In the absence of the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, to elect a chair for the meeting.

In the absence of the Committee Chair and Vice-Chair, Councillor Fry was elected to chair the meeting.

General

Councillor Diggins stated that she was a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, which had commented on applications on the agenda.  Councillor Diggins said that she had not been party to any prior discussion of the applications and was approaching them with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

Councillor Pressel stated that she was a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, which had commented on applications on the agenda, and was also a County Councillor.  Councillor Pressel said that she had not been party to any prior discussion of the applications and was approaching them 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 she was a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, which had commented on applications on the agenda, and was also a County Councillor.  Councillor Smith said that she had not been party to any prior discussion of the applications and was approaching them with an open mind, would listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.

21/03582/FUL

Several committee members had been present at the meeting held on 19 July 2022 at which the application had initially been considered, and may have previously voted on it.  Those Committee members were asked to declare if they were unable to approach the application with an open mind, listen to all the arguments and weigh up all the relevant facts before coming to a decision.  None of those members made such a declaration and so it was not necessary to recuse themselves from that item on the agenda.

The Committee considered an application (21/03582/FUL) for conversion and partial redevelopment of the Oxford Deaf and Hard of Hearing Centre to create a hotel (Use Class C1) with ancillary community facility venue.  The proposal included the retention, refurbishment and repair of the principal Grade II listed building (10 Littlegate Street); conversion, refurbishment and repair of the former Baptist Chapel building; demolition of side and rear extensions (10a and 10b Littlegate Street); erection of a four storey side extension and part 2/4 storey rear extension; provision of hard / soft landscaping; installation of green / blue roofs and green walls; and provision of 2 no. accessible car parking spaces (with EV charging points) and staff / guest cycle parking.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.  In addition to the information presented at the 19 July meeting this also included new information relating to consideration of paragraph 187 of the NPPF and policy V7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 in relation to noise breakout as had been requested by the Committee.

The following was highlighted:

·        A noise breakout assessment had been submitted, which included proposed insulation and secondary glazing to ensure adequate noise insulation for the hotel bedrooms.  This would not affect the fabric of the listed building.

·        A further 33 objection comments had been received since the July Committee meeting.  These broadly related to: concern that a live music venue would be lost; a reduction in the amount of parking; a lack of reference to live music in the application submission; lack of an operation and management plan for a live music venue, or a separate servicing plan; lack of benchmark analysis about how the live music venue had been run previously and whether this could continue in the same manner; concern that the capacity of the venue would be reduced from 150 to 100 people; concern that the opening hours of the hotel would not match those expected for a live music venue in the community hall; bar and licensing arrangements; concern that a Section 106 agreement could be modified or discharged after 5 years; concern that the whole of the site would no longer be designated for a community use; comment that noise from the music venue disturbing local residents was not a material planning consideration, live music had not disturbed local residents in the past; comment that new developments should protect themselves from external noise sources and restrictions should not be put on the venue; concern that the building could not be adequately insulated; concern that the committee would have made its decision before noise breakout testing was carried out; and concern that Planning Officers could not impose restrictions on licensing.

·        The Planning Officer reported that there had not previously been any community access agreement for the site, and the letting of the hall for community use had been at the choice of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing charity.  Officers were seeking to improve public access to the facility by securing a community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

The Committee considered an application (21/01405/FUL) for the demolition of existing carpenters yard buildings; 302, 304 and 312 Marston Road; and 1 and 3 Jack Straw’s Lane and erection of a residential care home (Use Class C2) with associated landscaping and car parking.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The plans had been subject to minor amendment since publication of the report to include reinstatement of a pedestrian access path from Marston Road into the site.  This was considered important in order to provide a link to Marston Road and the adjoining bus stops and pedestrian and cycle routes.

·       30 parking spaces were to be provided, comprising 18 spaces for staff (many of whom worked very early or very late shifts) and 12 for visitors.  Operational need for the spaces had been outlined in the transport assessment.  Four of the visitor spaces would be used by medical staff, contractors, and visitors hosting activities with the remainder to be used by those visiting residents. 

