A major scheme for new retirement flats as part of a 1,500-home development in Wantage has been refused by council planners. 

The plan, submitted by McCarthy and Stone Retirement, was for 44 flats on 'Lot three' of land at Crab Hill north of the A417 and east of the A338.

The development would have come with communal facilities and car parking to serve the site which is part of the Crab Hill scheme.

It was refused by Vale of White Horse District Council planning officers over the developer's lack of financial contributions. 

The plans were controversial with 24 letters of objection, including from Wantage Town Council. 

READ MORE: Oxford University elects William Hague as new chancellor

CGI view of proposed communal courtyard. (Image: Vale of White Horse District Council.) Many people were left unhappy because they said the land had been allocated to be used for a new pub. 

Rajan Sanhotra, who lives in Cherry Croft, said: “I wholeheartedly object to this plan as it is not reflective of the needs of the residents.

“The growing population needs more communal amenities - not a retirement home.

“The fact this was originally for a pub and has instead reverted to proposed retirement homes, is quite frankly, a joke.”

Jack Tilling, who also lives in Cherry Croft, added: “I strongly object to these retirement flats beings built. 

“This is in place of a public house or other commercial property which would bring character to the estate, a brilliant meeting place for people of the estate and jobs to the estate. 

“The estate already has one block of retirement flats which currently overshadow a community space, to have two very large buildings will over shadow the meeting space massively and will quite frankly be ugly to have another tall building.”

An objection from the Wantage and Grove Campaign Group said: “In the design strategy for the Crab Hill development this site was allocated for retail or service uses and was supposed to be a pub or restaurant providing a social focus for the community. A care home is of benefit only to the residents of the care home. 

“This is not an acceptable use for this allocation of land.”

In the planning officers' report, it said: “Sufficient evidence has also been provided to show there is no commercial interest in the site for a public house, and as such, the loss of the site for use for a public house is not considered harmful to justify refusal.

“However, in the absence of a Section 106 agreement relating to the provision of financial contributions towards off-site affordable housing, public transport services, primary healthcare, public art, street naming, waste bin provision, household waste and recycling centres, and a BNG monitoring fee, the proposal would place increased pressure on these facilities.

"And it would fail to provide the environmental, social, and recreational services needed to support this development.

“Officers are therefore of the opinion that the lack of financial contributions would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, planning permission should therefore be refused.”

Help support trusted local news 

Sign up for a digital subscription now: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/subscribe/

As a digital subscriber you will get:      

  • Unlimited access to the Oxford Mail website   
  • Advert-light access       
  • Reader rewards       
  • Full access to our app

About the author  

Toby is a senior reporter who has a particular interest in covering planning and local government. 

He joined in September 2024 having been a reporter at the Hampshire Chronicle for three years. 

Toby studied at the University of Brighton and can be found on X through the handle @JournoToby