The Committee considered an application (24/00690/FUL) for the demolition of Beaver House and 39-42 Hythe Bridge Street and construction of a new 5 storey building (Class E) with basement; removal of modern extensions to 42A Hythe Bridge Street; refurbishment and change of use to a flexible use including Classes E and F; further associated alterations to the site layout to include revised access, creation of a community garden and hard and soft landscaping and infrastructure works at Beaver House and 39-42A Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford.

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

·         The report had included some inconsistencies about the number of car parking spaces.  The Planning Officer clarified that there would be a total net reduction of 63 spaces arising from the scheme.

·         Clarification was provided in relation to paragraph 1.152 that the scheme would deliver an increase in the habitat biodiversity value of approximately 512.36% and in the watercourse biodiversity value of approximately 20.8%.

·         An additional representation from the Oxford Civic Society had been received since the report was published.  This had expressed concerns around the design, massing, material palette, impact on views, and sustainability of the building and included a comment that the public garden and café could include more landscaping and trees.

·         The proposed development at the Boatman’s Chapel included retrofitting the building for flexible community use and the creation of a community garden, which would be an enhancement and a positive use for the non-designated heritage asset.  Whilst the proposals included a significant proportion of demolition, this would largely involve the unsympathetic modern additions to the rear, and the land would be utilised for the community garden space which would be a positive element of the scheme.  Community access would be secured in the S106 agreement, and conditions were to be included to ensure the high quality of the design and appropriate materials and fenestration.

·         The building which was proposed to replace Beaver House would include a mix of lab stores, an entrance lobby and a loading bay on the ground floor.  The café would occupy a section on the ground floor alongside Hythe Bridge Street on the corner of Frideswide Square.   The proposal would result in the loss of a single retail unit as well as two restaurants. Whilst the loss of the retail unit would be contrary to Policy V2, it was considered that there were material circumstances which justified departure from the policy as set out in the report.

·         Despite the comprehensive energy efficiency measures which were proposed, the development would fail to achieve the 40% reduction in carbon emissions required by Policy RE1.  Instead, it would achieve a 34% reduction when compared to the 2022 building regulations. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy RE1; however, it was considered that there were material circumstances which justified the departure from this policy in this instance.  The issues which prevented the policy compliance of the scheme included the high energy demand of research and development laboratories, and the site-specific constraints associated with the development.  The site was located both within and immediately adjacent to the Conservation Area, in close proximity to a number of listed buildings, and within the more constrained urban city centre environment.  Overall, officers were satisfied that the proposals maximised the opportunity for energy efficiency and carbon reduction given the constraints of the site, as well as delivering a range of other significant generation benefits as outlined in the report.

·         Several areas proposed within the scheme would impact on the historic environment: namely the impact on the proposed views, the demolition of the non-designated heritage assets, and the impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  Cumulatively, it was considered that these would equate to a medium level of less than substantial harm.  However, there were significant public benefits associated with the scheme (including economic benefits, regeneration benefits, the delivery of community use, and biodiversity net gain) which were considered to outweigh the medium level of less than substantial harm.

·         In conclusion, officers considered that the proposal would deliver significant benefits, would represent high quality design, and would contribute towards improvements in the public realm.  Biodiversity net gain requirements would be exceeded, and car parking would also be significantly reduced.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions and obligations set out in the officers’ report as well as the submission of an acceptable draft habitat management and monitoring plan; and additional obligations within the S106 agreement which had been agreed with the applicant following publication of the report.  The latter comprised a voluntary £20,000 contribution towards local carbon offsetting projects which had been agreed with the Council’s Sustainability Team; securing of the biodiversity net gain; and an operational management and maintenance plan for the community garden.  Additional conditions were also to be included to cover details of fenestration and materials for the Boatman’s Chapel, a green roof management plan, and amendment to condition 30 to specify the hours of use of the community garden as 07:00 to 23:00.

Will Rohleder (for the applicant) and Timothy Price (agent) spoke in favour of the application.

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

·        The proposal involved a balance between heritage and environment concerns;

·        The benefits offered by the development were significant, and it offered the opportunity for transformation of the corner elevation into Frideswide Square;

·        Bringing the Boatman’s Chapel back into public use was welcome, and offered the opportunity for an attractive new public space with the community garden;

·        The development would provide 810 jobs in a location which was very sustainable, being in very close proximity to the train and bus stations.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.       approve the application for the reasons given in the report, subject to: (i) the required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and (ii) the inclusion of additional conditions to cover details of fenestration and materials for the Boatman’s Chapel, a green roof management plan, and amendment to condition 30 to specify the hours of use of the community garden as 07:00 to 23:00 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 are (i) set out in the report and (ii) additional obligations which include: a £20,000 contribution towards local carbon offsetting projects; securing of the biodiversity net gain; and an operational management and maintenance plan for the community garden; and

·       the submission of an acceptable draft Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan; 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 as set out in the report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms 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.