Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Colin Cook (substitute Councillor Van Coulter), Councillor John Goddard (substitute Councillor Michael Gotch) and Councillor Graham Jones (substitute Councillor Stuart McCready).

Councillor Elise Benjamin chose to abstain from item 8 (Chester Arms, Chester Street 12/02310/FUL) (substitute Councillor Dick Wolff)

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in any of the following agenda items.  Guidance on this is set out at the end of these agenda pages.

None received.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for a change of use and conversion from public house (class A4) to a single dwelling house (class C3)

Officer recommendation: That the Committee APPROVE the application subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for a change of use and conversion from public house (class A4) to a single dwelling house (class C3)

Councillor Benjamin voluntarily abstained from determining this application and was substituted by Councillor Wolff.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Benedict Pinches, Sarah Wild and Councillor Elise Benjamin spoke against the application and Nik Lyzba spoke in favour of it.

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to REJECT the application because it was felt that none of the criteria for a change of use of a public house in Policy RC18 of the Local Plan had been met.

• A realistic effort to market the premises for its existing use had not been made
• Substantial evidence of non-viability had not been submitted; and
• Suitable alternative public house within the locality did not exist to meet the needs of the local community.

The Committee also felt that the application did not meet the criteria of CS20 of the Oxford Core Strategy 2026.

Councillor Benjamin volunteered to represent the Council should this application go to appeal.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for an extension of basement to form habitable space. Provision of fire escape to front elevation and light well to rear. (Retrospective) (Amended plan)

Officer Recommendation: That the Committee APPROVE the planning application subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application for an extension of basement to form habitable space. Provision of fire escape to front elevation and light well to rear. (Retrospective) (Amended plan)

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Mark Stone spoke against the application and Robert Pope spoke in favour of it.

The Committee resolved (by 6 votes to 3) to APPROVE the application subject to the 4 conditions listed in the report, plus a further condition that the basement should not be occupied as independent residential unit.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application to:

1)     Demolish the existing Luther Court housing

2)     Erect new buildings fronting Thames Street comprising 42 self contained flats (13x1 bed, 29x2 bed) and 82 student study rooms on 5 and 6 storeys.  Provision of cycle parking, bin storage and shared amenity areas.  Closure of footpath linking Luther Street to Butterwyke Place

Officer Recommendation The Committee is recommended to support the development in principle but defer the application in order to draw up a legal agreement in the terms outlined below, and delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of permission, subject to conditions on its completion:

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application to:

1)     Demolish the existing Luther Court housing

2)     Erect new buildings fronting Thames Street comprising 42 self contained flats (13x1 bed, 29x2 bed) and 82 student study rooms on 5 and 6 storeys.  Provision of cycle parking, bin storage and shared amenity areas.  Closure of footpath linking Luther Street to Butterwyke Place

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Paul Semple spoke against the application and Mike Cross and Nik Lyzba spoke in favour of it.

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 0) to SUPPORT the development in principle but defer the application in order to draw up a legal agreement and delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of permission, subject to the 29 conditions listed in the report and the additional condition:

Details of patient escape route from Luther Medical Centre and how it will be maintained.

Officers to consult Ward Councillors and Chair in regards to decision between parties for the managing of the proposed escape route for patients of the Luther Street Medical Centre.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for the erection of 2x2 bedroom semi-detached dwellings (class C3).

Officer Recommendation: That the Committee APPROVE the planning application subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application for the erection of 2x2 bedroom semi-detached dwellings (class C3).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Laura Campbell and Sara Beck spoke against the application and Joey Webb spoke in favour of it.

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to REJECT the planning application on the grounds that the application did not meet the Committee’s previous reasons for refusal:

• The proposed development would be unneighbourly due to the lack of privacy and overlooking of the neighbouring properties, especially the kitchen extension of no, 23, and
• The proposed development is considered to constitute over development of the site and results in insufficient private garden and amenity space.

If the application goes to appeal, Councillor Gotch volunteered to represent the Council.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for:

(1)    Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing biology lab, prep room, lean to workshop and store, sheds and 2 domestic greenhouses

(2)   Demolition of existing biology lab, prep room, lean to workshop and store, sheds and 2 domestic greenhouses and erection of new 6 classroom block, workshop and store

Officer Recommendation: That the Committee APPROVE the Conservation Area Consent and planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application for:

(1)    Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of existing biology lab, prep room, lean to workshop and store, sheds and 2 domestic greenhouses

(2)   Demolition of existing biology lab, prep room, lean to workshop and store, sheds and 2 domestic greenhouses and erection of new 6 classroom block, workshop and store

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Paula Holloway spoke in favour of the application and no one spoke against it.

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to APPROVE the applications for Conservation Area Consent and planning permission subject to the 11 conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application for a demolition of existing buildings comprising shop, workshop (Use Class B1) and student accommodation. Erection of new buildings to provide replacement retail, offices (Use Class B1), self contained two bedroom flat, and student accommodation (18 student study bedrooms and ancillary accommodation).

