Councillor Hollingsworth withdrew from the meeting whilst this application was considered.

The Committee considered an application (21/03328/OUTFUL) for demolition of the existing Northfield Hostel buildings and erection of 2no. 4 storey buildings to provide 51 dwellings (Use Class C3); provision of new pedestrian and vehicular accesses; vehicular and bicycle parking; landscaping; amenity space; refuse storage and noise attenuation works; and outline planning permission for the erection of  up to 10 dwelling houses (Use Class C3) on a former playing field to the east of the existing Northfield Hostel buildings.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and made the following verbal updates:

·        The applicants were Oxford City Council and Oxfordshire County Council.   References to Oxford City Housing Ltd (OCHL) at sections 6.3, 7.3 and 10.13 of the report were incorrect; the scheme would be delivered by Oxford County Council, with Oxford City Council developing and managing the site.  OCHL had no legal interest in the scheme.

·        Two public comments had been received following publication of the committee report.  One comment had been in support of the application.  One comment had objected to the application on the grounds that the site was over-developed; there would be insufficient parking; the four-storey blocks would not be in keeping with the surrounding area; the development would impact on neighbouring amenities; highways improvements were required; and the local infrastructure was insufficient.  These comments did not alter the officer’s recommendation, and all of the issues raised had been addressed in the report.  The site was allocated in the Local Plan, and in the preparation of the Plan any necessary infrastructure to support residential development on the site had been considered.

·        Due to the presence of roosting bats, a bat mitigation licence from Natural England would be required prior to the commencement of development, as set out in the report.  Natural England would apply three tests in order to decide whether to grant a licence.  These were: (i) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest; (ii) there must be no satisfactory alternative; and (iii) the action authorised would not adversely affect the favourable conservation status of the species in their natural range.  The Planning Committee must consider the three tests and the likelihood of a licence being granted.  Having considered the three tests, officers had concluded it likely that a bat licence would be granted by Natural England.

With regard to affordable housing, the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the proposal included 51 affordable units, equating to 84% of the total dwellings on site.  This would exceed the Local Plan requirement of 50%.  27 of the 51 units would be social rented, which also exceeded the Local Plan requirement when taking into account development on the site as a whole.  The Government’s First Homes policy would come into effect on 28 March: if a legal agreement and planning decision had not been issued by this date then 25% of the affordable housing would be required to be delivered as First Homes.  Based on viability work, this would mean that only 40% of the overall units would be for social rent.

The proposal comprised 16 parking spaces for the flats, including 3 accessible spaces and 1 car club space.  Whilst this number was low it was policy compliant; the low number derived from the need to protect several trees and root protection areas on site.  The site was considered sustainable by the Highways Authority given the high frequency of buses along Blackbird Leys Road.  Conditions relating to parking management had been included, and on-street parking controls were proposed in order to manage overspill parking.  Officers were therefore satisfied that the proposed parking arrangements were satisfactory.  A new pedestrian crossing would be constructed to the left of the emergency access, with advisory cycle lane markings to encourage sustainable travel.  It was expected that residents would be made aware through tenancy agreements that it was a low parking scheme and that parking space was therefore very limited both for residents and also visitors.

The main ecological interest of site was the presence of roosting bats.  A total of 21 bat boxes was proposed as on site compensation, and a condition securing details of ecological enhancements would be imposed.  The applicants had been liaising with the Trust for Oxfordshire’s Environment with a view to identifying potential suitable land close to Oxford (or at least within Oxfordshire) for biodiversity offsetting.  In the event that this proved not to be possible, the applicant could purchase credits from the Environment Bank.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that the proposal represented a high quality residential scheme which would respond appropriately to the site and the context of the surrounding area whilst providing up to 61 homes to help meet Oxford’s need.  The dwelling mix was considered to be appropriate for the area; the site was allocated for residential development within the Local Plan; and the scheme was considered to satisfy the requirements of the policy.  The proposed dwellings would achieve acceptable internal and external living standards for prospective residents, and would not materially impact the neighbouring amenity.  The scheme would deliver highways improvements, including a pedestrian crossing and marked advisory cycle lanes at Sandy Lane West, thereby promoting sustainable modes of transport. 

Maurice Smithson and Michael Evans, local residents, and Councillor Tiago Corais spoke against the application.

Alec Arrol, agent and Stuart Moran, applicant spoke in favour of the application.

Committee Members sought clarification on elements of the proposal, including emergency vehicle access; issues of privacy and overlooking, and the heating system to be used.  It was noted that roof mounted solar panels were proposed, with the apartments being serviced by electric heat pumps.  Officers were content that there would not be issues of overlooking or loss of privacy due to the distances between the properties, the angling of windows, and the use of inset balconies.  Privacy screening had been conditioned to avoid overlooking of the dwellinghouse gardens by residents in the eastern elevation of block B and a tree belt would also be retained.  Amenity spaces around the buildings would enable access to all faces for servicing or emergency access.

Following debate about the level of parking to be provided, it was recommended that an informative be included to encourage an increase to the number of parking spaces allocated for car club use.

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 approve the application.

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 13 of the report and an informative recommending that consideration be given to increasing the number of parking spaces allocated for car club use and grant planning permission; subject to:

·        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 which are set out in this report; and

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

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

·            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 Services considers reasonably necessary; and

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