Apologies were received from Councillor Bance (Councillor Tanner substituted); Councillor Baxter (Councillor Cook substituted); Councillor Turner (Councillor Price substituted); and Councillor Young (no substitute).

Councillors serving on the Committee are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests they may have in any item on the agenda.

Councillor Brett declared a personal interest in the application for the John Allen Centre on the grounds that he knew one of the people speaking against it.

The Head of City Development submitted to West Area Planning Committee on 8^th December 2011 a report which detailed a planning application for the demolition of rearmost building, erection of 5 storey building consisting of 9x2 bed flats with cycle parking, bin stores and landscaping.

The officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

West Area Planning Committee discussed the item as follows:-

The Planning Officer reported that the comments made by Oxford Civic Society had subsequently been withdrawn, and that the figure of £19,738 to be sought by planning agreement for library facilities was included in error and should be deleted as the West End contribution also indicated represented an all inclusive figure for contributions from the development.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking Nik Lyzba, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application.

The Committee considered all submissions both written and oral and it was:

Resolved to

(1)   Support the development in principle, subject to the conditions in the officer’s reports, but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement as outlined in the offers’ report and to delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of planning permission on its completion.

(2)   Add the additional Informatives as follows:

                                            i.            To encourage the use if solar PVT panels where possible

                                          ii.            Grey water

                                        iii.            To make provision to encourage the nesting of Kingfisher and Sand martin varieties of bird.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Cook, supported by Councillors Sinclair, Turner, Coulter, Hazell, Rowley, McManners, Wilkinson, Humberstone, Jones, Brown and Pressel; for the following reason:-

This proposal for 9 number two-bed flats i.e. one flat short of triggering a social housing requirement. It is my contention that this site is perfectly capable of taking 10no. flats and that the developers have deliberately under-developed this site in order to avoid making a contribution to social housing contrary to policy CP.6 in the Affordable Housing SPD.

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning a planning application for the demolition of the rearmost building, erection of 5 storey building consisting of 9 x 2-bed flats with cycle parking, bin stores and landscaping at Cantay House, Park End Street.

The application was approved by West Area Planning Committee as follows:-

(1)   Support the development in principle, subject to the conditions in the officer’s reports, but defer the application in order to complete an accompanying legal agreement as outlined in the offers’ report and to delegate to officers the issuing of the notice of planning permission on its completion.

(2)   Add the additional Informatives as follows:

                                            i.            To encourage the use if solar PVT panels where possible

                                          ii.            Grey water

                                        iii.            To make provision to encourage the nesting of Kingfisher and Sand martin varieties of bird.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Cook, supported by Councillors Sinclair, Turner, Coulter, Hazell, Rowley, McManners, Wilkinson, Humberstone, Jones, Brown and Pressel; for the following reason:-

This proposal for 9 number two-bed flats i.e. one flat short of triggering a social housing requirement. It is my contention that this site is perfectly capable of taking 10no. flats and that the developers have deliberately under-developed this site in order to avoid making a contribution to social housing contrary to policy CP.6 in the Affordable Housing SPD.

Murray Hancock presented the report to the Committee. Nik Lyzba (agent for the applicant) spoke in favour of it. No-one spoke against it.

In speaking in favour of the application, Mr Lyzba made the following points:-

• The scheme has been the subject of extensive discussions with planning officers and the Conference centre;
• The development would help kick-start development in the West End; to which it was close; and the aim was to have a high quality development in that area;
• There were several constraints on the site, with buildings nearby, student accommodation, and neighbouring flats;
• It was not possible to have a larger building footprint because of the flooding risks;
• The West End Area Action Plan required a high proportion of 2-bed flats, which this development provided. These would be high quality flats with balconies or gardens. The density would be 126 per hectare, which was in excess of that demanded by the City Council’s policy CP6;
• The scheme would be car free;
• The service yard would be landscaped, which would improve the view from Stream Edge properties
• The applicant was not persuaded the make changes to the scheme that would increase the density at the expense of the quality or amenity of the development.

