The Committee considered an application (23/02114/FUL) for erection of a modular theatre building including associated infrastructure, landscaping and parking at John Radcliffe Hospital, Headley Way, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highlighted the following:

·       The proposal represented an extension to the hospital of approximately 14,000 sqm of floor space over five levels and would connect to the Childrens’ Hospital and the Eye Wing via a link corridor.  The building would be of a modular construction, providing 7 new operating theatres in order to meet current demand and provide future capacity.

·       The proposal would help to meet the need for surgery in Oxford and Oxfordshire, as well as the wider South East Integrated Care System region. It would also provide approximately 174 new full-time jobs for staff.

·       Officers advised that a late representation had been received from the Oxford Preservation Trust and the comments arising had already been covered in the report.  Officers considered that there would be some additional harm to views arising from the increase to visual distraction, resulting in a high level of less than substantial harm to the Conservation Area.  However, it was considered that the very significant benefits of the proposal in terms of providing much needed theatre accommodation outweighed the harm in this instance.

·       16 visitor car parking spaces would be retained on site and 121 visitor spaces would be re-provided within existing car parks.  This would involve the displacement of existing staff car parking spaces, resulting in a reduction of staff car parking provision.  The Trust was undertaking a Framework Transport Strategy for the whole site in recognition of the impact of the hospital on traffic generation and congestion in the wider Headington area; this would include measures to help reduce the need for staff to travel to the site by car and encourage a shift to more sustainable modes of transport.

·       The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions securing the Framework Transport Strategy; a travel plan; a car park management plan; cycle parking securing the 35 spaces needed; and a contribution of approx. £170,000 towards the Eastern Arc bus route.

·       A satisfactory Landscape Plan and tree canopy cover assessment had now been received.  The latter had satisfactorily demonstrated that the tree canopy cover lost would be replaced over 25 years.  A biodiversity net gain had also been demonstrated through a scheme of 11 trees to be provided elsewhere in the hospital grounds: this met the minimum of 5% required by the Local Plan policy and also the 10% required by the Environment Act 2021 (although that percentage was not legally required for this application) and this could be secured via a S106 agreement.  As such, officers amended their recommendation so as to remove reference to these issues.

·       The development would include a drainage strategy and sustainable drainage. This would include attenuation of the water from the car park, resulting in a betterment of the current situation.  Officers were satisfied that there would be no increased flood risk elsewhere off-site.

·       There would be no adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity due to nature of the development, topography, and distance from other properties.

·       The application was recommended for approval for the reasons set out in the report, subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement.  As a satisfactory Landscape Plan and tree canopy cover assessment had now been received and the biodiversity net gain had been demonstrated, references to these could now be removed from the recommendations.

Mark Pott of Headington Heritage spoke against the application.

Mr Colin Nnadi and Dr Ruth Webster of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust spoke in favour of the application.

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

·       The hospital was a very valued facility, both for Oxford residents and those who travelled from other parts of the country to benefit from its facilities.  However, Committee Members expressed the view that there was a need for an overarching masterplan to have oversight of broader issues such as transport and traffic congestion which were not addressed within individual planning applications.

·       Whilst the proposal to encourage staff to use sustainable transport and the investment in the Eastern Arc bus route was welcome, there remained significant concern about traffic issues and congestion at the site.

·       It was considered that the public benefit of the proposal would be significant in terms of reducing waiting lists and improving the quality of life for the patients who would benefit from the treatment provided.  This outweighed the inconvenience which some people may face from potentially higher traffic levels and parking in the Controlled Parking Zone.  The proposal was also fully compliant with planning policies.

On being proposed, seconded and put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officers’ recommendation (as amended to remove reference to the Landscape Plan and tree canopy cover assessment and the demonstration of biodiversity net gain) to approve the application for the reasons set out in the report and subject to the conditions set out in the report and a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.

Note: Councillor Douglas had arrived at the meeting after the commencement of the officer’s presentation and therefore did not participate in determining the application.

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 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 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 this 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 this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in this 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 Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.