Site address:                  Oxford Railway Station, Park End Street, Oxford

Proposal:                        Application for Prior Approval - Part 18 of General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).  Oxford railway station proposed west side engineering works to construct an additional platform 5 railway line with associated platform canopy cover and platform enclosures providing passenger facilities, along with a stair and lift access to a subway connection to a proposed secondary station entrance incorporating retail, public toilets, an open concourse, staff accommodation and a relocated station refuse area.  Proposed replacement rail and pedestrian bridges over Botley Road along with alterations to the road to provide grade separated pavements each side.  Reconfiguration of Roger Dudman Way to connect onto Cripley Road and replacement of Sheepwash Bridge.  Proposed demolition of the single storey railway buildings at the rear of platform 4, along with the Youth Hostel and removal of two small single storey commercial units between Cripley Road and Roger Dudman Way.  Formation of public realm to the west side of the proposed station building along with cycle parking facilities (PLEASE NOTE THIS IS NOT A PLANNING APPLICATION BUT A NOTIFICATION SUBMITTED BY NETWORK RAIL FOR PRIOR APPROVAL BY OXFORD CITY COUNCIL)

Reason at Committee:     This application has been called in by Councillors Cook, Pressel, Clarkson, Upton, Munkonge and Rowley due to concerns about delivering a high public realm and sufficient cycle parking.

Recommendation:

The Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to:

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

·       grant prior approval, provided he is satisfied the flooding issues have been satisfactorily addressed and to also include the updating of plans to ensure they are correctly cross referenced, for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required conditions as set out in section 11, including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions to those conditions and plans as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.

The Committee considered an application (21/02007/PA18:) for Prior Approval Part 18 of General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) for Oxford railway station proposed west side engineering works to construct an additional platform 5 railway line with associated platform canopy cover and platform enclosures providing passenger facilities, along with a stair and lift access to a subway connection to a proposed secondary station entrance incorporating retail, public toilets, an open concourse, staff accommodation and a relocated station refuse area; proposed replacement rail and pedestrian bridges over Botley Road along with alterations to the road to provide grade separated pavements each side; reconfiguration of Roger Dudman Way to connect onto Cripley Road and replacement of Sheepwash Bridge; proposed demolition of the single storey railway buildings at the rear of platform 4, along with the Youth Hostel and removal of two small single storey commercial units between Cripley Road and Roger Dudman Way; formation of public realm to the west side of the proposed station building along with cycle parking facilities

The application was before the Committee as it had been called in by Councillors Cook, Pressel, Clarkson, Upton, Munkonge and Rowley due to concerns about delivering a high public realm and sufficient cycle parking.

The Planning Officer presented the report and made the following verbal updates:

·         Paragraph 9.66 refers to a condition being included for network rail to set out measures to minimise drop off/pick up. Oxfordshire County Council (the County) have since withdrawn this condition and it is therefore not included in the list of conditions in chapter 11.

·         As part of the phase 2 project there is a need to re-provide the two blue badge spaces and 6 operational spaces (2 for Network Rail Operational Staff, 2 for GWR and 2 for British Transport Police). There will be no public car parking provided. Therefore an additional condition will be included requiring details and the location of the parking spaces to be provided.

·         Paragraph 9.43 references Part 19 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) this should instead reference Part 18 of the GPDO.

·         Paragraph 10.8 - should read ‘station building would not injure the amenity of the neighbourhood’.

The Planning Officer said that since the publication of the report the Environment Agency had provided updated comments following the submission of additional information. Those comments did not amount to a formal objection but a number of technical concerns had been identified. Planning officers were satisfied that those concerns raised could be addressed through the inclusion of additional conditions:

1.    To obtain the modelling results identified as not included by the EA.

2.    Flood resilience and resistance measures are to be submitted

3.    Any changes to the scheme, including those related to flood mitigation shall be provided

4.    The pumps under the Botley Road Bridge must be replaced and upgraded and details of these pumps shall be provided

5.    A flood warning and evacuation plan for the station shall be submitted

6.    A flood plan to demonstrate how the Botley Road will be managed in the event of a flood shall be submitted.

7.    A SuDS strategy for the development shall be submitted.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the issues raised in the email they had received works to the footpath under Sheepwash Bridge reiterated comments that were submitted as part of the consultation process. This issue was addressed in the report as the improvements suggested were outside the scope of the prior approval application. Similarly the letter from the Abbey and Cripley Road Residents Association had been submitted as part of the consultation process and the issues had been addressed in the report.

The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that the proposal before them was a Prior Approval application which had to be considered within the parameters set out in legislation:  GDPO Part 18 states that prior approval is not to be refused nor are conditions to be imposed unless

a)    The development ought to be and could be reasonably carried out elsewhere on the land

b)    The design or external appearance would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and is reasonably capable of modification to avoid such injury.

Julian Le Vay, representing Abbey and Cripley Road Residents Association and Councillor Andrew Gant spoke against the application. 

Colin Field, Claire Mahoney and Chris Nash, representing Network Rail (NR), spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application and their discussion included, but was not limited to, the following points:

Botley Road cycle and pedestrian path

The Committee was mindful that the proposed raised cycle and pedestrian path did not require prior approval consent but had been included in the application for completeness.  In view of the level of public concern about these works the Committee welcomed the fact that NR and the County had entered in to a legal agreement which would require the input from an independent highway advisor to ensure the best possible option for the highway arrangement.

Nevertheless the Committee felt that it was incumbent upon them to explore what reasonable scope there was to suggest variations to the design of the bridge and its impact on the cycle and pedestrian path.   The Committee learnt that the “piers” of the bridge, which delineated the vehicle highway and the cycle and pedestrian path, were physically constrained by the existing bridge structure and sewer such that any variation in width of the respective paths would be quite limited.  A further operational constraint was presented by the need to keep both the Botley Road and the railway line open during the construction programme.

The Committee was encouraged to hear the NR representatives re-state their commitment to working with the independent highway adviser, the County and City Councils and the local residents to achieve the best practicable solution for vehicle, cycle and pedestrian flow at the interface of the Botley Road and Frideswide Square.

Noise

The Committee noted the arguments presented in the report that noise mitigation would be sufficiently addressed by the erection of a 2.2m high noise barrier between Botley Road and Sheepwash Bridge.  Nevertheless the Committee acknowledged the concerns of local residents and welcomed the positive response from the NR representatives that they were, in principle, willing to work with the Council and local residents to consider options to increase the height of the barrier at appropriate locations (most likely at the Sheepwash Bridge end). 

Construction noise

The Committee noted that Condition 22: Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) would require that out of hours contact details be provided and that the hours of operation specified in the CTMP would reflect national best practice and would seek to balance local considerations with operational requirements to undertake some works outside of normal working hours (to avoid peak hours for rail travel).

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

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to grant prior approval subject to the inclusion of the 7 additional conditions to address the Environment Agency concerns; and an informative that all relevant departments across Oxford City Council should work with NR and local residents to achieve optimal solutions for the overall delivery of the scheme in discharging conditions, with particular reference to the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), the design of the acoustic barrier and traffic flows on the west side of the station.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

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

• grant prior approval, provided he is satisfied the flooding issues have been satisfactorily addressed and to also include the updating of plans to ensure they are correctly cross referenced, for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required conditions as set out in section 11, and the additional 7 conditions and informative mentioned above, including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions to those conditions and plans as the Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary.