The Committee considered an application (22/01842/FUL) for partial demolition and alteration of C2 accommodation at 17 Norham Gardens; and demolition of C2 accommodation building (Brockhues Lodge), erection of 3 no. C2 accommodation buildings including drainage and landscape works and minor alterations to listed building and demolition of curtilage listed building at 19 Norham Gardens.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·             Paragraph 10.11 of the report required correction to reflect that the total number of new rooms on the site was 128, and not 110.  This figure comprised 110 rooms within the new block, and 18 refurbished rooms within 17 Norham Gardens.  This would still provide a net gain of 72 rooms as stated in the report, equating to a net gain of 29 houses released to the market (not 30).

·             Paragraph 10.81 of the report required correction to reflect that the existing three car parking spaces would be reduced to two car parking spaces.  This was considered to be a positive change, which would result in a reduction of traffic to the site.

·             The principle of the development was considered acceptable, as it represented redevelopment of an existing site providing student accommodation for St Edmund Hall.  It would result in an increase on the existing 56 student rooms to 128, with the accommodation being used to house undergraduate students.  This would enable the College to better support the health and wellbeing of this student group through the provision of rooms and ancillary facilities on site.

·             The proposal would enable the space at the site to be utilised more efficiently, as well as providing more energy efficient and sustainable accommodation which would meet Passivhaus standard. The development also offered improved access arrangements for students, staff and visitors with disabilities.

·             The development was considered to respond appropriately to the street scene and its context; the massing, bulk and amount of student accommodation was considered suitable for the site; and the proposal was considered to be of high quality architectural design.  The high quality provision of biodiversity, sustainable drainage, and energy efficiency was considered by officers to be exemplary.  Whilst there would be some harm to heritage assets in terms of the conservation area and the setting of the listed building, this was considered to be of low level less than substantial harm which would be outweighed by the public benefits.  The application was therefore recommended for approval.

Eleanor Burnett (for the applicant) and Naila Yousuf (architect) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·           Re-siting of plant from above the rooms to the basement had enabled a reduction in the massing of the roof area;

·           The provision of purpose built accommodation would have a positive impact on student welfare;

·           Officers undertook to discuss with Oxfordshire County Council the periods within the day when the movement of construction and demolition vehicles should be permitted or restricted, in order to avoid peak traffic / cycling hours associated with nearby schools’ afternoon pick up times and minimise the risk of road traffic accidents;

·           The removal of the existing unsympathetic extensions was considered to be a positive benefit of the scheme.  Other public benefits were cited as: the releasing of housing stock into the general market; the provision of purpose built student accommodation enabling the College to capitalise on its reputation as a centre for excellence; the substantial biodiversity increase and the reinstatement of the front gardens; and the enhanced carbon performance of the buildings.

·           A committee member highlighted that in considering planning applications, the judgement as to whether the benefits of a scheme outweighed any less than substantial harm needed to be based on benefits to the public, rather than private benefits to applicants themselves.  The committee member requested that it be recorded that enhanced carbon performance of buildings was considered by the Committee to be a public and not a private benefit, which would be taken into account by the Committee in making its judgement in this regard.  Another committee member commended the environmental credentials of this particular proposal; and another was pleased that the development would deliver enhanced student welfare through purpose built accommodation.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the required planning conditions 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 this report and grant planning permission; 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

·            issue the planning permission.