Site address: Hertford And Exeter College Sports Grounds, Edgeway Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire

Proposal: The upgrade of existing pitches and addition of new sports facilities including a light weight canopy and enclosure housing padel tennis courts, outdoor padel courts, cricket nets and the creation of a new basketball and netball hard surface court together with associated fencing. The refurbishment of Exeter Cricket Pavilion and Hertford Cricket Pavilion. Alterations to Exeter squash courts for use as a golf simulator and the change of use of Hertford squash courts to café, changing facilities, sports hub reception area and community facilities with associated access, parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling, new footpaths and landscape.

Reason at Committee: Major development

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to:

1.    Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to:

•       finalise the reasons for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Regulation considers reasonably necessary.

2.    The recommended reasons for refusal are as follows:

•       The proposed padel enclosure would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the purpose of including land within it. The proposals amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt where no exceptions apply. There are no very special circumstances to allow such inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such the proposals are contrary to Policies G1 and G3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and Chapter 13 of the NPPF. 

•       The application site includes extensive areas of Flood Zone 3b (the functional floodplain) in which only water-compatible development is permitted. The proposed car park, golf simulator and ‘hall’ in the Exeter Pavillion are not deemed water compatible under Annex 3 of the NPPF and therefore these uses are inappropriate. The proposed padel enclosure fails to comply with the sequential test, the Flood Risk Assessment fails to consider how people will be kept safe from the identified flood hazards, and it also fails to take the impacts of climate change into account. The proposals are contrary to Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036, Chapter 14 of the NPPF, and the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance.

•       The proposed drainage strategy fails to clarify whether the design incorporates lining to all detention/attenuation features which is required to avoid a reduction in storage volume due to high groundwater levels. There are vague suggestions of bunding proposed to protect attenuation features in flood risk areas, however they have not been fully detailed. In addition the submission fails to confirm that the Applicant is the riparian owner of the land where two headwalls are proposed to discharge into the Peasmoor Brook, and insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate how this would operate in times of flooding with reference to levels. Overall the submission fails to demonstrate that the drainage strategy proposed complies with Policy RE4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       Due to the size, mass and height of the padel enclosure, and the height of the proposed lighting and fencing structures associated with the intensification of use, the proposed development would detract from the setting of the existing building group on the site and their significance as Local Heritage Assets, the remote and peaceful character of the sports fields, the surrounding green spine and neighbouring Local Heritage Asset known as New Marston Meadows. The proposals would cause a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the identified heritage assets.  The cumulative moderate level of public benefits derived from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm caused, and as such the proposals conflict with Policies RE2, DH1 and DH5 of the Local Plan and Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

•       The application site is located on the edge of the River Cherwell floodplain, adjacent to the relict channel of the Peasmoor Brook, where there is potential for prehistoric and Roman activity. Given the site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, the Local Planning Authority require the developer to submit an appropriate field evaluation.  In the absence of an archaeological evaluation, insufficient information has been submitted with the application to establish the significance of the heritage assets at this site, and as such the submission fails to demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 207 of the NPPF and Policy DH4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       The energy statement submitted claims that the proposed padel enclosure would be exempt from Part L Building Regulations and therefore claim the proposed padel enclosure would not need to achieve at least a 40% reduction in the carbon emissions compared with a 2013 building regulations compliance base case in accordance with the requirements of Policy RE1. No evidence has been submitted with the application however to confirm this from a building control inspector and therefore in the absence of such the submission fails to demonstrate that the proposals comply with Policy RE1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.  

•       The acoustic assessment fails to consider the noise which would be emitted from the proposed air source heat pumps on sensitive receptors and local amenity. In the absence of any assessment, the submission fails to demonstrate how the air source heat pumps would not result in any detrimental impacts in relation to noise and disturbance and therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policies RE7 and RE8 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.

Site address: Hertford And Exeter College Sports Grounds, Edgeway Road, Oxford, Oxfordshire

Proposal: The upgrade of existing pitches and addition of new sports facilities including a light weight canopy and enclosure housing padel tennis courts, outdoor padel courts, cricket nets and the creation of a new basketball and netball hard surface court together with associated fencing. The refurbishment of Exeter Cricket Pavilion and Hertford Cricket Pavilion. Alterations to Exeter squash courts for use as a golf simulator and the change of use of Hertford squash courts to café, changing facilities, sports hub reception area and community facilities with associated access, parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling, new footpaths and landscape.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1. Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 2 of the report, subject to an amendment to reason for refusal 3, and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to:

•       finalise the reasons for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Regulation considers reasonably necessary.

