General

Councillor Upton stated that as a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, and as a member of the Oxford Civic Society, she had taken no part in those organisations’ discussions regarding the applications before the Committee.  Councillor Upton said that she was approaching the applications with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

21/01176/FUL

Councillor Pegg stated that she worked for the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts.  Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust had commented on the application and Councillor Pegg declared that she was approaching the application with an open mind.

Councillor Hollingsworth declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, he would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

Councillor Aziz declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, she would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

Note: Councillor Chapman was not present whilst the application was discussed and joined the meeting after it had been determined.

22/00289/FUL

Councillor Rehman declared an interest as the applicant and owner of the property and stated that he would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

The Committee considered an application (21/01176/FUL) for the redevelopment of the former Dominion Oils site and adjacent land to provide residential development comprising 100% affordable housing (50 houses and 40 flats) and open spaces; estate road; access; footpaths; landscaping, and car parking.

The Planning Officer presented the report and showed plans of the development, and drew attention to a number of key points of the scheme:

·       The site comprised a redundant and vacant former employment site which had last been used in excess of 15 years ago as a depot for Dominion Oils and as railway sidings.  Since usage had ceased the site had been vacant, leading to vegetation growth and an increase in biodiversity. However, it been largely cleared by the landowner prior to the submission of the planning application.  The site was a constrained shape, and comprised changes in levels.  The site would need to be levelled as part of the development;

·       The development would comprise 100% affordable housing.  Parking was proposed at a ratio of lower than 1:1 (76 spaces to be provided off plot, adjacent to the street);

·       The scheme would seek to increase permeability through the site by improving footpath access at three nodes, including provision to be made for a footpath to align with a footpath on St Nicholas Place which could help to facilitate any future addition of a bridge, should this be forthcoming in the future;

·       The dwellings would be all electric.  The houses would utilise air source heat pumps and the flats would utilise PV panels;

·       The site was not allocated in the Local Plan, but had been previously allocated in the Sites and Housing Plan.  The proposal would contribute to addressing the severe shortage of affordable housing in Oxford.  The affordable housing would be secured as 100% via a Section 106 agreement;

·       The proposal was considered to be acceptable in design and heritage terms.  It was also considered acceptable in terms of energy efficiency, crime prevention, trees, flooding, noise and vibration; 

·       Highways impact concerns had been addressed by the highways authority, which had raised no objections subject to (i) conditions and managing parking, and (ii) S106 contributions to secure improvements to public transport, a bus shelter, real-time passenger information and a raised table in the junction of Railway Lane and Chapel Lane;

·       The biodiversity value of the site had been examined extensively through the use of a biodiversity metric and the scheme comprised an assessment of the impact of the proposal on any protected species.  The metric had assessed the site at pre-clearance levels and identified that 17.96 habitat credits would be required to compensate for the biodiversity lost by the development and the 5% biodiversity net gain required by the Local Plan.  This would not be able to provided in its entirety within the scheme itself; the applicant therefore proposed to off-set in accordance with Policy G2 by paying a financial contribution equivalent to 16 habitat credits to the Trust for Oxfordshire’s Environment and providing 1.96 credits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Committee considered an application (22/01215/FUL) for the retention of an existing research modular building (The Anna Watts Building, located on Plot K of the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter), for the Department of Experimental Psychology (Use Class D1) for a temporary period of 4 years.

The Planning Officer presented the report and photographs of the building and highlighted the following:

·         The reason for retention was to enable experiments to continue whilst the Life and Mind Building (LaMB) was being constructed.  The LaMB was due to be completed in late 2024;

·         The permission, if granted, would be conditioned to require the building to be removed and the land reinstated with a period of 4 years from the grant of permission, or when experiments had concluded if sooner;

·         Officers were confident that there would be no further application to retain the temporary building, as the Life and Mind Building was currently under construction;

·         Officers considered that there was less than substantial harm to St Paul’s Church, as the building interrupted views of the church from the site and also views onto the conservation area from the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter.  It was considered that the public benefits derived from retaining the employment, and the benefits which Oxford University brought to the economy, outweighed the less than substantial harm which would be caused by a temporary building;

·         The boundary wall and existing vegetation largely screened the building from view from Walton Street.  It was therefore not considered that the building significantly impacted on the streetscape from Walton Street.

After being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application subject to the required planning conditions.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 11 of the report and grant planning permission; and

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

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

The Committee considered an application 21/03582/FUL for conversion and partial redevelopment of the Oxford Deaf and Hard of Hearing Centre to create a hotel (Use Class C1) with ancillary community facility venue.  The proposal included the retention, refurbishment and repair of the principal Grade II listed building (10 Littlegate Street); conversion, refurbishment and repair of the former Baptist Chapel Building; demolition of side and rear extensions (10a and 10b Littlegate Street); erection of a 4 storey side extension and part 2/4 storey rear extension; provision of hard / soft landscaping; installation of green / blue roofs and green walls; and provision of 2no accessible car parking spaces (with EV charging) and staff / guest cycle parking.

