Councillor Altaf-Khansent apologies. 

Councillor Regisford attended online but didn’t partake in the vote of any agenda items.  

General  

In relation to 24/01344/FULCouncillor Uptonstated that both Civic Society and OPT commented on this item. She clarified that, while she was a member of both organisations, she was not a member of their Planning Committee or involved in the planning applications. 

Site address: Waynflete Building, 1 - 8 St Clement's Street, And 9-13 St Clements Street, Oxford

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the Waynflete Building and the existing extensions at the rear of 9-13 St Clements. Erection of new buildings to accommodate commercial uses at ground level fronting St Clements, replacement student accommodation and sub-dean flats, and provision of a multipurpose space. Installation of comprehensive landscaping scheme (amended plans and ownership certificate).

Reason at Committee: Major Development

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended 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 this report and grant planning permission and subject to:

•       the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in this report; and

2.    agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services to:

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

•       finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in this report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

•       complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the Waynflete Building and the existing extensions at the rear of 9-13 St Clements. Erection of new buildings to accommodate commercial uses at ground level fronting St Clements, replacement student accommodation and sub-dean flats, and provision of a multipurpose space. Installation of comprehensive landscaping scheme (amended plans and ownership certificate).  

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the location and the proposal. This included site photos and existing and proposed elevations and plans. 

·       The application sought planning permission for the redevelopment of the site following the demolition of the Waynflete Building and the existing extensions at the rear of 9-13 St Clements. The proposal included the construction of new buildings to accommodate commercial uses at ground level, fronting St Clements, along with replacement student accommodation and sub-dean flats. Additionally, a multipurpose space was proposed, along with a comprehensive landscaping scheme.   

·       The application site is predominantly occupied by theWaynflete Building to the west and 9-13 St Clements to the east, located on the northern side of The Plain and St Clements. Notable buildings nearby included the River Cherwell and Magdalen Bridge to the west, as well as the main Magdalen College site to the north of the River Cherwell and the Magdalen School site to the south of the application site. The site is currently a mix of business uses and college accommodation, with the proposed development intending to retain these uses.  

·       The Planning Officer provided a verbal update, noting that the considerations of the associated listed building consent application were also relevant to this application. A small amount of less than substantial harm associated with the loss of the rear projections of 9-13 St Clementswasdeemed justified by thesignificant public benefits, which outweigh the harm. The Planning Officer alsoclarified that thisdid not affect the recommendation made in the report. Additionally, the Officerstated a condition was added to clarify the use of the multipurpose space, which had not been explicitly defined in the application description or documentation. As outlined in the officer’s report, this space would be ancillary to the student accommodation, and acondition to clarify this would be appropriate. The development was considered to provide a higher standardof student accommodation with a more energy-efficient building. The low level of less than substantial harm from the loss of the existence building was outweighed by the design and energy efficiency of the new development. The impact on neighbouring amenities was on balance considered acceptable in the urban environment. 

·       The recommendation is for Planning Committee to approve planning permission subject to conditions and section 106 agreement as set out in the officer report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

Site address: Waynflete Building and 9-13 St Clements

Proposal: Alterations to Nos 9-13 St Clements including demolition of rear ranges and partial demolition of boundary walls, internal alterations and alterations associated with fabric upgrades to improve thermal performance. (Amended description)

Reason at Committee: To be considered concurrently with a planning application that is required to be determined by planning committee.

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to:

1.    Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the recommended listed building conditions set out in section 12 of this report grant listed building consent and

2.    Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

•       Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary.

The Committee considered an application for the alterations to Nos 9-13 St Clements including demolition of rear ranges and partial demolition of boundary walls, internal alterations and alterations associated with fabric upgrades to improve thermal performance. (Amended description)  

The Heritage Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the site, the existing buildings, their immediate, surrounding context and the proposal. This included site photos as well as existing and proposed elevations and plans.  

·       The application sought planning permission for alterationsto 9-13 St Clements, which included the demolition of rear ranges, partial demolition of boundary walls, internal alterations and alterations associated with fabric upgrades to enhance thermal performance. 

·       It was noted that there would be a low level of less than substantial harm caused to the significance of the listed buildings buildings principally due to the demolition of the rear ranges of the frontage buildings However, this harm was deemed justified by the substantial alteration that had occurred to the rear ranges during the latter half of the C20 and the early C21 . The low level of significance of the rear ranges, along with the public benefits that would arise directly form the proposed developmentincluding the upgrading of thefabric of the listed buildings, would, officers considered, outweigh the level of less than substantial harm that would be caused. 

·       The recommendation is for Planning Committee to grant listed building consent subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report. 

Dinah Rose, Steven Sensecall and Gavin Henderson spoke in favour of the application.  

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by the officer. 

On being proposed, seconded, and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons listed on the report, and subject to the conditions set out in the report and the completion of a legal agreement. 

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to: 

1.    Approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the recommended listed building conditions set out in section 12 of this report grant listed building consent and 

2.    Agree to delegate authority to the Director of Place & Regulation  to: 

·   Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Place & Regulation  considers reasonably necessary. 

Site address: Clinical Biomanufacturing Facility, Churchill Hospital, Old Road, Headington

Proposal: Erection of a modular manufacturing building (Use Class E). Extension to service road. Installation of sprinkler with palisade fencing, electrical transformer, vehicle barriers, bollards and lampposts. Provision of car and cycle parking, bin storage, loading area, fencing and landscaping. (amended description, plans and drainage strategy).

Reason at Committee: Called in by Councillors Smowton, Miles, Smith, Railton, Fry and Lygo to consider whether proposal is acceptable with regards to drainage in the catchment of the Lye Valley SSSI.

