The Committee considered an application (23/01483/FUL) for change of use of the first to fourth floors and part basement and ground floor to provide 55no. ensuite student accommodation rooms (Sui Generis); erection of a roof extension to the front elevation above fourth floor and a two storey roof extension to rear elevation above third floor; alterations to basement to create plant area and bin storage; formation of new entrance lobby to Friars Entry with reception, break out area and cycle storage and alterations to fenestration at 13-15 Oxenford House, Magdalen Street, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation, provided the following updates and also highlighted the following:

·        Since the committee report was published, the Highways Authority had removed its objection relating to the provision of cycle storage following the submission of amended plans.  The cycle storage had been removed from the basement and relocated to the ground floor.

·        The latest advice from Highways was that the travel monitoring fee to be secured via a s106 agreement was not now necessary.  The mechanism for securing four cycle stands on highway land within Friar’s Entry had also been confirmed as being acceptable to be conditioned.  A s106 requirement for the contribution towards affordable housing provision remained.

·        Condition 13 required correction to refer to 56 cycle spaces (not 55).

·        The principle of the proposed development was considered acceptable on the basis that it was an existing city centre site, and the proposal would make best and most efficient use of the land in order to provide sought after student accommodation in a sustainable location.

·        The application comprised speculative development: however, it was known that both universities relied on additional market rental accommodation to provide housing for students.  The proposal would provide 55 rooms towards meeting this provision, each with ensuite accommodation and shared kitchen.

·        Oxenford House contributed positively to the character and appearance of the central conservation area as one of the few remaining mid-20^th century buildings in the city centre.  The most substantial and visually prominent element of the proposal was the additions to the roof, which would increase the overall height and prominence of the upper floors of the building.  However, the roof extension would remain lower than the adjacent Debenhams building and the Randolph Hotel, limiting its impact on the city’s roofscape.  The extension to the front would be stepped back from the north elevation of the building to maintain views of the roof parapet from street level.

·        Officers considered that the proposed materials would respond well to the façade’s existing palette, and that the proposal would not alter the composition of the historical skyline as the scale of the proposed development was not of such magnitude as to compete with existing landmarks.

·        The development was of a sustainable design and construction and involved retrofitting the building to a high energy sustainability standard.

·        On balance it was considered that the development would, by way of replacement of the original glass panels with insulated aluminium panels, erode the distinctive mid-20^th century character of the building and lessen its contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area as a good surviving example of brutalist architecture in the city centre.  However, the proportions, arrangement of the primary façade and the fluted concrete would remain unchanged; the latter being the building’s most distinctive feature.  Therefore it was considered that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the central conservation area at the low level.  To counter this, an assessment of public benefits had been made and was detailed in the report.  There was not considered to be any harm in relation to the setting of the other heritage assets as set out in the report.

·        Officers considered that the benefits of the scheme included increased energy efficiency; the contribution to student housing stock; and the improvement to the public realm in Friar’s Entry.  Collectively, these benefits were considered to outweigh the low level of less than substantial harm which would be caused to the conservation area.  The proposal was also considered to preserve the significance of the nearby listed buildings in the setting in which the site was located.

·        Officers had concluded that subject to conditions (including soundproofing and retaining the internal layout as approved) the proposed use as student accommodation would not harmfully impact on the existing uses with regard to loss of privacy, noise or odour.

·        As the development was in the city centre location, no car parking was proposed.  It was proposed that, as some car trips may be generated during the start and end of the academic term, students should be given strict timetables during these periods to load or unload belongings on either Magdalen Street or Beaumont Street.  Beyond these timescales, private vehicles would need to use local car parks.  This would be subject to a condition requiring a detailed student management plan.

·        It was acknowledged that with re-use of the building, and due to the lack of wider surrounding curtilage, there were some practical constraints which meant that the bin store was integrated within the building at basement level.  The building was proposed as a managed facility with permanent on-site staff: the refuse and recycling strategy would be for building management operatives to remove the bins from the basement store to the designated collection point at days and times agreed with the refuse collection services as per the current arrangement.  It was considered that the development was acceptable in this regard and would not have any adverse highways impacts.

·        Subject to conditions, the proposed development was considered to meet policy requirements in relation to all other issues assessed as part of the application, including biodiversity, land quality, air quality, archaeology and drainage.  The application was therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions in the report and a s106 agreement to secure the financial contribution to off-site affordable housing set out in the report.

Arron Twamley (agent) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·      A construction management plan had been conditioned, which included details of the routing of construction traffic and delivery vehicles and means of access.  Officers cited examples of developments within similarly busy and central locations in the city centre which had been successfully managed.

·      In response to concerns raised by committee members about the arrangements for bin storage and refuse collection, officers cited examples of student accommodation in the city centre where similar arrangements for collection of refuse from a designated area at a separate location were in place and successfully managed.  The highways authority was satisfied that the bin storage in the basement was acceptable given the constraints of the site.  However, committee members considered that servicing arrangements required a specific condition, given that the building was currently in office use which generated a different nature and volume of waste than a residential use.

·      The development would make an efficient use of the building, and the change to its appearance would be minor.

The officer recommendation with the amended condition 13 and with the amended s106 provisions was proposed and seconded.  An amendment to the motion to impose a specific condition relating to servicing arrangements was then proposed and seconded and put to the vote and approved.

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 required planning conditions; an amendment to condition 13 to require 56 cycle parking spaces; the addition of a servicing condition; and subject to an affordable housing contribution to be secured by a s106 agreement.

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, an amendment to condition 13 to require 56 cycle parking spaces and the addition of a servicing condition 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 for the financial contribution to off-site affordable housing as 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 including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the financial obligation 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 section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.