Agenda item

Councillor Jenny Hannaby and John Morgan had each declared a personal interest in this item and in accordance with Standing Order 33 they remained in the meeting during its consideration.

The Officers explained the proposal and the further amendments to Block B8, commenting as follows: -

·                    Looking at the terraces there was an intention to increase the number of units to 237 instead of 230.  This was to provide more affordable housing.  The plans of the approved terrace compared to the amended proposal were shown. 

·                    The overall scale of the terrace had been reduced with the ridge line reduced by over 1m. 

·                    The integral car parking was no longer part of the scheme. 

·                    Terrace T3 - The integral garages had been removed and it was now proposed that there would be 11 units.  The design was considered to be an improvement to the original scheme.  The scale was being reduced by 0.7m. 

·                    Terrace T15 – This would be slightly longer to provide 4 units instead of 3.  The Architects Panel believed that the appearance of the scheme was more pleasing.

·                    Regarding car parking it was noted that 6 of the 7 units in terrace T1 were being provided with 1.5 spaces per unit and Members were asked to refer to Appendix 5.  It was noted that terrace T1 would be made up of 7 social rated units.  The evidence in this regard came from the Census Data for the Charlton Ward which had shown that rented accommodation generated a lower level of car ownership.  On this basis the applicant was looking to provide less car parking.  Members were asked to note that it would be difficult to provide further car parking in this area without impacting on the listed buildings.   It was noted that the CountyEngineer had raised no objection.  It was emphasised that this applied to only 6 of 230 units and as this was a town centre site the Committee should not look for maximum provision on this site.

·                    In respect of Blocks B3 and B2 there had been a change of orientation and of the under-parking croft.

·                    Block B8 – The footprint remained the same.  There was a relocation of the centralised bin area which freed up some room. 

·                    B8 was all affordable housing.  The Section 106 agreement would be amended to include all the proposed changes to the location and size of the affordable housing units.  There would be a loss of one car parking space with visitor parking being reduced from 13 spaces to 12.

·                    There was a change to the first floor plan, in that in the original plan there had been a lean-to element over a car parking space. The building would be pulled back in line with the ground floor.

·                    Terrace T4 was to be rented units, but these were being substituted into T1.

Further to the report the Officers commented that most of the buildings on site had now been demolished. It was reported that English Heritage had no observations to make other than that the Council should consider the application having regard to the normal policies for listed buildings and Conservation Areas and subject to the involvement of Council’s Conservation Officer.

It was also reported that the Architects Panel had raised a query regarding the mix of materials on the site.  It was commented that there was to be less tile hanging because of the removal of gables in Terraces T1 and T3.  It was reported that the Officers were content with the mix of materials on the site, it being noted that these would be presented to the Committee for approval at a later stage.

Further to the report there had been one letter of objection raising concern regarding the lack of car parking and reference was made to other developments in Wantage such as at Newbury Street, suggesting that these might cause knock on problems in terms of parking.

It was noted that comments were awaited from Wantage Town Council on the amendments to Block 8. The Officers commented that it was expected that the Town Council would raise similar objections as before, given that there would be a loss of one car parking space.

It was reported that the consultation period on the amended plans had not expired and therefore the Committee was asked to delegate authority to the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) to approve the application following the expiry of the consultation period and subject to no new issues of concern having been raised.  It was emphasised that it was anticipated that the Town Council would object to the proposal on the same grounds previously raised and that the Committee was being asked to consider those issues now.  It was clarified that if the Town Council raised new reasons for objecting, then the application would be need to be presented to the Committee again for further discussion.

It was noted that the previous permission had a condition attached to it requiring the provision of gates to the undercroft car parking spaces in Block B8.  It was considered that this would be an attractive feature and therefore the Committee was asked to agree that a similar condition be added to this permission, if the Committee was minded to approve the application. 

One of the local Members questioned whether the total affordable housing was in excess of 70 units and that it was thought that the applicant wished to provide more.  The Officers responded that the scheme was compliant with the policy in respect of the provision of affordable housing, in that there was to be in excess of 50% affordable housing proposed.  However, the exact amount which could be provided on the site was a private matter between the applicant and the housing association.  It was noted that there was no upper limit to the level of affordable housing which could be provided.

