Site Address: Cotuit Hall Old House, Pullens Lane, Oxford

Proposal

Demolition of single storey lecture hall and refectory buildings. Change of use from Student Accommodation (Sui Generis) to Residential Institution (Use Class C2). Erection of connecting buildings, a new accommodation block at the western end of the site, reconfiguration of the retained buildings, and provision of associated car parking and cycle parking spaces, landscaping, plant, and associated works. (Amended description)

Reason for coming to Planning Review Committee

The application was considered at East Area Planning Committee on 8 November.  The Committee resolved to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposed development, because of the change of use, associated activities and increased footprint of building on the site, would result in less than substantial harm to the open, quiet, residential character of the Headington Hill Conservation Area. The proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to a heritage asset but it is not considered that the public benefits would outweigh this harm. The proposal is contrary to the Council’s development plan, in particular Local Plan policies HE7, CP1, CP8, Core Strategy policy CS18 and Headington Neighbourhood Plan policies GSP2, GSP4, CIP1, CIP4. The proposal is also contrary to the guidance set out in paragraphs 128-134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance and the Council’s Headington Hill Conservation Area Appraisal.

The application has been called in to the Planning Review Committee by Councillors Tanner, Malik, Pegg, Price, Abbasi, Azad, Kennedy, Rowley, Simmons, Hayes, Brandt, Wolff, Iley-Williamson, Anwar, Thomas and Humberstone because it was not considered that there were strong planning reasons for refusal and the refusal would be unlikely to be successful at appeal.

Report

This report considers the proposed development and has been updated following the East Area Planning Committee meeting to incorporate into the report matters that were set out in an addendum at that meeting. 

Officer recommendation: The Committee is recommended to:

(a)  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:

The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.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

(b)  Agree to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

1.    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;

2.    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, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

3.    Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of a single storey lecture hall and refectory buildings; change of use from Student Accommodation (Sui Generis) to Residential Institution (Use Class C2); erection of connecting buildings, a new accommodation block at the western end of the site, reconfiguration of the retained buildings, and provision of associated car parking and cycle parking spaces, landscaping, plant, and associated works (Amended description) at Cotuit Hall Old House, Pullens Lane, Oxford, OX3 0DA.

The Planning Officer reported updates to the report:

·         Receipt of a letter from a residents group setting out their concerns forwarded by the local MP. These were addressed in the report.

·         If approved, conditions would be updated to include reference to the relevant paragraphs of the adopted Headington Neighbourhood Plan (HNP).

The Chair increased the speaking time to 10 minutes for both sides to allow all speakers adequate time.

Councillor Nigel Chapman, local ward councillor, spoke against the application.

Michael Crofton-Briggs, representing local residents, spoke against the application. Local residents Katharine Pardee, Matt Philips and Terry Cudbird were available to answer questions.

Councillor Saj Malik, member of East Area Planning Committee, spoke in support of the application.

Oliver Sheppard (the agent) and Paul Ellis (head of school), representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Jenny Hepworth (representing EF Academy) and Tony Fretton (the architect), also representing the applicant were available to answer questions.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it including the officer’s report, updated since the application was considered at East Area Planning Committee, and presentation and the answers to questions given by officers and the public speakers.

In answer to questions and from the officer’s presentation the Committee noted in particular:

·         That the purpose of policy HP5 was to ensure a balanced supply of housing tenures across the city. The affordable housing contribution was calculated according to a standard formula and was intended to mitigate the loss of student accommodation by contributing to an increase in affordable housing, thus indirectly reducing pressure in the private rented sector created by displaced students.

·         Although the current use did not provide actual HE student accommodation and the loss was notional, the change of use resulted in a permanent loss of the site for this purpose as would remain classed as a residential school and could not revert easily to student accommodation.

·         Numbers living on site during term-time would not increase substantially (from about 210 students to 300 for teaching, and 244 living on site with 56 living out, plus additional staff members): summer language school numbers would decrease slightly.

·         The speakers’ respective positions on the impact on the character of the conservation area of the development as a whole and the application of the tests in the NPPF, the Local Plan and the Headington Neighbourhood Plan.

·         The applicant’s statements about how students travel to and from the site; on-site control; and the management of student movements and numbers through proposed conditions.

·         The £9m economic benefit stated in the applicant’s documentation was a gross figure representing the overall contribution from EF’s current activities, not a net increase generated as a result of this application. There would be some negative impact from a reduction from about 100 to 56 host families accommodating students living off-site.

The Committee in debate considered in particular, but not restricted to:

·         The balance between the benefits to the area from reducing movements between the two EF sites and conditions restricting numbers and requiring adequate management controls and the harm to the area from the increased footprint of the buildings and the intensification of use.

·         The purpose and application of policy HP5 to this case and the proposed mitigation. 

·         The overall impact of the development on the conservation area.

The Committee commented that Conditions 8 (servicing management plan) and 21 (travel plan), both to be submitted and approved, should include details of the role of security personnel and measures to reduce the risk of vehicles damaging verges and road edges along Pullens Lane.

A proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permissions with the conditions and legal agreements as set out in the report was declared carried on being put to the vote.

The 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 this report and grant planning permission subject to:

The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.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, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services to:

1.    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;

2.    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, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

3.    Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.