2. The recommended reasons for refusal are as follows:

•       The proposed padel enclosure would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the purpose of including land within it. The proposals amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt where no exceptions apply. There are no very special circumstances to allow such inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such the proposals are contrary to Policies G1 and G3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and Chapter 13 of the NPPF. 

•       The application site includes extensive areas of Flood Zone 3b (the functional floodplain) in which only water-compatible development is permitted. The proposed car park, golf simulator and ‘hall’ in the Exeter Pavillion are not deemed water compatible under Annex 3 of the NPPF and therefore these uses are inappropriate. The proposed padel enclosure fails to comply with the sequential test, the Flood Risk Assessment fails to consider how people will be kept safe from the identified flood hazards, and it also fails to take the impacts of climate change into account. The proposals are contrary to Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036, Chapter 14 of the NPPF, and the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance.

•       The proposed drainage strategy fails to clarify whether the design incorporates lining to all detention/attenuation features which is required to avoid a reduction in storage volume due to high groundwater levels. There are vague suggestions of bunding proposed to protect attenuation features in flood risk areas, however they have not been fully detailed. In addition insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate how this would operate in times of flooding with reference to levels. Overall the submission fails to demonstrate that the drainage strategy proposed complies with Policy RE4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       Due to the size, mass and height of the padel enclosure, and the height of the proposed lighting and fencing structures associated with the intensification of use, the proposed development would detract from the setting of the existing building group on the site and their significance as Local Heritage Assets, the remote and peaceful character of the sports fields, the surrounding green spine and neighbouring Local Heritage Asset known as New Marston Meadows. The proposals would cause a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the identified heritage assets.  The cumulative moderate level of public benefits derived from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm caused, and as such the proposals conflict with Policies RE2, DH1 and DH5 of the Local Plan and Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

•       The application site is located on the edge of the River Cherwell floodplain, adjacent to the relict channel of the Peasmoor Brook, where there is potential for prehistoric and Roman activity. Given the site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, the Local Planning Authority require the developer to submit an appropriate field evaluation.  In the absence of an archaeological evaluation, insufficient information has been submitted with the application to establish the significance of the heritage assets at this site, and as such the submission fails to demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 207 of the NPPF and Policy DH4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       The energy statement submitted claims that the proposed padel enclosure would be exempt from Part L Building Regulations and therefore claim the proposed padel enclosure would not need to achieve at least a 40% reduction in the carbon emissions compared with a 2013 building regulations compliance base case in accordance with the requirements of Policy RE1. No evidence has been submitted with the application however to confirm this from a building control inspector therefore in the absence of such the submission fails to demonstrate that the proposals comply with Policy RE1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.  

•       The acoustic assessment fails to consider the noise which would be emitted from the proposed air source heat pumps on sensitive receptors and local amenity. In the absence of any assessment, the submission fails to demonstrate how the air source heat pumps would not result in any detrimental impacts in relation to noise and disturbance and therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policies RE7 and RE8 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.

Councillor Fouweather stood as Chair during this item.

Councillor Regisford did not partake in the vote for this item having missed some of the presentations.

The Committee considered an application for the upgrade of existing pitches and an addition of a new sports facilities including a light weight canopy and enclosure housing padel tennis courts, outdoor padel courts, cricket nets and the creation of a new basketball and netball hard surface court together with associated fencing. The refurbishment of Exeter Cricket Pavilion and Hertford Cricket Pavilion. Alterations to Exeter squash courts for use as a golf simulator and the change of use of Hertford squash courts to café, changing facilities, sports hub reception area and community facilities with associated access, parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling, new footpaths and landscape.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the details of the location and the proposal. This included site photos and existing and proposed elevations and plans:

• The site comprised two recreation grounds owned by Hertford and Exeter Colleges, located in the green belt, within the setting of the Central Conservation Area, the New Marston Meadows and the Elsfield View Cone and lay within Flood Zones 1, 2, 3a and 3b. The existing pavilions and squash court buildings were regarded as Local Heritage Assets.
• Subject to conditions and a legal agreement, the development was considered acceptable regarding highways safety and parking, biodiversity; trees and landscaping; health, wellbeing and safety; air quality; land quality and utilities.
• However, the proposed padel enclosure failed to preserve Green Belt openness and constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposed car park, golf simulator and pavilion hall were not water compatible uses in Flood Zone 3b. The padel enclosure failed to comply with the sequential test, the Flood Risk Assessment did not show how people would be kept safe or account for climate change impacts and the drainage strategy was inadequate. The enclosure, lighting and fencing were judged to harm the setting and significance of the Local Heritage Assets and the character of the sports fields and surrounding green spine. Insufficient information had been provided to establish the significance of the site’s heritage assets.
• Overall, the development was deemed unacceptable.

