Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 February 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declaration of interest

Councillor Cornish declared a prejudicial interest as he had contributed to Finchampstead Parish Council Neighbourhood plan, which made reference to this location. 

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

 There were no items to be deferred or withdrawn.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to a legal agreement.

CASE OFFICER: Christopher Howard

Proposal: Full planning permission for the construction of an extension to the Thames Valley Science Park spine road to provide access to a proposed new building for the Natural History Museum, landscaping, surface water attenuation and other associated works. Application is a potential departure from Local Plan.

Applicant: University of Reading

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 68.

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

·         Reasons for lack of Environmental Impact Assessment

·         Added plans for condition 2.

·         Change to condition 7.

Christopher Howard, case officer, explained that he would present item 74 and 75 together as the items were co-dependent.

All members of the committee had attended a site visit except Councillor Smith.

Dave Green, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He told the committee that this application was on a site that was designated as greenfield in the Local Plan and beyond the boundary of the Sustainable Development Location (SDL). He added that this was the third major extension to the science park. He argued that the proposed access was more extensive than needed to access the site and might be designed to provide access to possible development sites beyond. He explained that further sites were not featured in any Council documents. He told Members that he believed the Council were ignoring the Local Plan and the SDL.

Phil Brown, agent, spoke in support of the application. He told the committee that the University of Reading (UoR) and Natural History Museum (NHM) had worked in partnership on this application. He explained that the new access road would provide the infrastructure needed to provide the main NHM building and that this route had been chosen for minimal impact. He added that the access was essential for the economic, social, and environmental benefits of the building. The road had been designed to encourage walking and cycling and there were suitable bus routes. He mentioned that there would be a biodiversity net gain of 20% and that the road would be of high quality. He said that Cutbush Lane East would remain cut off to the site for vehicles. He also mentioned that the development would provide 35 construction jobs  in addition to more local employment, as well as safeguarding highway corridor land. The Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) Highways team had deemed this an acceptable form of development.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey questioned the number of apprenticeships that would be provided from the scheme. The case officer confirmed that there would be 21 apprenticeships arising from the scheme.

Councillor Mickleburgh asked why this development was permitted when it was not featured in the Council’s Local Plan. The case officer explained that the Local Plan was devised at a certain moment in time and could evolve. Councillor Mickleburgh sought clarity on a point raised by Dave Green regarding further applications in the future that could arise from the new access road. The case officer told Members that they should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to a legal agreement.

CASE OFFICER: Christopher Howard

Proposal: Full application for the proposed Construction of a Collections, Digitisation & Research Centre with associated infrastructure and external works including car parking, SUDS basin and landscaping. Application is a potential departure from the Local Plan.

Applicant: Natural History Museum

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 69 to 148.

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

·         Withdrawal of objection from Shinfield Parish Council

·         Additional representation from Councillor Gary Cowan

·         Changes to condition 7 regarding Public Art Community Engagement & Consultation

·         Change to condition 26 regarding Community Engagement Strategy

All members of the committee attended a site visit except Councillor Smith.

Tim Littlewood, Director of Science, Natural History Museum, spoke in support of the application. He told the committee that this would bring the flagship research centre to the Borough and that the NHM had a statutory duty to make collections accessible to current and future generations. He added that a Community Engagement plan would be developed with the Parish Council. He also said that the application would provide 150 jobs at the site. The building would be zero carbon which exceeded local policy requirements under Core Strategy Policy CP1, with carbon savings of 21%, as well as reducing energy and water use. Solar Panels on the roof would produce 22% of energy demand for the building which exceeded the 10% policy requirement. He explained that despite the development not complying with the Local Plan’s countryside policies in terms of planning balance, any adverse impacts on the countryside were outweighed by the economic, social, and sustainable benefits of the facility.

Councillor Mickleburgh thanked officers for addressing the issues from Shinfield Parish Council, which had led to the Parish Council withdrawing their objection.

