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 stated 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.

23/02114/FUL

Councillor Clarkson declared that she lived in the area close to the John Radcliffe Hospital.  However, it was not sufficiently close as to be affected by the application, and she would approach the application with an open mind.

Councillor Malik declared that he also lived in the area close to the John Radcliffe Hospital.  However, it was not sufficiently close as to be affected by the application and he would approach the application with an open mind.

Councillor Rehman declared that he also lived in the area close to the John Radcliffe Hospital.  However, it was not sufficiently close as to be affected by the application, and he would approach the application with an open mind.

Councillor Chapman declared that the application site was within his ward; however, he had not had any conversations regarding the application and was approaching it with an open mind.

Councillor Douglas declared that he held an honorary contract as a Locum Consultant Physician with the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.  [Note: this did not constitute an interest as the contract was non-remunerated and Councillor Douglas would not be using the new building in the future].  Having arrived at the meeting after the start of the officer’s presentation Councillor Douglas did not participate in the debate or vote on this application.

23/02506/CT3

Councillor Upton declared that she had been involved in various discussions relating to funding for the bridge.  Although she believed that she would be able to approach the application with an open mind and assess it impartially against Local Plan policies, in order to avoid any perception of pre-determination Councillor Upton stated that she would leave the room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

Councillor Chapman declared that he was a member of the Cabinet and also a member of the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group, which had a tangential interest in the application.  Whilst he believed that he would be able to consider the application with an open mind, Councillor Chapman stated that due to the risk of the public perception of pre-determination he would leave the room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

Councillor Mundy declared that he had been in contact with a member of the public with regard to the application; however, he had not formed an opinion and would be approaching the application with an open mind.

23/01198/FUL

Councillor Corais declared that he had made a representation on the application and would therefore not participate in determining it and would leave the room whilst it was considered.

Councillor Douglas  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

The Committee considered an application (23/02114/FUL) for erection of a modular theatre building including associated infrastructure, landscaping and parking at John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The proposal represented an extension to the hospital of approximately 14,000 sqm of floor space over five levels and would connect to the Childrens’ Hospital and the Eye Wing via a link corridor.  The building would be of a modular construction, providing 7 new operating theatres in order to meet current demand and provide future capacity.

·       The proposal would help to meet the need for surgery in Oxford and Oxfordshire, as well as the wider South East Integrated Care System region. It would also provide approximately 174 new full-time jobs for staff.

·       Officers advised that a late representation had been received from the Oxford Preservation Trust and the comments arising had already been covered in the report.  Officers considered that there would be some additional harm to views arising from the increase to visual distraction, resulting in a high level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.  However, it was considered that the very significant benefits of the proposal in terms of providing much needed theatre accommodation outweighed the harm in this instance.

·       16 visitor car parking spaces would be retained on site and 121 visitor spaces would be re-provided within existing car parks.  This would involve the displacement of existing staff car parking spaces, resulting in a reduction of staff car parking provision.  The Trust was undertaking a Framework Transport Strategy for the whole site in recognition of the impact of the hospital on traffic generation and congestion in the wider Headington area; this would include measures to help reduce the need for staff to travel to the site by car and encourage a shift to more sustainable modes of transport.

·       The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions securing the Framework Transport Strategy; a travel plan; a car park management plan; cycle parking securing the 35 spaces needed; and a contribution of approx. £170,000 towards the Eastern Arc bus route.

·       A satisfactory Landscape Plan and tree canopy cover assessment had now been received.  The latter had satisfactorily demonstrated that the tree canopy cover lost would be replaced over 25 years.  A biodiversity net gain had also been demonstrated through a scheme of 11 trees to be provided elsewhere in the hospital grounds: this met the minimum of 5% required by the Local Plan policy and also the 10% required by the Environment Act 2021 (although that percentage was not legally required for this application) and this could be secured via a S106 agreement.  As such, officers amended their recommendation so as to remove reference to these issues.

·       The development would include a drainage strategy and sustainable drainage. This would include attenuation of the water from the car park, resulting in a betterment of the current situation.  Officers were satisfied that there would be no increased  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Councillors Upton and Chapman left the room for this item and did not participate in determining the application.

The Committee considered an application (23/02506/CT3) for construction of a pedestrian / cycle bridge across the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows at South Side, Oxpens Road, Oxford.

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

·         Since publication of the report, three additional objections had been received.  Most of the issues raised had already been addressed in the committee report; however, in relation to those not included in the report the Planning Officer responded as set out below.

·         Officers had assessed the impact of the bridge on the local area and had found it to be acceptable.  The bridge had been designed to minimise its impact on the site and this was set out in the report.  Natural England had commented on the application and stated that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact.

·         The report set out that the other bridges located close to the application site had been looked at but had not been deemed to fulfil the requirements of the proposed bridge for various reasons, including needing extensive works to allow them to be suitable for use by cyclists.  

·         The proposed upgrades to the tow path would be designed to enable it to be suitable for use as a cycle route.  The County Council would be the lead authority in determining whether it would be designated as a main cycle way.

·         The issue of bottlenecks under the Railway Bridge had been considered in the committee report, which set out that research showed that cyclists adjusted their speed depending on the density of pedestrians.  The County Council had been consulted on the application and had raised no objection to the shared use of the path or bridge.

