A recent proposal by McCarthy and Stone Retirement to build 44 retirement flats on the land known as ‘Lot Three’ at Crab Hill has been rejected by planning officers at the Vale of White Horse District Council. Situated to the north of the A417 and east of the A338, the proposed development included communal facilities and car parking.
The decision primarily centered around the developer’s lack of financial contributions as part of the planning proposal. Strong opposition from the local community also played a critical role, with 24 formal objection letters submitted, including one from Wantage Town Council, objecting to the scheme.
Rajan Sanhotra, a resident of Cherry Croft, voiced his concerns, stating that the proposal did not align with the community’s needs. “The growing population needs more communal amenities – not a retirement home,” he said. Rajan also expressed disappointment over the deviation from the site’s original purpose, adding: “The fact this was originally for a pub but has instead reverted to proposed retirement homes is, quite frankly, a joke.”
Similarly, Jack Tilling, another Cherry Croft resident, argued against the development, suggesting that a public house or commercial property would bring distinct character and potential job opportunities to the estate.
The Wantage and Grove Campaign Group echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the site was originally earmarked for retail or service purposes, such as a pub or restaurant, which could act as a social hub for the community.
The planning officers’ report acknowledged the absence of commercial interest in the site for a pub, concluding that the loss of the plot for public house usage was not significant enough to warrant a rejection solely on those grounds. However, they highlighted that the proposal would place added strain on local resources and infrastructure—such as public transport, healthcare, and waste management—without the support of a Section 106 agreement contributing financially to these areas.
In their conclusion, the planning officers stated, “The proposal would place increased pressure on facilities such as public transport services, healthcare, and waste management due to the absence of a Section 106 agreement related to financial contributions towards these. In the light of these considerations, the lack of financial contributions would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Therefore, planning permission should be refused.”
For more updates on local planning and community developments, consider exploring our business directory for related services or submit an event listing to engage with the community. If you would like to contribute to shaping the local landscape, why not create a free business profile?
