SP38 Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre - Oxford City Council

North East Area Committee
Application Number: 10/01709/FUL
Decision Due by: 29th September 2010
23 rd September 2010
Proposal: Erection of two storey research building (Botnar phase 2).
Provision of 4 disabled parking spaces, 22 cycle hoops and
new barrier controlled access road.
Site Address: Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre Windmill Road, site plan
Appendix 1
Ward: Headington Ward
Agent: JWPC Ltd. Applicant: Nuffield Orthopaedics Ltd.
Recommendation:
Officers recommend that North East Area committee approve the application subject
to and including conditions set out in the report, but defer the application to allow an
accompanying legal agreement to be drawn up and delegate to Officers to issue the
Notice of permission on completion.
Reasons:
1 It is considered that the principle of development is in accordance with the
adopted Local Plan. The extension would be in keeping with the character
and appearance of the existing building and the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre
site as a whole. Whilst there would be a detrimental impact in the short term
from the loss of trees, this would be mitigated in the long term by proposed
planting of heavy standard trees. There would be no adverse impact on traffic
or parking.
2 Officers have considered carefully all objections to these proposals. Officers
have come to the view, for the detailed reasons set out in the officers report,
that the objections do not amount, individually or cumulatively, to a reason for
refusal and that all the issues that have been raised have been adequately
addressed and the relevant bodies consulted.
3 The Council considers that the proposal accords with the policies of the
development plan as summarised below. It has taken into consideration all
other material matters, including matters raised in response to consultation
and publicity. Any material harm that the development would otherwise give
rise to can be offset by the conditions imposed.
REPORT

Subject to the following conditions:
1 Development begun within time limit
2 Develop in accordance with approved plns
3 Materials - matching
4 Landscape plan required
5 Landscape carry out by completion
6 Landscape hard surfce desgn - tree roots
7 Landscape undrgrnd services - tree roots
8 Tree Protection Plan (TPP) 1
9 Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) 1
10 Energy efficiency and sustainability
11 Cycle parking details required
12 Cycle and car parking only as approved
13 Travel Plan
14 Construction Travel Plan
15 Restricted vehicular access
16 Contamination
17 Remediation
18 Surface water disposal scheme
19 Piling/ foundation
20 Noise control
Financial Contribution:
County Highways Authority: £43,225 towards pedestrian and cycle traffic
management measures in the surrounding area.
Main Local Plan Policies:
Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016
CP1 - Development Proposals
CP2 - Planning Obligations
CP6 - Efficient Use of Land & Density
CP7 - Urban Design
CP8 - Design Develpmt to Relate to its Context
CP9 - Creating Successful New Places
CP10 - Siting Develpmnt to Meet Functionl Needs
CP11 - Landscape Design
CP12 - Designing out Crime
CP13 - Accessibility
CP15 - Energy Efficiency
TR1 - Transport Assessment
TR2 - Travel Plans
TR3 - Car Parking Standards
TR4 - Pedestrian & Cycle Facilities
NE10 - Sustainable Drainage
NE14 - Water and Sewerage Infrastructure
NE15 - Loss of Trees and Hedgerows
REPORT