Planning Officers gave a presentation covering the application and the related Listed Building Consent application 21/03583/LBC which was the subsequent item on the agenda.

The following was highlighted:

·         The proposal involved the removal of 19^th century extensions to the listed cottage which were considered to be detrimental to the character of the building;

·         Consideration had been given in the proposal to avoid overlooking of the Lucy Faithfull House development currently under construction;

·         12 further objections had been received since publication of the report.  These were similar, and all related to the loss of the site as a live music venue, stating that the music community had not been consulted by the applicant at the pre-application stage and that the application submission did not acknowledge that the music community were active users of the site;

·         The Planning Officer responded that it was officers’ understanding that the primary use of the site was as the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Centre. The Chapel building, which was sought to be retained, was let to various community users understood to have included, on an ad-hoc basis, some live music.  However, the hall was not considered to be a live music venue within its own right.  The proposal was recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the hall to be retained for community use which could include live music.  The site was currently vacant so that no access or use of it could currently be made; securing availability for the community through a Section 106 agreement was therefore considered to be an improvement on the current situation;

·         The Planning Officer reported that although paragraph 10.33 of the report referred to the former chapel building as being locally listed, it was not currently on the Oxford Heritage Asset Register.  However, officers were able to identify buildings as a local heritage asset through the application process and had done so in this case, with the relevant tests in the NPPF having been applied.

Gregory Owen spoke against the application.

Philip Taylor, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to, the following points:

·       The extent to which the proposal met the requirements of Local Plan policy V7 which sought to protect and retain existing cultural and community facilities, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

The Committee considered an application (21/03583/LBC) for Listed Building Consent for the demolition of a C20 century addition to 10 Littlegate Street and alterations to, and refurbishment of, the retained building.

The Planning Officers gave a joint presentation covering the application and the related full application 21/03582/FUL which was the preceding item on the agenda.  The following was noted:

·         The listed building known as ‘the cottage’ comprised a five bay, timber-framed, 17^th century building which had been built over the surviving remains of a 12^th century gatehouse to the Blackfriars Friary, some of which remains were presently visible within the building.  The removal of the later extension would offer the opportunity to make publicly visible a stone archway which was currently only visible from within the building as well as any additional surviving stonework in the west wall of the listed building that may be uncovered during the proposed restoration;

·         The proposal involved the removal of a large flat roof dormer and restoration of the roof to a single pitched roof;

·         The requirement for an archaeological watching brief and building recording had been included in a recommended condition;

·         Correction was provided to paragraph 1.1.1 of the officer’s report stating that this should refer to planning conditions set out in section 15 (not as written section 12) of the report and that the recommendation should be for the issue of Listed Building Consent (not planning permission);

·         The 17^th century timber frame building, although significantly altered, retained some of the original timber frame and this would be restored and repaired in a conservative manner as part of the proposal.

A proposal to grant Listed Building Consent was moved and seconded.

On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to grant Listed Building Consent.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 15 of the report and grant Listed Building Consent; and

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

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

·     issue the Listed Building Consent.

The Committee considered an application (22/00289/FUL) for erection of a part single, part two storey side extension at 75 Langley Close, Oxford.  The application was before the Committee as the applicant was an elected Councillor of Oxford City Council.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and reported that the property had already been extended by way of a single storey side extension, and was also currently being extended further under permitted development rights.

In response to a question about parking, the Planning Officer advised that following the grant of planning permission the property was operated as a House of Multiple Occupation (HMO).   As this permission had been granted, it was not possible to retrospectively add conditions relating to parking.  However, on checking the terms of the planning permission granted under application 21/01989/FUL it was confirmed that the property had been excluded from the Controlled Parking Zone as part of this permission allowing the change of use to an HMO.

A proposal to approve the application was moved and seconded, and on being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application as set out in the report.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved 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 the report and grant planning permission; and

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

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

The Chair reported that Adrian Arnold was attending his final planning committee meeting as Head of Planning Services, after 6 years’ service with the Council.  On behalf of the Committee the Chair thanked Adrian for his work and wished him well for the future.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2022 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2022 as a true and accurate record.

Items currently expected to be considered by the committee at future meetings are listed for information. This is not a definitive list and applications may be added or removed at any point. These are not for discussion at this meeting.

The Committee noted the list of forthcoming applications.

Future meetings of the Committee are scheduled at 6.00pm on:

16 August 2022

20 September 2022

18 October 2022

15 November 2022

13 December 2022

24 January 2023

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.