General

Councillor Upton stated that as a member and trustee of the Oxford Preservation Trust, and as a member of the Oxford Civic Society, she had taken no part in those organisations’ 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.

22/00040/PIP

Councillor Rehman 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.

22/00949/FUL

Councillor Hollingsworth stated that he rented an office which was relatively close to the application site, and which was visible on some of the maps which had been provided to Members.  Councillor Hollingsworth stated that he was approaching the application with an open mind.

21/03114/CT3

Councillor Hollingsworth declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, he would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

Councillor Upton declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, she would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

Councillor Chapman declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, he would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

Councillor Aziz declared that as one of the Council’s appointed representatives to the Shareholder and Joint Venture Group for the Oxford City Council wholly-owned housing company, which was named as a party to the application, she would withdraw and leave the meeting room whilst the application was considered.

The Committee considered an application (22/01532/CT3) for demolition of the existing building and erection of a part two, part three storey office building in association with amended access arrangements, disabled parking, substation and landscaped space at The Oxford Enterprise Centre, Standingford House, 26 Cave Street, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        The applicant had submitted additional drainage information following the raising of a drainage objection by the County Council.  A response to this from the County Council had not yet been received; therefore the officers’ recommendation for approval remained subject to the withdrawal of the drainage objection.

·        In addition to the information provided at paragraph 10.26 of the report, the wireline within the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in relation to the South Park view showed that intervening built form and vegetation would mostly obscure views of the development.  The top would be visible against the built form; however, as with the St Mary’s view the development was not considered to interfere with or have an adverse impact on this view.

·        The building had been designed to be an energy efficient co-working space, which would be able to accommodate a wide range of occupiers and would offer a range of different spaces depending on need. The building would have a floor area of 1,745sqm and an overall height of 11.03m.  The existing building had a height of 10.62m.

·        The application sought to redevelop an existing employment site.  Therefore, the principle of redeveloping the site for employment purposes was considered to be acceptable and supported in policy.

·        The site was not located within a conservation area, but was located within the setting of St Clement’s and Iffley Conservation Area and the Central Conservation Area.  A number of listed buildings were located in London Place.

·        Views of the development would be mostly localised to the immediate setting, although the wirelines within the LVIA showed that parts of the top of the building would be visible from St Mary’s Tower and South Park within the vegetation and built form.  However, as the building would be viewed against the existing built development in the area it was not considered to have an adverse impact on these views.

·        A sunlight/daylight assessment, as well as an overshadowing report, had been submitted to support the application.  Officers had considered the 25/45 degree guidance alongside the sunlight/daylight and overshadowing report and were of the opinion that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity.

·        Officers considered the application to be acceptable in terms of principle, design, impact on neighbouring amenity, highways and heritage issues and approval was recommended, subject to withdrawal by the County Council of its drainage objection.

Andrew Humpherson, Earon Mackie and Stephanie Weeks, the applicant, architect and agent, spoke in favour of the application.

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

·       The Local Plan included the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

The Committee considered an application (22/00040/PIP) for permission in principle for the redevelopment of the former public house for between 7no and up to 9no dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) at The Crown and Thistle, 132 Old Road, Headington.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        Following publication of the officer report, an additional representation had been received which had raised objection to the application on the grounds that the proposal did not meet the requirements of the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. The Planning Officer advised that the application had been advertised in accordance with the Council’s policies and the requirements of the Development Management Procedure Order (2015).  The representation did not change the considerations of planning officers as set out in the report.

·        The building was in an extremely poor state of repair and had not operated as a public house since its closure in 2011. Externally, the garden was in a dilapidated state and overgrown, and the associated buildings were in various states of disrepair.  There was also evidence of anti-social behaviour on the site. However, the dwelling at first and second floor level of the building remained in use.  The building was included on the Oxford Heritage Asset Register (OHAR).

·        The application site did not include the entirety of the curtilage of the pub, but only the pub itself and a small area of land surrounding it.

·        The application was for permission in principle.  Therefore, the Council could only consider matters relating to the location of the development, the proposed land use, and the amount of development being proposed. The application sought the redevelopment of the site for between 7 and 9 dwellings whilst retaining the pub building.  No additional details were required nor had been supplied by the applicant.

·        Officers considered that the amount of development was appropriate.  Retention of the pub building, which had a floor space of 268m², was proposed and officers considered that at least seven flats with a minimum floor space of 37m² could be accommodated. Officers also considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of design, heritage and neighbourliness, as well as its location.  The site was in a sustainable location in an existing residential area, which would therefore be suitable for the conversion of the public house to dwellings.

·        However, officers did not consider that the proposal was acceptable in terms of the proposed land use, due to the loss of an existing public house which was contrary to Policy V6.  Policy V6 included three criteria where the loss of a public house would be accepted.  These were set out in the Policy and further clarified in the associated Technical Advice Note (TAN).

·        The first criteria related to a requirement for a marketing statement detailing the agents which had been used, the amount of time on the market, and the advertised price. Officers considered that this criteria had not been met as the site had not been marketed on a freehold basis.  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The Committee considered an application (22/00949/FUL) for erection of a commercial building (Use Classes E(g)(ii), E(g)(iii) and B2 applied flexibly) with associated access, parking, landscaping and ancillary development at Gas Holder Station, Watlington Road, Cowley, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        The gas holder had been demolished under previous prior approval for demolition.  The proposal before the Committee was for redevelopment of the site and erection of a commercial building with research and development or light industrial uses.  The site was surrounded by storage and distribution units, offices, research and development, and industrial units.  The land to the east of the site was within the control of South Oxfordshire District Council and had been allocated for housing within its Local Plan.

