General

Councillor Upton declared that as a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust she had taken no part in that organisation’s discussions regarding any of 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 on them.

23/02166/FUL

Councillor Hollingsworth declared that he rented an office within a building on Transport Way.  Councillor Hollingsworth stated that he was declaring this for transparency reasons as Transport Way was referred to within the officer’s report for the first item.

The Committee considered an application (23/02166/FUL) for the demolition of Buildings 30.5 and 31.5, extension of Integrated Logistics Centre (Building 80.0) and Body-in-White/Logistics building (Building 31.0/31.3), provision of a new lorry parking area, expansion of external waste storage area, realignment of internal road and installation of associated landscaping, delivery decks, canopies, shutter doors, windows, plant and equipment and all other associated works at BMW UK Manufacturing Ltd, Garsington Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation, provided the following update and also highlighted the following:

·        Since the committee report had been published a trial trenching exercise had been carried out.  This was satisfactory as it had not yielded significant finds and therefore no further mitigation or condition above the standard site-wide archaeology condition was required.

·        The off-site mitigation referenced in paragraph 10.91 referred to the car park grassland.  This was outside the red line boundary of development but was within the blue line of BMW’s land ownership.

·        Clarity was provided in relation to the conclusion in paragraph 10.33 that the development would not cause any adverse impacts on any conservation areas or other heritage assets. 

·        In relation to transport, clarity was provided that supporting assessments, surveys and details had been submitted and assessed as part of the planning application.  Comments had also been received from the local Highways Authority, which was content that the development and its impact were acceptable and mitigated by the proposed conditions.  As an additional benefit, BMW had agreed to make improvements to several access points to the site in order to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists.  This would be controlled and managed by a Section 278 agreement with the Highways Authority and these works did not require planning permission.  Mitigation for the impacts of the necessary additional HGV movements had been sought through a submitted travel plan which together with active travel improvements would encourage staff and people living and working in the surrounding area to arrive by non-car modes.

·        Approval of the application was recommended by officers for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the conditions set out in the report but without the requirement for further archaeological information and including a unilateral undertaking with the County Council in terms of the travel plan monitoring fee.

Tom Bradford of BMW (the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers and the applicant.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·        The application represented an investment in the Oxford site which would offer benefits to the local economy as well as employment opportunities, securing the future of car manufacturing in Oxford.

·        The proposal also offered a sustainable future for car manufacturing through the production of electric vehicles, which was welcomed.

·        The design was rated BREEAM excellent and offered 40% carbon reduction.

·        A committee member commented that he hoped the travel plan associated with the proposal would help to ease congestion from lorries queueing to access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Committee considered an application (22/03076/FUL) for the demolition of existing buildings and replacement with new building comprising Research & Development, office and café space (Use Class E), including external lighting, hard and soft landscaping, ramped access, service bay, bin store, car and cycle parking, altered vehicular access onto Botley Road, pedestrian and cycle paths, means of enclosure, utilities, and associated works at 135 – 137 Botley Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and provided updates and also highlighted the following:

·        A correction was provided to paragraph 3.1 to reflect that the applicant was not now required to enter into a s278 agreement with the County Council.

·        In relation to paragraphs 10.15 and 10.50 which referred to the NPPF in relation to heritage assets, clarification was provided that the NPPF also stated that substantial harm to or loss of a scheduled ancient monument should be ‘wholly exceptional’.  For this application, the Castle Mound and the Tower referred to in the report comprised the scheduled ancient monument.

·        Confirmation was provided that the County Council had removed its objection in relation to the provision of cycle parking.

·        In relation to paragraph 10.85, clarification was provided that the transport assessment showed a net gain of six traffic movements in peak hours, which included servicing and delivery.

·        In relation to paragraph 10.157, a correction was provided that the first set of obligations related to the County Council, and the second set to the City Council.

·        Since publication of the report several additional representations had been received.  The points raised had largely been addressed in the officer’s report.  One additional matter had been raised which had related to a comment by the Oxford Design Review Panel about considering the application in the context of a wider masterplan.  The Planning Officer clarified that there was no wider masterplan for the area: as set out in the report there was a Technical Advice Note which gave guidance only on how future development of the Botley Road area might come forward.  One representation had also objected that proper public consultation had not taken place: the Planning Officer clarified that there had been three rounds of statutory advertisement in the newspaper and issuing of site notices as part of the application process.  The applicant had also undertaken an extensive consultation during the pre-application process which had included a drop of 1800 letters to properties surrounding the site, as well as engagement in the media and with ward councillors and other stakeholders.  Officers were satisfied that proper consultation had been undertaken.

·        The principle of the development was considered acceptable: it was in a highly sustainable location and would provide flexible floor space offering high quality research and development labs and office space creating a total of 620 jobs for the local economy and would help meet the high need and demand for research and development space for life sciences in Oxford, thus contributing to Oxford’s economic growth.  It would also provide a café and ground floor amenity which would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

The Committee considered an application (23/02423/FUL) for the raising of roof height, formation of 1no dormer and 1no rooflight to north-west roofslope, formation of 3no rooflights to south-east roofslope in association with loft conversion; insertion of 1no window to front and 2no windows to rear elevation; re-render of external walls and removal of chimney stack at 38 Stile Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The application was a householder application which was before the Committee as the applicant was employed within the Planning and Regulatory Services department of Oxford City Council.

·       A correction was required to condition 4 as clarification had been received that the rooflights referenced in the condition would stand above head height in the room.  There was therefore no risk of them generating harmful overlooking of neighbouring properties and so the requirement for obscure glazing was not needed.  This would be replaced by a condition to ensure that the roof light on the opposite elevation shown in error on the proposed loft plan does not form part of the development and is not permitted.

·       Officers considered that the application was acceptable in terms of design and would not adversely impact neighbouring amenity.  Given that the works related only to the upper level of the property there would be no identified impacts in terms of highways or parking.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommended to approve the application, subject to the required planning conditions set out in the report and as amended / referred to above.

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 and Regulatory 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 and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2023 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2023 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:

23 January 2024

20 February 2024

19 March 2024

23 April 2024

21 May 2024

25 June 2024

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.