Agenda item

Further to the report the Officers clarified that the County Highway Authority had objected to the proposal due to the impact on the highway network contrary to Policy T8 of the Structure Plan. 

The Officers drew the Committee’s attention to the report which set out why the proposal was considered contrary to planning policy and hence should be refused.

Mr T Gashe made a statement objecting to the application raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report.  He particularly commented that the proposal was contrary to planning policy and whilst it might be that there was a need for employment in the Wantage and Grove area, this was not proven.  He reported that there was an Employment Land Review which should indicate the amount, quality and location of employment land required in the District and that any proposal should await the outcome of this.  He reported that PPS3 required the authority to maintain a register of housing land which was deliverable at all times, but there was no such requirement for employment land.  He commented that it the Review determined that there was a need for land then there should be a review of the whole of the Wantage and Grove area.

Mr M Dobson, the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 5.4 of the report suggesting that the site was not an unsustainable location. He explained that Grove was one of the locations identified to accommodate substantially more development and as such there was a need to provide about 3000 jobs.  He stated that with new housing, inevitably there would need to be more local employment and that this balance was addressed in this proposal.  He referred to the Inspector’s report and commented that there was support from the parish Council because of the recognised need.  He noted that it had been stated that there was a need for longer term development sites and that the Grove TechnologyPark could meet this.  However, he had concern regarding this.  He noted the comments of the Environment Agency but disagreed with its conclusions.  Finally, he commented that the proposal would increase sustainability and not lessen it.

One of the Local Members whilst noting the comments of the Parish Council expressed her reservations at the proposal and expressed concern regarding the loss of open land in a location outside of the development boundary.

One Member spoke in support of the application agreeing that this was a sustainable location and that there was a need for employment to match the extra housing that was coming.

Other Members spoke against the application noting that proposals should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan and that this application was clearly contrary to policy.  Furthermore, Members agreed that it was essential to know the outcome of the Employment Land Review and to develop a strategy which reflected the findings of that.

By 14 votes to nil with 1 abstention it was

RESOLVED

that application GRO/20495-X be refused for the reasons set out in the report.