23/00405/OUTFUL

Councillor Upton stated that she was a member of the Cabinet and had been present at a meeting on 14 June 2023 when Cabinet had given approval to advertise the intention to appropriate the site for planning purposes.  Whilst Councillor Upton considered that she would be able to approach the application with an open mind, she acknowledged that her participation may give rise to a perception that she had already formed a view.  Councillor Upton therefore declared that she would leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

Councillor Hollingsworth declared that until May 2023 he had been the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery.  In this capacity he had had partial responsibility for the scheme and held a substantial number of day to day discussions about the details of the scheme, including elements which were within the planning application.  As this gave rise to a potential public perception of pre-determination, Councillor Hollingsworth declared that he would leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered and would not participate in determining it.

Councillor Clarkson declared that she had been a member of Cabinet in March 2020 and had voted for enabling detailed design plans to be drawn up for the Blackbird Leys site prior to submitting a planning application.  However, she had had no involvement with any decision relating to the site or application since that time and had stood down from Cabinet in May 2022.  Councillor Clarkson stated that was approaching the application with an open mind and would listen to the presentation, public speakers, and debate before forming a view on the application.

23/00142/FUL

Councillor Fouweather declared that he had visited an exhibition on the development which had been arranged by the developers.  However, he had not discussed the application, and had viewed the exhibits and outline drawings only.  Councillor Fouweather declared that he was approaching the application with an open mind.

Councillor Pressel stated that she lived close to the application site; however, it was not within the same street and was separated by a main road.  Councillor Pressel declared that she was approaching the application with an open mind.

Councillor Fry declared that he also lived fairly close to the application site but had not been involved in or discussed the application and was approaching it with an open mind.

Councillors Hollingsworth and Upton left the meeting and did not participate in determining the application.

The Committee considered a hybrid application (23/00405/OUTFUL) for the redevelopment of Blackbird Leys District Centre and Land off Knights Road, Oxford.  Full planning permission was sought for the erection of up to 210 apartments and up to 1300sqm of retail and commercial space (Use Classes E and Sui Generis) across four buildings on Blackbird Leys Road and the erection of up to 84 dwellinghouses at Knights Road, all with associated demolition of existing buildings and the provision of vehicular accesses, highway improvements, public open space and associated necessary infrastructure.  Outline planning permission was sought for the provision of a community centre and public open space surrounding the community centre (Use Classes F2 and E) and block A (community square and green) in the District Centre with all matters reserved except for the principal means of access.

The Planning Officer presented the report and provided the following updates:

·        Since the publication of the report an additional public comment had been received which had raised concerns about the impacts of the proposal on biodiversity and ecology, specifically: badgers; a lack of representation within the statement of community involvement; and the impact of imposing a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) within the area;

·        An additional consultee response had been received from the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West Integrated Care Board which requested a financial contribution of £85,000 to facilitate the conversion of a non-clinical room to a clinical room at Donnington Surgery.  This would mitigate the impacts of the increased population and demand for health services arising from the proposed development.  This contribution would be sought as part of the s106 legal agreement;

·        A contribution of £116,663 towards Special School education capacity serving the development and a contribution of £27,624 towards the expansion and efficiency of Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRC) would also be secured through the s106 agreement;

·        A further representation had been received from the Oxfordshire Badger Group which had reiterated their strong objection.  Their concerns were principally that: they did not consider that the impact on biodiversity and habitats had been thoroughly assessed; the scheme had not been modified at an early stage to save  badger setts (circular 06/2005); the 26% loss of biodiversity was not acceptable; the mitigation measures were not robust enough or based on suitable methodology; there should be a 50m buffer to Northfield Brook; and development on the Knights Road site was opposed generally as it is a greenfield space.  These issues had been covered in more detail in section E (para 10.243) of the committee report.

·        Officers also wished to clarify that: the ward on page 1 should be shown as Northfield Brook Ward and Blackbird Leys Ward; the application was liable for the listed CIL contribution outlined at paragraph 4.1, however it should be noted that there was provision within the legislation for exemptions to be sought on qualifying developments; paragraph 10.116 stated that Block C would be ‘up to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The Committee considered an application (23/00142/FUL) for demolition of the rear accommodation block, conference block and pavilion building; erection of a replacement rear accommodation block, detached villa accommodation and courtyard garden accommodation; extension, alterations and reconfiguration of the hotel (including a remodelled front porch and building front) to provide 36 bedrooms, function space and operational improvements; extensive landscape enhancements, access and parking configuration and associated works at Linton Lodge Hotel, 11-13 Linton Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer provided the following updates:

·      Since publication of the committee report three additional letters of representation had been received relating to: highways and parking; the impact of the development on the Conservation Area; and trees.  The issues raised had been addressed in the committee report; additionally the Planning Officer confirmed that the impact on tree T33 (a category A oak tree) had been considered as part of the application. Officers had concluded that the encroachment that the new building would have over the existing Root Protection Area of the tree was an acceptable level of impact: this view had been reached taking account of the fact that it was a relatively young and vital tree and had capacity to absorb and adapt to the site changes which were proposed.

