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.

23/02342/FUL

Councillor Hollingsworth declared that he was the owner of the property which was the subject of the application and stated that he would leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

The Committee considered an application (22/00409/FUL) for the demolition of squash courts, gardener’s shed, existing porter's lodge and existing accommodation building; construction of three accommodation buildings to house 51 student study bedrooms, associated communal spaces and landscape on the existing tennis courts site; construction of a new Porter's Lodge and associated office facilities to replace the existing Porter's Lodge and Clock Tower; construction of a new single storey informal study space to replace the existing glass house; construction of a new dining hall and associated facilities replacing the existing Doll building and change of use of residential gardens and retention of building used as a college gym at Green Templeton College, Woodstock Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        The application related to development on three parcels of land on the Green Templeton College site which lay to the north of the Radcliffe Observatory quarter: the Tennis Court site (surrounded by a Grade II listed boundary wall), the Dining Hall site and the Gym.  With the exception of the Gym, the site lay within the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area; the Gym building lay within the Walton Manor Conservation Area.  The site was also considered to fall within the wider setting of the Central and Jericho Conservation Areas.

·        The proposal for the Tennis Court site included an arrangement of three buildings, centred around an internal garden, containing 53 student rooms in a mix of ensuite and studio rooms.  The existing Porter’s Lodge and Gatehouse building would be removed and replaced with a new Porter’s Lodge building consisting of reception, office and meeting spaces.  A new café space would attach to Building A on the western side of the site, replacing the Observatory Garden.  A new building was proposed on the site of the Richard Doll building, consisting of dining spaces (re-located from the Observatory building), and kitchen space.  The proposal included the retention of the single storey Gym building, located to the north of the Dining Hall.

·        The site was considered appropriate for student accommodation as it was on an existing college campus site.  It was considered that the siting of the student housing would comply with Policy H8 of the Oxford Local Plan.

·        The proposal included the loss of the existing tennis and squash courts.  Officers considered that alternative appropriate provision existed within the area and would be available to students, such that the loss of these facilities would not be harmful in terms of sports provision for students.  The Gym, which was a highly valued facility, would be retained. Sport England had raised no objection to the proposals, which were therefore considered to comply with Policy G5 of the Oxford Local Plan.

·        No additional car parking was proposed: cycle parking was included and would be secured by condition.

·        The proposals involved a new opening within the Grade II listed boundary wall, providing a gated entrance giving access into the garden area.

·        Whilst the Richard Doll building appeared aesthetically well-designed, there were functionality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

(Note: this application was considered together with application 22/00409/FUL above).

The Committee considered an application (22/00410/LBC) for Listed Building Consent for alterations to grade ll listed boundary wall fronting onto Woodstock Road and to curtilage listed walls to former walled garden associated with the construction of new buildings adjacent to and abutting these structures at Green Templeton College, Woodstock Road, Oxford.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for listed building consent for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required listed building conditions 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 11 of the report and grant listed building consent; 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.

The Committee considered an application (23/01483/FUL) for change of use of the first to fourth floors and part basement and ground floor to provide 55no. ensuite student accommodation rooms (Sui Generis); erection of a roof extension to the front elevation above fourth floor and a two storey roof extension to rear elevation above third floor; alterations to basement to create plant area and bin storage; formation of new entrance lobby to Friars Entry with reception, break out area and cycle storage and alterations to fenestration at 13-15 Oxenford House, Magdalen Street, Oxford.

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

·        Since the committee report was published, the Highways Authority had removed its objection relating to the provision of cycle storage following the submission of amended plans.  The cycle storage had been removed from the basement and relocated to the ground floor.

·        The latest advice from Highways was that the travel monitoring fee to be secured via a s106 agreement was not now necessary.  The mechanism for securing four cycle stands on highway land within Friar’s Entry had also been confirmed as being acceptable to be conditioned.  A s106 requirement for the contribution towards affordable housing provision remained.

·        Condition 13 required correction to refer to 56 cycle spaces (not 55).

·        The principle of the proposed development was considered acceptable on the basis that it was an existing city centre site, and the proposal would make best and most efficient use of the land in order to provide sought after student accommodation in a sustainable location.

