Agenda item

Part demolition, redevelopment and change of use of the Portcullis Club building to provide 15 residential units comprising 6 no two bedroom houses, 3 no two bedroom flat and 6 no one bedroom flats.

Elaine Hornsby, one of the local ward councillors, stepped down from the committee and took no part in the debate or voting for this item.

The committee considered application P16/S4208/FUL for the part demolition, redevelopment and change of use of the Portcullis Club building to provide 15 residential units comprising 6 no two bedroom houses, 3 no two bedroom flat and 6 no one bedroom flats at Wallingford Portcullis Social Club, 28 Goldsmiths Lane, Wallingford.

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 this meeting.

Adrian Lloyd, a representative of Wallingford Town Council, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The proposal was contrary to a number of South Oxfordshire Local Plan policies and National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs;

·         It was an overdevelopment of the site;

·         The development would generate traffic and parking problems; and

·         The proposed condition requiring obscure glazing to windows on the Goldsmiths Lane frontage would be unenforceable.

Charles Abernethy, a local resident, spoke objecting to the application. His concerns included the following:

·         The number of units proposed for the site constituted overdevelopment;

·         Access to the site from Goldsmiths Lane was narrow and so the development would exacerbate current highway and pedestrian safety issues;

·         The development would exacerbate current parking problems in the locality; and

·         Construction work could damage nearby 18^th century buildings.

John Carroll, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support of the application;

·         This was a car-free development in a highly sustainable location;

·         It was proposed to insert a virtual footway and a gully on the western side of Goldsmiths Lane to improve the pedestrian access and drainage; and

·         The highways authority had no objections to the amended proposal, subject to conditions.

Elaine Hornsby and Imran Lokhon, the local ward councillors, spoke objecting to the application. Their concerns included the following:

·         The proposal would exacerbate existing parking problems. Nearby car parks were already at capacity and there was no local civil parking enforcement.

·         The expectation that the occupants of the proposed residential units would not drive was unrealistic;

·         The access to the site from Goldsmiths Lane was very narrow and constituted a danger to road users and pedestrians. A virtual footway would not improve pedestrian safety; and

·         There was no affordable housing provision.

The committee considered the application, with advice from officers where appropriate. The planning officer reported that the applicant had submitted information demonstrating that the scheme proposed was only just viable and would no longer be viable if any affordable housing was provided. She also confirmed that this information had not been subjected to independent evaluation.

The committee did not agree that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

Contrary to the officer recommendation, a motion moved and seconded to refuse planning permission was declared carried on being put to the vote.

RESOLVED: to refuse planning permission for application P16/S4208/FUL for the following reasons:

1.     Having regard to the density of development and the location of the site (where vehicular and pedestrian access is limited by the access into the site and the limited width and lack of pavement on Goldsmiths lane), the proposal would represent an overdevelopment of the site that would increase pedestrian and vehicular activity and would be harmful to the safety and convenience of users of the public highway. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy CSWAL1 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and saved Policies G2, D2, H4, T1 and T2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011.

2.     The proposal would fail to provide affordable housing to meet the needs of the District contrary to Policy CSH3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy and wider guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.