HH2 - Pri HC Fac - Non Res bldngs & New HC Fac
DS52 - Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre - Hos Use
Core Strategy – Proposed Changes
CSP10 - Energy & natural resources
CSP14 - Supporting access to new development
CSP16 - Primary healthcare
CSP31 - Hospitals & medical research
Other Material Considerations:
PPS1:Delivering Sustainable Development
Relevant Site History:
The Nuffield Orthopedic Hospital has an extensive planning history since the 1950’s
linked to its medical use. There have been several new buildings in the recent past,
not least the main redevelopment of the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and grounds in
2001, covering a large proportion of the site.
Of particular relevance to this application however is:
00/01445/NF: Demolition of single storey building. Erection of 2 storey research
laboratory (2004sq.m), with plant room in raised roof. Provision of 16 space car park
(4 disabled) bicycle park and new internal access road. (Amended Plans) Approved
December 2000. (Botnar Research Centre Phase 1).
07/01934/FUL: Botnar Research Centre: Erection of single storey extension to
southern elevation to provide staff rest room and meeting and seminar space.
Approved October 2007.
Representations Received:
Comments received can be summarised as follows:
Objections:
• Overshadowing and loss of sunlight
• No architectural merit; inappropriate scale & design
• Extension larger than phase 1
• Inappropriate to surrounding area
Other comments:
• No objection providing no overlooking to garden.
• Acknowledgement of applicant’s response to residents comments by reducing
proposed height, obtrusive tanking relocated within roof space and mitigation
measures proposed (window screening, planting etc)
• Noise from any fans in the building should be controlled by similar condition to
existing Phase 1.
• Control on construction traffic
Statutory and Internal Consultees:
REPORT

Thames Water Utilities Limited: Surface storm flow water should be attenuated or
regulated to public network through on/ off site storage. If connected to combined
public sewer, site drainage should be separate and combined at final manhole
nearest the boundary. Removal of groundwater not permitted. Approval from TW
required for discharge to public sewer to ensure no detrimental impact on existing
sewerage system. No objection regarding sewerage or water infrastructures.
Environment Agency Thames Region: no objection subject to conditions regarding
contamination, remediation, surface water drainage and piling/ foundation designs.
Issues:
• Officers consider the main issues are:
• Principle of development
• Design and appearance
• Impact on neighbours
• Trees
• Traffic and parking
• Sustainability
Officers Assessment:
Site Description and Proposal:
1. The application site immediately adjoins the exisiting Botnar Research
Centre, which is a 2 storey building, situated in the north west corner of the
Nuffield Othopaedic Centre (NOC) Hospital site. To the south is a
temporary building, which houses research staff. To the north and west
are residential properties on Gardiner Street, Wilberforce Road, Cecil
Sharp Place and Nursery Close. There are existing trees and vegetation
surrounding. The existing building can be seen from Wilberforce Road; in
between houses and from rear gardens.
2. The proposed extension is two storeys in height, reaching 11.7m which is
approximately the same height as the eaves level of the existing building.
It extends sideways (east) from the existing eastern side elevation
approximately 38.5m with a roof overhang to match the existing roof. It is
set in from the existing northern elevation and projects forwards (south)
from the southern elevation, so that overall the building would appear
staggered away from the northern boundary towards the main hospital
south to the site. Windows are proposed in north, south and east
elevations at both ground and first floor. The extension would provide
office accommodation, for desk based research and accommodate those
currently occupying the temporary building adjacent.
Principle of Development:
3. The NOC is designated in the adopted Local Plan, under Policy DS 52,
which states that planning permission will be granted for further
development of hospital use and medical research. The principle of
development is therefore considered acceptable.
REPORT