The same local Member raised concerns at the proposal in terms of the reduced level of car parking. He commented that parking was a major issue in this part of the town.  He considered that if the level was reduced in respect of the provision associated with the affordable housing, this would impact on the whole development.  Finally, he disagreed with the view that these residents would have less cars, commenting that most households now had two vehicles.

One Member disagreed with this comment advising that it was not correct to assume that all these households would have two cars. 

Another local Member reported that this development was a major concern to the people of Wantage and to the Town Council.  She considered that the units were being packed into this site and she questioned the appropriateness of using census data to assess parking requirements.  She expressed concern that a parking space was being lost, commenting that in her view parking on this site was going to be problematical.  Furthermore, she expressed concern regarding the affordable housing and whilst recognising the need for this, she was concerned that a ghetto area might result on this site.

The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to Appendix 5 of the report which explained the justification for a reduction in the level of parking.  He stated that the Committee should not refuse this application on parking grounds when Members had before them information setting out a justification for the proposal.

One Member drew attention to the fact that the information was based on 2001 data.  He commented that the figures were dated and that there had been changes in car membership over the last seven years.  He commented that he recollected that car ownership had increased by about 20%, which he considered was a relevant factor and that this needed to be reflected now.  He commented that he did not have any objections to the changes to the buildings, but he had some anxiety about the car parking provision and that the Committee needed to be sure that adequate parking was being proposed.  Furthermore, he expressed concern regarding the possibility of receiving more amendments to the scheme.  He highlighted that this was an important town centre location.  He drew Members’ attention to the report commenting that the dissipation of garage car parking was referred to, but he advised that he did not understand what impact this would have on this very well designed scheme.  He asked the Committee to be cautious and to be mindful not to lower expectations of quality.  Finally, he commented that he considered that open car parking could alter the character and quality of the scheme.

The Officers reported that as part of its work on the Local Development Framework the Council had undertaken its own travel survey of new houses in the Vale built since 2001.  This had indicated that 10 % of households in new dwellings in the District had no car at all.

One Member expressed concern regarding the amendments presented commenting that she was concerned there would be more changes.  She considered that this was a site which should be closely monitored and she asked if the local Members could be consulted by the Deputy Director when exercising his delegation to approve the application, if this was what the Committee decided.

One Member referred to the Council’s data, noting that the demand seemed to be for two cars.  The Officers responded that there would be parking spaces elsewhere and that the figures had shown that not all households would need a parking space.  It was reported that across the scheme in its totality there would be spaces available and that over the whole scheme there should be some flexibility for car parking.

One Member commented that the population density had not changed much and he questioned how the 1.5 car parking spaces per household would be allocated.

The Officers responded that spaces would be allocated within the development.  It was explained that spaces were to be numbered and that in respect of Terrace T12, there would be 1 space per dwelling and the other spaces would be shared within the development.

One Member expressed concern regarding the use of 2001 data.  He considered that trends might show that 1.5 parking spaces was adequate but he was concerned regarding the need in future years which was not possible to determine.  He commented that there was 20% growth per household and that beyond this it was not possible to speculate any further.  He noted the concerns of local Members that the need for parking was getting to a point which was unmanageable.

One Member suggested that information about car ownership should be sought from registered social landlords, it being noted that they collected car ownership details from their tenants themselves. 

One of the local Members commented that it was disappointing that the views of the Town Council on the amendments had yet to be received.  The Officers clarified that the consultation period had not yet expired and that any comments received by the Town Council would be considered and that if new issues were raised the application would be referred back to the Committee for further discussion.

One Member referred to the statement on the justification of parking provision for three bedroom shared ownership units commented that in 2001 the typical level of car ownership was one per household.  He commented that 1.5 spaces was proposed for this development and therefore even factoring in a 20% increase on 2001 figures, the level being proposed would be sufficient.  Furthermore, he commented that car ownership might reduce.

One Member commented that it was inappropriate to compare the 2001 data with the latest information as the respondents which provided the information were completely different.

By 8 votes to 7 it was

RESOLVED

that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and/or Vice-Chair and Oppositions Spokesman of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application WAN/2186/17 subject to: -

(1)               the expiry of the consultation period on the amended plans and no new points of objection having been received;

(2)               the completion of a variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement;

(3)               the conditions set out in the report; and

(4)               an additional condition requiring the provision of metal gates to the parking spaces on block B8.