Site address:                   Sports Field, William Morris Close, Oxford        

Proposal:                        Outline Planning Application (precise landscaping scheme to form subject of detailed reserved matters submission) for development comprising 86 residential units (a mixture of private socially rented and intermediate units) together with public and private amenity space, access, bin and cycle storage and car parking.                

Recommendation:

The Planning Review Committee is recommended to:

1.       approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 7 of the report and grant outline planning permission 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 referred to in the report.

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

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

·       finalise 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 Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an outline planning application for development comprising 86 residential units (a mixture of private socially rented and intermediate units) together with public and private amenity space, access, bin and cycle storage and car parking (precise landscaping scheme to form subject of detailed reserved matters submission) at the Sports  Field on William Morris Close, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and reported receipt after publication of the agenda of 21 objections re-iterating those listed in the report, many from parents at the school and one from Cllr Gotch; and one letter of support from the applicant. The senders had circulated these to committee members.

Speaking against the application:

Judith Harley, local resident and member of Old Temple Cowley Residents Association, County Councillor John Sanders, City Councillors Saj Malik and Lubna Arshad, and David Munday, vice-chair of governors at Tyndale school.

In summary they raised concerns inclding those air pollution; the adverse impact of additional car movements on William Morris Close and Barracks Lane; the danger to children accessing the school and to pedestrians; the site design; pre-empting the emerging Local Plan; and referenced previous refusals of planning permission.

Speaking for the application:

Simon Sharp and Tony Nolan (representing the applicant) were in support of the application and came to the table to answer questions from the committee.

Questions and debate

Committee members questioned Planning Officers, the County Council Highways Officer, and the applicant to confirm a number of points.

The questions covered but were not restricted to:

·         the impact of the changes in the NPPF between previous applications and this application on the Council’s Local Plan policies and on the assessment of the proposals;

·         the weight to be given to the draft Local Plan and the NPPF;

·         the impact of additional traffic movements on traffic, pedestrians, cyclists, and air quality on the nearby roads and accessing the school;

·         the effect of the introduction of a controlled parking zone in the area; when and how this could be achieved; and that only an existing CPZ could be taken into account for this application;

·         that the open space continued to be privately owned and was now unsuitable for formal sports activities;

·         that the sports pitches proposed at St Gregory’s school were adequate replacement facilities;

·         clarification on comments raised by Thames Valley Police and the acceptability of the scheme in relation to these comments;

·         the layout of social housing, the mix of socially rented units and occupiers access to shared areas of communal amenity space. 

The Committee noted members’ requests that the County Council consider increasing the priority for introducing a local CPZ; that the applicant consider taking further steps to improve and increase biodiversity on the site through both landscaping and the amendments to the submitted house/ flat designs; and that the applicant discuss the landscaping and design of the open space with the school, with a view to making this beneficial to the school.

A motion was proposed and seconded to refuse the application for these reasons:

·         The loss of the site is contrary to the provisions of Policy SR2 of the Oxford Local Plan (protection of open air sports facilities); and

·         The traffic congestion from the development would have a serious impact on the area.

This was withdrawn after the Legal Adviser’s advice that it would be very difficult to justify or sustain those reasons at appeal in light of the current policy position and the NPPF and in view of the lack of an objection from the County Council as Highway Authority:

·         Elements of policy SR2 of the Oxford Local Plan were not consistent with the direction of paragraphs 96 and 97 of the current NPPF: the NPPF had greater weight and so policy SR2 could not be used to justify refusal. The application was not contrary to the principles set out in the NPPF.

·         The application could only be refused on highways grounds if the impact on traffic was ‘severe’. At 2.7 and 10.74 of the report, officers noted that the cumulative impact of the traffic generated by the development would not have a severe impact on the function of the immediate highway network, this was supported by Oxfordshire County Council as the Highway Authority, and as such there would be no reasonable grounds to refuse the application on highway impact.

A motion, proposed and seconded, to agree the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with conditions and subject to a legal agreement (as below) was agreed on being put to the vote. 

Decision

The Planning Review Committee resolved to:

1.    approve application 18/03330/OUT for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 30 required planning conditions set out in section 7 of the report and grant outline planning permission 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 referred to in the report; and

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

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

·         finalise 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 Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·         complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.