Site address            : Site of Blocks C F G H J K L And M, Clive Booth Hall, John Garne Way, Oxford

Proposal: Proposed demolition of Blocks C, F, G, H, J, K, L and M of the Clive Booth Student Village and erection of 1,077 student bedrooms with associated communal and social facilities (reference 18/02587/FUL) (revised land ownership certificate) (amended)

Recommendation: East Area Planning Committee is recommended to:

1.    resolve to approve the application subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the report; and

2.    agree to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

(a)  finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary;

(b)  complete the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in the report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in the report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

(c)  issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an application for planning permission for the demolition of Blocks C, F, G, H, J, K, L and M  of Clive Booth Student Village and erection of 1,077 student bedrooms with associated communal and social facilities  (revised land ownership certificate) (amended) at John Garne Way, Oxford OX3 0FN.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application and drew attention to an additional note circulated at the meeting about European Protected Species. She explained that consideration had been given to the three tests under regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 which were considered to be met by the application and that it was therefore likely that a licence would be granted for any disturbance that might be caused to the bats which were present on the site.

Four speakers spoke against the application: Alan Cooper (representing John Garne allotment association); Nigel Berry (New Marston residents Association); John Small and Tessa Hennessy (local residents). Their main concerns were that the benefits of the application did not outweigh the harm to the conservation area and the residents of Headington; the impact on the allotments; and the loss of biodiversity.

Brendan Casey (Brookes registrar), Sean Keeley (President of the Students’ Union) and James Roach (architect) spoke in support of the application and outlined its benefits.

Councillors asked questions of the planning officers, and speakers representing the applicants and the objectors. The officers and speakers answered all the questions.

During the debate and questions the Committee’s main concerns were:

·                The number of trees that were going to be felled and the time taken for their replacements to grow to maturity, resulting in a significant detrimental long-term change to the landscape around the site: a scheme which had fewer rooms could take more account of the existing mature trees.

·                The view of the new buildings from around the city, in particular from areas close to the site. The wooded hillside would be adversely affected by the loss of mature trees and increased light pollution from large blocks at the lower edge of the site;

·                Doubt that the application was going to free up 246 houses to release back on to the market, as the figures from national guidance could not be shown to apply to Oxford’s HMO rental market;

·                That the public benefit may therefore be less than expected, and that this did not then lead to the public benefit of the development outweighing the harm;

·                The overall negative effect of the larger blocks due to their mass and height on the wider Headington Hill conservation area;

·                The scale, bulk, height and length of the buildings especially at the southern and lower end of the site created an over-dominant urban edge to the John Garne allotments and was detrimental to the amenity of the allotment holders;

·                The development was contrary to policies in the Local Plan and in the Headington Neighbourhood Plan which sought to preserve the character of the Headington Hill conservation area.

On being proposed, seconded, and put to the vote the Committee agreed to refuse planning permission for the application.

The East Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    refuse planning permission for application reference 18/02587/FUL for the reasons listed below

·         The density and height of the tall apartment block would give rise to an overdevelopment in terms of scale, mass and density at the southern/lower end of the site which would not be in keeping with the context of the site and surrounding area.

·         The significant loss of trees as a result of the density, height, mass and scale of the development would have an adverse impact on the character of the site and would not be offset by the proposed mitigation.

·         The proposals would create an adverse impact on the local conservation area in particular causing unacceptable harm to the views from the allotments at John Garne Way;

·         The public benefit of releasing houses back to the private rental market would be less than expected, and would not be sufficient to outweigh the considerable harm that would be caused by this development to the local area, and accordingly the requisite test was not met.

2.    and delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning to finalise the reasons for refusal including such refinements, additions, and amendments as considered reasonably necessary, and issue the refusal.