 1C;

·                    Alterations to the pedestrian and parking areas to front of the retail building and replacement compound/new plant area within the service area (all as a variation on previous approval), and out of hours deliveries within the car park;

·                    Formation of three Class A3 café-restaurants as a change of use and extension of the south western part of the existing retail building and enhancement of the open space to the south;

·                    Demolition of part of the rear of existing building and redevelopment of that area and the adjoining garden centre to provide four dwelling houses with related access and car parking.  (Additional information) (Amended plans):

The Officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

The East Area Planning Committee agreed the following (extract from the unconfirmed minutes)-

71.             Unit 1, Templars Shopping Park, Oxford - 11/02032/FUL

The Committee considered all submissions, both written and oral and agreed:

(a)       To support the proposals in principle and subject to the 22 conditions as laid out in the Planning Officers report with an additional condition (23) to remove Permitted Development Rights which would have allowed a change of use from café/restaurants to retail shops without the need for planning permission and to allow servicing of the food store at Unit 1A from the rear yard on Sundays and Bank Holidays and from the car park area overnight;

(b)       To defer the application to allow a “Deed of Variation” to be drawn up and to delegate to Officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Shah Khan, supported by Councillors Rowley, Cook, Turner, Price, Sinclair, Tanner, Timbs, Lloyd-Shogbesan, Darke, Humberstone, Van Nooijen and Baxter for the following reasons:-

Issues of significant public concern regarding public safety and lighting were not considered in the report and so were not addressed at East Area Planning. Local Plan policies CP9 (j) and (k) are relevant

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning an application for the refurbishment of Unit 1, the John Allen Centre.

This had been discussed at the East Area Planning Committee where the following was agreed:-

(a)       To support the proposals in principle and subject to the 22 conditions as laid out in the Planning Officers report with an additional condition (23) to remove Permitted Development Rights which would have allowed a change of use from café/restaurants to retail shops without the need for planning permission and to allow servicing of the food store at Unit 1A from the rear yard on Sundays and Bank Holidays and from the car park area overnight;

(b)       To defer the application to allow a “Deed of Variation” to be drawn up and to delegate to Officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Shah Khan, supported by Councillors Rowley, Cook, Turner, Price, Sinclair, Tanner, Timbs, Lloyd-Shogbesan, Darke, Humberstone, Van Nooijen and Baxter for the following reasons:-

Issues of significant public concern regarding public safety and lighting were not considered in the report and so were not addressed at East Area Planning. Local Plan policies CP9 (j) and (k) are relevant

Murray Hancock presented the report to the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that the developer had offered a financial contribution of £10,000 for safety measures, which could include including lighting on footpaths within the

parkland to the east of the site.

Anne Mackintosh, Graham Jones, Hilary Grime,  and Shah Khan spoke against the application and made the following points:-

• Concern was expressed about the service and delivery hours, and access to the service yard. It was felt that the current restrictions on delivery were not respected and it was feared that this would continue into the future. The proposed hours needed to be controlled – they would be very intrusive for residents;
• Trees on the site that died were not replaced, and it was feared that this would not change;
• Footpaths that were used to gain access to the site were very dark and quite intimidating after dark. If the Committee was minded to grant this application, it should be with the £10,000 offered as a financial contribution towards safety measures;
• The footpaths were well used, including by local schoolchildren. There had been unpleasant incidents in the area, so that any approval should include conditions for lighting on the footpaths;;
• The vicinity of the site was very dark, but could be made less intimidating by the better use of light. Lights should not go out at 10pm – the area needed to be better illuminated in order to make it safer.

Jonathan Best (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in favour of the application and made the following points:-

• Conditions proposed around servicing reflect the existing position. Cafes would be serviced from the back of the site and an internal rear service corridor provided;
• The safeguarding of trees could be controlled by a condition;
• The development was in accordance with the Core Strategy and was a good thing for the Cowley area;
• Pre-application discussions had taken place with officers. The Police were also aware of this application and were happy with the proposals;
• The Applicant was happy to offer the S106 contribution of £10,000 to cover safety conditions.

The following further information was then provided by officers and the applicant in response to questions posed by members of the Committee:-

• The management and maintenance of the nearby park area had been transferred by legal agreement to the Council and there therefore the provision of lighting on it was in the control of the City Council;
• The Police welcomed the idea of additional lighting, and would like the lights to remain on when the shops were open, but should be turned off once they closed in order to deter people from gathering there at night;
• The £10,000 contribution was proportionate to the proposed extension – it did not relate to the whole of the John Allen Centre because that already existed;
• If the contribution was insufficient for a full lighting scheme, it could be completed in phases. In any event, the speed of installation was in the Council’s hands;
• Contributions of this sort were normally received when development began on site.

Having considered all submissions, both written and oral, the Committee RESOLVED to SUPPORT the application subject to conditions laid out in the planning officer’s report, and to securing a financial contribution of £10,000 towards improvements in public safety in the adjacent parkland (which could include the introduction of lighting), and to delegate to officers the authority to issue the notice of permission upon completion of the legal agreement, details of which are set out in the report.