Councillors Chapman and Railton left the meeting.

The Committee considered an application (22/02446/CT3) for removal of existing fencing and formation of footpath and cycle path, the installation of staggered timber bollards, timber kissing-gate and associated landscaping and associated signage at Donnington Recreation Ground, Freelands Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The full description of works at the top of the first page of the published report should read: ‘Removal of existing fencing and formation of footpath and cycle path, the installation of staggered timber bollards, timber kissing-gate and associated landscaping and associated signage.’  The Planning Officer confirmed that the application had been correctly advertised with this full description, and this was the proposal in front of members.

·       Paragraph 10.27 required a minor correction to include the word ‘upon’ so it reads: ‘Policy G7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 states that planning permission will not be granted for development that results in the net loss of green infrastructure features such as hedgerows, trees or woodland where this would have a significant adverse impact upon public amenity or ecological interest, and it must be demonstrated that their retention is not feasible and their loss will be mitigated.’

·       The application related to a public open space which was used for sports and recreation and sought planning permission for the formation of a footpath and cycle path and associated landscaping and signage.  The site was bound by mature trees, including a strong mature tree line along the western boundary along Meadow Lane, and the surrounding area was predominantly residential.

·       The aerial view showed a ‘desire line’ cutting across the field, which the proposal sought to mitigate and remove through the installation of a 3m wide shared cycle and footpath running along the southern edge of the site connecting Cavell Road to a new proposed entrance along Meadow Lane.  This would allow for the grassed area to be repaired and reinstated for uses such as football.

·       The proposal included the creation of a new entrance / exit to the south of Meadow Lane.  To facilitate this, a number of trees were proposed to be removed.

·       There had been a significant amount of public concern about the loss of the mature trees, and an updated arboricultural impact assessment had been submitted which had confirmed that 12 trees and one group of trees would be removed to facilitate the development, along with associated works within the root protection area of a number of trees along the southern boundary. 

·       It had been demonstrated that the works could not be achieved without the loss of some trees, and officers had assessed the impact in terms of the canopy area which would be lost.  It was proposed that approximately 275sqm of tree canopy cover would be removed to facilitate the development.  Subject to a condition requiring the works within the root protection area of trees and pruning work to be carried out in accordance with mitigation measures outlined in the Arboricultural Method Statement, officers were of the opinion that these works would be acceptable.

·       To mitigate the loss of trees, the proposal included the planting of 7 trees on site. These would be planted in open areas, thereby having space to grow to their full potential size.  The exact type and species had not yet been detailed: however, based on the number of trees provided and their location officers were satisfied that there would be a net gain in canopy cover regardless of species.  The proposal was considered to enhance the appearance of the park by the placement of trees in locations where there were currently large gaps in the tree cover.  The application was subject to a condition requiring further landscaping details to be submitted, which included details of the trees.

·       Concern had also been raised about the impact of the loss of the trees on local ecology and biodiversity.   The application had been accompanied by an ecological impact assessment which had identified the potential impact on breeding birds and reptiles.  It was considered that these impacts could be avoided through sensitive work practices, and that subject to a detailed construction environmental management plan for biodiversity the proposal would not have a significant impact on habitats or protected species.

·       The applicant had sought to provide a biodiversity net gain: whilst the NPPF requires planning decisions to minimise impacts on, and to provide net gains for biodiversity the application was not a major development and therefore there was no Local Plan policy requirement for the site to deliver a 5% biodiversity net gain. The requirement for a 10% biodiversity net gain through the Environmental Act has not yet come into force.  It would therefore be unreasonable for officers to require the proposed development to demonstrate an improvement of a minimum of 5% from the existing situation.  In support of the application, the applicant had provided a biodiversity metric as a means of demonstrating that the project would deliver an increase in biodiversity and therefore comply with the overall aims of the NPPF.  The applicant was proposing on-site enhancements as well as off-site enhancements at Greyfriars School which included enhancing a 0.25ha of grassland, a small extent of tree planting, the enhancement of two existing hedges and approximately 300m of new hedge planting.  Officers were satisfied that the proposed development would achieve a net gain in biodiversity and therefore would comply with national planning policies, subject to a legal obligation to ensure that the biodiversity net gain was delivered.

·       For the reasons set out in the report, the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a S106 legal obligation to secure the off-site planting and biodiversity net gain.

Dominic Woodfield spoke against the application.

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

·       The trees which were proposed for removal were healthy.  They were all category C trees, which was the lower level of importance within the tree hierarchy.

·       The footpath was proposed to be accessible for all users over the existing situation, including those with mobility scooters and buggies, as well as cyclists and pedestrians.

·       Two committee members expressed concerns about the proposal, relating particularly to the need for the removal of the mature trees, whether the proposed route represented the best solution to preventing use of the desire line, and whether the application had sufficiently demonstrated compliance with Policy G7 to show that retention of the mature trees was not feasible.  Officers advised that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact as set out in Policy G7.

·       The desire line had caused significant damage to the recreation ground and was affecting its use for activities which required a level surface such as football.  The new path, which would likely represent a more attractive route for cyclists and pedestrians, would make it possible for the damaged ground to be re-grassed and incorporated for uses such as a football pitch.

The Committee was informed that since publication of the officer’s report, the role of the Head of Planning Services had changed to include regulatory services and the former Head of Planning Services had become the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services. The delegations shown in the report should therefore now refer to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services (not the Head of Planning Services).

A proposal to refuse the application was moved and seconded as being contrary to Policy G7 as the applicant had not shown that the retention of the trees was not feasible and the proposal would have a significant adverse impact as set out in Policy G7.  On being put to the vote the proposal was lost.

A proposal to approve the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded.  On being 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 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 and 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 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 and Regulatory 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 and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       complete the legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.