Agenda item

The Committee was asked to consider three applications covering two sites north and south of Ormond Road. A new footpath was proposed along the south eastern edge of the site to provide a safer access for children attending the Primary School. The path would require the transfer of some land from Wantage Town Council to the developers and would result in the loss of three mature Lime trees. The footpath would not be an adopted path but would be maintained by the new development’s management company.

An additional condition was suggested by the Planning Officer to gate off some undercroft parking areas for security purposes. Some internal fireplaces would be retained in the blocks to be refurbished. There had been no response from English Heritage to consultation on the amended plans for Block B1.

At this point in the meeting it was proposed by the Chair and

RESOLVED ( nem com)

that the meeting of the Committee do adjourn for 10 minutes to allow Members an opportunity to view a model of the proposal.

The meeting adjourned at 7.30pm and reconvened at 7.40pm

Further to the report the Officers advised the Committee of some of the issues surrounding this application. It was confirmed that the District Council’s Arboriculture Officer was opposed to the removal of three mature lime trees to accommodate the proposed footpath along the south eastern boundary of the site. She read out a statement from the Arboriculture Officer which advised that the removal of these trees sent out a negative message in respect of the environment and he was of the opinion that the path could run alongside the trees and therefore they could be retained.

It was noted that in line with the Local Plan policy, 40% of the development would be affordable housing, consisting of 71% rental accommodation and 29% shared ownership. The Officers confirmed that the proposed breakdown and location of the affordable housing units were satisfactory and it was added that the affordable housing units would be indistinguishable from the rest of the development, indeed some of the affordable units forming part of the focal buildings on the site.

In respect of the Art, Music and Drama block, the Officers confirmed that 29 letters of objection had been received and Wantage Arts Campaign had lodged a petition with the District Council which had 2500 signatures opposing the loss of the block. It was advised that a letter had recently been received from the Wantage Arts Campaign which requested a section 106 agreement to offer the music and drama block for sale to the group at a reasonable price as it was the Wantage Arts Campaign’s intention to raise the funds to purchase the centre. It argued that only 8 units would be lost as a result of the retention of the block, having minimal impact on the development.

The Officers stated that it was not reasonable to seek to central the sale of the block through the planning process. Furthermore the nature and extent of the use of the arts block has been considered and it was concluded that this was not sufficient to warrant its retention or to seek a financial contribution or contribution in kind from the developer.  It was reported that the use of the block had been on an ad hoc basis and there were alternative venues in close proximity, namely the Wantage Civic Hall, which was currently underused and the proposed venue at Tugwell Fields. The Officers stated that the effect of the retention of the block would be the loss of around 18 units, as there would have to be car parking provision for the centre and therefore the retention would have a significant impact on the development.

In respect of the impact on neighbouring properties, the Officers advised that Torestyn, a bungalow on Post Office Lane currently sat beside a large modern school building, which was due to be demolished as part of the development. The Officers considered that the proposed replacement terrace houses would be more sympathetic, set further back than the current building and with lower eaves. The Officers confirmed that the proposed development would be sympathetic to the neighbouring properties, would enhance the Conservation Area and would incorporate existing design elements into the scheme.

The Officers advised that had letters had been received in support of the proposed footpath, together with a letter from Wantage Arts Campaign and statements from Local Members Councillors Bill Melotti and Julia Reynolds, which were read out.

Councillor Melotti had expressed his support for the footpath for the Primary School. He considered that this path would improve access to the school, which currently is through a congested single entrance at the front of the school onto a narrow yet busy main road into Wantage.

Councillor Julia Reynolds had expressed support for the footpath and a safer route to school for the children of Wantage. She had suggested that a gate be installed at the corner of Post Office Lane and Eagles Close where there was a communal green area in the hope that it would prevent anti-social behaviour by restricting access between the green and the shop.  She had expressed regret that the School had not offered the Music and Drama block to the community, as it was an excellent facility for arts groups in Wantage and Grove. She was concerned that the elderly should have access to venues which were in the town centre and that the Wantage and Grove Health Check had identified a lack of facilities for cultural activities which was why Wantage Town Council had given support to the Wantage Arts Centre Campaign.

Councillor Andrew Crawford made a statement on behalf of Wantage Town Council. He reminded the Committee of the significance of this site. He expressed his disappointment that the applicant had chosen not to consult with the Town Council. He considered that the development amounted to overdevelopment of the area as it was 36% over and above what was necessary to achieve the density recommended in the Local Plan.  He commented that the Town Council had been offered an insufficient contribution towards planning gain for services within the town. He commented that Wantage Civic Hall was not an appropriate alternative for the music and drama block. He made the point that the Officers had attached 61 conditions to the application and questioned whether Members had fully appreciated each one and therefore he urged the Committee to defer any decision on this application pending further consideration of the issues.

Mr Andrew Burford made a statement objecting to the development. He commented that he would like to see a public review of Anglo Saxon archaeological finds in the area prior to planning permission being granted. He advised that he was concerned that there could be finds to be made on this ancient site.

Mr Neil Hamilton made a statement objecting to the development. He expressed concern about the proposals to destroy healthy trees and the effects on the environment. He felt that development would have an adverse effect on the neighbours and the grave yard area.