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended 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 this report and grant planning permission subject to:

•       to the removal of an objection from Natural England;

•       the satisfactory completion of a unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in this report; and

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

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

•       finalise the recommended unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in this report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

•       complete the unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 referred to above and issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a modular manufacturing building (Use Class E), extension to service road, installation of sprinkler with palisade fencing, electrical transformer, vehicle barriers, bollards and lampposts, provision of car and cycle parking, bin storage, loading area,fencing and landscaping (amended description, plans and drainage strategy).  

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the location and the proposal. This included site photos and existing and proposed elevations and plans. 

·       The application sought planning permission for the erection of a modular manufacturing building and associated works at the ClinicalBiomanufacturing Facility in Churchill Hospital, Headington. The Clinical Biomanufacturing Facility islocated on the eastern side of Churchill Drive, within the wider Churchill Hospital Site. The facility is used for clinical medicine, providing a link between academic research and clinical drug development to facilitate rapid progress into clinical trials.  

·       The Planning Officer provided a verbal update, stating that it was noted in the Committee report that the recommendation was for Planning Committee to grant approval, subject to Natural England removing their objection. The Council had not yet received further comments from Natural England, and as such, the objection still stood. However as emphasised in the Committee report, Officers expected the objection to be removed in due course. 

·       The proposed development was considered to be acceptable in terms of its design and would not cause detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area,nor to the setting of the non-designated heritage assets on the wider Churchill site. The proposals would not cause any detrimental impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, nor would the proposal cause any impact with regard to highways and car parking, bicycle storage, sustainable design and construction, land quality,archaeology or trees. The proposal, as amended, would not cause any detrimental impactconcerning drainage, biodiversity, or the SSSI. 

·       Subject to the recommended unilateral undertaking, conditions and informatives, and Natural England removing their objection, the proposals were considered to comply with the relevant policies such as the local plan, the Headington Neighbourhood plan and the NPPF. 

Professor Catherine Green, Dawn Brodie, Petar Petrov andDavid Giles spoke in favour of the application. 

TheCommittee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by the officer.  

·       Concerns were raised regarding the Natural England objection.The Planning Officer clarified that they expected Natural England to remove their objections, and the latest comments received explicitly askedthe applicants to conduct further monitoring of the groundwater levels on the site during peak periods in February. This was because Natural England expected February levels to be the wettest, to capture theworst-case scenario. The February results were lower  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Site address: 253 And 255-257 London Road, Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire

Proposal: Demolition of the existing semi-detached building and outbuildings. Erection of a part three, part four-storey apartment block with basement to create 6 x 4 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 1 x 2 bed HMO flats (Use Class C4). Provision of private amenity space, 1no. short-stay car parking bay, bin and cycle stores and associated landscaping. (Amended plans and additional reports).

Reason at Committee: This application was called in by Councillors Smowton, Jupp, Smith, Miles, Gant and Sandels, to allow the committee to consider whether the form, scale, character and appearance of the proposed building constitutes high-quality design.

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to:

1.    Refuse the application for the reason given in paragraph 1.1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to:

•       finalise the reason for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.

2.    The recommended reason for refusal is as follows:

•       The proposal due to its scale, massing, form, and detailed design would result in an overly bulky and prominent form of development which would fail to appropriately respond to the context of the site, appearing as an alien feature within the streetscene, causing harm to the predominantly low scale domestic townscape character of the area. The proposal would not create or enhance local distinctiveness, it would not respond appropriately to the site and character of the area, nor would it be an innovative design which would enhance the identity, character and setting of the area. As such the proposal would be considered contrary to Policies DH1 and RE2 of the Oxford Local Plan, Policies GSP4, CIP1 and CIP3 of the Headington Neighbourhood Plan, as well as the NPPF.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing semi-detached building and outbuildings, erection of a part three, part four-storey apartment block with basement to create 6 x 4 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 1 x 2 bed HMO flats (Use Class C4), provision of private amenity space, 1no. short-stay car parking bay, bin and cycle stores and associated landscaping (Amended plans and additional reports).  

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the location and the proposal. This included site photos and existing and proposed elevations and plans.  

·       The application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings at 253, 255 and 257 London Road and the erection ofa part three, part four-storey building, with associated works to create nine flats intended for use as houses of multiple occupation. 

·       The siteis locatedon the corner plot between London Road and Barton Road within Headington. To the west, there is Headington district centre, designated as an area of change and a transport hub as allocated in the Oxford Local Plan, and to the east the Headington roundabout, which leadsout of the city. The site itself was not an allocated site for development and was situated 500 metres outside the boundary of the district centre.  

·       The development was deemed unacceptable due to its scale, massing, form and detailed design. In particular thepredominantly flat roof design, use of materials, inclusion of a basement with an underground garden, and verticalfenestration detailing were considered to result in a bulky and prominent form of development. This would fail to appropriately respond to the site’s context, appearing dominant on the street and causing harm to the predominantly low-scale, domestic character of the surrounding townscape. The proposal would neither enhancelocal distinctiveness,nor adequately respond to the sites character.The proposal is therefore considered harmful to visual amenity and an overdevelopment of the site which would not result in a high-quality development contrary to the NPPF, National Design Guide, policies DH1 and DH7 of the Oxford Local Plan and policies CIP1, CIP3 and GSP4 of the Headington Neighbourhood Plan. 

Adrian James (Agent) spoke in favour of the application. 

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by the officer.  

On being proposed, seconded, and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons listed on the report  

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to: 

1.    Refuse the application for the reason given in paragraph 1.1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Place and Regulation  to: 

·   finalise the reason for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Place and Regulation  considers reasonably necessary. 

2.    The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2025 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2025 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:

18 March 2025

15 April 2025

20 May 2025

17 June 2025

15 July 2025

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.