Officer recommendation: That the Committee supports the application in principle but defers the application in order to allow accompanying legal agreements to be drawn up and delegate to officers the issuing of the planning permission once such legal agreements are completed.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application for a demolition of existing buildings comprising shop, workshop (Use Class B1) and student accommodation. Erection of new buildings to provide replacement retail, offices (Use Class B1), self contained two bedroom flat, and student accommodation (18 student study bedrooms and ancillary accommodation).

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that Nik Lyzba spoke in favour of the application and no one spoke against it.

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to SUPPORT the application in principle but defer the application in order to allow accompanying legal agreement to be drawn up and delegate to officers the issuing of the planning permission when the legal agreement was completed

The Head of City Development has submitted a report which details a planning application to seek listed building consent (12/02432/CT3) and advertisement consent (12/02331/CT3) for external alterations to display 4 No. overhead avenue illuminated fascia signs in the High street, a wall mounted illuminated banner in Market Street, a high level non illuminated fascia sign in Market Street and 4No. illuminated display boards within the Avenues.

Officer Recommendation That the CommitteeAPPROVE the applications subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed a planning application to seek listed building consent (12/02432/CT3) and advertisement consent (12/02331/CT3) for external alterations to display 4 No. overhead avenue illuminated fascia signs in the High street, a wall mounted illuminated banner in Market Street, a high level non illuminated fascia sign in Market Street and 4No. illuminated display boards within the Avenues.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, the Committee noted that no one spoke for or against the application.

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to DEFER the application as it was felt that the application did not accord with the special character, settings and features of special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

The Committee felt the advertisements did not suit their visual setting in terms of scale, design, appearance and materials, and that they would not enhance the visual amenity of the building.

The Head of City Development has submitted a report on the proposed Heritage Assets Register for Oxford.

Officer Recommendations

That the Committee:

1. comments on the proposed register, the criteria and process of compiling the list are invited.
2. recommend any amendments
3. endorse the proposal for a Heritage Assets Register for Oxford and to recommend that the City Executive Board adopt the proposed criteria and selection process (with or without recommended changes).

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) on the proposed Heritage Assets Register for Oxford.

The Heritage Manager presented the report to the Committee and explained that the heritage register was part of a wider area of work to help determine the value of heritage in Oxford. It will assist in robust decision making, will raise public awareness of heritage in the city and will encourage public engagement through the process of registering sites.

The process and criteria for reviewing and determining sites is based on English Heritage’s criteria and the proposed methodology will be rolled out across England.

The criteria is a character based assessment focusing on identifying the public significance of heritage asset within Oxford. The Iffley Fields Assessment (appendix c) is what is proposed for each ward. It needs to be publicly consulted on before it can be formally adopted.

The Heritage Officer explained the different levels of heritage protection available:

• Designated assets are assets that meet the national criteria – they don’t necessarily respond to local character,

• A Conservation Area provides more flexibility for local character to be considered. They provide a legal level of protection for assets within a geographical area of historical interest.

•  The proposed heritage register will not provide any legal protection to sites. It merely will provide added weight to the protection of the sites, as it shows that the public considers them valuable enough to be listed.

The register will only include sites outside of conservation areas as sites within conservation areas are already designated heritage assets with a high level of protection.

The Committee made the following comments on the proposed register, the criteria and process of compiling the list.

• Councillor Benjamin commended the work of the heritage team and endorsed the proposed register for highlighting heritage issues in the City and raising public awareness. 
• How will the register be funded? The Heritage team is working on securing additional funding.
• Amendments to the proposed list, it’s the Donnington housing estate not Florence Park.

The Committee resolved (by 8 votes to 1) to ENDORSE the proposal for a Heritage Assets Register for Oxford and recommend that the City Executive Board and the Council adopt the proposed criteria and selection process.

At 9pm, the Committee resolved to complete the order of business.

To receive information on planning appeals received and determined during September 2012.

The Committee is asked to note this information.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) giving details of planning appeals received and determined during September 2012.

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to NOTE the planning appeal report

The Committee to note the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2012 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 10 October 2012 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee to note the following forthcoming items for information:

• Worcester College: 12/01809/FUL & 12/01810/LBD: Lecture theatre etc
• 10 & 10A Bartlemas Road: 12/002505/FUL: 4 x 1 bed flats
• Travis Perkins Site, Chapel Street: 12/02560/VAR: Variation of permission for student accommodation
• University Science Area: Masterplan

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to NOTE that the listed planning applications for Worcester College were likely to come to committee’s  next meeting but that the application at the former Travis Perkins Site, Chapel Street (12/02560/VAR) appeared in error and fell within Officers’ delegated powers to determine.

The Committee is to note the dates of forthcoming meetings:

Wednesday 12 December 2012 (and Thursday 13 December 2012 if needed)

Wednesday 16 January 2013 (and Thursday 17 January 2013 if needed)

Thursday 7 February 2013 (and Wednesday 13 February 2013 if needed)

The Committee resolved (by 9 votes to 0) to NOTE that the next meeting would be held on Wednesday 12 December 2012.