Council told to improve planning processes after development at beauty spot

An independent review into Oxford City Council’s handling of a controversial planning application for student flats near a beauty spot has found that the authority met its statutory obligations.

Vincent Goodstadt, a former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute, was asked to examine the approval in February 2012 of Oxford University’s proposal for graduate student accommodation near the riverside at Roger Dudman Way (RDW), Castle Mill.

The overall development was equivalent in scale to a major college of the University.

In his conclusion Goodstadt wrote: “[The Castle Mill] development in 2012 should have been one of the least contentious major developments in Oxford. The site is a brownfield disused rail sidings. The site has been identified for at least 15 years as suitable for student accommodation. The need for such accommodation is not questioned, nor is the existing planning consent for a 3/4-storey development. Yet despite having followed due processes it has resulted in major protests, including a petition to the council to review its decision.

“The findings of this review are that the controversy created by the RDW development lies in series of separated but clearly inter-related individual decisions, assumptions and judgements made at each stage of the planning process. The combined effect resulted in inadequate consultation on the proposals; and a less detailed assessment of the proposals than there could have been.”

Although finding that the city council had met its statutory obligations, Goodstadt said there were issues at each stage of the planning process. These included a tight timescale, an existing consent for the site creating a presumption in favour of development, and consultation arrangements which failed to reach some of those most affected by the scheme.

“These led to a series of decisions which resulted in a level of consultation and discussion that was not representative of the standards applied elsewhere in Oxford,” the report said.

In his report Goodstadt made a number of recommendations on how the city council could improve its practices and increase the confidence of members, officers and the community in the planning process

In summary, these were:

1. Planning procedures: improving the clarity of the informal and formal liaison arrangements and the documentation of the pre-application process; and providing a clearer auditing regime of the submitted documents against the requirements in the published guidance in the registration process on major applications; and a review of the EIA-related procedures.
2. Consultation processes: further development of pre-application guidelines; post-application guidance on planning processes.
3. Visual impacts & quality of design: developing greater technical capacity (IT and skills) to take advantage of the rapidly evolving potential for interpreting design and integration with established GIS systems; improving the advice on the design evidence used to support application, in particular in the preparation of Design and Access Statements; enhancing member ‘training’ on design and planning; investigating and adopting the best new field-based approaches to assessing the visual impact of new development.
4. Committee reporting: a systematic documentation of the policy evaluation including clarification of the extent and nature of any departure from policy; a more evidenced-based approach to the presentation of the choices before committee, and the impact of mitigation through conditions in reports; and the use of alternative means of addressing design considerations (e.g. in terms of visualisations and where necessary site visits).
5. Planning conditions: an auditable process for determining the appropriate enforcement action; a review of the use of standard planning conditions, and updating of them where necessary; inter-agency co-ordination to address issues set out in the main report; the use of a range of media should be considered to provide accurate and accessible information that addresses these concerns.
6. Wider planning issues: enhancing the planning service in terms of planning process, policy and strategy; progressing and formalising a more strategic approach to the future development needs and engagement with the universities and colleges.

An application for judicial review of a decision not to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the scheme was unsuccessful.

Peter Sloman, chief executive of Oxford City Council, said: "I agree with the report that, with the benefit of hindsight, the council and other organisations could have done more in this particular case. We want all the developments in our city to be of the highest quality.

"I also accept the report's recommendations for improving aspects of the service. I am pleased that the report acknowledges that improvements are already under way and that the service is committed to learning from experience and not waiting for an external prompt into action.”

Sloman said he wanted in particular to expand the scope and effectiveness of the council’s consultation arrangements.

“I want Oxford City Council to be recognised as an organisation which puts collaboration at the heart of its planning processe,” he said.

The local authority stressed that the report stated that implementation of the recommendations for improvement did not imply that they would, with the benefit of hindsight, have led to a different decision on the application.

The council said it would now consider the report more broadly and an action plan would be prepared to implement the report's findings “over the coming months”.