·        The application comprised speculative development: however, it was known that both universities relied on additional market rental accommodation to provide housing for students.  The proposal would provide 55 rooms towards meeting this provision, each with ensuite accommodation and shared kitchen.

·        Oxenford House contributed positively to the character and appearance of the central conservation area as one of the few remaining mid-20^th century buildings in the city centre.  The most substantial and visually prominent element of the proposal was the additions to the roof, which would increase the overall height and prominence of the upper floors of the building.  However, the roof extension would remain lower than the adjacent Debenhams building and the Randolph Hotel, limiting its impact on the city’s roofscape.  The extension to the front would be stepped back from the north elevation of the building to maintain views of the roof parapet from street level.

·        Officers considered that the proposed materials would respond well to the façade’s existing palette, and that the proposal would not alter the composition of the historical skyline as the scale of the proposed development was not of such magnitude as to compete with existing landmarks.

·        The development was of a sustainable design and construction and involved retrofitting the building to a high energy sustainability standard.

·        On balance it was considered that the development would, by way of replacement of the original glass panels with insulated aluminium panels, erode the distinctive mid-20  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Committee considered an application (23/01482/FUL) for change of use of the first to fourth floors and part basement and ground floor to office use (Class E); erection of a roof extension to the front elevation above fourth floor and a two storey roof extension to rear elevation above third floor; internal and external alterations to allow level access and provide lift services to all floors; provision of bin and cycle storage and alterations to fenestration at 13-15 Oxenford House, Magdalen Street, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·         The advice from the Highways Authority was that the travel monitoring fee was no longer necessary.  The Highways Authority was also satisfied that the four cycle stands on highways land could be secured by a condition.  Therefore, there was no requirement for a s106 obligation.

·         The assessment of the proposed scheme had considered the loss of the existing uses as set out in the report.  The principle of the development was considered acceptable as it was an existing city centre site, making best and most efficient use of the land to provide office use in a sustainable location.

·         The proposal was speculative; however, it was acknowledged that the development would provide operational employment of in the region of 184 full-time employment positions based on the floor space and one staff member per 10-13 sqm and the equivalent of 15 full-time employment positions during the construction phase.

·         The scheme was considered to cause less than substantial harm to the conservation area at the lower level.  However, the assessment of public benefits as required by the NPPF considered that the benefits of the scheme included increased energy efficiency; the contribution to the demand for sustainably located office space; and improvements to the public realm in Friar’s Entry which would collectively outweigh the identified low level of less than substantial harm which would be caused to the conservation area.  The development would preserve the significance of the nearby listed buildings and the setting in which the site was located and cause no harm.

·         The building was proposed as a managed facility, with permanent on-site staff.  The refuse and recycling strategy was for building management operatives to move the bins from the ground floor level to the designated collection point. 

·         Subject to the relevant conditions, the proposed development would meet policy requirements in relation to all other issues assessed as part of the application including biodiversity, land quality, air quality, archaeology and drainage.  Officers were therefore recommending approval of the application as set out in the report, subject to conditions.

Arron Twamley (agent) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers.  Committee members again considered that the servicing arrangements required a specific condition.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the conditions set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Councillor Hollingsworth left the meeting room for this item and did not return.

The Committee considered an application (23/02342/FUL) for removal of 1no. rooflight to rear elevation; alterations to fenestration and insertion of 3no. ventilation grilles to front elevation at 34 Canal Street, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        Planning permission was sought for replacement windows and a door, removal of a rooflight and insertion of ventilation grilles.

·        Three timber sash windows on the front elevation (one at ground floor and two at first floor) were proposed to be replaced with double glazed timber sliding sash windows of a design which was similar to the existing.  The windows were an important feature of the Conservation Area: officers showed a plan which detailed the design of the replacement windows and confirmed that the new sash windows would sit inset from the 19^th century brickwork, as existing.

·        Officers clarified that the property was situated within an area covered by an Article 4 Direction, which meant that planning permission was required for the works which would otherwise be allowed under permitted development.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions 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 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 12 December 2023 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 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:

20 February 2024

19 March 2024

23 April 2024

21 May 2024

25 June 2024

16 July 2024

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.