The Committee considered an application (23/02166/FUL) for the demolition of Buildings 30.5 and 31.5, extension of Integrated Logistics Centre (Building 80.0) and Body-in-White/Logistics building (Building 31.0/31.3), provision of a new lorry parking area, expansion of external waste storage area, realignment of internal road and installation of associated landscaping, delivery decks, canopies, shutter doors, windows, plant and equipment and all other associated works at BMW UK Manufacturing Ltd, Garsington Road, Oxford.

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

·        Since the committee report had been published a trial trenching exercise had been carried out.  This was satisfactory as it had not yielded significant finds and therefore no further mitigation or condition above the standard site-wide archaeology condition was required.

·        The off-site mitigation referenced in paragraph 10.91 referred to the car park grassland.  This was outside the red line boundary of development but was within the blue line of BMW’s land ownership.

·        Clarity was provided in relation to the conclusion in paragraph 10.33 that the development would not cause any adverse impacts on any conservation areas or other heritage assets. 

·        In relation to transport, clarity was provided that supporting assessments, surveys and details had been submitted and assessed as part of the planning application.  Comments had also been received from the local Highways Authority, which was content that the development and its impact were acceptable and mitigated by the proposed conditions.  As an additional benefit, BMW had agreed to make improvements to several access points to the site in order to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists.  This would be controlled and managed by a Section 278 agreement with the Highways Authority and these works did not require planning permission.  Mitigation for the impacts of the necessary additional HGV movements had been sought through a submitted travel plan which together with active travel improvements would encourage staff and people living and working in the surrounding area to arrive by non-car modes.

·        Approval of the application was recommended by officers for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the conditions set out in the report but without the requirement for further archaeological information and including a unilateral undertaking with the County Council in terms of the travel plan monitoring fee.

Tom Bradford of BMW (the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·        The application represented an investment in the Oxford site which would offer benefits to the local economy as well as employment opportunities, securing the future of car manufacturing in Oxford.

·        The proposal also offered a sustainable future for car manufacturing through the production of electric vehicles, which was welcomed.

·        The design was rated BREEAM excellent and offered 40% carbon reduction.

·        A committee member commented that he hoped the travel plan associated with the proposal would help to ease congestion from lorries queueing to access or exit the site. Another committee member referred to the environmental impacts of lorries waiting in lay-bys on the Northern Bypass and commented that he hoped this could also be alleviated.

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 and subject to the conditions set out in the report and a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report and removal of a requirement for archaeological trial trenching (as this had now been completed).

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 subject also to:-

·        the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement or unilateral undertaking 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 this report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary;

·         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 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 and Regulatory Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·         complete/receive the section 106 legal agreement or Unilateral Undertaking and issue the planning permission.