Jennifer Edis spoke against the application.

Nicholas Badman, Jamie Clark, Stephanie Wicks and Charles Parrack 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:

• Concerns were raised around the Environmental Agency’s objections. The applicant stated they were aware the site flooded but argued that, as an existing use, it could be appropriately enhanced. They accepted there would be flood impacts but said these would be managed through a safety focused management plan. They explained why they could not meet the EA’s requirements and felt that the EA applied guidance rigidly without creative consideration.
• Questions were raised regarding land ownership. The applicant confirmed that the riparian zone land was within their ownership and said this had not been clarified earlier because they were unaware it would form part of the objection until the last minute.
• The Planning Lawyer asked officers whether the riparian ownership detail should be removed from the relevant reason for refusal in the report and officers confirmed that it should be removed.

On being proposed, seconded, and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons listed on the report, subject to the modification in respect of the riparian ownership.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1. Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 2 of the report, subject to an amendment to reason for refusal 3, and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to:

•       finalise the reasons for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Regulation considers reasonably necessary.

2. The recommended reasons for refusal are as follows:

•       The proposed padel enclosure would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with the purpose of including land within it. The proposals amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt where no exceptions apply. There are no very special circumstances to allow such inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such the proposals are contrary to Policies G1 and G3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 and Chapter 13 of the NPPF. 

•       The application site includes extensive areas of Flood Zone 3b (the functional floodplain) in which only water-compatible development is permitted. The proposed car park, golf simulator and ‘hall’ in the Exeter Pavillion are not deemed water compatible under Annex 3 of the NPPF and therefore these uses are inappropriate. The proposed padel enclosure fails to comply with the sequential test, the Flood Risk Assessment fails to consider how people will be kept safe from the identified flood hazards, and it also fails to take the impacts of climate change into account. The proposals are contrary to Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036, Chapter 14 of the NPPF, and the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance.

•       The proposed drainage strategy fails to clarify whether the design incorporates lining to all detention/attenuation features which is required to avoid a reduction in storage volume due to high groundwater levels. There are vague suggestions of bunding proposed to protect attenuation features in flood risk areas, however they have not been fully detailed. In addition, insufficient detail has been provided to demonstrate how this would operate in times of flooding with reference to levels. Overall the submission fails to demonstrate that the drainage strategy proposed complies with Policy RE4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       Due to the size, mass and height of the padel enclosure, and the height of the proposed lighting and fencing structures associated with the intensification of use, the proposed development would detract from the setting of the existing building group on the site and their significance as Local Heritage Assets, the remote and peaceful character of the sports fields, the surrounding green spine and neighbouring Local Heritage Asset known as New Marston Meadows. The proposals would cause a high level of less than substantial harm to the setting of the identified heritage assets.  The cumulative moderate level of public benefits derived from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm caused, and as such the proposals conflict with Policies RE2, DH1 and DH5 of the Local Plan and Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

•       The application site is located on the edge of the River Cherwell floodplain, adjacent to the relict channel of the Peasmoor Brook, where there is potential for prehistoric and Roman activity. Given the site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, the Local Planning Authority require the developer to submit an appropriate field evaluation.  In the absence of an archaeological evaluation, insufficient information has been submitted with the application to establish the significance of the heritage assets at this site, and as such the submission fails to demonstrate compliance with Paragraph 207 of the NPPF and Policy DH4 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036. 

•       The energy statement submitted claims that the proposed padel enclosure would be exempt from Part L Building Regulations and therefore claim the proposed padel enclosure would not need to achieve at least a 40% reduction in the carbon emissions compared with a 2013 building regulations compliance base case in accordance with the requirements of Policy RE1. No evidence has been submitted with the application however to confirm this from a building control inspector and therefore in the absence of such the submission fails to demonstrate that the proposals comply with Policy RE1 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.  

•       The acoustic assessment fails to consider the noise which would be emitted from the proposed air source heat pumps on sensitive receptors and local amenity. In the absence of any assessment, the submission fails to demonstrate how the air source heat pumps would not result in any detrimental impacts in relation to noise and disturbance and therefore fails to demonstrate compliance with Policies RE7 and RE8 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036.