·         Officers had screened the development and did not consider it to be EIA development.

·         Officers agreed with the sequential and exception test set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. 

·         Officers considered the development as essential infrastructure.  This type of development was acceptable in flood zone 3b.  Notwithstanding this, the sequential and the exception test would still need to be met.

·         Policy SP1 and SP2 set out that a new cycle and pedestrian bridge over the river should be delivered in this location to link and enhance routes to the city centre.  The aspiration for a new bridge over a watercourse would in itself be required to cross an area of high risk to flooding.  The Local Plan and West End SPD set out that this area should be the location for the bridge. Officers therefore considered the sequential test had been met. 

·         Paragraph 170 of the NPPF set out that “To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Councillors Douglas and Corais left the room for this item and did not participate in determining the application.

The Committee considered an application (23/01198/FUL) for the demolition of existing Bingo Unit (Sui Generis, Classes E (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g) (i, ii or iii)); development of a new part-four/part-five storey (plus roof plant) building comprising laboratory and office space (Use Class E(g)) and a ground floor level commercial unit (Use Class E(a) or E(b)) with associated access road, public realm, hard and soft landscaping, cycle parking, EV charging, service yard, site infrastructure and associated works at Unit 1, Ozone Leisure Park, Grenoble Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       Since publication of the report the Environment Agency had formally lifted their objection to the development, subject to three recommended conditions.  These were (i) that the development was carried out in accordance with the revised Flood Risk Assessment; (ii) there was no raising of the ground levels within the 1% annual exceedance probability flood extent and (iii) a requirement that no development took place within a 10m buffer zone of the Littlemore Brook.  Officers had agreed these and advised that these conditions should be attached to any permission in the event that Members were minded to approve the application.

·       A correction was required to the CIL payment figure in the report, to reflect that the building had not been in continuous occupation for at least 6 of the last 36 months.  The revised CIL liability would be £345,247.11.

·       The proposal involved the demolition of a unit previously occupied by a bingo hall attached to the Ozone leisure complex located at the Kassam Stadium site, and construction of a new five storey building housing 10,929 sqm of lab and office space.  The new building would be detached from the adjacent buildings in the Ozone leisure complex: the service road to the north would be removed and replaced by a new pedestrian and cycle access route between Minchery Lane and the Kassam Stadium, opening up a new route through the site and improving connectivity and permeability of movement.  Service access would be provided to the eastern side of the building where it adjoined the retained Ozone buildings.

·       Significant weight had been given to the fact that the existing building could be re-used for the proposed use under previously granted planning permission.  Therefore, the community use of the site as a bingo hall could not be afforded significant protection. Officers considered that this was a significant fallback position which represented a material justification to depart from Policy V7 of the Local Plan.

·       The site was not currently allocated for employment use in the Local Plan; however, it did adjoin the Oxford Science Park which was allocated, and the site lay within the Cowley Branch Line area of change.  Policy AOC7 promoted the development of high density employment uses within the Cowley Branch Line area of change.

·       The Ozone leisure complex had been allocated in the emerging Local Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

The Committee considered an application (23/00516/FUL) for demolition of existing building; erection of a three storey building to create a community hall (Use Class F2(b)) and 2 x 2 bed flats (Use Class C3); and provision of bin and bike store at The Annexe, Madina Mosque, 2 Stanley Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        The proposal sought the demolition of the existing annexe and replacement with a three storey building adjoining the rear of the mosque.  It would be constructed from red brick to match the existing and would incorporate an asymmetrical pitched roof with rooflights so that the upper floor was partially set within the roof space.

·        The proposed replacement annexe would provide a new community hall at ground floor level and 2 x two-bedroomed flats at the first and second floor levels, accessed externally from a replacement metal staircase which would also continue to provide a fire escape from the main mosque building at the rear.

·        A number of late objections to the proposal had been received.  These had mainly related to amenity, parking and highway safety considerations which were covered in the officer report.

·        The officer recommendation was to grant planning permission for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Michael Scholar of the Iffley Road Residents’ Association spoke against 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 first floor and second floor windows would be a distance of approximately 12m from the boundary with no. 4 Stanley Road which is considered acceptable in planning terms, compared with a current distance of approximately 14m.  The ground floor would have a shorter distance to the boundary (approximately 10m) as the building was larger at the ground floor than at the first and second floors.  However, as the ground floor looked towards the existing boundary treatments there was not considered to be any issue with overlooking.

·       The main mosque building contained existing flats at the upper floors which were used as houses in multiple occupancy (HMOs).  The proposal for the additional two flats which formed part of this application were not considered to comprise over-occupation of the premises, as they related to two different parts of the application site.

·       In terms of cycle storage, the application would include six Sheffield stands for the dwellings, and a further six for the community hall; this would require clarification within conditions 8 and 9.

·       A Committee Member commented that the existing situation appeared to be having a serious impact on neighbours arising from parking issues and questioned whether the new community hall would result in an increase in parking on the surrounding roads.  The applicant responded that it was not expected that this would be the case as the majority of users would be from the immediate community who lived within a walking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024 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 April 2024*

21 May 2024

25 Jun 2024

16 July 2024

20 August 2024

17 September 2024

* This meeting will be held in Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3 at Oxfordshire County Council, County Hall, New Road, Oxford OX1 1ND).

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.