Issue - meetings

Issue - meetings

22/00679/FUL: Headington Hill Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford OX3 0BT

Meeting: 21/06/2022 - Planning - Oxford City Planning Committee (Item 12)

12 22/00679/FUL: Headington Hill Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford OX3 0BT pdf icon PDF 575 KB

Site Address:

Headington Hill Campus Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford OX3 0BT

Proposal:

Proposed Engineering Building (F1 Class) including landscape, services, cycle parking and associated works

Reason at Committee:

The proposal is a major development

Recommendation:

The Oxford City Planning 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 12 of this report and grant planning permission.

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

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

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application (22/00679/FUL) for a proposed engineering building (F1 Class) including landscape, services, cycle parking and associated works at Headington Hill Campus, Oxford Brookes University, Headington Hill, Oxford OX3 0BT.

The Planning Officer provided updates and presented the report and visualisations.  The following was noted:

·            A letter had been received from Headington Heritage, which had been circulated to committee members prior to the meeting, relating both to this application and application 21/03622/VAR which formed the next agenda item.  The letter had raised concerns that the developments would compress and disrupt flows through the natural tufa springs flowing through Headington Hill Park due to the foundation design of the buildings.  The letter also sought a full hydrological survey, monitoring of existing and future flows, and a ban on pile foundations within the construction.  The letter also stated that it was unclear whether the SUDS proposals were sufficient. 

 

·            The Planning Officer responded that the Council’s specialist drainage and ecology officers had been consulted and had advised that any requirement to provide a hydrological survey would not be proportionate, given that the site was not adjacent to a local or nationally designated wildlife site.  In response to concerns regarding flood risk, both sites had been subject to a drainage strategy which had been assessed as acceptable by Oxfordshire County Council as the local lead flood authority. 

 

·            A response from the applicant had also been circulated to committee members in advance of the meeting.  This advised that foundations for the Yard Building would be 6.5m above the highest groundwater level recorded, and in the case of the replacement Helena Kennedy Building it would be 7.5m.  The consultants had advised that in the case of the Engineering Building and the replacement Helena Kennedy building reinforced pad foundations would be used, and not deeper piled foundations.  However, even were piled foundations to be used they would take up less than 2% of the area and would have negligible impact on groundwater flow.

 

·            The Planning Officer also issued a correction to paragraph 10.66 of the report and confirmed that no new parking spaces would be created as part of the development.  Therefore there would be no requirement to install EV charging points.  The two spaces referred to were existing spaces which were being re-allocated as disabled parking bays.

 

·            The proposal, by virtue of its visibility and presence in public views from Pullens Lane and Cuckoo Lane would result in less than substantial harm towards the setting of the Headington Hill conservation area.  This was considered to be towards the lower level of less than substantial harm given the design quality of the building.  Officers considered that this would be offset by the public benefits of the development, including the provision of high quality, purpose-built academic space which would not only benefit the University but also deliver wider economic benefits due to the research activities to be undertaken.  It would also incorporate higher standards of sustainability; and would achieve a BREEAM excellent rating as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12