Agenda item

Recommended: to delegate authority to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, subject to a section 106 agreements and further views of the county engineer and also subject to conditions.

The officer introduced her report on this item which had been deferred from the last meeting, to enable the applicant and the county highways engineer to give further consideration to the proposed access arrangements.

Rachel Nixon, from Oxfordshire County Council highways, spoke about the highways issues relating to this proposed development. She said that it was acceptable with appropriate conditions relating to vision splays and a minimum 1 metre wide rumblestrip.

Doug Jackson from Wantage Town Council spoke in opposition to this proposed development. The town council considers that the highways issues are more problematic than have been given credit.

Councillors Fiona Roper and Charlotte Dickson both declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item as neighbours of the application site. In accordance with the provisions in the councillors’ code of conduct they addressed the committee as objectors to the application and withdrew from the room during the committee’s consideration of, and voting on, this item.

• They considered that there is a surplus of housing in Wantage and Grove. They thought that the Interim Housing Supply Policy (IHSP) is anomalous and should be amended; the proposed site is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);
• There are traffic issues which could create a hazard for pedestrians and, in particular, for children coming to and from school.
• The amendments to the vision splays do not address pedestrian visibility.
• They were concerned about three yew trees which are protected and which are being removed as part of the scheme.

Steven Sensecall (Kemp & Kemp), the applicant’s agent, spoke in favour of the application. He outlined the benefits of the scheme and how it had been amended to take into consideration local concerns.

John Morgan, a ward councillor, then spoke in opposition to this application. He raised the issue that the IHSP is not actually a policy and is not currently agreed. There will be 450 children going to school and having to walk across the site entrance, where members still had concerns about the vision splays. The proposed access to, and egress from, the site were not suitable.

The committee had a detailed discussion on this proposed development with input, where appropriate from officers. The main points covered were as follows:

• The draft ISHP is not being discussed in relation to this application
• The yew trees with the protection orders are being removed: they are of poor quality and the tree officer is content with their removal
• There is no expert highways advice which provides justification for a refusal on highways grounds available at the present time, although this could be sought from an independent highways consultant
• There maybe other ways to improve safety on this road which could be considered by the appropriate bodies such as introducing a 20 mph speed limit
• Whether the leisure centre next door would cause a light and noise problem for the residents of the proposed development.

A motion moved and seconded to further defer this application to get an independent highways report commissioned, on being put, was declared lost. (For 3; Against 8; Abstentions 4)

RESOLVED (For  7; Against  6; Abstentions 2)

To authorise the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman, to grant planning permission and conservation area consent to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee chairman and vice chairman. subject to the prior completion of a section 106 agreement with both the county council and district council in order to secure contributions towards local infrastructure and to secure the affordable housing, and also subject to the following conditions:

1. TL1 – Time limit

2. MC2 – Material samples – (panels on site and to match Stiles Court on plots 15 – 23)

3. MC9 – Building details – windows, doors, rainwater goods, etc

4. Restriction on permitted development (plots 15 –19 only)

5. RE28 – Obscure glazing (upper floor windows to north elevation of plot 14)

6. MC24 – Drainage details

7. MC29 – Sustainable drainage

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted floor risk assessment ref: HH4100197/HBG/006 issue 3 prepared by Glanville Consultants dated 8 September 2011.

9. LS1 – Landscaping scheme (Submission)

10. LS2 – Landscaping scheme (Implementation)

11. LS4 – Tree protection

12. Details of construction of the roadway around the Beech Tree.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development full details of the proposed method of removal of the existing parking area around the mature beech tree shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

14. RE6 – Submission of boundary details (including alterations to the front wall of the site).

15. RE17 – Slab levels

16. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the scheme of mitigation outlined in the Bat Survey Report dated June 2011 and the additional amended bat and bird mitigation strategy in all respects. Any variation to the mitigation shall first be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once the works are complete a letter confirming that they have been carried out in accordance with the approved details shall be submitted by the project ecologist.

17. HY1 – Access details (submission including visibility splays)

18. HY7 – Car parking in accordance with approved plan.

19. HY11 – Turning space in accordance with approve plan.

20. HY12 – New Estate Roads (works in accordance with County Specification)

21. Submission of construction traffic management plan.

22. Prior to the commencement of the development, including demolition, a

professional archaeological organisation acceptable to the Local Planning

Authority shall prepare an archaeological written scheme of investigation

relating to the application site which shall be submitted to and approved in

writing by the Local Planning Authority.

23. Prior to the commencement of the development and following the approval of the Written Scheme of Investigation referred to in condition 22, a staged programme of archaeological evaluation and mitigation shall be carried out by the commissioned archaeological organisation in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of Investigation. The programme of work shall include all processing, research and analysis necessary to produce an accessible and useable archive and a full report for publication which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

24. Single communal satellite dish only on plots 15 –23 (details to be submitted)

Conservation Area Consent

RESOLVED (For 9; Against 1; Abstentions 5)

To grant conservation area consent subject to the following condition:

1. TL4 – Time Limit