Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 November 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 November 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

It was noted that Roger Marshallsay’s name had been misspelt in one instance.

To receive any declaration of interest

Councillor David Cornish declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in Item 49 Application 236143 206 Nine Mile Ride, Finchampstead, on the grounds that he knew one of the speakers who would be speaking against the application.  He indicated that he would withdraw from the meeting for this item, and that Councillor Mickleburgh would chair this item.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no items to be withdrawn or deferred.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

(Councillor Cornish left the meeting for this item, which was chaired by Councillor Mickleburgh)

Proposal: Full application for the erection of a detached dwelling and outbuilding following demolition of the existing property

Applicant: Mr C Lucanu

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 13 to 52.

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

·       An additional representation from 11 Avery Close.

·       Clarification regarding the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan.

·       A plan demonstrating the 45-degree test for loss of light.

All Members excepting Councillors Cornish and Skuse had attended a site visit.

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He referred to the validity and status of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan and commented that it could be seen as the most uptodate planning policy for the area.  He commented that he could not find reference in the report to the use of the Neighbourhood Development Plan by the Officer in making their recommendation, despite its specific policy around three storey buildings.   Finchampstead Parish Council had made reference to the Plan in their submission and had indicated that the application was contrary to elements of it.  Roger Marshallsay felt that due process had not been applied and that the application should be refused.

Pauline Grainger, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She felt that a building of the proposed mass, scale and design would be incongruous with the surrounding area of Nine Mile Ride and would not enhance the street scene which consisted of brick built bungalows and chalet bungalows.  She noted that the roof line was approximately 1.79m higher than the existing bungalow, which was higher than the adjacent and other surrounding properties.  Pauline Grainger highlighted the potential loss of shrubs and trees along the common boundary of 204 and 206 Nine Mile Ride, which she believed would be detrimental to the street scene.  The proposed three storey building would sit alongside a neighbouring single storey building and would impact on the light of its eastern elevation.  She stated that despite the 45 degree light test, the height change from one storey to three storeys would take light from the ground floor windows on the east side.  The dormer windows on the rear, because of the increasing height, would lead to a loss of privacy in her garden.  In addition, Pauline Grainger emphasised that the application contravened policies D1 and D2 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan.  She indicated that she was not against redevelopment of the site, but had not anticipated an application of the scale, mass, height, and design, proposed.  She suggested that a significant reduction in the height, replacing dormer windows with roof lights and installing obscure glazing in side elevation windows would make the proposal more acceptable and more in line with CP3.

Councillor Rebecca Margetts, ward member, spoke in objection to the application.  She highlighted that a single storey bungalow would be replaced by a three storey dwelling.  The surrounding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a foodstore with associated access, parking and servicing areas, landscaping, and other associated works to include solar panels to the roof.

Applicant: Aldi Stores Limited.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 53 to 92.

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

·       Further information around flooding, the Environment Agency’s objection and how it was being addressed.

·       Further information regarding the impact on the highway network.

·       Amended condition 25 to include an additional clause around voids underneath the building.

·       Amended conditions 9, 12 and 26 to reflect an amended condition trigger.

·       Amended condition 13.

Members were informed of an additional representation from Councillor Bray, ward member.  In addition, the Committee was notified that should the application be approved, there would be a need to consult the Secretary of State and a period of 21 days from the date the Secretary of State was furnished with the information be allowed for in order to confirm that they did not intend to call in the application under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

All Members had attended a site visit excepting Councillor Skuse.

Alan Williams, agent, spoke in support of the application. He stated that the proposal represented a large investment into the local economy and would deliver beneficial development on an undeveloped site.  There was currently no discount food store in Winnersh, and the proposal would provide an improved retail offer, reducing the need for residents to travel further afield.  He indicated that approximately 40 employment opportunities would be provided, at varying levels, a mixture of full and part time.  Alan Williams stated that the application had addressed all the necessary issues and had been assessed in detail by officers and was considered acceptable.  Planning permission for a new workshop, showroom and car park had been previously granted permission and implemented and was now extant.  He emphasised that there were no sequentially preferable sites. Whilst it was appreciated that parts of the proposed car park were on a flood plain, the applicant had worked with officers to mitigate concerns.  The Council’s Drainage Officer had agreed that the proposal was acceptable and a betterment on the previous extant planning permission.  A Flood Response Plan to outline procedures in the event of flooding, would be prepared.  He acknowledged concerns raised about vehicle access, particularly from Reading Road, and indicated that Aldi had worked with officers, looking at a number of options to establish the best arrangements for access to the site.  Following assessment and modelling, officers had agreed that maintaining existing arrangements was acceptable.  Finally, Alan Williams referred to the programme of community engagement undertaken by Aldi, to which 428 responses had been received.  93% of responses had been supportive of the proposals for an Aldi store in this location.

