Issue - items at meetings - Rear of 17 - 41 Mill Street, Oxford - 11/00927/FUL

The Head of City Development submitted a report to West Area Planning Committee held on 13^th July 2011. A copy of this is attached.

The application is as follows:-

17-41 Mill Street – Application for the erection of a 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms and wardens accommodation. Cycling facilities, bin store and landscaping.

The West Area Planning Committee made the following decision:-

Resolved to support the development in principle but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement and delegate Officers the issuing of planning permission subject to the following conditions:-

1 Development begun within time limit

2 Develop in accordance with approved plans

3 Amended drawings

4 Samples

5 On site management of students

6 Occupancy restrictions

7 Student accommodation: out of term use

8 Tree protection plan

9 No felling, lopping, cutting

10 Landscape: underground services

11 Tree protection plan

12 Arboricultural method statement

13 Landscape plan required

14 Landscape carry out after completion

15 Landscape management plan

16 Students no cars

17 No car parking on site

18 Control of access

19 Restrict delivery / service times

20 Cycle parking

21 Bin stores: amended drawings

22 Scheme of lighting and CCTV

23 Boundary treatment

24 Ground contamination

25 Vibration: details to protect development

26 Noise from development

27 Soundproofing of development from railway noise

28 Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

29 Sustainable drainage

30 NRIA

31 Construction management plan

32 Travel plan

33 Archaeology

34 Public art

35 Further habitat survey

36 Wildlife habitats

37 Fire hydrants

The Committee also required details of the landscaping scheme (conditions 13 and 15 refer) be brought to a future Committee meeting for approval, and that in the event that there is additional demand for cycle parking then it should be provided accordingly.

The decision has now been called in to this Committee for further consideration by Councillor Benjamin, supported by Councillors Wilkinson, Morton, Young, Williams, Wolff, Pressel, Hazell, Clarkson, Armitage, Brundin and Craft.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the following planning application:-

17-41 Mill Street – Application for the erection of a 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms and wardens accommodation. Cycling facilities, bin store and landscaping.

West Area Planning Committee had resolved to support the development in principle, but to defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement, and delegate to officers the issuing of the planning permission subject to conditions outlined in the planning officer’s report. The application was subsequently called in to the Planning Review Committee.

Murray Hancock (Planning) presented the report to the Committee and explained the background. The Chair, Councillor Brett, explained that he would allow 10 minutes for objectors to speak, and 10 minutes for those in favour to speak.

Speaking against the application

Mike Magee, John Rolfe, Brendan Carter, Andrew Sheridan, Gervaise Wood and Dr Jordan spoke against the application and made the following points:-

The proposed building was monolithic and uninspiring, visually unattractive;
Concern about loss of light;
The site was unsuitable, being narrow and next to the railway;
The proposal was overbearing and too high;
Concern about loss of amenity and loss of privacy for residents of Mill Street;
The proposal was an overdevelopment – it would lead to students outnumbering residents and affect the balance of the neighbourhood;
Concern that the students would cause noise and disturbance at unsociable hours;
Not convinced that this site is, or was, a brown field site;
Concern at the lack of consultation with residents by the applicant – would like a full consultation to be carried out;
Concern about students potentially parking cars in the area;
Applicant’s comments about the building helping to lessen noise from the railway should be disregarded – noise during the 1940’s to 1960’s when there was more railway activity was never a concern;
Concern about wildlife on the site – breeding hedgehogs have been found;
The flats in Abbey Walk are much closer to the proposed building than the 21m specified by the Council’s guidelines, and the plans/drawings used in the presentation had omitted windows directly facing the proposed development that would be only 17.5 m from it.

Speaking in favour of the application

Nik Lyzba (Agent for the Applicant) and Adrian James (Architect) spoke in favour of the application and made the following points:-

The site was a railway siding in the past and has been a developed plot;
This is the sort of site that the Government encourages to be developed, and this is reflected in Oxford’s Core Strategy;
All the students who would occupy the building would be international students in the 16-19 age range; it was not expected that any would have cars, and in any case many would be too young to drive;
The site is adjacent to the campus that it would serve and within the defined central area of the city for transport purposes;
Some trees would be removed but ... view the full minutes text for item 9

Erection of 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms plus warden's accommodation. Provision of cycle and bin storage facilities and landscaping.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) detailing an application for the erection of a 3 storey building to accommodate 74 student rooms plus warden's accommodation as well as the provision of cycle and bin storage facilities and landscaping.

The Planning Case Officer advised of one late comment received from the local Member of Parliament highlighting concerns about certain aspects of the scheme. He said that the objections rasied did not highlight any new issues and the recommendation to approve the application stood.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Amanda Whiting, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application and Nick Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.