Agenda item

(CouncillorJenny Hannaby declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 she remained in the meeting during its consideration.) 

The Committee was advised that:

• the development was a departure from the development plan
• it was class C2 and therefore there was no requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the scheme
• the Letcombe Brook Project Officer had raised several issues but these had since been resolved
• the CountyEcologist and English Heritage were happy with the recommended conditions relating to ecological and archaeological issues
• negotiations on the Section 106 agreement had resulted in the applicants agreeing to provide all the items set out in the report with the exception of £75,000 contribution to the Wantage Independent Advice Centre
• an additional £40,000 had been requested by the County Council towards bus services if the applicants' minibus scheme did not come to fruition
• the applicants had agreed to pay the Parish Council £10,000 for the provision of additional burial ground
• the applicants had also agreed to pay the Parish Council an additional £25,000 for the construction of a new tennis court
• the paddock area on the eastern edge of the site was to be the subject of a covenant to protect it from development
• negotiations between the Parish Council and the applicants were believed to have overcome some of the objections
• a further ten letters of support had been received for the application
• a further four letters of objection had been received asking for a better balance of housing which should make provision for younger people
• two additional conditions were suggested:

(i)         to control external lighting

(ii)        to control the number of units on the site, limited to no more than indicated in the outline application unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority

·         condition 21 should be amended to read "Notwithstanding the submitted plans, there should be no…"

·         the recommendation (ii) in the report had been amended to delegate authority to approve the Conservation Area consent

·         an informative should be attached to the permission stating that, when submitting the detailed application, the applicants should have regard to the scale and elevational treatment of the scheme as shown in the outline application as this had been influential in the Council's consideration of the application

Maurice Ginniff made a statement on behalf of the Parish Council.  He commented that Letcombe Regis was a very small village with no amenities.  The Parish Council had struggled with the problem of the large brownfield site at Letcombe Laboratory for many years, trying to ensure it was developed in harmony with the village setting.  The Local Plan Inspector's decision to allocate 100 dwellings on this site  meant the Parish Council had a distressing choice of 100 houses or a care village, both meaning a 50% increase in the population.  Meetings between the managing director of the care village and the Parish Council had resulted in an application that the Parish could now support. 

Mr Rowley, the applicant's agent, spoke in favour of the application, promoting the care village as the best solution for this site.  It brought about a reduction in the overall built up area and hard standing, it would result in less traffic, more green areas and a mini bus service for residents and staff.  The design had met with approval and there would be on-going management of the ecology, and a shop, café and restaurant open to all, villagers included.  With the Section 106 contributions he believed that the proposal would bring community benefits and was an excellent compromise for the site. 

The local Member queried why there had been no Section 106 contribution towards the District Council's functions, such as recycling facilities.  He asked that the bund or berm at the site was protected from development and that the number of close care units was restricted to 52, not 72.  He expressed concern at the potential for future development in the north-west corner of the site. 

The Committee supported the development of the site as shown in the outline application.  Members supported the addition of an informative to ensure the reserved matters application followed the scale and elevational treatment of the outline application.  This was considered to be less harmful than the impact 100 dwellings might have on the village.  Members also supported the local Members' suggestion that the development should include recycling facilities.  It was noted that the Section 106 agreement was very close to completion.  Condition (iii) in the report proposed that the agreement had to be signed by Thursday 6 July 2006 or permission would be refused.  Some Members expressed concern at this tight deadline, believing that it was more important to allow further time for the agreement to be completed to achieve the best for the development.  Some concern was also expressed at the amount of car parking being sought at the site.  It was felt this was inadequate to deal with the demand from staff and visitors, whose numbers could escalate at weekends.  There might be an adverse impact of the surrounding village streets if further parking was not provided. 

RESOLVED

(a)        that authority to approve application LRE/957/65-X be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to the conditions set out in the report and subject to the following:  (by 15 votes to nil)

(1)               condition 20 being amended to specify that the key worker units are to be occupied by care village staff and no other occupants;

(2)               condition 21 being amended to read "Notwithstanding the submitted plans, there should be no…";

(3)               further conditions to regulate external lighting, limit the number of units on the site to no more than indicated in the outline application unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority, and to secure the provision of adequate recycling facilities; and

(4)               an informative being added stating that, when submitting the detailed application, the applicants must have regard to the scale and elevational treatment of the scheme as shown in the outline application;

(b)        that authority to approve application LRE/957/66-CA be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, subject to the conditions set out in the report (by 14 votes to 1); and

(c)        that in the event that the Section 106 agreement is not completed by 6 July 2006, the planning application be delegated to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee, for refusal on the grounds that the development has not secured the necessary measures required to mitigate the impact of the proposed development (by 9 votes to 5 with 1 abstention).