Agenda item

Councillor Jim Moley had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 34 he left the meeting during the debate on the matter.

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

The Committee was advised that the plot size was considered acceptable for two dwellings and that the concerns raised were in relation to access to the site. The Officers considered that it was reasonable to require the completion of access works prior to the commencement of other works.

It was reported that in respect of the gate proposed in the Transport Statement, the Officers considered that this was an unreasonable condition to require.  Furthermore, the Officers reported that the condition suggested by the County Engineer in respect of delivery times was unenforceable.

Andrew St George made a statement on behalf of the King Alfred School Governors objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. He particularly referred to concerns regarding highway safety. He confirmed that the entrance to Priory Cottage was across and against the School’s one way system. He commented that there were hundreds of journeys though this site. He asked the Committee to consider the insurance implications of having private land publicly used. He expressed his concern that a child would be injured as a result of this proposal.

Nicholas Young, the Head Teacher of King Alfred’s School made a statement objecting to the application. He disputed that the width of the access way was acceptable without modifications. He considered the width to be hazardous. He informed the Committee that King Alfred’s was a school with three sites and therefore there was a constant flow of people arriving and leaving this site throughout the day. He expressed his belief that the access should be modified in order to ensure safety.

Terry Gashe the applicant’s Agent made a statement in support of the application. He advised the Committee that until 1956 the cottage had had access to the highway.  He reported that the land had been purchased for King Alfred’s School by way of a Compulsory Purchase Order. He confirmed that Priory Cottage had a right of access over the School drive at all times. He advised that there had not been an accident at the School in 23 years, and that the School had recently introduced the one way system. He urged the Committee to understand that the traffic flow at this access point was extremely slow. He stated that there had been a good deal of survey work to address the Schools concerns. He noted that the highway consultant had concluded that there would be minimal additional traffic created by the development, at most 12 trips per day. He confirmed that the applicant was content to comply with a condition requiring speed humps and a condition requiring space for turning emergency service vehicles.

Councillor Jim Moley made a statement objecting to the proposed development. He advised the Committee that the concerns regarding safety were so great that three members of the Trust had attended this Development Control Meeting to express their concerns. He urged the Committee to give consideration to the safety issues.

At this point in the meeting Councillor Jim Moley left the room.

One Member commented that this access point was often discussed at meetings of the Wantage and Grove Advisory Committee. She felt that this was a dangerous road.

Another Member highlighted that there would be twelve additional movements across an access that already accommodated 200 journeys.  He stated that the added movements were insignificant to this development and noted that the County Engineer had no objections.

One Member raised concerns regarding the confusion in terms of the “no entry” sign to the access way and driver from three houses going against the one way system. He considered that this road was dangerous and commented that should the application be approved, the road sign should be moved.

One Member disagreed that the access way was dangerous. He referred the Committee to the Officer’s report, which indicated that the “no entry” sign would be moved back in order to make the access safer. He advised the Committee that the existence of schools did not mean that development surrounding them should be prohibited. He commented that an independent engineer’s report in this case was not appropriate.

One Member commented the suggestions of the County Engineer were not fully shown and that the Committee should have sight of further plans.

It was proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber, seconded by Councillor Jerry Patterson and by 13 votes to nil it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair, Vice-Chair and Opposition Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Members without personal and prejudicial interests, be delegated authority to approve application WAN/19717/1-X subject to the receipt of a satisfactory scheme showing all the requirements under condition 7.