Design and Appearance:
4. The NOC is a hospital site and existing buildings therefore reflect the
nature of this use in size and design. The Local Plan states that this use is
appropriate and therefore buildings of this nature are to be expected on
this site. The proposed extension is designed architecturally to match that
of the existing building. The ridge height reaches approximately the same
height as the eaves of the existing building. Windows and internal floor
levels are the same. Matching materials are proposed so that the building
would appear cohesive. Officers consider that the proposed extension
would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing
building and the NOC site as a whole.
Impact on neighbours:
REPORT
5. Concerns have been raised regarding height and size, overlooking, loss of
sunlight to gardens and noise.
6. The applicant took on board similar comments made by residents at preapplication
stage and therefore altered the design of the extension by
lowering the roof height and pushing it southwards into the site away from
the northern boundaries with adjoining residential properties. The overall
length of the extension was reduced by 6.5m, so that it is less than the
existing building. No external plant is proposed, as none is required; it
being a naturally ventilated office building. The extension is a minimum of
22m distance to the closest house on Gardiner Street (No 49) and in
excess of 50m to those on Wilberforce Street. There are also existing
mature trees along that part of the boundary adjacent to the extension
which would afford some natural screening.
7. It is considered that the proposed extension reflects the nature of the use
of the building, i.e. institutional use, and whilst clearly different in size and
scale to surrounding domestic architecture and properties, it would not
appear overbearing to neighbouring properties due to the distance
between buildings, height and position.
8. Windows are proposed at first floor level, however views to the nearest
properties would be oblique, as opposed to directly facing and the distance
to rear windows would be approximately 27m minimum. Furthermore
existing trees would offer some screening. It is therefore considered that
there would be no adverse impact due to overlooking or loss of privacy to
neighbouring residential properties.
9. A sunlight assessment was submitted as part of the application and shows
that for the majority of the year the proposed extension would not have any
impact on sunlight reaching neighbouring properties. There would,
however, be some impact on winter sun reaching three particular
properties, No 49 Gardiner Street and Nos.16 & 18 Wilberforce Street.
No.49 would loose late afternoon winter sun (after 3pm) to the bottom part
of its garden. The sun sets in winter months (December to February)

Trees:
REPORT
between approximately 4pm and 5.30pm and therefore there would be
loss of the last hours of sun. The garden however would still receive sun
up until this point. Nos.16 & 18 would see a slight reduction in early
morning (before 10 am) again to the bottom part of the garden, but
sunlight would still reach the backs of the houses themselves. Whilst it is
accepted that there would be some reduction in sunlight to theses
properties, this would only be for a short period of time during winter
months and it is therefore not considered significant to justify refusal in this
case.
10. Noise has been raised as a potential issue. However, the extension is for
office type use that does not require any external mechanical plant, which
may impact on neighbours. The ventilation plant associated with the
natural ventilation system is within the roof void and ducted out through the
roof. No comments have been received from internal consultation with
Environmental Development. It is not considered that there would be any
adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenities due to noise.
11. The proposals include the removal of a group of 5 moderate quality and value
trees (one specimen each of alder, beech, birch, lime and oak, planted too
closely together) that stand on the east side of the existing building. These
trees are prominent in views within the NOC site, in particular in views from
the car parks and access roads that are used by visiting public, and their loss
is to be regretted because in the short term there will be a harmful impact on
visual amenity associated with their removal. However, many new trees have
been planted in the area recently as part of the overall development of the
NOC and eventually this planting will help mitigate the visual impacts.
12. More significantly the proposals require the removal of a birch, a poplar and a
lime tree from near the northern boundary of the site. Removal of the lime tree
in particular will reduce the screening of the site in views from adjacent
residential properties and will possibly open up views of the Phase 2
extension. While the proposed planting of new extra heavy standard lime trees
along the northern boundary is welcome and will eventually help screen the
extension for properties further east, it will not mitigate the removal of existing
trees in the immediate term due to their size and maturity. The existing lime
tree is a high quality and value tree and is therefore important. Officers
approached the applicant to see if the layout could be amended in order to
retain the tree; however due to the need to ensure adequate manoeuvring
space for vehicles within the delivery yard and the tight site restraints imposed
by the NOC on the land leased to the applicant, it has not been possible to
move the boundary of the delivery yard away from the tree; hence the
applicant’s proposal to plant new extra heavy standard lime trees along the
northern boundary to help mitigate the loss of the existing trees.
13. Whilst there would de a detrimental impact in the short term from the loss
of trees, particularly the lime tree, the benefits of the extension and
proposed use is significant and on balance it is considered that this harm

