Agenda item

Woodford Way Update

Purpose

This report will provide an update on the Woodford Way project and, engagement with Registered Providers.

Recommendation

That the Overview & Scrutiny Committee resolves:

1. To note the update on the Woodford Way project.

Minutes:

Councillor Geoff Saul, Executive Member for Housing and Social Care, introduced the Woodford Way report and made the following points:

The site, which was currently a car park, had long been allocated for housing in the Local Plan.
The development proposed would deliver housing for local people, particularly secure and affordable homes.
There were currently 2,300 households on the Council’s housing waiting list. There was a particular demand for one and two bed homes.
The site was owned by the Council. The site could therefore deliver 100% homes for social rent housing, without the need to have factored in developer profit.
The scheme was expected to be supported through a combination of national funding and partnership investment.
The work to refine the design of the site was ongoing. The current iteration of the designs had incorporated 55 homes, with a mix of flats and maisonettes, and included under-croft parking. Parking provision was for 84 spaces to be provided on site with separate underground parking for residents.
As part of the project, the Council had reviewed the wider parking provision across Witney. At present there were over 1,600 free public parking spaces. Analysis had shown that Marriotts Walk had remained underused, with 230 spaces typically having been available on average. Work had been undertaken to explore other options for parking for residents and workers.
Pre-application discussions were intended to take place imminently and a planning application was to be submitted for the development in the summer. Public engagement would take place in summer 2026.
The plans were still being refined to strike the balance between the need for parking, housing and those of the wider town. Genuinely affordable housing was a key consideration.

In the discussion that followed the following questions were raised and comments made:

