Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 August 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 August 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the correction of a typographical error with regards to one spelling of Councillor Michael Firmager’s name.

At the cessation of the meeting, the Chair proposed a vote of thanks to Callum Wernham, who was leaving the Council after nearly 6 years of service. The Committee thanked Callum for his service to the Council, and specifically his clerking of the Planning Committee for over 5 years. The Committee wished Callum well in his future endeavours.

To receive any declaration of interest.

Alistair Neal declared a personal interest with regards to agenda item 27, application number 231869, on the grounds that he was a member of the Earley Town Council Planning Committee. Alistair added that he was not present at the meeting where this application was discussed, and came to the meeting with an open mind and would listen to and consider all representations prior to forming a judgement.

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a personal interest with regards to agenda item 27, application number 231869, on the grounds that he was the Chair of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had responsibility for scrutinising the delivery of Children’s Services in the Borough. Andrew added that he came to the meeting with an open mind and would listen to and consider all representations prior to forming a judgement.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of building to educational use, including internal and external alterations (part retrospective).

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 32.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·     Comments from Earley Town Council, received after the publication of the Committee agenda;

·     Officer commentary with regards to the query from Earley Town Council regarding the absence of a Transport Statement;

·     Officer commentary regarding potential wording for a BREEAM (or equivalent) ‘Excellent’ condition.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that he had reservations with the implications of installation of a gas boiler, however the wording within the Supplementary Planning Agenda regarding potential BREEAM ‘Excellent’ satisfied his concerns.

Michael Firmager queried whether the building would be insulated to an exceptional standard, given that historically the building had lacked such insulation. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, stated that the internal works did include insulation, and there was a Building Control application which was pending a decision. Michael Firmager asked that a copy of the Building Control report be circulated to the Committee once it was finalised. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that it depended if the school was using the Council owned Building Control Service. In addition, accommodation of children was required to meet other certain standards separate from the Planning or Building Control requirements.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether the school contained any asbestos or RAAC. Baldeep Pulahi stated that the school did not have any asbestos or RAAC to her knowledge, however this was a Building Control matter

Alistair Neal noted that this would be the second community facility lost in the locality since 2018, neither of which had any proposals to be replaced. Alistair added that he understood that this was not a Planning matter.

Wayne Smith raised concern that as this was a part retrospective application, it would be very difficult to achieve a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ standard, given that the roof had already been completed. Brian Conlon stated that it may be advisable to defer to officers to confirm if such a condition was able to be achieved given the current wording within the Supplementary Planning Agenda. Brian added that officers could seek a compromise in the event that such a condition was not possible. Brian noted that similar conditions had been applied to other schools which had completed refurbishment of historical parts of the site. Wayne Smith reiterated that it was very easy to achieve such standards when building from scratch, however fulfilling them when retro-fitting was an entirely different matter.

David Cornish proposed that officers be delegated, in conjunction with the Chair, Vice Chair and Wayne Smith, to assess whether a condition requiring BREEAM ‘Excellent’ was able to be achieved given the current wording within the Supplementary Planning Agenda. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

Alistair Neal proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation and delegation of assessment of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the creation of a vehicular access including erection of boundary wall features and gates. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Gareth Jones

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 33 to 52.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Gareth Jones, agent, spoke in support of the application. Gareth stated that the application sought provision of access including a gate and fence, which would provide access to the sub divided site. Gareth added that the wider site remained as agricultural use. Gareth stated that the fallback position would allow the vast majority of the scheme to be built under permitted development. Gareth noted and appreciated the concerns raised by the local Ward Member, however added that the development was of high quality and constructed from brick and timer which was consistent with the character of the area. Gareth added that the fallback position would place no limit on the materials used, whilst a landscaping condition softened the visual appearance of the development and respected the rural setting. Gareth stated that the Highways officer felt that the development was sufficiently setback from the junction and would not impact on the highway or public right of way. Gareth thanked officers for their work and for the Committee report, and asked that the Committee approve this appropriate and considerate development.

Gary Cowan, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Gary stated that the case officer used the word vernacular and suggested that there were several examples of brick walls and gates within the locality. Gary felt that this was misleading as the only other example was situated in advance of a Grade 2 listed building from the 17^th century. Gary noted Wokingham Borough Council’s Statement of Community Involvement consultation document stated that a material consideration was a matter that had to be taken into account when deciding a planning application, which could include previous planning decisions. Gary was of the opinion that approval of this application could therefore be used as a precedent anywhere in the Borough, and any similar application which was refused would be lost at appeal with cost awards made against the Council. Gary felt that this application was not typical of a usual agricultural operation, and noted that the Council’s trees and landscape officer felt that the boundary wall was out of keeping with the character of the area. Gary asked that the application be refused to stop such a damaging precedent being set, thereby protecting the countryside.

Wayne Smith noted that the Committee had been given 3 plans to consider, whilst the photographs indicated that the wall had not been finished. Wayne sought clarity as to how the dimensions had been measured and whether the drawings had been scaled off, and if so, how. Tariq Bailey-Biggs, case officer, stated that the wall had been measured on site whilst the front elevation drawings had been used to confirm that the heights matched.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.