This report refers to Development approved under planning permission reference: 11/02881/FUL at Castle Mill, Roger Dudman Way, Oxford,

specifically the University’s Voluntary Environmental Statement (VES) reference 14/03013/FUL and 14/03013/CONSLT (for the ES Addendum and additional substantive information).  The development was approved in 2012 as an extension to existing student accommodation at Castle Mill to provide additional 312 postgraduate flats , consisting of 208 student study rooms, 90 x 1 bed graduate flats and 14 x 2 bed graduate flats, plus ancillary facilities, 360 covered cycle spaces and 3 parking spaces.

Officer Recommendation:  Committee is asked to:

1.    confirm that the submitted Voluntary Environmental Statement meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 as far as possible given that the assessment is retrospective and should be taken into account and inform the Council’s decisions as set out in paragraph 3.26

2.    discharge and approve the outstanding planning conditions as set out in paragraphs 4.6 and Appendix B

3.    determine whether enforcement action should be taken as set out in paragraphs 4.8

4.    assess the mitigation options put forward by the University and note the unilateral legal agreement proposed as a commitment to bring forward option 1 as set out in paragraph 4.33

5.    consider whether it is appropriate to recommend discontinuance action for consideration by Council as set out in paragraphs 5.6, 5.48, 5.49 and 5.53 & 5.54

Councillor Hollingsworth, having declared he would withdraw to avoid the appearance of bias, left the table and withdrew to the public gallery for this item. Councillor Darke, as permitted in the Council’s Constitution, substituted for him for this item.

The Committee considered a report referring to development approved under planning permission reference: 11/02881/FUL at Castle Mill, Roger Dudman Way, Oxford, specifically the University’s Voluntary Environmental Statement (VES) reference 14/03013/FUL and 14/03013/CONSLT (for the ES Addendum and additional substantive information) and supporting documentation published with the agenda. 

The development was approved in 2012 as an extension to existing student accommodation at Castle Mill to provide additional 312 postgraduate flats , consisting of 208 student study rooms, 90 x 1 bed graduate flats and 14 x 2 bed graduate flats, plus ancillary facilities, 360 covered cycle spaces and 3 parking spaces.

The Head of Planning and Regulatory, the committee’s legal adviser, and the Executive Director introduced the report and outlined the matters for consideration. A representative from Environmental Services answered questions.

Updates and clarifications during the introduction:

·         The council had received a unilateral undertaking setting out the timetable for implementing Option 1. This would be the subject of a separate application and conditions regarding completion and maintenance should be applied to this.

·         Section 106 obligations and compliance with planning permission went with the land and created obligations on whoever owned the land.

·         Should there be no permission granted after two submissions of elevational treatment and landscaping, then the issue of discontinuance could be revisited if necessary.

·         Further advice was given in relation to section 12 of the NPPF in relation to considerations around the significance of heritage assets and councillors were also referred to policies HE3 and HE7 of the Local Plan 2001 – 2016 on the same matter.

·         The implications and scope of discontinuance, including the substantial financial costs, were outlined.

·         Automatic blinds were installed in the communal areas; offsite planting had been agreed; and occupancy was 98%.

Speaking

The Chair varied the rules to permit 15 minutes speaking time for each group.

Robert McCraken (Queen’s Counsel for CPRE), Sushila Dhall, Toby Porter and Peter Oppenheimer (local residents) spoke objecting to the application.

Nick Brown (Chairman, OU Estates and Buildings Committee) and Nick Cooper (OUSU postgraduates vice-president) spoke in support of the application. During questions Nik Lyzba (planning agent) came to the table.

Debate

During questions to officers, speakers, and other relevant parties as invited to speak by the Chair, and during debate the Committee

1.    clarified and confirmed:

·         the Voluntary Environmental Statement was as satisfactory as it could be given its retrospective nature;

·         there were no outstanding concerns about the conditions in paragraphs 4.6 and Appendix B raised by the speakers and the Council’s environmental services’ professional advice was that the site was adequately remediated and there was no residual risk from contamination;

·         that the University had changed its consultation processes so that a minimum of two public consultations should be carried out;

·         Queens’ Counsel for the Council had been involved in the writing of the report and there was no separate written advice;

·         the mechanism, scope, effect on both parties, and appeal rights of discontinuance.

2.    discussed the option of requiring a green/living wall and the challenges of constructing this and concluded that this was not something that could be reasonably required or sought.

3.    decided:

a)    to change the timeframe for delivery of proposed mitigation measures set out in paragraph 4.20 of the report to

·         commencement of the mitigation works within 6 months of the date of planning permission (not 18 months from grant)

·         if the first application is refused, the second is to be submitted within 12 months of that refusal (not 18 months)

(so as not to unduly delay mitigation given that the work could reasonably commence shortly after permission was granted)

b)    that the works in the submitted scheme/application are to include roofing treatment (to reduce the reflectivity by changing the patina to reduce impact of reflections from the roof)

c)    to note that should the first round of public consultation show satisfaction with the proposed design then it may be possible to dispense with the second round in the interests of bringing the timetable forward.

d)    to ask the University to consider installing window treatments to study bedrooms to reduce or eliminate light pollution from internal lights.

e)    to require the University to submit the revised unilateral undertaking within 3 weeks of the date of this meeting.

f)     on voting, not to pursue discontinuance action and to agree recommendations as set out below, including the details above.

Decision

On taking separate votes on each recommendation, the Committee resolved:

1.    to confirm that the submitted Voluntary Environmental Statement meets the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 as far as possible given that the assessment is retrospective and should be taken into account and inform the Council’s decisions as set out in paragraph 3.26.

2.    to agree to discharge and approve the outstanding planning conditions as set out in paragraphs 4.6 and Appendix B.

3.    to determine that enforcement action should not be taken (as set out in paragraphs 4.8 in the report ‘Consistent with the individual officer assessment of the discharge of conditions with the benefit of the full environmental information, officers do not consider that there is any reasonable basis for taking enforcement action’).

4.    having assessed the mitigation options put forward by the University, to note the unilateral legal agreement proposed as a commitment to bring forward option 1 as set out in paragraph 4.33 of the report, but this to be amended by the Committee to include roofing treatment and reduced timescales as set out above.

5.    having considered whether it is appropriate to recommend discontinuance action for consideration by Council as set out in paragraphs 5.6, 5.48, 5.49 and 5.53 & 5.54, to agree the recommendation in paragraph 5.54 not to pursue discontinuance action .