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

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

Councillor Wade stated that as a member of the Oxford Civic Society she had taken no part in that organisation’s discussions or decision making regarding the applications before the Committee.  She said that she was approaching all of the applications with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

21/03057/FUL

Councillor Cook stated that as a member of, and employed by, the University of Oxford he had no prior involvement or prejudicial interest in the application before the Committee.  He was approaching the application with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

Councillor Upton stated that she was employed by the University of Oxford but had no prior involvement or prejudicial interest in the application before the Committee.  She was approaching the application with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

21/03328/OUTFUL

Councillor Hollingsworth stated that the officer’s report included three references which implied the applicant was Oxford City Homes Ltd (OCHL), the Council’s wholly-owned housing company.  Whilst OCHL was not the applicant, staff from OCHL had provided some consultancy support for the application.  He stated that as the Cabinet Member for housing delivery he had regular engagement with OCHL, and whilst he had not discussed this particular application he would, for the avoidance of any appearance of bias, withdraw from the meeting whilst it was decided.

The Committee considered an application (21/03057/FUL) for the construction of a new humanities building in the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter to include: academic faculty space; a concert hall; a theatre; experimental performance lab; lecture hall; public engagement and outreach facilities; and new public realm and landscape space with associated access, servicing route, disabled parking facility and covered and open cycle spaces.   The building would be publicly accessible: the public spaces would be located on the ground and lower floors, with the upper floors housing the faculties and academic spaces. 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and made the following verbal updates:

·             Oxfordshire County Council had requested a number of contributions for highway improvements around the site in order to mitigate the pedestrian impact of the development.  Discussions between the applicant and the County Council regarding these contributions were ongoing.  It was proposed to update the recommendation shown in the report to include agreement to delegate to the Head of Planning Services authority to finalise, agree and secure additional contributions for highway improvements around the site through either S106 or a condition.

·             A condition relating to drainage, which was required by the County Council, had been omitted from the report and required inclusion as an additional condition.

In presenting the report the Planning Officer informed the Committee that a small area of the site was located in the North Oxford Conservation Area.  The remainder of the site was bounded by three other conservation areas: Walton Manor, Jericho and Central.  Additionally, there were a number of listed buildings in close proximity: most notably, Observatory Tower and St Paul’s Church (Freuds).  Great weight had been given to preserving these heritage assets when determining the application.

With a total height of approximately 22.5 metres to the top of the dome, the building would be visible from Castle Mound, St Mary’s Tower and Raleigh Park.  This had been considered by officers as set out in the report.  Whilst some harm had been identified, the impact of the development on the skyline was considered to result in a moderate level of less than substantial harm.  Historic England had raised no objection to the application, and it was considered that the moderate level of less than substantial harm caused by the development would be outweighed by the public benefits as described in the report.  The site was an allocation site, and the proposal was considered to comply with the requirements of the allocation as well as the other policies of the Oxford Local Plan and be acceptable in terms of principle, design, impact on neighbouring amenities, highways and heritage issues.

Reverend Dr William Whyte, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

In discussion, Committee Members sought clarification on: the visual impact of the plant and plant housing, in particular from Observatory Tower; the retention of the existing route from Woodstock Road past the Andrew Wiles Building to Walton Street as a public pedestrian and cycle right of way; capacity for foul water and sewerage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

Councillor Hollingsworth withdrew from the meeting whilst this application was considered.

The Committee considered an application (21/03328/OUTFUL) for demolition of the existing Northfield Hostel buildings and erection of 2no. 4 storey buildings to provide 51 dwellings (Use Class C3); provision of new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; vehicular and bicycle parking; landscaping; amenity space; refuse storage and noise attenuation works; and outline planning permission for the erection of  up to 10 dwelling houses (Use Class C3) on a former playing field to the east of the existing Northfield Hostel buildings.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and made the following verbal updates:

·        The applicants were Oxford City Council and Oxfordshire County Council.   References to Oxford City Housing Ltd (OCHL) at sections 6.3, 7.3 and 10.13 of the report were incorrect; the scheme would be delivered by Oxford County Council, with Oxford City Council developing and managing the site.  OCHL had no legal interest in the scheme.