can be outweighed, together with proposed planting of heavy standard
trees which would mitigate it in the long term. Planting can be secured by
condition.
Traffic and Parking:
14. The building at present is accessed from the Old Road entrance, which is
restricted due to the poor visibility at the location of this access point. The
amount of traffic able to access the site from this direction is limited due to an
internal barrier system, secured under existing permissions on the NOC site,
to prevent rat running through from Old Road to Windmill Road and vice
versa. It is intended that the main car borne traffic (staff and light vehicles)
will access the site from Windmill Road and deliveries etc will be from Old
Road and controlled by a proposed new barrier system. Staff numbers with
this proposal indicate 56 in total, with 28 already existing on site at present in
the temporary building.
15. A Transport Statement submitted with the application indicates an estimated
13 additional peak hour trips, which includes bus and car modes. The site is
well served by public transport, including the park and ride service from
Thornhill and Water Eaton, and the NOC as a whole has an all encompassing
travel plan, where its purpose together with a car permit system is to restrict
car use specifically for staff and promote other modes of transport. One extra
car parking space would be generated by the development and 4 disabled
spaces. The 4 additional disabled car parking spaces are proposed to the
front of the building and the extra space absorbed into the existing demand for
staff car parking spaces, which is subject to a parking permit restraint system.
16. 36 cycle parking spaces are provided for Botnar 1 (opened 2002), and as part
of Botnar 2 (this application) an additional 22 cycle parking stands will be
provided, including changing rooms and shower facilities.
17. The Highway Authority has no objection to this proposal subject to a financial
contribution towards appropriate traffic management measures in the area
(cycle and pedestrian) and conditions to provide safe, secure and sheltered
cycle parking and a Construction Travel Plan. They also advise that although
the proposed floor space for the extension is below the threshold requiring a
Travel Plan, this should be included in the overall Travel Plan for NOC. This
could also be secured by condition. A condition is required to secure the new
barrier control system. It is considered therefore that there would be not
adverse impact on traffic generation or car parking.
Sustainability:
REPORT
18. The extension is below the threshold of 2000sqm that requires a Natural
Resource Impact Assessment to be submitted. However, the Energy Report
submitted indicates that the extension has been designed with bespoke
heating and cooling/ ventilation system, photovoltaic cells for on-site
generation, heat recovery from thermal wheels and sustainable drainage
systems. It therefore meets the Council requirements of 10% renewable on-

site generation and exceeds the reduction from target emission by 10%. It
scores a BREEAM “excellent” rating. It is therefore considered that the
building meets the Councils targets for sustainable and energy efficient
development and the measures proposed can be secured by condition.
Conclusion:
19. The principle of development is considered acceptable and the extension
would provide continued medical research by Oxford University. It would
appear in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing
building and the NOC site as a whole. Whilst there would be some harm
due to loss of trees, this is on balance outweighed by the proposed use
and would be mitigated in the long term by proposed planting of heavy
standard trees. There would be no adverse impact on traffic or parking.
20. Officers have considered objections and comments received by
neighbouring properties. It is considered that there would be no adverse
impact on their residential amenities due to noise, overlooking, or
overbearing in appearance. It is acknowledged that there would be some
adverse impact on sunlight during winter months, however, it is not
considered significant to justify refusal in this case.
21. Officers recommend the application be approved.
Human Rights Act 1998
Officers have considered the Human Rights Act 1998 in reaching a
recommendation to grant planning permission, subject to conditions. Officers
have considered the potential interference with the rights of the owners/occupiers
of surrounding properties under Article 8 and/or Article 1 of the First Protocol of
the Act and consider that it is proportionate.
Officers have also considered the interference with the human rights of the
applicant under Article 8 and/or Article 1 of the First Protocol caused by imposing
conditions. Officers consider that the conditions are necessary to protect the
rights and freedoms of others and to control the use of property in accordance
with the general interest. The interference is therefore justifiable and
proportionate.
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Officers have considered, with due regard, the likely effect of the proposal on the
need to reduce crime and disorder as part of the determination of this application,
in accordance with section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a
recommendation to approve, officers consider that the proposal will not
undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety.
Background Papers: 10/01709/FUL
Contact Officer: Felicity Byrne
Extension: 2159
Date: 9th September 2010
REPORT

REPORT