5/6 Lower Cherwell Street

BCS comments on the planning application 20/02129/O56: 5-6 Lower Cherwell Street - Conversion of offices (B1) to 13 No dwellinghouses (C3)

We wish to object to the prior approval application in its current form.

This society is not opposed in principle to the conversion of this site to residential use. Indeed, such a use could be highly beneficial. We nevertheless believe that the present application is lacking in some important areas:

Evidence of established B1 Use

We understand that for this application to be Permitted Development, it needs to be established that the buildings concerned are in exclusively office use. Records of historic planning applications are not available to us, but we note that the building is marked on the Council’s base mapping as ‘Warehouse’.

We note that Cherwell Local Plan Policy Banbury 1 – Canalside states:

All of the existing businesses could be relocated but the Council will encourage existing businesses which are offices, retail units and community uses which are conducive to the aims of this Policy and the SPD to remain and occupy new buildings on the site, potentially helping them to expand and prosper in this town centre location.

A number of the older buildings and the site of former industrial premises, offer considerable opportunities for re- use or re-development for industrial enterprises. Some of the industrial uses (B use classes) could remain and 700 dwellings can be delivered on the site with some of these remaining on the site. The particular uses and businesses that remain will be explored further in the SPD for the site which will include further consultation with landowners and businesses.

With such clear policy backing for the retention of business uses in the area’s historic buildings, we would suggest that the change from (claimed) B21 use to C1 use should not be considered as Permitted Development, but rather as development meriting the scrutiny of a full planning application.

Built Heritage

Whilst the supporting Desk Study notes that the building lies in the Banbury Canal Conservation Area and that it lies adjacent to the Grade II-Listed Town Hall Wharf, it is nowhere noted that the buildings are of heritage interest as historic canal-side buildings (formerly part of Town Hall Wharf), nor that the buildings are inscribed in the Local List. Indeed, as part of Town Hall wharf, the buildings may be argued to be ‘curtilage Listed’.

Because of this historic interest and historical association with an adjacent Listed building, we would expect that the starting point for any development proposal would be an expert assessment of where heritage ‘significance’ lies and does not lie.

The application is devoid of interior views of the buildings, nor are historical phased floor plans provided. The impact of the proposed development on the internal fabric of the buildings cannot be determined from the available information. It is also unclear whether features such as the historic weighbridge table and the currently incomplete TOWN HALL WHARF signage are to be lost or sensitively conserved and repaired.

Without a supporting Heritage Statement to answer these questions, this application cannot be determined.

Paras 189 and 190 of the NPPF are particularly relevant:

189. In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary....

190. Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.

Equally relevant is Cherwell Local Plan Policy ESD 15:

New development proposals should:... Include information on heritage assets sufficient to assess the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Where archaeological potential is identified this should include an appropriate desk based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation....

Space Standards

Thirteen units seem like a very large number of units for what are relatively small buildings. It is unclear whether the proposed units meet the District Council's floor area standards for the anticipated use of these dwellings, or whether the Council's requirements in respect of cycle and refuse storage met. So far as can be determined these aspects still have to be resolved.

Further, we note that the site lies within the area defined in the Cherwell Local Plan under Policy Banbury 1: Banbury Canalside. Whilst an adopted SPD for the Canalside area is still awaited, we would question whether 13 cramped apartments will contribute in any way towards the regeneration of the Canalside area. If the change of use is to be consented, we would suggest instead that it would be much more beneficial for the buildings to be converted to a smaller number of higher-end ‘loft-style’ apartments, which would make better use of the buildings’ industrial features and spaces and involve significantly less subdivision. We note that Policy Banbury 1 seeks:

• Units sized and located to attract small specialist leisure and niche retailers which combine to create a destination

• Selected leisure and entertainment uses including art spaces and galleries, restaurants and cafes

• “Live / Work units”

  External Areas

  Lastly, we note that the development provides three car-parking spaces. Whilst these are arguably inadequate for the 13 proposed dwellings, our principle concern is their location across the passage at the northern edge of the site.