Councillor Mickleburgh questioned the change in condition 26 on page 110, that was referenced in the supplementary agenda, specifically querying the Community Engagement Strategy and who would be responsible for updating the strategy every five years as referenced. Connor Corrigan, Head of Strategic Development, explained that this responsibility would be imposed on NHM, and added that other stakeholders such as UOR, the British Museum and local schools would be engaged in the process.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked for the biodiversity net gain figures from the site. The case officer reiterated that it would be 20%.

Councillor Neal explained for clarity that committee members had previously received a presentation from NHM which addressed many of the members concerns.

It was proposed by Councillor Mickleburgh and seconded by Councillor Shepherd-Dubey that the application be approved.

RESOLVED: That Application 232833 be approved subject to

A)   Completion of a S106 agreement and;

B)   Conditions as set out in the report and amended in the members update (if required);

C)   Should the S106 agreement not be signed by the applicant by six months of the committee resolution, delegate to the Assistant Director of Planning to refuse the application unless a longer timeframe is agreed with the Chair of Planning Committee in consultation with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

CASE OFFICER: Connie Davis

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this item Councillor Cornish left the room for this item and did not participate in the debate or vote. This item was chaired by the Vice Chair Councillor Mickleburgh

Proposal: Outline application for the proposed erection of 56 residential dwellings with associated access, following demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings. Access only to be considered (with Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be reserved)

Applicant: Mr Nathan Craker

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 149 to 234.

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

·         Update to the recommendation- time limit on Section 106 agreement.

·         Clarity on the ownership Victoria Gardens.

·         Information regarding local Badger population.

Connie Davis, case officer provided clarity over a request for an additional condition from the British Horse Society but as the request to reinstate the historic bridleway was still under consideration by WBC, and therefore the condition was not required to make the application acceptable.

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He mentioned that more notice had been taken regarding Finchampstead’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) compared to other recent applications, especially policy ES1 which related to carbon neutral housing. He told the committee that originally the application had been for both 31 and 33 Barkham Ride which the NDP accepted, with 70 houses, but this had now been split into two sites which had 56 and 26 houses, taking the total to 82, over the 70 that was considered acceptable in the NDP. He asked whether the sites could be considered together.

Hugh Reid, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He highlighted traffic as a key concern for the residents, explaining that peak time traffic in the mornings was already high with 1060 peak two-way flows measured in the morning, 28% higher the than the WBC report. He also mentioned speeding, disregard for the 6ft6 limit and the safety issues near Bohunt School as key issues. He told Members that there were a large number of T-Junctions in the area, which caused frequent accidents. He said that these were concerns because of the lack of opportunity for alternative transport options. He was of the view that this development would be the start of turning the western end of the settlement on Barkham Ride into a higher housing density area. The proposed 56 dwellings on 29 hectares, the next most dense area on Barkham Ride contained only 42 dwellings, this was a 33% increase.

Nathan Craker, applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He referenced a good partnership between the applicants and the officers. He cited figure 1 on page 159 of the agenda which he said showed the site in its context, surrounded on three sides by existing development. He mentioned good transport links, specifically the number 3 Leopard bus that ran nearby. He told the committee that the development was sustainably located and adhered to the growth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

CASE OFFICER: Andrew Chugg

Proposal: Full application for the change of use of land from Agricultural, residential, light industrial and storage to an Arboretum with ancillary support facilities to include storage, laboratory, offices and auditorium, re-location of poly tunnels and creation of

irrigation pond, swale and attenuation pond, following demolition of hardstanding areas and various buildings including workshop, Mobile home, store, container, Nissan hut and sheds.

Applicant: Bartlett Tree Experts

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 235 to 296.

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

·         The Applicant’s name added.

