Lead Member: Councillor Bob Price, Board Member for Economic Development.

The Interim Assistant Chief Executive – Regeneration and Economy and Executive Director for Sustainable City, submitted a report to consider the public consultation responses and then, subject to the proposed changes, to adopt the Oxford Station Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Please note that appendix 5 of this report is available via the following link www.oxford.gov.uk/oxfordstationspd  as it is too large to be part of the normal agenda pack.

Recommendation: That the City Executive Board resolves to:

1.         Adopt the Oxford Station Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as modified in the form set out in (Appendix 5)

2.         Approve the Oxford Station SPD as a material consideration in determining planning applications

3.         Endorse the accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Combined Screening and Scoping Report (Appendix 3)

4.         Authorise the Head of Planning Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to make any necessary editorial corrections to the document prior to publication, in consultation with the Interim assistant Chief Executive for Regeneration & Economy, and Board Members for Planning and Economy. 

The Interim Assistant Chief Executive – Regeneration and Economy and Executive Director for Sustainable City, submitted a report to consider the public consultation responses and then, subject to the proposed changes, to adopt the Oxford Station Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Councillor Cook (speaking as a Councillor with an interest in the item)   thanked officers for the report and drew attention to representations (copies of which are attached to these minutes) made by the Abbey Cripley Road Residents’ Association (ACRA) making particular reference to: 

1)    A recognition that all of Cripley Road should be considered a ‘sensitive edge’

2)    The desirability of having a maximum of one access point from Cripley Road onto Roger Dudman way

3)    Access to the station from the western side should not be encouraged and the traffic generated properly managed

4)    Tree Preservation Orders should be granted for “better quality” trees and where replacement trees are required then they should be of “significant species”

5)    The current proposal for 54 staff car park spaces should be resisted

6)    The need to update local residents about the proposed mitigation measures.

He concluded by noting that there is sufficient time to ensure that these and other issues are properly addressed.

The Interim Assistant Chief Executive - Regeneration & Economy said that most of ACRA’s  comments could be reflected in proposed minor amendments to the SPD. With regard to the staff parking issue, while the City Council might wish to see a reduction in the number of spaces, due to existing franchise agreements made between Network Rail and the train operating companies, it was considered to be difficult in practise to seek a reduction in these exceptional circumstances. 

Councillor Price, Board Member for Corporate Strategy and Economic Development, said he would propose that the recommendations were amended so as to authorise the Head of Planning Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to make such minor editorial adjustments as necessary to address ACRA’s comments with particular reference to the access  onto Roger Dudman way.

Cllr Price went on to refer to representation  which had been made recently by the Youth Hostel Association (YHA) which was concerned that the SPD was silent on the matter of retaining YHA provision in the new development. He explained that the decision about whether or not to include such provision was for the developer and could be included in their planning submission if they were minded to do so. He hoped however that the YHA would continue to be actively involved in discussions and suggested that the recommendations be amended to make reference to the possibility for  inclusion of the YHA as a use within the SPD, providing this can be accommodated by the landowner and developer. 

The scheme is an important economic priority for the City and is at its commercial heart. There is a recognition of the importance of commercial viability which has always been central to the scheme and the Council had been working closely with stakeholders for some time to develop a shared vision. It had been very disappointing to learn that Network Rail, as a key stakeholder, had recently expressed objections to particular aspects of the SPD which it had, hitherto, been supportive of.

Cllr Gant (speaking as a Councillor with an interest in the item) welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the discussion since it was evident that there were some issues which still needed to be addressed. The design principles were considered to be key to the success of this development and needed to promote a high standard of design. He suggested that the proposals for the taxi rank as currently conceived might encourage others to use it too. He was concerned that insufficient attention was being paid to protect the church of St Thomas and its immediate environs (which provided one of the City’s important oases of quiet space). He noted the importance of ensuring that the scheme was as self-sustainable in terms of energy and resources as possible.

Councillor Hollingsworth, Board Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, said that the SPD did not (and could not) usurp or change underlying planning policies. Similarly it should be recognised that the detailed design of the railway station itself was not proper to the SPD.

As recently as August Network Rail expressed concern with the SPD. Since then it had raised a number of concerns relating to among others: Viability of the scheme; issues to do with the need to maximise land values, the bus station could constrain potential development opportunities; the future capacity of the proposed track layout; and pedestrian flow assessment. Their view was that the SPD does not allow sufficient flexibility.

There was considered to be sufficient flexibility in the SPD as proposed for it to be financially viable. To deliver the whole project successfully will require flexibility in all all  areas including delivery strategy , phasing, funding and financing and the City Council is committed to  continued close co-operation with all stakeholders including Oxfordshire County Council and Network Rail

 The location of the bus station and its design as set out in the SPD is merely illustrative and is in accordance with the identified use for the site. The present proposal had been the subject of extensive prior discussion.  If its location was to be changed however full account would have to be taken of the knock on consequences of a new location and the agreement of the County Council as Local Highway Authority would need to be sought given its responsibility for road and transport matters . Concerns about the track layout were a surprise given that they were based on what had been asked for by Network Rail at the outset. Pedestrian flow assessment would depend, ultimately on the final scheme being put forward by the developer and was in any case not proper to the SPD.  Capacity and track enhancements are under control of Network Rail.

The City Executive Board resolved to:

1.         Adopt the Oxford Station Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as modified in the form set out in (Appendix 5), subject to the additional changes required in recommendation 4.

2.         Approve the Oxford Station SPD as a material consideration in determining planning applications

3.         Endorse the accompanying Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Combined Screening and Scoping Report (Appendix 3)

4.         Authorise the Head of Planning Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to make any necessary minor and editorial corrections to the document prior to publication, in consultation with the Interim assistant Chief Executive for Regeneration & Economy, and Board Members for Planning and Economy and that this should be extended to include such minor editorial adjustments as necessary to:

                                      i.        Address ACRA’s   comments with the exception of the reduction in parking spaces.

                                    ii.        Note the possibility for inclusion of the YHA as a use within the SPD, providing this can be accommodated by the landowner and developer. 

                                   iii.        Confirm Network Rail’s control over track layout and flexibility for delivery and viability.