  As noted above, the application falls within the area defined in the Cherwell Local Plan under Policy Banbury 1: Banbury Canalside. This Policy provides for

• A distinctive residential proposition for Banbury that integrates well and helps make connections with the adjoining town centre and Railway Station
• A layout that maximises the potential for walkable neighbourhoods and enables a high degree of integration and connectivity between new and existing communities. New footpaths and cycleways should be provided that link to existing networks, with provision of a designated pedestrian and cycle route from the station to the town centre over the canal and river and a new pedestrian / cycle bridge over the railway
• New pedestrian and cycle bridges erected over the Oxford Canal and the River Cherwell to enable and encourage walking and cycling through the site
• The implementation of proposals in the Movement Strategy including improved junction arrangements on Bridge Street and Cherwell Street to improve traffic capacity but also to facilitate pedestrian movement between the town centre and Canalside
• Development fronting on to the canal and public access to and from the canal

Whilst an adopted SPD for the Canalside area is still awaited, additional detail about the Canalside regeneration area is included within the Banbury Vision & Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document December 2016.

This shows a contains a Movement Strategy (pp 33-38) and an Illustrative Masterplan and Policies for Canalside site on page 60-61. The Movement Strategy (illustration pp34, 36 and 38) and the Illustrative Masterplan (p.60) showing the passage in which the three parking spaces are proposed as a key pedestrian route connecting George Street to the railway station. This is amplified by the specific policies in the SPD:

• Connect the town centre to the railway station

• D - Construct new pedestrian bridges across the Oxford Canal and River Cherwell as part of the Canalside development to connect the station to the town centre (p.34); and

• Two new pedestrian and cycle routes from George Street and Canal Street to connect Canalside into the town centre. Each route will require two new bridges across the Oxford Canal and River Cherwell; the George Street link will connect to the Railway Station and the Canal Street link will connect to the eastern side of Tramway (p.61).

Clearly the proposal for three car-parking spaces built directly across this key route would preclude the direct pedestrian connection from the town centre to the railway station enshrined in the Masterplan.

The current studies by the County Council in respect of the extending Tramway Road to allow bus and taxis access to the station have yet to come to an acceptable conclusion and therefore the Local Plan / Master Plan & Vision ambitions for improved pedestrian access to the railway station must not be negated by any development that may frustrate such ambitions.

Flooding

The adopted Cherwell Local Plan (Policy Banbury 1 Canalside) is explicit:

• The Canalside area falls primarily within Flood Zones 2 and 3 at present. It has been subject to flooding in recent years and the Environment Agency (EA) has completed a scheme to provide flood alleviation to the town centre. The scheme will provide a defence for flood events up to the 1 in 200 year (0.5% annual probability) by constructing a flood storage area upstream of the town centre and bunds in places in the Canalside area. To assess the potential flood risk in the Canalside area, a level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken to assess both the fluvial flood risk to the development proposals from the River Cherwell and the flood risk associated with the Oxford Canal. This confirms that with the implementation of the Flood Alleviation Scheme and the implementation of other measures on the site the site can be redeveloped safely. Applications will be required to follow the requirements set out in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for the site will be required with any planning application.

Given that the Site lies within a known flood zone, we would question whether a residential use is appropriate for ground-level units on this site, particularly without a detailed FRA to demonstrate that it is.

Conclusion

This Society is not opposed in principle to these buildings being converted to a residential or part-residential use. The site is nevertheless a highly sensitive one whose reuse is highly constrained by its heritage sensitivities, its potential for flooding and by adopted policies within the Cherwell Local Plan and the Banbury Vision & Masterplan SPD. As a result, we would argue that the proposed development is inappropriate non-compliant with national and local planning policy.

We would urge the applicant to seek pre-application engagement with the Council’s officers (including the design and conservation team) as a prelude to a Full planning application.

Should the Council be minded to accept that a prior-consent under Section O of the GPDO is appropriate for this complex site, we would wish to see appropriate steps taken to ensure the retention or sensitive replacement as appropriate of fenestration, doors, rainwater goods and other heritage features, including signage and other industrial artefacts.