Site address: Unit 11, Kings Meadow, Ferry Hinksey Road, Oxford

Proposal: Change of Use from hair dressing training company with ancillary workshop (Use Class E) to a Day Nursery (Use Class E(f)). Removal of 1no. roller shutter door and insertion of 3no. windows to front elevation and alterations to existing front door. Insertion of 3no. windows to side elevation

Reason at Committee: The application was called in by Councillors Pressel, Brown, Ottino, Taylor, Railton and Smith due to concerns over the site’s flood risk as a reason for refusal

RECOMMENDATION

Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to:

1.    Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to: 

finalise the reason 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: 

1.    The proposals would involve the use of the application site for a more vulnerable use in the context of flooding in a location that falls within the defined area of highest risk of flooding (Flood Zone 3b). In addition to this the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) fails to sufficiently consider flood risk as set out in paragraphs 20 to 21 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance and its site-specific flood risk assessment checklist. The application is therefore unacceptable in the context of Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036), Paragraph 170 of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). 

2.    The proposed development fails to provide adequate cycle parking for staff, parents or visitors travelling to the nursery. As a result the proposed development would be contrary to Policy M5 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036). 

Site address: Unit 11, Kings Meadow, Ferry Hinksey Road, Oxford

Proposal: Change of Use from hair dressing training company with ancillary workshop (Use Class E) to a Day Nursery (Use Class E(f)). Removal of 1no. roller shutter door and insertion of 3no. windows to front elevation and alterations to existing front door. Insertion of 3no. windows to side elevation

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1. Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to:

·       finalise the reason 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 proposals would involve the use of the application site for a more vulnerable use in the context of flooding in a location that falls within the defined area of highest risk of flooding (Flood Zone 3b). In addition to this the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) fails to sufficiently consider flood risk as set out in paragraphs 20 to 21 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance and its site-specific flood risk assessment checklist. The application is therefore unacceptable in the context of Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036), Paragraph 170 of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

·       The proposed development fails to provide adequate cycle parking for staff, parents or visitors travelling to the nursery. As a result the proposed development would be contrary to Policy M5 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036).

Councillor Fouweather rejoined the meeting for this item.

Councillor Ottino, Railton and Muddiman left the meeting for this item.

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from hair dressing training company with ancillary workshop (Use Class E) to a Day Nursery (Use Class E(f)). Removal of 1no. roller shutter door and insertion of 3no. windows to front elevation and alterations to existing front door. Insertion of 3no. windows to side elevation

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 proposed development was deemed unacceptable in principle due to its location within the floodplain, the highest flood risk area. The access road and much of the surrounding area also lay within Flood Zone 3b, increasing flood risk and potentially preventing safe site access during flooding.

·       The submitted Flood Risk Assessment was found inadequate in methodology and detail, leading to an objection from the Environmental Agency. The site was located within an industrial estate lacking pavements, with surrounding units in industrial use. While the Local Highway Authority suggested some improvements, such as marked walkways, they did not object to the proposals.

·       The development failed to provide cycle storage; a policy requirement linked to the change of use. This, combined with site constraints, meant the issue could not be resolved through a planning condition. Additionally, the minor design alterations to the industrial unit were considered acceptable in terms of design and amenity impact.

·       The Planning Officer made a verbal update on the written material circulated by members of the public, responding that were no matters in the material that were not already addressed in the officers report.

Coppe Van Urk 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 absence of an outdoor playground. It was noted that the site had no external play space and a question was raised about whether planning permission could be conditioned on the provision of such a space. The Development Management Team Leader responded that the applicant had shown intent to lease an outdoor area nearby and to take children off site, potentially using handcarts, therefore a condition tied specifically to the application site would not be necessary.

·       Questions were raised about whether a cycle-parking condition could be imposed. The Development Management Team Leader explained that as cycle parking had not been included within the application description, it had not been subject to consultation and therefore could not be required.

·       Members were reminded that they could, if granting permission, consider conditions relating to management or hours of operation.

·       Concerns were raised regarding the use of the existing site and whether the floodplain designation pre-dated the use of the land. The Development Management Service Manager explained that the previous industrial use had been acceptable at the time and that the shift from an industrial use to a more vulnerable nursery use now required planning permission. It was noted that flood risk was considered fundamental and that the Environmental Agency had assessed the proposal as unacceptable in flood risk terms.

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.

The Oxford City Planning Committee resolved to:

1.    Refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to: 

finalise the reason 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: 

1.    The proposals would involve the use of the application site for a more vulnerable use in the context of flooding in a location that falls within the defined area of highest risk of flooding (Flood Zone 3b). In addition to this the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) fails to sufficiently consider flood risk as set out in paragraphs 20 to 21 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change Planning Practice Guidance and its site-specific flood risk assessment checklist. The application is therefore unacceptable in the context of Policy RE3 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036), Paragraph 170 of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). 

2.    The proposed development fails to provide adequate cycle parking for staff, parents or visitors travelling to the nursery. As a result the proposed development would be contrary to Policy M5 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036).