Agenda and minutes
To improve accessibility individual documents published after 1 May 2020 are available as HTML pages where their original format supports this
Venue: Long Room - Oxford Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Emma Lund, Committee and Members' Services Officer Tel: 01865 252367 email DemocraticServices@oxford.gov.uk
Election of Chair for the Council Year 2022-23
Councillor Mary Clarkson was elected Chair for the Council year 2022-23.
Election of Vice-Chair for the Council Year 2022-23
Councillor Louise Upton was elected Vice-Chair for the Council year 2022-23.
Declarations of interest
Councillor Upton stated that as a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, she had taken no part in that organisation’s discussions regarding 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.
Councillor Roz Smith stated that as a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, she had taken no part in that organisation’s discussions regarding the applications before the Committee. Councillor Smith 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.
Councillor Fry stated that he had been a signatory to the call-in but 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 Corais stated that he had been a signatory to the call-in but 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.
The Committee considered an application (21/02776/RES) for the approval of reserved matters in relation to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping for 434 residential units and a commercial centre following the grant of outline planning permission for Barton Park in 2013.
The Planning Officer presented the report and visualisations of the development, and provided the following updates:
· Many matters had been agreed at outline stage in 2013, including parking and energy standards; the energy standards set in 2013 had been exceeded;
· The size of the commercial centre had been reduced in scale since the approval of the indicative proposal;
· The distribution of the affordable units had been split in order that they would be distributed more evenly throughout the development;
· Since publication of the agenda, an objection had been received from Headington Heritage. This had raised concerns that the officer’s report referred only to the official parking spaces which were proposed. There was a concern that parking may take place in areas which were not designated for parking, thereby exceeding the maximum standards. The officer’s response was that a condition could be added to require that no additional hardstanding was to be put down, and to remove permitted development rights to that effect in order to prevent additional parking spaces being created.
· A request had been made that a legal agreement should be put in place to require that all sporting facilities should be available at all times. The Planning Officer responded that the development referred to had been subject to a separate reserved matters application. It would therefore not be appropriate to impose new restrictions on matters which were the subject of the application before the Committee.
· A request had also been made that artificial sports pitches should be replaced with grass in order to increase run-off. The Planning Officer reported that that had also been subject to a separate reserved matters application which was not before the Committee. Having checked the drainage report, the Planning Officer advised that the synthetic pitch was of a porous construction, with attenuation tanks underneath serving the whole of Barton Park.
· In relation to paragraph 10.53 of the report, the Planning Officer clarified that the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the whole of Barton Park had already been approved by condition.
· In relation to paragraph 10.59 of the report, the Planning Officer clarified that a tree protection plan had been submitted and approved under the outline application. No condition requiring a tree protection plan had therefore been included in the reserved matters application.
· The original officer recommendation in the report had been to grant approval subject to the finalisation of landscape proposals, plans, and a planting schedule and to give officers delegated powers to finalise these prior to issuing the decision notice. The Planning Officer clarified that revised landscaping plans had now been received and reviewed by officers. Officers were of the view that they went a significant way towards addressing the lack of native species’ identified outside the greenways and pocket parks, and ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
The Committee considered an application (21/02581/FUL) for the erection of a three storey building to create 6 no. 2 bedroomed flats (use class C3); demolition of existing single storey extension to clubhouse; erection of part single, part two storey rear extension to the existing clubhouse; alterations to the fenestration throughout; extension and alterations to the existing roof including the formation of 4 no. dormers, addition of external stair access and insertion of rooflights; alterations to the extended clubhouse to create 2 no. 2 bedroomed flats and 1 no. 1 bedroomed flat (use class C3); alterations to boundary treatments; provision of private amenity space, car parking, bin and cycle stores at 1 North Street, Oxford OX2 0AY.
The Planning Officer gave a presentation and advised that the application was considered to be acceptable in planning terms and in accordance with planning policies, and was therefore recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report.
Tara Howard and Alan Goodwin, local residents, spoke against the application.
Adrian James, agent, spoke in favour of the application.
The Committee’s discussions included the following points:
· Amenity space would be provided in the form of balconies, with a communal garden. The amenity space provision was considered by officers to be acceptable, and was in accordance with the national minimum space requirements;
· All of the dwellings on the site would be subject to noise conditions;
· The proposal would enable the preservation of the Democrat Clubhouse, which was considered to be a community facility;
· The proposal was considered to be of good design, with secure and adequate cycle parking and would increase housing provision.
In reaching its decision the Committee considered all the information put before it.
After being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.
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 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 Services considers reasonably necessary.
The Committee considered an application (22/00393/FUL) for partial demolition of the existing building; erection of a three storey building to create 6 no. 1 bedroomed flats (use class C3); alterations to the existing building to form 3 no. 1 bedroomed flats (use class C3); alterations to fenestration on the west elevation; provision of bin and cycle stores; and alterations to landscaping and other ancillary works at 39 South Parade, Oxford.
The Planning Officer presented the report and informed the Committee that:
· The application site comprised a large Victorian building which had originally been used as a greengrocers at ground floor level with accommodation above, but which had since been converted to being wholly residential in nature. The building had also been extended rearwards;
· The site lay within the Summertown district centre; the Summertown area of change; and the Southern Terraces character area of the Summertown and St Margaret’s neighbourhood plan;
· The proposal included no car parking, but did include landscaping to the front and rear and also an external rear stairway to provide access to the upper floors;
· The application was considered to be acceptable in planning terms, and to accord with planning policies for the reasons set out in the report.
Rosalind Philps, Jane Binyon and Nick Georgiou, local residents, spoke against the application.
Nik Lyzba, agent and Bruce Coburn, architect, spoke in favour of the application.
The Committee asked questions of officers about the details of the application.
In discussion the Committee considered various issues of concern, including (but not limited to):
· The implications on privacy, daylight and sunlight for the residents of nearby properties at 42, 43 and 44 South Parade, and the potential for overbearing impact on the property at 60 Stratfield Road;
· The visual impact of the development on Stratfield Road, given that the majority of the development would face onto Stratfield Road rather than South Parade. Although the development site is land belonging to and associated with 39 South Parade, the development would sit at the rear of 39 South Parade, fronting onto Stratfield Road.
· The insertion of a tall, flat-roofed contemporary building amidst existing Victorian and Edwardian buildings. The application site represented a transition between different patterns of development on South Parade and Stratfield Road;
· There were examples of successful juxtapositions between old and modern buildings elsewhere in the City; however, in such cases there was a need for careful consideration of building design in order to ensure an appropriate transition;
· Objections to the design had been expressed by local residents;
· The proposal was not considered to be in accordance with the design policies of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan.
In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.
A proposal to approve the application was moved and seconded. On being put to the vote the motion fell.
A proposal to refuse the application for the reasons set out in 1) and 2) below and with authority being delegated to the Head of Planning Services to finalise ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2022 as a true and accurate record.
The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 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.
Dates of future meetings
Future meetings of the Committee are scheduled at 6.00pm on:
The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.