Mr Ray Bond made a statement objecting to the development. He raised concerns about restriction of light to Post Office Lane which would be caused by the development and how it would make the area feel closed in.

Mr Nigel Thornbay made a statement objecting to the development in support of the retention of the music and drama block. He advised that the arts groups in Wantage were committed to a nomadic existence and this block was exactly what was required. He described the block as a meeting place for a range of arts projects and its retention would be in line with the Arts Development Strategy. He urged the Committee to preserve the music and drama block.

Mr Saunders Davies made a statement in support of the application on behalf of the applicant company. He confirmed that a range of consultations had taken place before the application had been submitted. He advised that he was committed to the immediate installation of the footpath and confirmed that the highways work would commence in the summer holidays to minimise disruption. He made the point that the Governors of the school had made the decision to sell the site to the developer. He considered that the music and drama block was an unsuitable space; there was no stage or equipment and no lift. He believed that the Wantage Civic Hall was the best alternative.

Mr Stone made a statement in support of the footpath and the application. He was in favour of the footpath as a safer route to the school. He asked the Committee to consider changing condition 38 to propose that the ghost lanes should be completed prior to the commencement of works.

One Member disagreed that Wantage Civic Hall was an appropriate alternative to the music and drama block. She considered that this development was taking away community facilities, and commented that use of the block had been restricted as it belonged to a school. She advised that she would like to see Section 106 money to be made available for alternative facilities at the Civic Hall and that any money given in respect of education should be ring fenced for Wantage. She considered that the loss of the Lime trees was a shame; however the safety of children travelling to the school was a priority. She raised concerns over the proposed access arrangements in that this was a busy main road and ghost lanes would add to the traffic problems, and that the location of the proposed play area was not in a position which was overlooked. In response, the Officers confirmed that it was her understanding that education monies would be ring fenced for Wantage. It was commented that Section 106 funding which had been agreed would not be available for alternate arts facilities at the Civic Hall, as it currently operated under capacity. With respect to the position of the play area, Officers confirmed that the Police had raised no objections.

Another Member commented that she would like to see the Music and Drama block retained as it could be used to assist in the integration of new residents.

One Member considered the scheme commendable. He felt that the site was sustainable and in a good location. He considered it was unfortunate that the Lime trees would be lost, however he was convinced that the benefit of having the footpath outweighed the loss. In terms of the points raised by Mr Burford in relation to the archaeological issues, he considered that the current recommendations would ensure that these issues were addressed. He accepted that the Committee could not require the sale of the Music and Drama block to the Wantage Arts Campaign. He questioned how the entrance gates were to be managed. In response the Officers confirmed that this would be covered by an additional condition as proposed for the gates to the undercroft parking areas.

One Member commented that he could see that there were three main contentious issues: the traffic, housing density and the music and drama block.  He advised the Committee that as the County Highway Engineer had not raised any concerns in respect of the traffic, he was satisfied that the proposals were acceptable. He felt that the density of the housing was acceptable and within recommended guidelines. In respect of the music and drama block he was of the opinion that it was not reasonable to require the developer to provide an arts centre. He agreed that the proposed gates should be controlled.

Another Member agreed with the earlier comments that the application was of high quality and that it was sensitive to its neighbours. He questioned whether it would be possible to require a Section 106 agreement to the effect that work on the footpath should be completed before the commencement of development, as suggested by Mr Stone. In response the Officers confirmed that this would not be possible, however reminded the Committee that it was proposed that work on the footpath would commence this summer. It was therefore suggested that an informative should be added to the recommendations to the effect that work should commence as soon as possible.

One Member raised a concern that there was little evidence that the existing tennis courts were regularly used to a significant degree and yet the developer was required to provide replacements. He questioned why this was not the case for the music and drama block. The Officers responded by confirming that there was a difference in Government Policy, in that there were onerous levies on developers of school playing fields.

With respect to parking for the proposed 1 and 2 bed flats it was confirmed that there were 139 spaces (out of a total of 338 spaces), which equated to 1 space per flat. One Member commented that this was not enough, as many families would have 2 cars.  The Officers commented that evidence was emerging from the Oxford Design Partnership suggesting that occupiers of flats often did not own cars. One Member added that therefore the average number of cars was less than one per household.

One Member questioned why there was provision for the change of use of the Chapel building. The Officers confirmed that a particular use had not been specified because there were no definite plans for the use of the building; it was simply included so as to acknowledge that the building could have a commercial use. 

By 11 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

(a)               that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy), in consultation with the Chair and or Vice Chair and of the Development Control Committee to approve application WAN/2186/14, subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report and subject to

(1)      the provision of 10% lifetime homes;

(2)      gates be provided to the undercroft parking to aid overnight security and;

(3)      control of existing and new gates within the development and

an informative that work on the footpath should commence as soon as possible. (Agreed by 11 votes to 3 with 1 abstention)

(b)               that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application WAN/2186/15Ca subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report (agreed by 12 votes to nil with 3 abstentions) and;

(c)                that authority be delegated to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair of the Development Control Committee to approve application WAN/2186/16LB subject to the conditions set out in the Officer’s report. (agreed by 11 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions).