Agenda item

P23/V0134/O - Land at Crab Hill, Land north of A417 and east of A338, Wantage, OX12 7GQ

Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which is capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way.

Minutes:

Councillor Jenny Hannaby declared a non-registerable interest in this item as she was local ward member. She stood down from the committee during the consideration of this application and did not participate in the debate or vote.

The committee considered planning application P23/V0134/O for Outline application for a phased development for up to 669 residential units and Neighbourhood Centre (Use Class E and Sui Generis) with associated infrastructure and open space which was capable of coming forward in distinct and separate phases in a severable way at Land at Crab Hill, land north of A417 and east of A338 Wantage, OX12 7GQ.

Consultations, representations, policy and guidance, and the site’s planning history were detailed in the officer’s report, which formed part of the agenda pack for the meeting.

 

The planning officer introduced the report and highlighted that the application related to an allocated strategic site in the Vale of White Horse district Local Plan 2031. Outline planning permission had been granted in 2015 for 1,500 dwellings and there had been three amendments to that application since. He highlighted that the most recent consent for the site was granted in January 2022. The planning officer informed the committee that there were still 635 dwellings yet to be submitted under a reserved matters application and that under the original outline consent these needed to be submitted by 13 July 2023. The applicant had indicated that this was not feasible. The planning officer highlighted that the application before the committee sought a new consent for the remaining 635 dwellings along with the remaining non-residential development. The applicant was also looking to optimise the site and sought approval of an additional 34 dwellings under this application taking the total number of dwellings applied for under this application up to 669 dwellings.

 

The planning officer informed the committee that the 635 dwellings, which had already been granted consent, would be delivered to the housing mix in accordance with the existing permission. The additional 34 dwellings applied for would be delivered in accordance with the adopted development plan. The planning officer confirmed that the density plan was as per the original scheme.

 

The planning officer informed the committee that the principle of development was established through the allocation of the site and the extant permission. He confirmed there had been no material changes in planning policy since the original permission. The planning officer informed the committee that the uplift in the number of proposed dwellings was acceptable for the reasons set out in the officer’s report and that the affordable housing team were in agreement with the proposal. He noted that the application was recommended for approval subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure existing contributions to be paid and additional contributions for the additional dwellings applied for.

 

Councillor Erik Johnson spoke on behalf of Wantage Town Council, objecting to the application.

 

Dinny Shaw, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

 

Councillor Jenny Hannaby, a local ward councillor, spoke objecting to the application.

 

The committee enquired as to why some of the additional 34 units would not be delivered on top of the commercial space as had been discussed at the residents’ group. The planning officer confirmed that this was due to a lack of market interest in the units being delivered with residential units on top. He confirmed officers felt that the additional units could be accommodated within the remaining residential parcels to be delivered.

 

The committee asked for confirmation that the original red line of the application’s site boundary, had not changed from the original outline permission. The planning officer advised that the red line for the application before the committee was smaller than that for the outline permission granted in 2015 but that there had been no expansion to the red line in the application before the committee. The committee went on to ask as to how the additional units could therefore be accommodated if there had been no expansion to the red line site area. The planning officer confirmed that earlier phases of the development had taken more units and therefore the overall quality of the site was not impacted.

 

The committee referred to point 5.6 of the officer’s report noting that the required affordable housing for the 635 units was below current requirements and that the current affordable housing mix had only been applied to the additional 34 units. The committee enquired as to whether the applicant had ever been asked if they would increase the number of affordable units on the whole scheme. The planning officer confirmed that this had been the subject of negotiation with the affordable housing team. He highlighted that the original 635 units had applied 32 per cent affordable housing due to viability issues when permission was granted but that through negotiation a higher percentage of rental units had been achieved. The planning officer confirmed that there were 231 affordable units still to be delivered in relation to the 635 units and that an additional 12 had been secured in relation to the additional 34 units. Of those 12, seven were rented, two shared ownership and three were first homes. This brought the total affordable units to be delivered across the scheme before the committee to 243 units. The planning officer went on to highlight that if the requirement of 35 per cent affordable units had been applied to the 669 residential units before the committee in isolation that would only have delivered 235 units, fewer units than had been secured in the original application.

 

The committee noted that the concerns of the town council with regard to S106 contributions had been covered in the officer’s report. They were of the view that the proposal was of a high quality and that all the questions which the committee had raised had been answered satisfactorily.

 

A motion, moved and seconded, to approve the application was carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED: to approve planning application P23/V0134/O, subject to the following conditions and completed legal agreement securing affordable housing provision and financial contributions:

 

1.    Reserved Matters to be approved

2.    Reserved Matters time limit for submission

3.    Time limit for implementation

4.    Approved plans

5.    Masterplan

6.    Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP)

7.    Updated Housing Delivery Document with each Reserved Matters

8.    Energy Strategy with each Reserved Matters

9.    Energy efficiency 10% above current building regulations

10.Lighting details with each Reserved Matters

11.CEMP details with each Reserved Matters

12.LEMP details with each Reserved Matters

13.No more than 669 dwellings

14.Environmental Statement

15.Market housing mix

16.Accessible dwellings

17.Development brief compliance

18.Site design guide compliance

19.Phasing plan compliance

20.Construction hours

21.Landscaping detail to be submitted

22.Landscape management plan

23.Landscape replacement

24.Tree protection

25.Woodland management

26.Noise impact assessment

27.Noise mitigation

28.Noise attenuation – neighbourhood centre

29.Hours of operation detail for commercial uses

30.Archaeology

31.Contamination

32.Surface water drainage

33.SUDs compliance report

34.Foul water strategy

35.Foul drainage details

36.Refuse / recycling provision prior to occupation

37.Boundary treatment installed prior to occupation

38.Roads and footways prior to occupation

39.Access and parking spaces prior to occupation

40.Final unit within a development parcel not to be occupied until all

           connecting roads and paths are complete

41.Materials

42.Cycle parking

43.Gates onto highway

44.Broadband provision in accordance with approved strategy

45.Withdrawal of PD rights for satellite dishes on apartment blocks

46.Community Employment Plan

47.Superseded development

 

Informative

 

1.     Rights of way

2.     Rights of way

3.     Planning Obligation

 

Supporting documents:

 

Vale of White Horse District Council