Agenda item

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34, she remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Committee noted an amendment to the report in that planning permission for 44 apartments for the elderly had been refused in March 2005.

Further to the report, the Committee was advised that the County Engineer had raised no objection to the applications.  It was explained that as the site had an existing commercial use the proposed use would not result in a net increase in traffic when compared with full use of the site for commercial purposes.  It was noted that there would be junction improvements, signing, kerbing, demarcation and improved visibility.  Furthermore, the applicant had agreed to provide a crossing from the site across Mill Street to meet the adjacent footpath.  Therefore, subject to conditions, including a financial contribution of £10,000 towards traffic improvements, the County Engineer had raised no objection. 

The Committee was advised of an additional amendment to the report in that the County Developer Funding Officer had requested a contribution of £9,401 towards library, waste management and social health care facilities together with the provision of the required number of fire hydrants.

Members were informed that comments were still awaited on an ecological report, it being noted that the County Ecologist had not objected to the applications but had stated that there might be bats on the site and crayfish associated with the Letcombe Brook.

The Committee was advised that the Environment Agency’s holding objection had now been withdrawn

With reference to affordable housing, it was further noted that the comments from the Housing Officer had yet to be received.  It was explained that the provision of affordable housing would be based on a development density of 50 dwellings per hectare, with 7 units to be provided although exact details had yet to be agreed.  It was therefore suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve application WAN/7226/3 a condition should be added to address the need for affordable housing.   Furthermore, it was suggested that additional conditions should be added to any permission to address and control external lighting; to require revised fenestration on the southwest elevation; and control the design and provision of the bin store; battery car shelter; water boosting pump house; sub station and treatment of contaminated land.

Councillor Andrew Crawford speaking on behalf of the Town Council made a statement objecting to the applications raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He specifically commented on Mill Street raising concerns regarding pedestrian safety and the lack of a pavement.  He commented that a pedestrian crossing would be welcomed but that it should be in place before the new dwellings were occupied and that this should be a requirement covered by a condition.  He asked the Committee to be mindful of the suitability of any footpaths for use by the elderly and mobility scooters. He referred to the number of dwellings proposed commenting that this development was the third of its type for the Town in recent months.  He suggested that this development was large for Wantage and he expressed concern regarding impact on infrastructure.  He referred to the financial contributions sought, highlighting that there would be costs to both the Town and District Councils as a result of this development and that some funding to offset these would be welcomed.

Mr Montgomery, the applicant made a statement in support of the applications advising that there had been a redesign of the scheme to address the concerns raised and the comments of the Letcombe Brook Trust.  A flood risk assessment had been carried out and the size of the proposal had been subsequently reduced.  In terms of the adverse impact on the residents of Priory Orchard it was explained that in the applicant’s view this would be less than that which would be caused by the extant commercial use.

Mr Cobham representing owners of properties in the Conservation Area referred to his experience of siting large structures in Conservation Areas and Designated Landscapes.  He commented that there had been various meetings to discuss the form and design of the main building and detailing had been amended.  He suggested that the development would integrate well with the land uses in the area.  He reported that in design terms the proposal was an improvement on the derelict buildings on the site.  Finally, he reported that he as a land owner and the Trustees of the Betjeman Park commended the design.

One of the local Members commented that the design was improved.  However, he had concerns regarding traffic along Mill Street and the safety and ability of elderly people to cross the road.  He expressed concern that residents would attempt to cross Mill Street at the access point and that the pedestrian crossing offered should be secured by condition.  Furthermore, he was concerned that there was no pedestrian way within the development.  However, in terms of material planning considerations he could see no reason to refuse the applications.

Another local Member commented that she did not believe that this was an appropriate site for accommodation for the elderly.  She reported that due to the levels of the land, residents would need to walk up slopes and the traffic along Mill Street was dangerous.  She referred to accidents along the narrow stretch of road.  She commented that she had had sight of the results of the survey required by the County Ecologist commenting that crayfish were present in the Brook.  She highlighted the untidy and unkempt state of the footpath along the side of the Brook and questioned whether the path could be upgraded and treated sympathetically as part of this proposal.  She suggested that should the Committee be minded to approve the application further conditions should be added to address the resurfacing of the footpath (notwithstanding what was shown on the plans), a requirement to provide a new bridge and the protection of the crayfish.

Other Members spoke in support of the applications agreeing that a pedestrian crossing should be provided prior to the occupation of the dwellings.  In response to comments made by one of the public speakers, it was commented that it was the responsibility of the relevant authorities to make a case for planning gain.  It was suggested that a panel of materials should be erected on site and that the applicant should be asked to submit design details of the small buildings.  Furthermore, it was suggested that the dormers on the southwest elevation should be reconsidered and that the ridge features on the building to be converted at the frontage of the site should be retained as they were interesting features.

One Member spoke against the applications raising concerns regarding traffic. He suggested that the speed of traffic was not the main consideration but the ability of vehicles to manoeuvre.   He agreed that there should be a pelican or light controlled crossing.  Finally, he referred to the comments of the Crime Prevention Design Advisor raising concerns regarding vandalism and the need to add conditions to address the comments made. 

Specific reference was made to the Crime Prevention Design Advisor’s comments.  It was agreed that the suggested wording in the recommendation in terms of securing contributions should be amended to reflect the Advisor’s sentiments, it being noted that it was not within the Council’s control to require the applicant to achieve the Secured by Design Award.  However, it was within the Housing Assoication’s control to require that affordable housing should achieve the Design Award.  In response to a comment made it was reiterated that advice from the Housing Officer on affordable housing was still awaited.

Consideration was given to railings, plinths and boundary treatment and it was suggested that the Crime Prevention Design Advisor’s comments in this regard should be considered further by the Officers.

One Member referred to access questioning whether consideration had been given to access for mobility scooters, particularly in terms of dropped kerbs.  He emphasised that it was important that the pedestrian crossing was suitable for scooter and that there was onward access to the Town centre.  It was noted that the County Engineer had made reference to dropped kerbs and tactile paving to aid safe crossing. The Officers commented that it would be reasonable to impose conditions regarding enhanced access, a pelican crossing and dropped kerbs if necessary. The Officers clarified that it was the responsibility of the County Council to specify the type of crossing to be provided.  However, given the site’s urban location a pelican crossing might be acceptable.  The Committee considered that the County Council should be urged to provide a pelican crossing.

One Member further suggested that there should be lighting at the access / pedestrian crossing, which the Committee supported.

One Member questioned whether specific consideration had been given to drainage and flooding in view of the levels of the site and its proximity to the Letcombe Brook.  The Officers responded that the Environment Agency had recommended a number of conditions including a flood risk assessment; a surface water drainage scheme; a foul water drainage scheme; treatment of contaminated land and landscaping. 

By 12 votes to 1, with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee be delegated authority to approve applications WAN/7226/3 and WAN/7226/4-CA subject to the following: -

(1)        no objections being raised by the CountyArchaeologist;

(2)        securing the contributions required by the County Developer Funding Officer and the County Engineer towards local facilities and public transport;

(3)        the completion of an ecological survey identifying protected species on the site and including, where required, a scheme of mitigation to the satisfaction of the County Ecological Officer;

(4)        conditions to include materials (with a sample panel being erected on site for Members perusal); detailing; boundary treatment; drainage; slab levels; occupancy restriction; affordable housing provision; landscaping; external lighting; bridge details; surface treatment of the footpath, revised fenestration on the southwest elevation; details of the bin store, battery car shelter, water boosting pump house and sub station and treatment of contaminated land,

(5)        an enhanced access; improvements to the pedestrian access from the site to the Town Centre including an appropriate safe crossing on Mill Street, all to be provided before occupation of the new dwellings;

(6)        the submission of design details of the small buildings on the site;

(7)        the retention of the ridge features on the building to be converted at the frontage of the site,

(8)        conditions recommended by the Environment Agency;

(9)        conditions recommended by the County Engineer; and

(10)      conditions recommended by the Crime Prevention Design Officer as appropriate.