Councillors Upton and Chapman left the room for this item and did not participate in determining the application.

The Committee considered an application (23/02506/CT3) for construction of a pedestrian / cycle bridge across the River Thames from Grandpont Nature Park to Oxpens Meadows at South Side, Oxpens Road, Oxford.

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

·         Since publication of the report, three additional objections had been received.  Most of the issues raised had already been addressed in the committee report; however, in relation to those not included in the report the Planning Officer responded as set out below.

·         Officers had assessed the impact of the bridge on the local area and had found it to be acceptable.  The bridge had been designed to minimise its impact on the site and this was set out in the report.  Natural England had commented on the application and stated that the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact.

·         The report set out that the other bridges located close to the application site had been looked at but had not been deemed to fulfil the requirements of the proposed bridge for various reasons, including needing extensive works to allow them to be suitable for use by cyclists.  

·         The proposed upgrades to the tow path would be designed to enable it to be suitable for use as a cycle route.  The County Council would be the lead authority in determining whether it would be designated as a main cycle way.

·         The issue of bottlenecks under the Railway Bridge had been considered in the committee report, which set out that research showed that cyclists adjusted their speed depending on the density of pedestrians.  The County Council had been consulted on the application and had raised no objection to the shared use of the path or bridge.

·         Officers had screened the development and did not consider it to be EIA development.

·         Officers agreed with the sequential and exception test set out in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. 

·         Officers considered the development as essential infrastructure.  This type of development was acceptable in flood zone 3b.  Notwithstanding this, the sequential and the exception test would still need to be met.

·         Policy SP1 and SP2 set out that a new cycle and pedestrian bridge over the river should be delivered in this location to link and enhance routes to the city centre.  The aspiration for a new bridge over a watercourse would in itself be required to cross an area of high risk to flooding.  The Local Plan and West End SPD set out that this area should be the location for the bridge. Officers therefore considered the sequential test had been met. 

·         Paragraph 170 of the NPPF set out that “To pass the exception test it should be demonstrated that: a) the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk; and b) the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.  Both elements of the exception test should be satisfied for development to be allocated or permitted.”

The application set out that the application would bring with it wider sustainability benefits by providing a route which improved cycle and pedestrian connectivity to the city centre as well as surrounding allocated sites. In addition, the application was supported with an FRA that demonstrated that the development would not increase flood risk.  Officers therefore considered that the exception test had been met.

·        Site notices had been put up surrounding the development site in November.  An advert also had also been placed in a newspaper in November advertising the development.

·        Officers had been aware of recent tree removal works; however, these did not require consent from the Council as the trees were not located in a Conservation Area nor were they subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

·        Two further SUDs conditions as suggested by the County Council would be added to the list of conditions listed in the report.  These would require details to be submitted relating to surface water drainage.

·        The application sought permission for a new cycle and pedestrian bridge over the Thames from Grandpont to Oxpens Meadow.  The bridge would have a steel structure and a span of 98.90m with a river span of 23.39m.  The bridge would have a deck width of 3.5m.

·        In addition, the proposal sought to improve the adjoining foothpath.  On the north side the bridge would link to the existing footpath leading up to Oxpens Road.  On the south side the pathworks would seek to improve the gradient of the path inside of the application boundary. The footpaths would also be widened.

·        The bridge had been designed to respond to its setting.  It would feature a slender deck and curved soffits to maximise the transparency of the bridge on the site.  Asymmetrical structural waves in the design had been designed to direct and guide views.  The bridge would be constructed of steel, with concrete piers.  Officers considered that the bridge responded positively to the character and topography of the site and context.

·        With regard to impact on neighbouring amenity, the development was not considered to have an unacceptable impact due to the separation distance between the site and neighbouring properties.

·        The bridge has been designed to comply with the National Guidance on design infrastructure CD 353 Design Criteria for Bridges.

·        No technical objections have been received to the application.

·        Officers considered the application to be acceptable in terms of principle, design, impact on neighbouring amenity, highways, trees, biodiversity and the other issues set out in the report and recommended approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement to secure Biodiversity Net Gain offsetting.

Dan Glazebrook, Deborah Glass Woodin, Jo Newson and Councillor Lois Muddiman spoke against the application.

Paul Comerford (agent) and Councillor Anna Railton spoke in favour of the application.

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

·       The need for the bridge was not evident.  Another bridge existed in close proximity to the development site which could be improved, albeit with associated financial cost.

·       The availability of funding from the Oxfordshire Growth Deal did not justify the impact which the proposal would have on the natural environment and views in the area.

·       Trees had been removed at the site before planning permission had been received.  Officers clarified that consent from the Council had not been required for the tree removal and this was not a planning matter.  The Forestry Commission would be responsible for taking enforcement action for any work which had been carried out without an appropriate licence.

·       The principle of a bridge crossing at the site in order to provide a crossing which improved pedestrian and cycle links to support active and sustainable travel was an aspiration which had been included in the Local Plan for some time and was underpinned by Local Plan policies.  The Local Plan was a document which had been approved by Full Council and had undergone an examination in public.

·       Funding considerations were not material to the application, as the principle of development was set out in the Local Plan.

A proposal was moved and seconded to refuse the application on the grounds that it did not comply with Policy RE2 as it was not an efficient use of resources to deliver sustainable growth because a nearby bridge already existed which could be used to fulfil the same function.  On being put to the vote the proposal fell.

A proposal to approve the application was moved and seconded.  On being put to the vote the Committee agreed with the officers’ recommendation to approve the application subject to the required planning conditions set out in the report 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 the two additional SUDs conditions suggested by the County Council 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 the report and the two additional SUDs conditions 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 the report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms (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.