Neil Davis, agent, spoke in favour of the application. He told committee members that this use of the site should be welcomed by the Council. The location of the site with the land around it to accommodate the arboretum was essential to its success. He explained that Bartlett Tree Experts currently operated from the site leased from UoR but that this lease was set to terminate, and that this development was fundamental for future plans for the applicant. Headded that the current space did not provide necessary space for the arboretum. He mentioned that the site was private, and therefore external visits would be controlled by a private company. He added some key benefits included protection of the countryside, high quality buildings, and an excellent BREEAM rating. There were no objections from internal or external consultees.

Councillor Smith asked how issues with the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Detailed Emergency Planning Zone (DEPZ), referenced on page 270 of the agenda as item 7, had been resolved. Andrew Chugg, case officer, explained that conversations had taken place with the Emergency Planning team and the view was that new housing would not be suitable, however as a business, this was an acceptable use of the site as there was a net loss of homes which gives a lower risk.

Councillor Firmager sought clarity on the traffic flow on Beech Hill Road and whether this would lead to an increase in flows. Alan Lewis clarified that the traffic flows were modest, and that the daily variation was typically +/-7%, he added that there could be a slight increase or decrease in traffic but that it was expected to be neutral.

Councillor Neal asked whether any issues with tree disease could spread outside the arboretum. The case officer explained that the Ecology Officer had looked at that matter, and that the applicants were specialists in the field. Brian Conlon added that the planning system was not the regime that would regulate biosecurity.

Councillor Soane questioned where the access would be for event parking and what the number of parking spaces would be. The case officer clarified that access for the event parking would be on the most southerly access on Beech Hill Road and that 15 parking spaces had been proposed, compared to the current 5 spaces.

Councillor Cornish mentioned that this application was full of benefits.

It was proposed by Councillor Smith and seconded by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

RECOMMENDATION: For Information Only

CASE OFFICER: Emy Circuit

Proposal: Application No 190914: Outline application with all matters reserved except for principal means of access to the highways, for up to 215 dwellings, public open space, play areas, associated infrastructure and landscaping. To be read in conjunction with applications 190900 & 191068.

Application No 191068: Hybrid planning application (part outline/part detailed) comprising an outline application with all matters reserved except principal means of access to the highways, for a mixed use development of up to 1,434 dwellings, a two-form entry primary school, local centre (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and D1 including community building D1/D2), public open space, play areas and associated infrastructure and landscaping; and a full application for the proposed Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), associated landscaping and temporary car park. – To be read in conjunction with applications 190900 & 190914.

Application No 192325: Hybrid Planning application (part outline/part full) comprising

outline application with all matters reserved for up to 171 no. dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure and full application for Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).

Applicant: Kingacre Estates Ltd, Keir Ventures Ltd and Miller Homes Ltd and Charles Church Developments Ltd

The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 297 to 310 and the update Item No 78- Supplementary Agenda.

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

·         A change to the recommendations following legal advice.

Emy Circuit, case officer, explained to Members that following legal advice, the recommendations had been changed to making a formal decision, as opposed to noting an update.

Councillor Smith sought clarity on the delivery of the school and asked whether that would now be paid for by developers rather than by the Council.  The case officer confirmed that this was the case. Councillor Smith urged the building to commence as quickly as possible. Connor Corrigan told Members that the plan was to be building houses in a years’ time.

Councillor Skuse queried how the negotiations took place to allow the developers to pay for parts of the development that were originally going to be paid for by the Council. The case officer explained that the developer’s interest was such that they were dependent on the delivery of the road to start the building.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked that the school and the community facility be made as separate entities. Connor Corrigan assured Members that they would be two separate buildings and lessons had been learnt from the past.

Councillor Cornish urged developers to start development as soon as possible.

It was proposed by Councillor Cornish and seconded by Councillor Shepherd-Dubey to approve the officer recommendations.

RESOLVED: That recommendations for applications 190914, 191068 and 192325 be approved subject to:

RECOMMENDATION 190914

1. In addition to the resolution to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION on the 18th May 2021 for application 190914 that the committee authorise that the existing GRANT OF PLANNING PERMISSION is also subject to the following:

A. The revised terms and mechanism as set out in this report for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.