The Committee considered an application (22/01554/FUL) for closure of the vehicular access from Westlands Drive to Elizabeth Place and erection of a three storey building to create 15no residential units (amended plans).

Councillor Railton left the meeting room for this item and did not participate in determining the application or return to the meeting afterwards.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·      The application site lay at the centre of Northway and included an area of public open space with landscaping, trees, amenity grass areas, access paths, and an area containing recycling bins.  The development included Elizabeth Place, which was a road which was open to vehicles and provided a secondary route from Westlands Drive to Gorse Leas.

·      To the south west of the site was a row of shops with two storey maisonettes located above.  To the south of the site was a row of garages, which were owned by the City Council and rented out.  Housing to the north and east of the site comprised two storey houses, with the Plowman tower block to the north-west.  There was a large area of open recreation space to the west of the site, on the opposite side of Westlands Drive.

·      The proposal involved the development of 15 homes consisting of 8 houses and 7 apartments within a single L shaped building.  The building would be sited partly on Elizabeth Place and partly on the adjoining area of public open space: the north-western side of the building would face Westlands Drive; the houses would face the retained area of public open space to the north-east; and the gardens of the houses would face the retained section of road.

·      The houses would be 100% affordable, consisting of 6 socially rented units, 5 affordable rented units and 4 shared ownership homes.  The proposal included the partial closure (stopping up) of Elizabeth Place which would cease to function as a through route for vehicles between Westlands Drive and Gorse Leas.  Vehicle access would be retained to serve two disabled parking spaces which were proposed on site and access to the retained garages.

·      Two routes for pedestrians would be provided: one to the south-west of the building adjoining the maisonettes, and one to the north of the proposed houses.  The route to the north would be a 3m wide segregated pedestrian and cycle route.

·      With the exception of the disabled parking spaces, it was proposed that the houses would not be provided with dedicated parking.  The site was in a sustainable location in terms of access to local shops and facilities.  The bus service to Northway had recently been reduced in terms of frequency and was now a half-hourly service: it was considered that the site was in a location where occupiers would not be dependent on access to a private car.  The site was in a controlled parking zone, and the Highways Authority had concluded that any displacement of vehicles or overspill parking would not have a severe impact on the function of the local road network.  Oxfordshire County Council had raised no objections to the closure of the route to through traffic: there were already two routes between Gorse Leas and Westlands Drive (Halliday Hill and Saxon Way) to the north and south of the site, and the route at Elizabeth Place was lightly used at the current time.

·      Around 25% of the public open space at the site would be lost, with around 75% retained as public open space.  Policy G5 of the Oxford Local Plan, which reflected the requirements of paragraph 99 of the NPPF, required that where developments resulted in the loss of public open space, this should be replaced by better provision in terms of quantity and quality. The applicant had shown a commitment to enhance the remaining area of open public space: this would be secured through the Section 106 agreement, which would also include the requirement to secure 5% biodiversity net gain in line with Policy G2.

·      The proposals would not strictly fully comply with Policy G5; therefore the development was considered to be a departure from the development plan on this basis.  However, as outlined in the report there were several accessible areas of open space within the local area; the proposals would not result in localised under-provision of open space; and when the public benefits were considered against the loss of the open space (in particular, those arising from the provision of 15 affordable homes, enhancements to the retained area of open space, and biodiversity net gain) it was considered that there were significant material reasons to justify a departure from the development plan in this instance. 

·      Each of the proposed houses complied with nationally described space standards in terms of indoor space provision, and were compliant with Policy H15 of the Local Plan.  The houses would each be provided with an external amenity space in the form of gardens for the houses and balconies for the flats, in line with Policy H16.  Cycle parking would be provided in the rear gardens of the houses, and within a dedicated space for the flats at ground floor level.  The cycle parking provision was fully compliant with Policy M5 of the Local Plan.

·      The proposal included two maisonette flats at second floor level which would be located above three of the houses.  To deal with potential overlooking of the houses below and amenity spaces, screening would be required along the adjacent walkway, as well as the fitting of obscure glazing to a height of 1.8m in the rear facing windows.  These would be secured by planning conditions.

·      The proposal was considered to be appropriate in design terms and commensurate in scale with the surrounding built form of the area.

·      The impact on the amenity of surrounding properties had been carefully considered, and it was considered that the development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding dwellings with regard to overlooking, the scale of development, or overshadowing. 

·      The application was accompanied by an energy statement, which identified the relevant measures which would see the building achieve a 66% reduction in carbon emissions compared with the 2021 Part L Building Regulations, significantly exceeding the 40% Policy RE1 requirement.  The proposal was therefore high performing in terms of sustainability.

·      The key planning considerations were set out in the officer’s report, and the development was recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report and the matters to be secured by the accompanying legal agreement.

Stuart Moran (for the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·       Balance had been needed between retaining the privacy of future occupiers and retaining surveillance over the public realm.  Whilst retaining visual permeability through the gates had been considered to be the best approach in this case, there was a risk that future occupiers could put up some form of privacy screening on the gates.  However, there would be adequate survellance of the public realm from the first floor and second floor backs of the houses and flats, and therefore the rear access road was not considered to be unsafe.

·       A Committee Member questioned whether controls could be put in place to prevent future residents from using their amenity space for the purpose of parking.  Officers responded that controlling parking on privately owned space was difficult, but that consideration could be given to this within the conditions (for example, by conditioning the proposed means of enclosure, in particular that the rear boundary walls were permanently retained).

·       A Committee Member suggested that, given that the proposal involved the loss of a small area of public open space, one way in which the applicant might seek to enhance the remaining green space could be to provide some raised beds which could be used for community food growth.

·       A Committee Member commented that whilst private covenants were outside the Committee’s remit, he had concerns relating to the potential for private amenity spaces to be paved by future residents and used for car parking.  He requested that his suggestion that OX Place and the City Council consider the use of a covenant in this instance, in order to prevent this, be recorded in the minutes.

·       A Committee Member commented that the site was challenging in that it required access to the shops and for refuse lorries to be retained, and was on a slope.  The proposal made astute use of a difficult site in order to bring forward much needed affordable housing.  The integration with the remaining green spaces was good.  However, he foresaw some housing management challenges, and urged OX Place and the City Council to give consideration to these, and in particular the management of the spaces at either end of the site.  Notwithstanding this, he expressed the view that the benefit arising from the provision of the affordable housing clearly outweighed the small scale breach of policy.

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, subject to the conditions and planning obligations set out in the report and the inclusion of a condition requiring the retention of the boundary walls to the rear gardens.

The Oxford City Council Planning Committee resolved to:

1.             approve the application for the reasons given in the report, subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and the inclusion of a condition requiring the retention of the boundary walls to the rear gardens 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 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 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 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.