Site address:                   New College, 2 Savile Road, Oxford, OX1 3UA           

Proposal:                                  

Proposed demolition of Warham House, New College School hall and partial demolition of Savile House rear extension. Erection of three new buildings and reconstruction of Savile House rear extension to provide C2 residential college including Music Hall, assembly, academic and study space, Porter's Lodge and associated accommodation, and replacement D1 facilities for New College School including dining hall, assembly space and class rooms.

Reason at Committee:     Deferred by WAPC from 10 April; Major Development

Recommendation:

The West Area Planning Committee is recommended to:

a)       Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 5 of this report and grant planning permission; and

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 and issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an application (17/03330/FUL) for planning permission for the proposed demolition of Warham House, New College School hall and partial demolition of Savile House rear extension; the erection of three new buildings and reconstruction of Savile House rear extension to provide C2 residential college including Music Hall, assembly, academic and study space, Porter's Lodge and associated accommodation, and replacement D1 facilities for New College School including dining hall, assembly space and class rooms.

The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the application had been considered at West Area Planning Committee on 10 April 2018.  In discussion the Committee had welcomed the overall scheme for its innovative architectural approach but expressed concerns about the proposed tower.  The Committee agreed to defer the application to allow planning officers and the applicant to explore possible amendments to the application plans which would address the concerns about the tower.  

The Planning Officer presented the report and summarised the main changes:

·       reduction in height of the New Warham House tower element by 3.2m to 21.84m high;

·       rationalisation of internal accommodation within the tower element;

·       re-alignment of the roof between the tower and the rest of New Warham House;

·       removal of all basement cycle parking under Warham House and provision above ground

The Planning Officer advised that Historic England had been consulted on the revised plans and had raised no objections. The Highways Authority had raised an issue about the provision of a dropped kerb; this could be covered by an additional condition and secured through an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980.

Councillor Harris stated that, as he was a member of the same Chambers as one of the public speakers, he would not participate further in the determination of this application.  Councillor Harris withdrew from the room for the determination of this application.

Baroness Kennedy, representing Mansfield College, spoke against the application. 

Chris Pattison (Planning Consultant) and David Kohn (Architect) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application.

The Committee made the following observations:

·       the revised proposals for the tower and associated buildings addressed the previous concerns about the adverse impact the height of the tower would have on the adjacent street scene and its apparent isolation from the rest of the development

·       the provision of adequate cycle parking above ground was a welcome improvement

·       the demolition of the rear extension of the listed building, No 1 Savile Road, was the subject of a separate application

·       the proposals provided significant improvements in the physical relationship between the New College School  and the New College student campus buildings

·       that the windows in the proposed buildings which were in closest proximity to Mansfield College would have an oblique view and were at a distance of 12.2m and 14.3m; elsewhere the windows facing across Mansfield Quad were at a distance in excess of 25m (as detailed in paragraph 3.18 of the officer report and in the diagram in Appendix B)

The Committee discussion centred on the points raised by the public speaker regarding the proximity of the proposed Main Quad Building and windows in the north elevation facing on to Mansfield College, and the increased massing and risk of overlooking and loss of privacy.  The Committee noted these concerns but on balance considered that existing boundary trees in Mansfield College would provide some screening, that students overlooking other students was comparable to other student/residential developments in the city, and that there would be no significant harm as a result of overlooking from the windows proposed. The Committee considered that on balance the public benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm to Mansfield College in this case.

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

On being put to the vote a majority of the Committee agreed with the officer recommendation.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 5 of the report and the inclusion of a further condition to provide a dropped kerb and

a)    grant planning permission; and

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

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

Councillor Iley-Williamson joined the meeting during consideration of this application; he did not participate in the debate or vote.

Councillor Bely-Summers joined the meeting during consideration of this application; she did not participate in the debate or vote.