Councillor Clarkson re-joined the meeting and took the chair.

The Committee considered an application (23/01592/RES) for reserved maters approval of scale, layout, landscaping, and appearance for a multi-storey split decked car park including immediate landscaping at Land Bounded by A34 and A44 and A40, Parcel 1, Woodstock Road, Oxford.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation and highted the following:

·        A correction was required to section 6.1 of the report which referred to 3 parking spaces outside of the car park to the north-east.  In fact, these were not car parking spaces but was instead an area for the storage of compost materials.  This did not affect the overall number of spaces, which remained at 1120.

·        The application was for a multi-storey car park of five storeys located on the western edge of the site, adjoining the A34 and Plots B and C.  It was a split-level, steel framed structure with concrete stair cores which would be accessed by the secondary road, which had reserved matters approval.  It would be a system-built, component-based structure of relatively simple design.  In response to comments from Thames Valley Police, the plans had been amended to incorporate steel mesh on all levels from floor to ceiling.

·        There would be pedestrian footpaths on either side of the road, with entrances on both sides of the building and via two stair cores and a main entrance off the secondary street.  The was a pedestrian access route to the north of Plot C linking the car park with the central section of the Oxford North site.

·        Parking would be provided for 1120 cars, which would equate to c70,000sqm of employment space applying the ratio of one space per 62.5 sqm of employment space (which was the maximum parking standard outlined in the section 106 agreement accompanying the hybrid planning permission).  There would also be 40 motorcycle parking spaces and 7 parking spaces for estate management vehicles.  The car park would serve two of the employment buildings approved under Phase 1a of the development, the Red Hall, and the three buildings approved under Phase 2 (Plots A, B and C).

·        Presently there was 60,200sqm of employment space benefitting from planning permission, which would equate to a maximum of 963 parking spaces which may be allocated for the consented plots.  This left some remaining capacity within the car park for potential hotel use (one of the next potential proposed uses on the site) or another employment plot.

·        As delivery of the employment plots on the site would be phased, it was important that provision and availability of parking within the car park was also phased in order to avoid early over-provision of parking.  This would need to be set out in the Car Park Management Plan, which was required by Condition 3.

·        Small areas of landscaping surrounding the car park along the western boundary would provide some screening of the lower sections of the car park form the A34 whilst making a small contribution to biodiversity net gain.  Visibility of the structure was mainly limited to views from the north and the west, and with minimal exceptions the height would accord with the height parameter plan approved under the hybrid planning permission.

·        Inclusion of all the parking within one single structure allowed for other sections of the site, which may otherwise be used for surface level or multi-storey car parking, to be given over to landscaping or public realm uses and therefore represented an efficient use of land.  The system-built nature of the car park meant that it would be de-mountable and sections removed should the need for parking decline over time.

·        Policy M4 of the Oxford Local Plan required 25% of the spaces to be fitted with EV charging points: a condition requiring details of this had been included.

·        Officers considered that the proposal complied in full with the Oxford Local Plan, the Wolvercote Neighbourhood Plan, and the Northern Gateway Area Action Plan and so the reserved matters proposal was recommended for approval.

Ron German (the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·        In response to a question about the reason why the car park was not covered, and whether including a roof would help to prevent cars becoming overly hot in the summer, the applicant responded that the inclusion of a roof had been considered but rejected due to the carbon cost implications.  Additionally, the open design sought to address emerging concerns about the risks of EV charging in enclosed spaces. Officers responded that a roof would also increase the height of the building, thereby increasing the visual impact.

·        Approval of the material for the mesh to be used was conditioned.  Officers would need to consider the balance between adding interest to the structure and the impact that might have in terms of its visibility.  It was also noted that the Oxford Design Review Panel had favoured a minimalist approach.

·        The level of car parking had been approved in the outline application and the low carbon, lightweight and flexible approach was supported.

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.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.       approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and grant reserved matters approval; 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.