The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application to demolish the existing buildings on application site.  Outline planning application (fixing details of access) for the erection of 48,000sqm of class D1 research floorspace and ancillary facilities on 2 to 5 storeys over 5 building plots as an extension to University of Oxford Old Road Campus.  Provision of 459 car parking spaces, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment

Officer recommendation: The Committee is recommended to support the proposals in principle but defer the planning application in order to draw up an accompanying legal agreement and to delegate to officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion.

The Head of City Development submitted a report which detailed a planning application to demolish the existing buildings on application site.  Outline planning application (fixing details of access) for the erection of 48,000sqm of class D1 research floorspace and ancillary facilities on 2 to 5 storeys over 5 building plots as an extension to University of Oxford Old Road Campus.  Provision of 459 car parking spaces, cycle parking, hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment

Murray Hancock (Planning Officer) presented the report to the Committee. Hugh Jones and Craig Rossington (Oxfordshire County Council Highways) attended the meeting and spoke on the traffic and transport aspects of the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Nicholas Rollin and Tony Joyce spoke against the application and made the following points:-

• Not against development at this site, but wished to highlight certain aspects which were of concern;
• Expressed concern about traffic delays in the area, parking issues, height of proposed new buildings particularly those nearest to Old Road, need for good cycle routes – it is good to encourage this but please note that there are high kerbs and narrow lanes around here;
• The area has already lost facilities, some replacement would be welcomed, especially sporting facilities;
• Whilst appreciating the University’s efforts to consult with local people, residents still have some concerns about the site as it is now and as it may be in future;
• Car parking at the site is an especial concern – the number of increased spaces should happen at the same rate as the increase in employment at the site.

Christopher Patterson (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in favour of the applications and made the following points:-

• Had nothing further to add to the officer’s report and presentation, but would be happy to answer questions;
• Stressed that the University had tried very hard to involve the local community in its plans. There had been meetings and workshops at which people could engage with the design team;
• The submission had been prepared with input from both individuals and community groups as well as statutory consultees;
• Dialogue with groups would continue.

In discussing the application, members of the Committee made the following comments and observations which they asked to be recorded for future reference:-

• This is a very significant application and the Committee noted and welcomed the fact that the University had discussed the application with the local community and had listened to its comments;
• The Committee hoped that this communication would continue;
• There were still issues with the site, but this application gave the Council the opportunity to manage change here. Change at the site had, over time, been somewhat piecemeal;
• Conditions attached to the application should be living documents, not merely a tick list;
• The recommendations in the report were fine, but it would be advantageous to have the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee look over the wording to ensure that the right mechanism was in place;
• There was concern about the proposed extra spaces at the Thornhill Park and Ride site. When would they be provided? Would it be before or after this development was completed? There was a need to be proactive here to minimise problems;
• There was serious concern about parking provision at the site and the possible overspill of parking into the local area;
• The Committee noted that a CPZ was proposed for Lye Valley. Once that was in place, there was a worry that this would cause displacement parking in Old Marston – which was already used as an informal park and ride site. Overspill parking in this area should be avoided;
• The cost of the introduction of CPZs was a concern for many residents, some of whom did not want it, especially where it was introduced as a result of a large planning application;
• Where a CPZ is proposed and consulted upon, the County Council must listen seriously to the views of local people;
• This site has grown over many years and it has had an impact on the local community;
• A key issue for this development was that of transport to and from the site. Overflow parking in Old Marston had been mentioned, and the same situation occurred in Quarry and Risinghurst. There were already overflow problems from Thornhill Park and Ride which caused concern for residents;
• The comments made about the need for sporting facilities in the area were also noted by the Committee;
• This is not just about capacity on roads and car parks. There is also the question about community capacity too, such as pressure on schools;
• It would be helpful for the Committee to see an annual report concerning the traffic and travel plan for this site so that it could be made aware of any problems. The Committee would also like to be appraised of the progress of the development and its impact upon the local area.

Murray Hancock reminded the Committee that this was an outline application and that there would be a series of reserved matter applications at which specific details could be discussed. The Committee felt that it was important to ensure that the details were correct from the start, as this was not an “everyday” application.

The Committee considered all submissions, both written and oral, and RESOLVED:-

(1)   To support the proposals in principle but defer the planning application in order to draw up an accompanying legal agreement;

(2)   To delegate to officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion;

(3)   That the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee would review the wording of all conditions in conjunction with officers;