Councillor Cook was still of the opinion that this was an underdevelopment of the site. He pointed out that Council at its meeting on 19^th December 2011 resolved to send out for public consultation the Sites and Housing Development Planning Document, and he felt that the criteria outlined in this document should be applied to this development. This would allow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

The Head of City Development submitted to the East Area Planning Committee on 6^th December 2011 a report which detailed a planning application for the refurbishment of Unit 1, John Allen Centre, comprising:

·                    External alterations to the eastern elevations of the building to match the rest of the shopping park to create 4 units, additional glazing and new frontage louvers; (Additional information);

·                    Mezzanine floor space within retail units 1A, 1B and 1C;

·                    Alterations to the pedestrian and parking areas to front of the retail building and replacement compound/new plant area within the service area (all as a variation on previous approval), and out of hours deliveries within the car park;

·                    Formation of three Class A3 café-restaurants as a change of use and extension of the south western part of the existing retail building and enhancement of the open space to the south;

·                    Demolition of part of the rear of existing building and redevelopment of that area and the adjoining garden centre to provide four dwelling houses with related access and car parking.  (Additional information) (Amended plans):

The Officer recommendation was to approve subject to conditions.

The East Area Planning Committee agreed the following (extract from the unconfirmed minutes)-

71.             Unit 1, Templars Shopping Park, Oxford - 11/02032/FUL

The Committee considered all submissions, both written and oral and agreed:

(a)       To support the proposals in principle and subject to the 22 conditions as laid out in the Planning Officers report with an additional condition (23) to remove Permitted Development Rights which would have allowed a change of use from café/restaurants to retail shops without the need for planning permission and to allow servicing of the food store at Unit 1A from the rear yard on Sundays and Bank Holidays and from the car park area overnight;

(b)       To defer the application to allow a “Deed of Variation” to be drawn up and to delegate to Officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Shah Khan, supported by Councillors Rowley, Cook, Turner, Price, Sinclair, Tanner, Timbs, Lloyd-Shogbesan, Darke, Humberstone, Van Nooijen and Baxter for the following reasons:-

Issues of significant public concern regarding public safety and lighting were not considered in the report and so were not addressed at East Area Planning. Local Plan policies CP9 (j) and (k) are relevant

The Head of City Development submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning an application for the refurbishment of Unit 1, the John Allen Centre.

This had been discussed at the East Area Planning Committee where the following was agreed:-

(a)       To support the proposals in principle and subject to the 22 conditions as laid out in the Planning Officers report with an additional condition (23) to remove Permitted Development Rights which would have allowed a change of use from café/restaurants to retail shops without the need for planning permission and to allow servicing of the food store at Unit 1A from the rear yard on Sundays and Bank Holidays and from the car park area overnight;

(b)       To defer the application to allow a “Deed of Variation” to be drawn up and to delegate to Officers the issuing of the Notice of Planning Permission on its completion.

The application was subsequently called in to Planning Review Committee by Councillor Shah Khan, supported by Councillors Rowley, Cook, Turner, Price, Sinclair, Tanner, Timbs, Lloyd-Shogbesan, Darke, Humberstone, Van Nooijen and Baxter for the following reasons:-

Issues of significant public concern regarding public safety and lighting were not considered in the report and so were not addressed at East Area Planning. Local Plan policies CP9 (j) and (k) are relevant

Murray Hancock presented the report to the Committee. He drew attention to the fact that the developer had offered a financial contribution of £10,000 for safety measures, which could include including lighting on footpaths within the

parkland to the east of the site.

Anne Mackintosh, Graham Jones, Hilary Grime,  and Shah Khan spoke against the application and made the following points:-

• Concern was expressed about the service and delivery hours, and access to the service yard. It was felt that the current restrictions on delivery were not respected and it was feared that this would continue into the future. The proposed hours needed to be controlled – they would be very intrusive for residents;
• Trees on the site that died were not replaced, and it was feared that this would not change;
• Footpaths that were used to gain access to the site were very dark and quite intimidating after dark. If the Committee was minded to grant this application, it should be with the £10,000 offered as a financial contribution towards safety measures;
• The footpaths were well used, including by local schoolchildren. There had been unpleasant incidents in the area, so that any approval should include conditions for lighting on the footpaths;;
• The vicinity of the site was very dark, but could be made less intimidating by the better use of light. Lights should not go out at 10pm – the area needed to be better illuminated in order to make it safer.

Jonathan Best (Agent for the Applicant) spoke in favour of the application and made the following points:-

• Conditions proposed around servicing reflect the existing position. Cafes would be serviced from the back of the site and an internal rear service  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

Meetings are scheduled for the following dates, starting at 6pm:-

25^th January 2012

29^th February

28^th March

25^th April

Resolved to note the following dates:-

25^th January 2012

29^th February 2012

28^th March 2012

25^th April 2012