·        Since the publication of the officer report, the applicant had advised that the S106 agreement being drafted with the County Council would also be used to secure an improved cycleway to the site from the junction with Watlington Road.  This would either be delivered by the applicant, or a financial contribution would be made to the County Council to deliver it.

·        The officer’s recommendation was to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the S106 agreement with the County Council.

Paul Derry, agent, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions on details of the application, which were responded to by officers.  Discussion included the following:

·        There was no net gain in terms of parking over the previous capacity of the site.  It was considered that the transport sustainability of the site was better than had been indicated by the County Council, with several other bus routes being available within a reasonable walking distance.  It was also easily accessible by bicycle;

·        Employment needs assessments in the Local Plan had indicated that employment space was much needed within the city.

Having been proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and 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 set out in the report and the improved cycleway as clarified by the Planning Officer and set out above.

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 subject to the receipt of 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 set out in the report and as amended by the Planning Officer; and

2.    delegate authority to the Development Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The Committee considered a reserved matters application (22/00675/RES) (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the erection of 317 dwellinghouses (Use Class C3) on the Canalside parcel of the Oxford North site located to the south of the A40 and north-west of Wolvercote.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        Section 10.90 of the report outlined that a total of 3.01 biodiversity units were expected to be delivered, based on the net gain metric in the submitted biodiversity assessment.  The applicant had subsequently re-run the metric in response to a request from the Council’s Ecology Officer, and had confirmed that the extent of the biodiversity units would be higher, at 4.63 units, once the net gain to be delivered via the brown roofs on the site had been accounted for.

·        Three further public comments had been received following publication of the officer report.  Each of the representations had raised concerns about the developer’s capacity to meet the 5% biodiversity net gain target.  Concern had also been expressed about the potential impact of noise and air quality on future occupiers, and also the adequacy of mitigation measures in terms of building design.

·        The Planning Officer clarified that the applicant was required to deliver 5% biodiversity net gain across the entirety of the Oxford North project. 5% was not required within each of the reserved matters applications.  Where there was a shortfall in the estimated net gain, as was the case with this application, this would need to be met elsewhere on the site in the later phases of the development, or delivered off-site if required.  The strategy for biodiversity enhancements as outlined by the applicant would therefore not conflict with either the legal agreement or local or national policy.

·        The Council’s Ecology Officer had recommended inclusion of a condition requiring specifications for the brown roofs to be provided.  This was in order to ensure that the brown roofs delivered the required number of biodiversity units as outlined in the biodiversity strategy.

·        The hybrid application had been subject to extensive viability testing in terms of the percentage of affordable homes to be provided.  It had established a requirement for 35% of all the homes to be delivered as affordable units; 80% of which would be delivered as socially-rented homes.  The Section 106 agreement also outlined the required mix of affordable homes, and aligned with Policy H4 of the Oxford Local Plan. The percentage of affordable homes which would be delivered on the site, and the mix of these houses, would be fully compliant with these requirements and was considered to be acceptable.

·        The buildings fronting the A40 would be of a larger scale and height, as reflected in the height parameter plan and the design and access statement accompanying the hybrid permission.  The height of the flats was considered to be commensurate with the site context and the adjacency of the buildings to the A40, as well as the sizeable scale of development on the opposite side of the road  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

The Committee considered an application (21/03114/CT3) for the erection of 10no new affordable dwellings on a former depot site at Lanham Way, Oxford.

Councillors Aziz, Chapman, Hollingsworth and Upton left the meeting room for this item and did not take part in determining the application.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The proposal was for 10 affordable houses with 9 parking spaces.  Three of the parking spaces would be disabled sized, and one would be allocated for car club use.  The application site was a former playing field maintenance site which had been disused for a significant period of time and was currently unoccupied and overgrown with vegetation.

·       Vehicular access to the site was proposed via Medhurst Way.

·       The proposal had been carefully designed to avoid detrimental impact to the nearest neighbouring properties on Lanham Way, David Nicholls Close and Medhurst Way. 

·       The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out in the report and the removal of the objection by the County Council in relation to drainage.  The Planning Officer reported that the latter issue was close to being resolved: there appeared to have been a technical error in the drainage calculation for the porous paving, which the applicant’s consultant had updated.   Officers were awaiting confirmation from the County Council that this had resolved the outstanding issue.  The application was also subject to a Section 106 agreement with the City Council and the County Council.

Martin Shaw, agent and Kenny Phillips on behalf of the applicant spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about details of the application which were responded to by officers. In debate the following was noted:

·        The tenure mix for the development would be 5 shared-ownership properties and 5 social rent properties, rather than 100% social rented units as stated in the report.  However, this remained in accordance with development plan policy, which stated that for any residential scheme above a certain size, 50% should be affordable.  Of this 50%, there should be a 80/20 split of social rent to shared ownership.  So, although the percentage of social rent units had dropped to 50% of the total number of units the requirements of the policy were still comfortably met.  Additionally, as the whole site would remain 100% affordable housing overall, there was no requirement for First Homes to be delivered.

After debate and 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 section 12 of the report, the removal of the objection by the Lead Local Flood Authority, and 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 set out in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

Recommendation: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 2022 as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 August 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:

18 October 2022

15 November 2022

13 December 2022

24 January 2023

21 February 2023

21 March 2023

The Committee noted the dates of future meetings.