Agenda item

Demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings for new commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5 and B1a) at ground floor level, with development above comprising 150 residential dwellings (C3). Associated car parking and landscaping are also proposed (amended LVIA received 6 July 2020, viability addendum and supporting viability documents received September 2020, and amended landscape plans for area between West Way and Block A received 20 October 2020).

The committee considered application P20/V0921/FUL for the demolition and redevelopment of existing buildings for new commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1-A5 and B1a) at ground floor level, with development above comprising 150 residential dwellings (C3). Associated car parking and landscaping are also proposed (amended LVIA received 6 July 2020, viability addendum and supporting viability documents received September 2020, and amended landscape plans for area between West Way and Block A received 20 October 2020), at Botley Centre, West Way, Botley, Oxford.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

The planning officer reported that the application represented phase two of a wider development which had been granted planning permission in 2016. The application had been called in by one of the local ward councillors, Councillor Debby Hallett, with concerns regarding the proposed increase in height of block A, and lack of vehicle parking and affordable housing delivery.

The proposal sought to increase the number of dwellings in block A by 30. The committee noted that the application contained a proposal for a 9 storey building in place of the previously approved 8 storey building. A deed of variation to the s106 agreement would also be required as part of any permission to adjust financial contributions.

The planning officer also reported that in the view of officers, the application would provide an economic and social role through construction, employment, and increased investment in the local economy. This represented an opportunity to provide 30 additional dwellings in the district’s main service centre.  This was a highly sustainable area within close proximity to Oxford and Abingdon.

The committee noted paragraph 5.20 of the report, relating to affordable housing; Policy CP24 of the local plan, part one, required 35% of housing on major sites to be affordable housing. The development, with an uplift of 30 residential units equated to a total of 150 residential dwellings within the block. The planning officer advised the committee of a total of £2m. contributions for off-site housing (£1m. of which had already been paid).

Mary Gill and James Hyndman, representatives of West Way Community Concern (WWCC) spoke objecting to the application. WWCC’s statement of objection had been circulated to the committee by the democratic services officer before the meeting.

Neil Rowley, the agent, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Rowley’s statement of support had been circulated to the committee by the democratic services officer before the meeting.

Councillor Debby Hallett, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

The committee had concerns regarding the height of the proposed development, which it considered represented an overbearing development by virtue of the building’s mass and scale and was out of character of the local area. The level of affordable housing was not acceptable and the parking arrangements were considered to be inadequate. The committee also considered that the lack of car parking would adversely impact the local roads network compromise highway safety.

A motion moved and seconded, to grant planning permission failed on being put to the vote.

A motion moved and seconded, to refuse planning permission was carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P20/V0921/FUL, for the following reasons;

1.    The proposed development would result in a visually harmful and overbearing development, which is not compatible with or sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area by reason of the height, mass, and scale of the proposed building. As such the proposal is contrary to policies CP37 and CP44 of the Local Plan 2031, Part 1, policy GS3 of the emerging North Hinksey Neighbourhood Plan, and to paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development would be harmful to highway safety and operation due to inadequate on site parking. There would be a lack of on-site car parking and cycle storage which would lead to on-street parking and traffic congestion on the local highway network which would create highway safety implications. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CP33 and CP35 of the Local Plan 2031, Part 1, policy DP16 of the Local Plan 2031, Part 2, and to paragraphs 108 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.    The application fails to provide 35% of the proposed dwellings as affordable housing which is contrary to policy CP24 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and to paragraphs 61-63 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.    In the absence of a S106 agreement relating to the provision of affordable housing, and financial contributions towards education and public art the proposal would place increased pressure on these facilities and fail to provide the environmental and social services needed to support this development. This is considered contrary to policies CP7 and CP24 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1, and policy DP20 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2.