Day nursery at Unit 11 Kings Meadow, Ferry Hinksey Road, Oxford

What was proposed

The application sought a day nursery in an existing unit, with a roller shutter removed and windows and front-door alterations made.

“Proposal Change of Use from hair dressing training company with ancillary workshop (Use Class E) to a Day Nursery (Use Class E(f)). Removal of 1no. roller shutter door and insertion of 3no. windows to front elevation and alterations to existing front door. Insertion of 3no. windows to side elevation.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The unit is within an established industrial estate, accessed without a pavement, with industrial uses nearby and space for two cars.

“3 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) 3.1 The proposal would not be liable for CIL if planning permission was granted. 4. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS 4.1 The application site is Unit 11 on the Kings Meadow Estate. The Kings Meadow Estate is located at the entrance to the Osney Mead Industrial Estate and is accessed directly off the mini-roundabout at the junction of Ferry Hinksey Road and Osney Mead.”

“The application site was used until recently as an office for a hair dressing training company with a workshop. There are a number of other uses taking place on the industrial estate including a tyre fitting shop (opposite no. 11), antenna design and distribution centre and a mechanical services company ( the latter occupy the adjacent unit).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

The estate was approved for light industrial use, while a previous nursery application was withdrawn and a side-door application was granted.

“81/00274/NO - Osney Mead Industrial Estate Ferry Hinksey Road - Outline application for erection of light industrial/warehouse units totalling 38,666 sq. ft. PERMISSION GRANTED 25th August 1983.”

“25/01375/FUL - Change of Use from hair dressing training company with ancillary workshop (Use Class E) to a Day Nursery (Use Class E(f)). Removal of 1no. roller shutter door and insertion of 3no. windows to front elevation and alterations to existing front door. Insertion of 3no. windows to side elevation. (additional Flood Risk Assessment). WITHDRAWN 13th October 2025.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposed nursery would be a more vulnerable use in Flood Zone 3b and cycle parking was not provided.

“RECOMMENDATION Oxford City Planning Committee is recommended to: 1.1 refuse the application for the reasons given in paragraph 1.2 of this report and to delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Regulation to: • finalise the reason for refusal including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Director of Planning and Regulation considers reasonably necessary.”

“Local Plan (2036), Paragraph 170 of the NPPF and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). (2) The proposed development fails to provide adequate cycle parking for staff, parents or visitors travelling to the nursery. As a result the proposed development would be contrary to Policy M5 of the Oxford Local Plan (2036).”

Officer report

Flood risk was central

The site is in the highest flood-risk area, the access route may become unsafe, and the submitted flood assessment was inadequate.

“The proposed development would be unacceptable in principle because of its impact on flood risk. The proposed development lies within the functional floodplain (Flood Zone 3b) which is the defined highest risk area of flooding. Additionally the access road and much of the surrounding area lies within the Flood Zone 3b which would contribute further to the flooding risk issue as it could preclude safe access and egress to the site in the event of a flood.”

“The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is inadequate in terms of its methodology and level of information. The Environment Agency who are the statutory consultee on flood matters have objected to the application.”

Officer report

Advice from consultees

The Environment Agency objected because the use was inappropriate for Flood Zone 3b and the flood assessment did not adequately assess risk.

“CONSULTATION RESPONSES 6.1 Site notices were displayed around the application site on 5 th November 2025. Statutory and non-statutory consultees 6.3 Environment Agency Object to the proposed development for the following reasons: We object to the proposed development as it falls within a flood risk vulnerability category that is inappropriate to the Flood Zone in which the application site is located.”

“Reasons: NPPF Annex 3 classifies development types according to their vulnerability to flood risk. PPG Table 2 provides guidance on which developments are incompatible with certain Flood Zones. This site lies within Flood Zone 3b, which is land defined by the PPG and your Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) as having a high probability of flooding. The proposed development is classed as more vulnerable in accordance with Annex 3 of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in favour of the application, and officers presented the proposal and answered members’ questions with the applicant.

The committee vote

The committee agreed with the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons in the report.

“On being proposed, seconded, and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons listed on the report.”

Minutes