Councillor Clarkson left the room and Councillor Hollingsworth took the chair.

(Note: as they related to the same site, applications 23/00693/FUL and 23/00694/LBC were considered together).

The Committee considered applications (23/00693/FUL and 23/00694/LBC) for the demolition of nos. 6-25 Pusey Lane and erection of a 2-3 storey terraced building to provide new student accommodation; demolition of rear outrigger extensions to nos. 20 and 21 St John Street; erection of single storey common room building to the rear of nos. 20 and 21 St John Street; and re-landscaping of the existing amenity areas to the rear of nos. 7-11 and 19-21 St John Street, including demolition/alteration of rear plot boundary walls.

The Planning Officers gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The application site encompassed a series of 1970s mews buildings fronting Pusey Lane containing 22 garages on the ground floor and 9 self-contained flats on the upper floors for graduate students of St John’s College; a disused early C20 building on the corner of Pusey Lane and Pusey Street known as The Lighting Store; and the rear gardens of 7-11 and 19-21 St John’s Street, all of which were owned by St John’s College.

·       The proposal included demolition of The Lighting Store and the mews buildings replacing them with a linear, terraced development consisting of 5 individual houses and 8 self-contained flats which would provide purpose-built accommodation for 33 students.  The outer edges of the terrace would be two storeys with rooms in the pitched roof, and the central section was of lower height to correspond with the properties on the rear of St John Street which were privately owned and residential.  The height of the development would be the same as the highest point of the existing mews buildings in this location.

·       The proposal also included demolition of the rear outriggers at 20-21 St John Street, to be replaced with a single storey glass and brick extension.  The outrigger adjacent to 18 St John’s Street would be retained. 

·       The building had been articulated and the windows varied to correspond with the buildings opposite and optimise the use of light, in order to provide good quality accommodation for the graduate students.

·       The development included a high quality landscape scheme in the rear gardens of the St John’s Street houses involving the removal of a large number of poor quality trees and replacement with new species which would replace the canopy cover over 25 years.  There would be no harm to the public amenity as a result of the tree removals.  The houses and flats would have direct access for students into the shared courtyard gardens, offering significantly improved amenity space for residents.  The landscape design included rain gardens, sustainable drainage and enhanced greening of Pusey Lane, as well as relaying of the cobblestones to the front on Pusey Lane.

·       Officers were of the view that the development would result in a high quality, highly sustainable design which would be of an appropriate scale, height and massing to its surroundings and would enhance the character and appearance of the C19 residential character area of the Central Conservation Area.  It was considered that there would be no harm caused to the significance of the listed buildings at 19-21 St John Street arising from the demolition of the outriggers.  It was considered that there would be a low level of less than substantial harm caused to the setting of the listed terrace of St John Street properties resulting from the increased height of the new development over the existing; however, officers were of the view that the weight of harm caused would be outweighed by the public benefits arising from the proposed development.  Officers considered that there would not be a significant increase in overbearing or overshadowing to residents to the rear over and above that caused by the existing buildings.  There would be no direct overlooking back to back: the rear windows facing the private properties on St John Street had been removed, and other first floor and ground floor windows would have a protective fine mesh which would prevent direct overlooking and leaning out of windows.  As such, officers considered there would be no significant adverse impact.

·       The control of vibration and external noise had been conditioned, and subject to these conditions officers considered that there would be no adverse impact from any plant or air source heat pumps.

·       Acceptable levels of cycle parking would be provided; the proposal also included a reduction in car parking through the loss of the 22 spaces, which was welcomed.

·       Construction traffic would be controlled by the County Council as Highways Authority under a Construction Traffic Management Plan.

·       The applications were therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions in the respective reports and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 agreement in respect of the development which was the subject of the planning application.

John Landers of St John Street Area Residents’ Association and Francis Wenban-Smith, on behalf of a local resident, spoke against the application.

Zoe Hancock, Principal Bursar of St John’s College and Toby Martin, architect, 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 the architect.  The Committee’s discussions included, but were not limited to:

·         The listed status of the building, 6 Pusey Street, referred to as The Lighting Store.  Officers confirmed that this building had never been listed.  In officers’ opinion the building was not, as had been suggested, listed by virtue of being a curtilage building to No 22 St John Street.  Officers explained the tests set out in case law relating to curtilage and the application of those tests, together with guidance from Historic England, that underpinned their conclusion on that matter.

·         A Student Management Plan could be conditioned, setting out details of how the accommodation would be managed by the College, in order to provide additional assurance with regard to noise or disturbance issues.

·         There would be no windows overlooking no 22 St John Street, and the windows on the adjacent unit would be covered by mesh in order to provide screening.  The mesh screen also had fins and would be held closer to the façade which would eliminate any sideways views out.  With these measures, the screening provided by additional trees, and a condition relating to approval of the mesh material, officers were confident that there would be no overlooking issues.

·         A committee member commented that the proposal would provide accommodation for graduate students which was needed in the city and would free up private sector rented accommodation currently used by the students.  It was considered to offer a much better quality of design and architecture than the current buildings.  The developer had made significant efforts to consider sustainability issues and had given a detailed response to concerns about overbearing, light issues, bin storage and cycle storage.  However, the lowering of the middle part of the building - which faced the privately owned residences to the rear of St John Street - to two storeys with a flat roof whilst the ends of the building which faced onto student accommodation remained at two and a half storeys, seemed to be an anomaly.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the planning application for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the conditions set out in the report, an additional condition requiring a Student Management Plan, 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 subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and an additional condition requiring a Student Management Plan 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 were 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 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.