The Committee considered an application (21/00110/FUL) for partial demolition of the Clarendon Centre, including removal of roof to the mall; proposed redevelopment involving partial re-use and extension of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to form retail, offices, research and development and student accommodation; a new public square and a new pedestrian / cycle access through to Frewin Court; provision of new public access lift to rooftop with café and terrace area; and tree planting, landscaping and cycle parking provision.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and drew attention to a number of benefits of the scheme, principally:

·       the new link through to Frewin Court, including a courtyard garden, which would improve permeability across the city centre and allow improved views of Brasenose College;

·       101 units of student accommodation and a new Porter’s Lodge for Brasenose College;

·       a new public square including 23 trees and additional seating - both of which were currently lacking within the City centre - as well as a water feature, ‘green walls’, ‘green roofs’ and a public drinking water fountain;

·       larger retail units within the Clarendon Centre (which was the market preference); as well as research and development and office accommodation;

·       an opportunity to regenerate and reinvigorate the City centre.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant had worked co-operatively with the Council to mitigate the impact on the historic skyline and address an initial objection from Historic England.

In summary, it was considered that any harm arising from the scheme was less than substantial, and was outweighed by the high level of social, economic and environmental benefits to the public.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

The following updates were provided:

·       The word ‘refuse’ should be deleted from paragraphs 14.1 and 15.1 of the report;

·       Comments were still awaited in relation to drainage from Oxfordshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority, as well as removal of their objection.  However, Thames Water had raised no objection regarding drainage and officers considered that the issues were technical in nature.  The objection was not considered to impact on the recommendation to approve the application but the recommendation was, in any event, made subject to the removal of the objection.

Adam Smith for the applicant, and Nick Marchini for the project architects, spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee’s discussions included the following points:

·       The proposal would improve the visibility of the historic skyline.  Whilst there was some harm in terms of the impact on views, this was relatively minor;

·       The increased permeability (rather than a single footprint building), and improvements to the streetscape which the development offered, were a significant benefit;

·       The developer had taken account of the views of the community, stakeholders, the Oxford Design Review Panel, Historic England and the Council to develop a proposal which was of high quality;

·       The proposal involved re-purposing an existing building rather than demolishing and rebuilding;

·       The provision of additional seating would be a particular benefit to elderly residents;

·       The inclusion of additional trees and ‘greening’ would improve the City centre environment.

In reaching its decision the Committee considered all the information put before it.

After being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation.

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 further drainage information requested by the Lead Local Flood Authority and removal of their current objection;

·        the satisfactory completion of a Unilateral Undertaking and 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

2.    delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services to:

·        finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and / or deletions as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·        finalise the recommended Unilateral Undertaking and legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in the report including refining, adding to, amending and / or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms as set out in the 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 Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·        complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and after completion of the Unilateral Undertaking issue the planning permission.