Councillor Hollingsworth re-joined the meeting.  Councillor Chapman did not return to the meeting.

The Committee considered an application (24/01302/FUL) for demolition of the existing office building and erection of 1no. laboratory-enabled office building for research and development with ancillary commercial and amenity space (Use Class E); provision of new access, motor vehicle parking, cycle parking, services infrastructure and landscaping including new amenity space and pedestrian/cycle connection at Plot 5000, John Smith Drive, Oxford.

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

·         The report had referred to an initial car mode share of 35% of staff on site at any one time.  The correct percentage was 40%, which would then be reduced down to 31% once the Cowley Branch Line was operational.  This arrangement was acceptable and in line with the Highway Authority’s assessment.

·         The report had omitted that 10 additional Sheffield stands would be located along the connector, in addition to the internal and external provision within Plot 5000 detailed in the report.

·         The report set out that 2 habitat units would need to be compensated for, which should have read 1.15 units.

·         An additional condition would need to be attached to the permission in relation to required improvements to the sewage treatment works.  The condition would restrict occupation of the development until either all sewage works upgrades required to accommodate additional flows were completed, or a development and infrastructure phasing plan had been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

·          The proposal involved the demolition of the existing three storey building, and replacement with a five storey CL2 laboratory and office building.  Three ancillary single storey buildings would be located along the eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site to house generators, sub-stations and gasses.

·          Parking spaces would be reduced by one bay; 11 motorcycle parking spaces would be provided; and 103 cycle parking spaces would be provided internally with 16 spaces externally and a further 10 Sheffield stands along the connector.

·          The waterside gardens would be focused around the existing ponds to the north west of the Plot 5000 building, and would form an area of public realm, linking to the enhanced connector.

·          The site’s location within the southern suburbs of the city was considered appropriate for the additional building height given its relatively unconstrained nature in planning policy terms, with the scale of the building justified through the high standard of design quality.

·          The proposed landscape plan mitigated the loss of 33 category B-U trees by planting 71 new semi-mature trees.  The proposal would provide a net gain in canopy cover of 14% over 25 years.

·          It was considered that the development would cause a low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the conservation area and the setting of the Grade II* Town Hall.  In accordance with paragraph 206 of the NPPF it was considered that the pressing need for high quality lab-enabled office space within this part of the ‘golden triangle’ provided clear and convincing justification for the heritage harm caused.  Further, in line with paragraph 208 of the NPPF, the public benefits of the development (which included the economic uplift, a commitment to employ a proportion of local residents, enhancements to the pedestrian and cycle infrastructure in the park and the addition of visitor cycle parking, a 10% net gain in biodiversity through offsetting, a 14% net gain in tree canopy cover and a 40.25% reduction in carbon emissions) would collectively outweigh the low level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the central conservation area and the Town Hall.

·          Officers considered that the proposed development would respond appropriately to the site context, the Oxford Business Park site allocation, and the Local Plan as a whole.  The application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in the report, the additional condition relating to sewage treatment works, and a Section 106 legal agreement.

Stephen Sensecall (agent) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions about the detail of the application which were responded to by officers and the agent.

The Committee’s discussion included, but were not limited to:

·       The modernisation of the site within the broader development of the business park was welcomed.  The proposal was considered to represent a significant enhancement, particularly in relation to the new connector and the link to the Cowley Branch Line;

·       The financial contribution towards the Cowley Branch Line was recognised as a benefit of the scheme;

·       The proposed wording of the condition relating to requiring upgrades to the sewage treatment works to have been completed, or an infrastructure phasing plan to have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority before occupation, was considered acceptable.

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 13 of the report and an additional condition requiring upgrades to the sewage treatment works to have been completed, or an infrastructure phasing plan to have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority before occupation, and grant planning permission subject to:

·         the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section106 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 this report; 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.