·      Paragraph 10.39 should state that there would be no harm to the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings;

·      An additional condition would be included requesting details of the glasshouse and pergola to be provided and approved, as well as details, and associated screening, of the proposed condenser units.

The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the following:

·         The application sought planning permission for the redevelopment of the Linton Lodge Hotel. The redevelopment would include the demolition and replacement of the rear extension block to the main hotel and the introduction of two accommodation blocks: one in the garden located along the boundary the site shared with Northmoor Road, and one on Charlbury Road. The proposal would result in 36 additional hotel bedrooms taking the hotel to 123 bedrooms in total.

·         In addition the scheme proposed an expanded and centralised reception, café and bar area; new and improved hotel gardens; 9 car parking spaces (including 3 drop-off spaces, 3 disabled spaces and 3 standard spaces); 60 cycle parking spaces; and a new substation to the front.

·         The site lay entirely within the boundary of the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area.  The proposed development would be in close proximity to two Listed Buildings: No. 7 Linton Road and No. 20 Northmoor Road. The site was also located within the Summertown and St Margarets Neighbourhood Area where a Neighbourhood Plan was in place.

·         The buildings had been designed and arranged to limit the harm to the Conservation Area.  Amended plans had been received showing the removal of the balconies in order to address concerns relating to overlooking and loss of privacy.

·         The report set out the impact of the development on the historic environment.   Whilst a low level of less than substantial harm to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

The Committee considered an application (23/01046/FUL) for the demolition of existing garage; erection of a part single, part two storey side extension and front porch; change of use from a house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) to a larger house in multiple occupation (Sui Generis); and erection of bike storage at 75 Langley Close, Oxford.

The application was before the Committee as the applicant is an Oxford City Councillor.

The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the following:

·        Planning permission had already been granted for the change of use to a Use Class C4 House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) which allowed occupation by up to 6 occupants.  The application sought to allow additional occupants as a sui generis use. 

·        Planning permission had also already been granted for a part single, part two storey side extension at the property.  However, during the course of the application it was noticed that the extension already built on the site was not in accordance with the approved plans, being 0.5m wider to the front of the side extension.  There was also a hipped roof on the single storey element rather than a flat roof as approved.  Additionally a front porch had been built at the property.  The application therefore sought part retrospective approval;

·        The development was considered acceptable in principle, complying with the concentration of HMOs allowed in the local area. It was considered that it would not result in a change of character of the area.  The proposal would provide a good standard of accommodation which would comply with the City Council’s Landlord’s Guide to Amenities and Facilities for Houses in Multiple Occupation;

·        The proposed development was considered to be acceptable in terms of its design, and not to cause any harm to the character or appearance of Langley Close or the dwelling itself;

·        The extension would not cause any detrimental impacts on the amenity of any neighbouring dwelling, nor would it cause any impact in respect of drainage, biodiversity or trees subject to the recommended conditions;

·        The development would be car-free due to its sustainable location within a Controlled Parking Zone and would be suitable to provide good quality bin storage and bicycle parking subject to conditions including the removal of the existing bin store at the front of the site within three months, as officers deemed it to be unacceptably harmful to the street scene;

·        The development would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in respect of public highways.  Overall, the proposal was considered to comply with the policies of the Local Plan, the Headington Neighbourhood Plan and the NPPF.

The Committee asked questions about the detail of the application, which were responded to by officers.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·        The detail and location of the bin store had been conditioned, to be provided prior to occupation;

·        A Committee Member recommended that an informative be added to recommend that the distance between adjacent Sheffield stands was 1.2m, in order to ensure that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

The Committee considered an application (23/00990/FUL) for the erection of security fencing to the perimeter of the site at Parkway Court, John Smith Drive, Oxford.

The Planning Officer presented the report and highlighted the following:

·          The application site comprised a group of 5 buildings, known as Parkway Court, within the Oxford Business Park.  The site was located on the north eastern side of John Smith Drive and backed onto Garsington Road to the north;

·          The proposal involved the erection of 1.5m high security fence situated in between the existing green boundary to the site and the hard landscaping.  It would therefore be behind greenery when seen from the road to the north and the south of the site.

·          The fence would be open-mesh style, with a width of 60mm.

·          The fence would still allow views in and out of site, and officers had recommended a condition for the fence to be of green colour to blend in with its surroundings;

·          The proposal was considered to be acceptable in respect of its design and would not cause any detriment or harm to the character or appearance of Parkway Court nor the wider Business Park or surrounding area.  The fence would not cause any detrimental impacts on the amenity of any neighbouring occupiers, nor would it cause any impacts with regard to trees or land quality;

·          The development would not give rise to any unacceptable impacts in respect of public highways and as such the proposed fence was considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Oxford Local Plan and the NPPF.

Responding to a question from a Committee Member, the Planning Officer confirmed that the fence would not involve the blocking up of any footpaths.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning 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.

2.     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.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2023 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 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:

19 September 2023

17 October 2023

21 November 2023

12 December 2023

23 January 2024

20 February 2024

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.