·        Two public comments had been received following publication of the committee report.  One comment had been in support of the application.  One comment had objected to the application on the grounds that the site was over-developed; there would be insufficient parking; the four-storey blocks would not be in keeping with the surrounding area; the development would impact on neighbouring amenities; highways improvements were required; and the local infrastructure was insufficient.  These comments did not alter the officer’s recommendation, and all of the issues raised had been addressed in the report.  The site was allocated in the Local Plan, and in the preparation of the Plan any necessary infrastructure to support residential development on the site had been considered.

·        Due to the presence of roosting bats, a bat mitigation licence from Natural England would be required prior to the commencement of development, as set out in the report.  Natural England would apply three tests in order to decide whether to grant a licence.  These were: (i) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest; (ii) there must be no satisfactory alternative; and (iii) the action authorised would not adversely affect the favourable conservation status of the species in their natural range.  The Planning Committee must consider the three tests and the likelihood of a licence being granted.  Having considered the three tests, officers had concluded it likely that a bat licence would be granted by Natural England.

With regard to affordable housing, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the proposal included 51 affordable units, equating to 84% of the total dwellings on site.  This would exceed the Local Plan requirement of 50%.  27 of the 51 units would be social rented, which also exceeded the Local Plan requirement when taking into account development on the site as a whole.  The Government’s First Homes policy would come into effect on 28 March: if a legal agreement and planning decision had not been issued by this date then 25% of the affordable housing would be required to be delivered as First  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Committee considered an application (21/03361/FUL) for the demolition of an existing retail store (Use Class E); erection of new building at 1 to 5 storeys containing retail store (Use Class E) and hotel (Use Class C1), service area, landscaping, cycle parking, and drop-off bays on Stile Road.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave the following verbal updates:

·      The Tree Officer comments referred to in section 10.118 of the report had been received.  The Tree Officer had advised that the additional information which had been submitted had helped to address the previous comments made, and suitably worded conditions could be imposed to secure further measures and information in respect of the trees were the application otherwise considered acceptable;

·      Clarification was required with regard to the final two sentences of section 10.28 of the report relating to building height.  These sentences were misleading as they implied that the proposed building was higher than others, notably Holyoake Hall along London Road, when in fact it was not.  These sentences should therefore be deleted and replaced as follows: ‘Moreover, what is clear is that where this height is in the locality it is limited in its width and/or depth.  Where there is this depth this quickly transitions down to the domestic scale buildings behind.  By comparison, the proposal with the size, height and massing due to its significant height, width and depth would cumulatively appear as an incongruous and bulky addition in an area characterised by low scale buildings.’

·      Reason for refusal no. 5 relating to the amenity impacts of the scheme should also refer to shading as an unacceptable impact on the adjacent school.  This had been detailed in the report, but not carried through to the reason for refusal.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that officers considered that the scale and massing of the building, occupying a wide and deep frontage, along with the overall height of 16.3 metres would be unacceptable and out of character in its setting, given the suburban two-storey character of the surrounding uses.  The development also failed to take into account the significance of the non-designated heritage asset of St Andrew’s School.  There were highway concerns with the proposal in that the application had not been supported by an appropriate assessment of the existing trip rate of the retail store, nor had local car parks been surveyed to assess whether there was capacity to meet the demands of the development.  Officers were concerned that the lack of operational parking on site to service hotel drop-offs and pick-ups could lead to indiscriminate parking on the highway and thus obstruction, which would be detrimental to highway safety.  There were also significant amenity concerns as detailed in the report.  These included a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and the school from the hotel windows; the proposal would be overbearing and intrusive and would impact on sunlight to the school and cause undue shade.  The proposed hotel was heavily reliant on obscured glazing in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2022 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 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:

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.  An additional meeting had been scheduled for Wednesday 23 March at 6.00pm.