The Committee considered an application (22/00409/FUL) for the demolition of squash courts, gardener’s shed, existing porter's lodge and existing accommodation building; construction of three accommodation buildings to house 51 student study bedrooms, associated communal spaces and landscape on the existing tennis courts site; construction of a new Porter's Lodge and associated office facilities to replace the existing Porter's Lodge and Clock Tower; construction of a new single storey informal study space to replace the existing glass house; construction of a new dining hall and associated facilities replacing the existing Doll building and change of use of residential gardens and retention of building used as a college gym at Green Templeton College, Woodstock Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·        The application related to development on three parcels of land on the Green Templeton College site which lay to the north of the Radcliffe Observatory quarter: the Tennis Court site (surrounded by a Grade II listed boundary wall), the Dining Hall site and the Gym.  With the exception of the Gym, the site lay within the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area; the Gym building lay within the Walton Manor Conservation Area.  The site was also considered to fall within the wider setting of the Central and Jericho Conservation Areas.

·        The proposal for the Tennis Court site included an arrangement of three buildings, centred around an internal garden, containing 53 student rooms in a mix of ensuite and studio rooms.  The existing Porter’s Lodge and Gatehouse building would be removed and replaced with a new Porter’s Lodge building consisting of reception, office and meeting spaces.  A new café space would attach to Building A on the western side of the site, replacing the Observatory Garden.  A new building was proposed on the site of the Richard Doll building, consisting of dining spaces (re-located from the Observatory building), and kitchen space.  The proposal included the retention of the single storey Gym building, located to the north of the Dining Hall.

·        The site was considered appropriate for student accommodation as it was on an existing college campus site.  It was considered that the siting of the student housing would comply with Policy H8 of the Oxford Local Plan.

·        The proposal included the loss of the existing tennis and squash courts.  Officers considered that alternative appropriate provision existed within the area and would be available to students, such that the loss of these facilities would not be harmful in terms of sports provision for students.  The Gym, which was a highly valued facility, would be retained. Sport England had raised no objection to the proposals, which were therefore considered to comply with Policy G5 of the Oxford Local Plan.

·        No additional car parking was proposed: cycle parking was included and would be secured by condition.

·        The proposals involved a new opening within the Grade II listed boundary wall, providing a gated entrance giving access into the garden area.

·        Whilst the Richard Doll building appeared aesthetically well-designed, there were functionality issues associated with the building and it was also thermally and acoustically inefficient.  Renovation had therefore been ruled out.  It was noted that neither the Local Plan nor the NPPF included a requirement to consider embodied carbon when considering proposals for the demolition and re-building of existing buildings.  The proposed new buildings to replace the Richard Doll building and on the Tennis Court site would be of a high standard in terms of their energy performance and would exceed the requirements set out in Policy RE1 of the Oxford Local Plan.  Officers did not therefore object in sustainability terms to the replacement either of the Richard Doll building or the Gatehouse building.

·        The proposals would achieve an on-site biodiversity net gain of 16.3% (a correction to the 17% shown in the report), significantly exceeding the 5% statutory requirement for biodiversity net gain.  This would be secured by a planning condition.

·        Officers considered that there would be a low level of less than substantial harm to both the setting and significance of the Grade I listed Radcliffe Observatory as a result of the partial loss of the views along sections of Woodstock Road as set out in the report.  There would be a low level of less than substantial harm as a result of the new openings in the Grade II listed boundary wall, and a low level of less than substantial harm to the Walton Manor Conservation Area arising from the siting of the Gym building.  Officers considered that there would be no harm to the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area.

·        The public benefits offered by the proposal were set out in the report and included the provision of the additional student accommodation; provision of new buildings of a high architectural quality; and significant benefits arising from the re-siting of the kitchen and dining facilities from the Grade I listed Radcliffe Observatory building.  In the context of paragraph 202 of the NPPF it was considered that the public benefits of the development would outweigh the identified level of less than substantial harm to heritage assets.  Officers considered that the proposals complied with the provisions of the Oxford Local Plan and the NPPF and they were therefore recommended for approval.

Councillor Andrew Gant spoke against the proposal.

Dr Tim Clayden, Bursar, Green Templeton College (the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about the details of the application which were responded to by officers and the architects.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·        The suitability of the existing Richard Doll building for conversion to provide student accommodation or dining facilities had been investigated.  However, for various reasons the building had been determined to be unsuitable for conversion; these reasons were detailed in the report.  The buildings which would replace the Richard Doll building would be of a much higher standard in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, and its loss would therefore result in greater benefit over the long term.

·        The scaling of the tower (which was higher than the adjacent student residential aspect) was intended to provide an architectural hierarchy, defining the entrance to the College and giving it a greater presence on Woodstock Road.  A committee member commented that the proposal may contribute towards creating a new character for this part of Woodstock Road.

·        A committee member highlighted the importance of the Grade II listed wall and agreed with the officer’s assessment that the small entrance and window constituted a low level of less than substantial harm to the heritage asset.

·        A Construction Traffic Management Plan was conditioned, which would require construction traffic and delivery vehicles to avoid peak traffic hours.

·        The proposal offered benefits in terms of providing modern, more sustainable student accommodation and improved facilities which were of good design.  These benefits were considered to outweigh the low level of less than substantial harm arising from the proposal which had been outlined by officers.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officers’ recommendation to approve the planning application for the reasons set out in the report, and subject to the conditions set out in the report and a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.

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 satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Unilateral Undertaking and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the report; and

2.             delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Regulatory 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;

·       finalise the recommended legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking 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 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 and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       on receipt of the completed section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking issue the planning permission.