·       The development was expected to generate around an additional 86 vehicle movements per day.  The County Council had indicated that this would not have a severe impact on the surrounding road network.

·       The proposal would involve the loss of 5 housing units on the site, as well as an employment site.  Policy H11 of the Local Plan supported the development of care accommodation in appropriate locations and acknowledged that there was a shortfall of 434 specialist care rooms by 2023 which would need to be delivered.  The location of the accommodation proposed within the application was considered to align with policy H11 in that the site was located within a balanced community and accessible to local services and facilities.  Whilst the loss of the housing units represented a departure from policy H5, the proposals would provide a total of 80 bedrooms falling within use class C2 which would equate to the provision of 44 dwellings using the Government’s housing delivery test.  

·       As the accommodation was not self-contained there was no requirement to provide affordable housing on site, nor any financial contribution towards the off-site delivery of affordable housing.

·       Following amendment of the plans, the proposal now included reduced height hipped roofs instead of pitched roofs.   This was considered to more effectively integrate with the dwellings in Marston Road.  It was not considered that the proposal would have adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents; the scale of the building was considered to be appropriate for the site and surrounding area; and the design was considered to be of a high standard.

Kerry Dearden of the Orders of St John Care Trust and Oliver Neagle, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions of officers and the applicant and agent, and discussion included the following:

·        Consideration had been given in the design of the proposal to the wellbeing needs of staff and learning arising from the covid-19 pandemic.

·        The development would sit below the skyline when viewed from Doris Field  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The Committee considered a reserved matters application (20/0081/RES) for construction of a spine road for access to phases 1b, 1c and 1d of the Oxford North development and the provision of landscaping to create Canalside Park.

The planning officer presented the application, and highlighted the following:

·       Following receipt of the biodiversity scheme shortly before the report was published, the Council’s Ecology Officer had recommended that two further conditions should be added to the planning permission for the site, if granted.  These related to (i) a requirement for the developer to submit a landscape and ecological management plan prior to first use of the access road; and (ii) a requirement that the biodiversity enhancement measures contained in the biodiversity strategy are implemented prior to first use of the access road.

·       The application was a reserved matters application specifically for an access road and park intended to serve the southern parcel of the Oxford North site. It was aligned with another reserved matters application currently under consideration for 317 dwellings on the Canalside parcel of the Oxford North site, but had come forward first due to time pressure to commence the works on the loop road.  Were approval for the spine road to be granted, a Grampian condition would be recommended to be applied to any permission for the housing development, in order to ensure that the road and park were delivered in full.

·       The layout and landscaping of the Canalside Park aligned with the wider vision for the space as approved in the Oxford North masterplan in terms of providing a natural break between the residential development and semi-rural landscape to the south, as well as providing substantial open space for existing and future residents.  The layout included the provision of pedestrian and cycle connections between the Canalside housing and Joe White’s Lane, which was important in terms of the wider access strategy, as well as a swale which was important for the sustainable drainage strategy for the wider Oxford North site.

·       The park was important in terms of the delivery of the 5% biodiversity net gain across the Oxford North site.  The provision of wildflower grassland, wet grassland and hedgerows would be significant contributors to biodiversity enhancement measures.

·       The proposal would provide fundamental supporting infrastructure which was vital for supporting the development of 317 homes.  The moderate level of less than substantial harm to the Wolvercote with Godstow Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed Manor Farm which the development as a whole was considered to involve, having been assessed under the hybrid application, would be outweighed by the public benefits of the development as a whole: principally the delivery of 480 homes and substantial employment provision and the benefits proposed in this application, namely the delivery of vital supporting infrastructure in terms of the access road and park.

·       The proposal was considered to be in accordance with the wider vision for the Oxford North site, the Wolvercote Neighbourhood Plan, the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 2022 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 19 July 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.

Future meetings of the Committee are scheduled at 6.00pm on:

20 September 2022

18 October 2022

15 November 2022

13 December 2022

24 January 2023

21 February 2023

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.