Agenda Item 3 Roger Dudman Way Review MAIN REPORT & EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Report of Findings and Recommendations Vincent Goodstadt December 2013 1 Roger Dudman Way Review: Main Report Contents Foreword Abbreviations Executive Summary Main Report A. The Approach to the Review B. The Planning Context C. Questions for the Review D. Planning Procedures E. Consultation Processes F. Visual Impact & Design Issues G. Committee Reporting H. Ground Contamination and Planning Conditions I. Wider Planning Implications J. General Conclusions and Recommendations Appendices A. Terms of Reference of the Cross-party Working Group B. List of persons Consulted C. Status of Planning Conditions D. Approved and Adopted development Plan Documents E. Documents Submitted Compared with Validation Requirements F. Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Checklist G. Government Guidance on Design and Access Statements H. Diagrams from Core Strategy I. DCLG Coding of Development Types from April 2008 (extract) 2 1 FOREWORD In February 2012 Oxford City Council approved a proposal by the University of Oxford for post-graduate student accommodation at Castle Mill, Roger Dudman Way. In December 2012 a Petition was submitted to the Council expressing the widespread concern about the environmental impacts of the development. As a result the Council set up a Working Party to consider whether the planning processes associated with the Roger Dudman Way application complied with statutory and national policy requirements, and how they related to best practice. This Working Party is cross-party and includes representatives of key civic organisations. As part of its considerations an independent review has been undertaken of the processes involved. Great weight has been placed in the review process upon engaging with all sectors of the planning community in Oxford (including civic and community groups, the universities and public bodies). This report sets out the findings and recommendations arising from this independent review. Its focus has been to draw lessons and make recommendations on the procedures and policies for handling and determining major planning applications. In doing so it identifies: good practice that is already being applied by the Council; the range of actions already being taken by the Council to address the issues that have been raised; and the opportunities for the City Council to improve services and minimise the risk of problems in the future. This review has been undertaken within a tight timescale. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation that I have received from all quarters in undertaking the review, the organisation of briefings and background material, and making time available. In particular I want to acknowledge the support given by Pat Jones (Senior Scrutiny Officer) and Dr. Lucy Natarajan. Vincent Goodstadt December 2013 3 2 ABBREVIATIONS BIC Building in Context by EH & CABE CABE The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England DAS Design and Access Statement DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government DPD Development Plan Document EA Environment Agency ED Environment Department of Oxford City Council EH English Heritage EIA Environmental Impact Assessment LGA Local Government Association MR Main Report of the Roger Dudman Way Review NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OAHS Oxford Architectural and Historical Society OCC Oxford City Council OCS Oxford Civic Society OPT Oxford Preservation Trust PAS Planning Advisory Service POS Planning Officers’ Society PPS Planning Policy Statement RDW Roger Dudman Way ROQ Royal Observatory Quarter SAC Special Area of Conservation under the EU’s Habitats Directive SLA Service Level Agreement SPM Save Port Meadow Campaign SSSI Site of Special Scientific interest WAPC West Area Planning Committee 1990 Act Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 4 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 Context 1. In February 2012 Oxford City Council approved a proposal by the University of Oxford for post- graduate student accommodation at Castle Mill, Roger Dudman Way. In December 2012 a Petition was submitted to the Council expressing the widespread concern about the environmental impacts of the development 2. As a result it established an Independent Review to assess whether in the context of this development the City Council complied with its planning processes and met statutory and National Policy requirements, how the processes compare with other Local Planning Authorities, and identification of best practice. 3. This Review addresses issues related to the planning process, consultation, visual impacts, committee reporting and the enforcement of planning conditions. It is not however an Inquiry as undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate. It therefore does not alter the decision to approve the application by Oxford City Council. Any recommendation in this report about better practices and procedures does not imply that it would, with the benefit of hindsight, have led to a different decision on the application. 4. The Review process has been substantially enhanced by the help and cooperation from a wide range of interested parties (including members, staff, supporters and objectors). This is gratefully acknowledged. The Review has also drawn on best practice advice from government or its agencies. The Planning Context 5. Roger Dudman Way (RDW) is located on the edge of the built up area, adjoining the greenbelt and Port Meadow, an area of ancient common land, and protected as an SAC and SSSI and for the views it gives of the city. 6. A range of planning permissions have also been granted for the site. These include an outline application for up to 650 bed space units in 2000; detailed application for 354 flats in 2002.The first phase of this consent for 125 flats was built and completed around 2004. There was therefore an extant consent to build a further 229 more student flats. None of the parties to this Review dispute the use of the site for student accommodation. 7. The site however raised environmental sensitivities particularly in terms of contamination and visual impact. In addition to national guidance and policies, the key document at the time of the West Area Planning Committee (WAPC) decision was the Oxford Core Strategy 2026 and its related documents. Central to an understanding of the planning context of the RDW site is Policy CS25 and the saved heritage Policy HE10 ‘View Cones of Oxford’. Policy CS25 requires that the number of students attending the University of Oxford living outside college does not exceed 3000 students. Policy HE10 requires the view of the Oxford skyline to be protected. 8. The WAPC approved the application with 23 planning conditions. Nine conditions still need to be discharged of which Condition No. 16 ‘Ground Contamination and Conditions 5 & 7 relating to landscaping’ are material to the key issues addressed in this Review . 6 ii Issue 1: Planning Procedures 9. During 2011 Oxford University carried out pre-application consultations and held a public exhibition. Following the submission of the application the City Council undertook a series of steps in processing the application including registering, validation, screening for the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), public adverts and notices, statutory consultations and site visits. These steps were in accord with the statutory procedures required by regulations and in line with those generally used by the Council. 10. However there have been challenges, directly or implicitly, over the way the processes were carried out. The procedures therefore have been reviewed and the following conclusions drawn : a. The pre-applications policy of the Council is in accord with Government advice but as implemented in this instance fell short of best practice. The application could have been more clearly documented in terms of the general liaison with applicant and the formal pre-application process; b. The registration of the application was in accord with the Council’s published policy on v alidation requirements. Although there were errors and Recommendation 1: Planning Procedures limitations in the documents submitted by the It is recommended that the planning applicant, it was within the Council’s discretion to processes should be strengthened by validate the application. However there is a need a. Improving the clarity of the informal for a clearer auditing of the submitted documents and formal liaison arrangements on major applications against the requirements in and the documentation of the pre- the published guidance. application process; c. Although the application for judicial review was b. Providing a clearer auditing regime of unsuccessful, there is a commitment by the the submitted documents against the applicant to prepare a voluntary Environmental requirements in the published Statement. This Review has focused its guidance in the registration process on major applications; considerations on the lessons for best practice. In this context it has been concluded that the c. A review the EIA-related procedures screening process could have set out more in terms of: systematically the full basis of the evaluation and The advice provided in pre- conclusions. application discussions; Improving the quality of the forms d. The review has considered whether the Planning and documentation used; and (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 The training and briefing of should have been taken into account. It is officers in respect of