Councillor Diggins withdrew from the committee table whilst this application was considered.

The Committee considered an application 20/01276/FUL for the demolition of existing structures and garages, redevelopment to provide mixed residential, community centre and boatyard uses, including associated works for the provision of new public realm, ramped access to the Church and works to the Oxford Canal.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation on both the planning application and the associated listed building application and provided the following updates:

·       The officer’s report contained some minor typographical errors – notably ‘pizza’ for ‘piazza’ and ‘comprise’ instead of ‘compromise’ at paragraphs 10.73 and 10.79.

·       Some relevant planning history had been omitted; the planning history which was set out in the associated Listed Building Consent report also applied to the full application.  However, both planning histories had omitted a previous outline approval in 2009 for a community centre in the same location which had been granted in 2010.

·       The Highways Authority had removed its objection which had been based around the provision of three sub-standard car parking spaces.  The amended plans before the Committee showed those spaces as lost and replaced by one.

·       There are bats on site, and regard was needed to the likelihood of a Natural England licence being granted.  Officers were of the view that the three tests required by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 would be met and that it was likely that a licence would be granted.  Updated bat surveys would be required in the event of approval.

·       For clarity in terms of amenity for future occupiers, the internal space was sufficient in accordance with Policy H15.  Whilst the external spaces were considered to be a low level provision, the proximity of the site to the towpath and Port Meadows was a material consideration and was considered to mitigate the small amenity space provided.  Therefore, the proposal accorded with policy H16.

The Planning Officer highlighted that the site was constrained, of an unusual shape and involved a number of landowners, all of which presented challenges.  It had been allocated for mixed use in the Local Plan and the principle of the proposal was considered acceptable.

Dr Phyllis Starkey, David Feeny and David Edwards, on behalf of the Jericho Wharf Trust, spoke against the application.

Councillor Lizzy Diggins spoke against the application.

George Taylor, resident, spoke against the application.

Oliver Holland, applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee’s discussion included the following points:

·       No affordable housing was included as part of the proposal, nor any contribution to affordable housing elsewhere off-site.  Officers considered that the independent viability assessment had been robust and had demonstrated that the proposed development was not viable to provide affordable housing.  Mitigation would be provided by way of a review mechanism secured by a S106 legal agreement, which would secure a 60% proportion of any surplus profit as a contribution to affordable housing in the City.  The Committee considered that this was not guaranteed, but was contingent on profits which may or may not grow.  Additionally, the affordable housing would not be provided within the Jericho area.

·       The Committee raised questions about the viability appraisal and associated valuations.  There was a lack of directly comparable new-build properties in Jericho on which to base an assessment and the use of Barton, Wolvercote and Headington as comparators had been strongly challenged.

·       The Canal and River Trust had expressed objection and strong concerns about the proposal.  Whilst officers had given great weight to this, there was a question as to whether even greater weight should be given.

·       Car parking had been included as part of the proposal, in order to increase property values which in turn would fund some of the benefits to be provided.  This included, potentially, some affordable housing.  It was considered that this represented an unacceptable compromise against the accepted policy in relation to parking provision where there was existing access to shops and buses.

·       The size of the public space had been reduced and the Design Review Panel had not been invited to comment.

·       There was a lack of consensus around the proposal.  This was significant given the importance of the development.

Contrary to the officer’s recommendation of approval, the Committee was not persuaded that the viability assessment had successfully demonstrated that the delivery of affordable housing would make the scheme unviable, and after debate and being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed that the application should be refused on that basis.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    Delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to:

·       Finalise the recommended reasons for refusing the application including such refinements, amendments, additions and / or deletions as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       Refuse the planning application.