The Committee queried if Thames Valley Police (TVP) had been consulted on the safety of the underground parking aspect of the plan. Officers confirmed that TVP would be a consultee.
The Committee suggested that officers would need to ensure that vans could access the parking provision.
The Committee considered the methodology of the parking survey that had taken place. It was noted that Witney Chamber of Commerce (WCC) had requested ANPR data and the report showed CCTV data. Members sought clarity on the difference. Officers advised that they were considering the WCC request. At present CCTV cameras were not available in all locations and this would be needed to ensure consistent data. Parking provision was being considered in the round, and it was noted that it was beneficial that Witney’s car parks were all central.
The Committee suggested that a trial period that simulated the impact of the changes to parking proposed should take place. It was noted that, as the Council owned the parking site, there was no reason that this trial should be delayed. The trial would allow residents time to get used to the potential changes.
Members recognised that it was important and beneficial that the site was in the Council’s ownership. However, it was suggested that there should be demonstrable community benefit from the scheme. Suggestions from members included high quality housing and community benefits such as a community room. The Executive member noted that these were aspects that were being considered as part of the viability and feasibility investigations. Provision was being explored for key worker housing and making the development as environmentally friendly as possible. The Chair added that he hoped the key workers were provided for included education staff, not only teachers. It was noted that it was important that the homes available for key workers were in the centre of town close to employment sites. Other Members queried if it would be possible to legislate for the housing to be allocated to key workers if the intention was to provide 100% social housing on the site.
The Committee highlighted the difference between “homes for social rent” and “affordable housing” and queried the use of these terms in the report. Some Members suggested incorrect use of the terms could be misleading and, as this was a key element in considering the scheme, suggested that this should be made clearer in the report and press releases.
The Committee queried if consideration had been given to building a higher density of homes given the identified housing need. Officers advised that there had been exploration of different housing density options. However, RPs were nervous of the development being a high-density build, and within the local plan the allocation was only for 50 dwellings on the site. Although this number was not fixed, consideration had to be given to what would fit well with the area and not breach the skyline. The aim was to develop a site that would be sustainable and meet local need, not just to maximise numbers.
Members noted that the EV charging spaces proposed were for the private spaces.
The Committee explored the potential for a funding gap which the Council would have to meet. Officers advised that the Council had corresponded with a number of RPs and Homes England on the project. On completion of the final design, a more detailed assessment would be made, however at present no RP had suggested that they were unhappy with the plans, the level of borrowing and build costs. Officers clarified that references to public subsidy in the report was the Homes England grant which would be essential for all three of the proposed options. Members requested more detail on the total cost and funding options.
Members queried if there were alternative options for a mixed development including market housing should grants not become available. Officers reiterated that the Council continued to work closely with the RPs and Homes England. Homes England were indicating that they were more generous with 100% affordable schemes.
Members clarified the labelling on option 3 plans which officers confirmed was an admin error.
Regarding EV charging points, Members questioned if the 16 bays were time restricted and asked if data was available on their usage at present. Officers advised that this data was available and could be provided.
Members questioned if parking data had been collected in the period when a proportion of the site had been used for a Covid testing site. Officers were not aware of such data but commented that due to the effect of Covid on the ability to shop, any such data may have been misleading.
The data that had been provided in the report in relation to Marriotts Walk was discussed. The report suggested that occupancy was at 62% which had left 224 available spaces on average. It was suggested that the differing stay times between Marriotts Walk and Woodford Way had made this data incomparable. Some Members stated that they felt it was difficult to scrutinise the plans without the required accurate empirical parking data.
Members requested further detail on the development net zero approach. It was noted that the plans showed tree removal which was contrary to this.
Members queried the evidence base that had suggested that displaced parking could be supported elsewhere in the town and the impact on the residents of the streets surrounding the site that may be used by displaced cars. Members noted that this was the responsibility of the Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) however it was hoped that the Council had engaged with OCC on this point already. Officers recognised the potential impact on residents of displaced parking and would explore potential remedies such as permits and would promote active travel. It was also noted that OCC would place requirements on the number of parking spaces allowed per dwelling and the plans had allowed for 10 visitor spaces in addition to these.
Members explored the relationship between the proposed mix of units on the site and the mix of need on the housing waiting list. Some Members questioned if these aligned. It was noted that the plans were only for one and two bedroom properties, and therefore these would not be suitable for families on the waiting list. The Executive Member noted that there was a large need for one and two bedroom homes which this scheme could address.
Members were pleased to note the increased public parking provision in response to public opinion and questioned what other changes were to follow in response to public opinion. Members requested more detail on the public consultation process and questioned how this could be meaningful if the plans were intended to be finalised prior to the consultation taking place. Officers suggested that the timeline for public consultation that had been given was overly ambitious and would be revisited.
Members queried if alternative commercial opportunities had been explored for the site given that it was in a prime town centre location. Officers reminded Members that the plans were at a block stage and had intended to demonstrate what was possible for the site and therefore were not finalised.
The parking data was noted to be from 2022/23 and did not include Christmas Markets or any Saturdays which could impact the given occupancy rate. Officers noted that obtaining occupancy data was a challenge and this was why ANPR requests were being considered. Officers were looking to build on the current data and had also undertaken spot checks to establish worse-case scenarios at peak times.
Members noted that the increased housing in the district would bring additional cars to the town centre which would impact parking need.
Members commented that it was not possible for some traders to park in Marriotts Walk due to height restrictions.
Members made the following specific design points on the plans: for options 1 and 2 there did not seem to be any accessible parking bays in the plans while they were present in option 3; blue badge bays that were provided in option 3 appeared to be the same size as a regular spaces; the pedestrian routes were not clear on the plans; officers needed to ensure residential parking bays were not used by others or rented out; enough space was needed for cars turning and manoeuvring. The Executive Member acknowledged these points, some of which had already been raised with designers, and noted that the plans were indicative at this stage and would go through a proper design evaluation.
Members queried why mixed distribution of housing types had not been considered given the report had acknowledged that clustering, as seen in option 3, could reinforce social division. Members suggested that the design could lead to a social stigma attached to the development and reduced social interaction. It was noted that the community space in option 3 was very small, despite the acknowledgement of the importance of such spaces. The Executive Member disagreed with the potential for this stigma and noted that it was the intention that the block was a statement building and the dwellings would face Woodford Way and Welch Way. It was also explained that the inclusion of maisonettes was intended to mitigate the clustering effect.
The Chair noted that the item, and more detailed plans, was likely to return to the Committee at a future date for further scrutiny.

Following the discussion the Committee made the following recommendations:

That officers bring up to date parking data forward to the Committee, including ANPR data over a representative two-week period, with the next report.
That the Council undertakes a two-week trial partial closure of the number of spaces proposed to be lost at Woodford Way under the proposals to better understand the impact on parking across Witney.
That officers work up an “option 4” design which preserves more car parking at the south of the site.
That a separate full report on displaced parking and the impact on wider area be brought to the Committee.
That additional parent and toddler parking spaces be incorporated into plans for the site.
That the Council updates the timings for parking in the Marriotts Walk multistorey car park to an all-day provision prior to commencement of the development.
That officers bring a further update report to the Committee prior to the planning application for the site.

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Woodford Way Update

Related Pages