Haran Singh, resident, representing the Reading and Wokingham Sikh community that had recently acquired Mizuno House on Reading Road, spoke  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 42 residential apartments in three blocks, including on-site parking, shared amenity spaces, enhanced green spaces to support biodiversity and waste storage facilities. Access for neighbouring garages to be provided by 3.7m wide through-route north of the site. Following demolition of the existing buildings.

Applicant: Burlington Developments

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 93 to 190.

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

·       Clarification of various points.

·       Additional clarification regarding financial viability.

·       Information on the height of the proposed building, and how this is approached by the Wokingham Borough Design Guide.

Sarika Odedra, resident, spoke in objection to the application on behalf of Nisa Local, Barkham Road, which would be impacted by the application.  The business owned the land covering the loading bay and the garage next to the site.  The business had previously made comments on how the application would impact its daily running.  Sarika Odedra felt that these had not been sufficiently addressed.  She commented that stock was delivered to the store on a weekly basis.  Currently the delivery lorry was able to load in the loading bay at the rear of the property.  The business had been informed that the vans could stop on Barkham Road.  However, there was only a 30 minute limit for unloading which would be insufficient.  The lorry would also impact traffic flow if loading from Barkham Road.  Sarika Odedra was of the view that the path available to the loading bay at the rear would be inadequate and that parking spaces and the entry to the proposal site would be obstructed.  In addition, the proposed location of the refuse bins would be close to the store which could have hygiene and odour implications.

Grant Leggett, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The application would replace existing poor quality buildings with 42 homes, close to the services and transport links of the town centre.  The scheme would optimise the brownfield site, relieving pressure on the greenfield development.  It would be fully compliant with the Borough Design Guide.  Grant Leggett indicated that the development had been designed to be no higher than Queen’s Gate to the north, and also represented a step down in height to the residential properties to the south and the west.  The application would be set back from neighbouring properties and met separation distances detailed in the Borough Design Guide.  He indicated that the homes would be close to leisure provision, parks and recreation facilities.  Members were informed that there would be 34 parking spaces for the 42 homes, which had been agreed with Highways as an appropriate level of parking for a location so close to the town centre and the train station.  All the family units would have an allocated space.  However, residents would be encouraged to use sustainable transport, and there would be access to a car club and cycle parking and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional approval.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed installation of no. 1,762 Photovoltaic Panels, each panel mounted on no. 4 concrete footings.

Applicant: Hall Hunter Partnership

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 191 to 214.

Councillor Soane questioned who would be responsible for the removal of the panels when they had deteriorated, and if the site would be returned to agricultural use.  Marcus Watts, case officer, indicated that condition 3 stated that once the panels were no longer operational, the applicant or any future landowner, would be responsible for the removal of the panels and the associated development, including the concrete footings.  The site would be returned to agricultural use.  Councillor Shepherd-Dubey suggested that further installation of panels should be encouraged once those detailed in the application were no longer operational.

RESOLVED:  That application 231524 be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in pages 201 to 204.

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed relocation of Workshop T4 (to become Workshop G).

Applicant: Shinfield Studios

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 215 to 246.

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

·       Revised plans which have slightly reduced the floor area of the proposed workshop.

·       Amended resolution A to include the requirement to provide Employment Skills Plan contributions. Administrative clauses to be renumbered accordingly.

·       Additional bullet point for reason for refusal 1.

·       Add in MDD DPD policy TB12 for the reason for refusal.

Councillor Sheperd-Dubey felt that the site would be a good site for apprentices to be based.

RESOLVED:  That application 231561 be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in pages 227 to 234 and S106 Agreement as set out in Appendix A of the report, and as amended in the Supplementary Agenda.