The Committee considered an application (22/03067/FUL) for the demolition of existing office building and erection of 1no. laboratory and office building for research and development (Use Class E); erection of gas store; provision of motor vehicle and cycle parking and landscaping at Trinity House, John Smith Drive, Oxford.

The Planning Officer provided the following updates and clarifications:

·       Since publication of the committee report it had emerged that the CIL figure had been incorrectly calculated based on the incorrect Use Class E charge, rather than the development being liable for a CIL payment of £3,483,802.  The revised CIL figure was £740,401.

·       The 715 construction jobs stated in the committee report had been based on the economic statement which was submitted in December 2022.  An updated statement had been provided which estimated that the scheme would actually deliver 475 jobs over the construction period.

·       These updates had not impacted on officers’ recommendation to approve the application.  This was because the economic benefits of the scheme, which comprised just one element of the public benefits, were still considered to outweigh the harm to heritage assets.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·         The site comprised a rectangular parcel of lane at the junction of Garsington Road and John Smith Drive, located within the Oxford Business Park (now known as ‘ARC Oxford’).  The built development currently on site comprised a three storey office building with surface parking extending over the majority of the site, interspersed with soft landscaping.  Surrounding built form comprised two- and three- storey buildings in a range of employment uses, and two-storey residential dwellings which lay over 100 metres to the west of the site.

·         The scheme proposed the demolition of the existing Trinity House building, and erection of a six storey building with a gross internal area of 20,409m² and a gross external area of 25,448m² in research and development use with CL2 and CL3 laboratories and offices.

·         The proposed building would make more efficient use of the site, whilst responding to the surrounding smaller scale buildings, with its stepped elevations reducing the proposed massing.  The ground floor was also set in from John Smith Drive by 13.5m, creating an area of public realm.  The proposed new footpath at the corner of Garsington Road would enhance connectivity and legibility, which is currently lacking within the Park.  The perimeter landscaping would be retained and enhanced.

·         The building is one of the first Life Sciences buildings to come forward on the Business Park and represented a new typology, in line with the Local Plan ambitions for the Park to achieve a step change in the type, scale and quality of development coming forward.  It was considered that its distinctive design clearly responded to the site’s corner plot position, and would act as a gateway to the Park. 

·         130 staff car parking spaces were proposed on the basement plan, with 3 additional external visitors’ spaces.  This represented a reduction in the existing provision.  However, the transport assessment had been based on retaining the existing provision of up to 142 spaces, which would result in a mode share of 18% based on 815 staff working on site during a typical day.  Either retaining the existing provision, or reducing it by 9 spaces, was considered acceptable given the sustainable location.  220 cycle parking spaces would be provided for staff, with a further 12 external visitor spaces.  This provision was also considered acceptable.

·         Whilst the building would alter the outlook for residents on Phipps Road, it was considered that given the orientation and distance between the buildings, neighbouring amenity would be retained.  Furthermore, it was considered an acceptable form of development within the context of the longstanding site allocation of the Business Park for the intensification of employment use.

·         The proposed building, whilst visible from Shotover Country Park, would sit within the existing surrounding built form.

·         It was considered that the proposal would cause a medium level of less than substantial harm to the settings of St George’s Tower, Oxford Town Hall, Lincoln College Library and the setting of the central conservation area as a whole, as the building would break the skyline and detract from the landscape setting of Oxford.  It was also considered that the proposal would cause a low level of less than substantial harm to St Luke’s Church, a non-designated heritage asset, due to the close proximity of the new building which would detract from the Church’s prominence.   However, taking the social and economic benefits of the scheme into account, and whilst giving great weight to the conservation of heritage assets, it was considered that the medium level of less than substantial harm would be outweighed.

·         The proposal would result in the loss of a number of category B and C trees, hedges and tree groups.  To mitigate this, new trees would be planted and the larger tree belts located around the northern and eastern boundaries within ARC’s ownership would all be retained.  The proposal would result in a canopy cover net gain of 1.2% after 25 years when compared to a ‘no development’ scenario, which exceeded the policy requirement of no net loss. 

·         The proposal would result in a biodiversity net gain of 16% when taking into account new tree planting and the green roof and walls.  This exceeded both the Local Plan policy requirement of 5% and the upcoming national legislation which would require 10% from November. 

·         The scheme would achieve a 45% reduction in carbon emissions when set against Part L of the 2021 Building Regulations, exceeding the requirements of the local policy.  It was anticipated that the scheme would achieve BREEAM excellence.

·         Officers considered that the proposal would accord with the overall aims and objectives of the NPPF and polices within the Oxford Local Plan for the reasons set out within the report.  It was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions and legal obligations set out in the report and the resolution of any comments made by the Environment Agency with regard to groundwater contamination.

Adam Wlodarczyk-Black (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, the architect and the planning consultant.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·          The scheme proposed a £329,474 section 106 contribution towards the Cowley Branch Line or an equivalent local transport infrastructure project.  In the event that the Cowley Branch Line project did not proceed, planning officers, in collaboration with the County Council, would ensure that it was used for a transport project which delivered the same level of public benefits as would have been delivered by the Cowley Branch Line.

·          The containment level of laboratories are governed by separate regulations from the Health and Safety Executive and the Advisory Committee for Dangerous Pathogens.  For each category (CL2 and CL3) there is a set of pre-defined and well-established standard operating procedures governing activities within the laboratory.  It was not unusual for CL2 and CL3 labs to be sited close to residential accommodation.

·          A Community Employment and Procurement Plan would be secured via a section 106 agreement, to ensure that local people were given the opportunity to apply both for construction jobs and jobs within the operational phase.   All of the jobs would be advertised through the Council as well as by the applicant’s own agency, with the aim of ensuring that a proportion of local people and those from disadvantaged backgrounds (who may not normally be exposed to such jobs, or think that they could apply) would have the same opportunities.  The Community Employment and Procurement Plan would also require a certain number of apprenticeships to be provided.

·          A Lighting Strategy would be conditioned, in order to ensure that local ecology and biodiversity was protected.  This would limit the lux levels, and it was therefore not considered that lighting levels would have a negative impact on long distance views.  However, further consideration would be given to the wording of the condition, or a new condition added, to ensure that regard was also given to the setting of the conservation area and broader amenity in relation to lighting levels.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officers’ recommendation to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report including a new condition or an amendment to the condition in the report relating to the Lighting Strategy in order to ensure that regard is given to the setting of the conservation area and broader amenity in relation to lighting levels.

The Oxford City 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 13 of the report including a new condition or an amendment to the condition in the report relating to the Lighting Strategy in order to ensure that regard is given to the setting of the conservation area and broader amenity in relation to lighting levels, and grant planning permission subject also 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

·     respond to comments made by the Environment Agency with regards to groundwater contamination, resolve any concerns or objections and finalise any recommended conditions;

·     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 and issue the planning permission.