Agenda item

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

(Councillor John Jarvis declared a prejudicial interest and left the meeting before the item was addressed)

Proposal:  Application to vary condition 2, 12, 15 and 17 of planning permission 162529 which approved the erection of 11 dwellings with associated access, car parking, landscaping and drainage following the demolition of existing dwellings. Condition 2 relates to approved plans, condition 12 relates to parking, condition 15 relates to Arboricultural Impact Assessment and condition 17 relates to first floor windows.

Applicant: Wokingham Housing Limited

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 83 to 118.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included further information regarding discharge conditions.

Members had visited the site in November 2016.

Derek Birtles, local resident, took Members through a presentation showing the types and numbers of vehicles that parked in appropriately.  He stated that he had not objected to the original application, the 22 parking bays meeting Council standards.  The application contained no restriction on the type of vehicles that could be parked on the development and he asked that covenants be applied to the application limiting this.

Darren Toes, Wokingham Housing Ltd, stated that the application before the Committee related to variations in conditions in an application that had already been approved.  The additional parking space was for a disabled client who would be living in plot 1.  The size of the properties had been increased to meet standards and landscaping would improve privacy.

In response to Member questions regarding the control and management of parking in the development, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, reiterated that the application had been consented and the application before the Committee was an amendment including the addition of one disabled parking space.  As the proposed parking was not located within the public highway, it became a private management matter should parking spaces wished to be restricted, therefore restrictions could not be applied and Civil Parking Enforcement could not be used.  One space per property had been allocated and there was approximately the same number of unallocated spaces, plus some additional visitor bays.  As the spaces were provided along the length of the site fronting the road and with only one space allocated per dwelling the layout would aid in the reduction of additional vehicles parking along the road fronting these properties addressing some concerns that had been raised during the discussions.

The Committee asked the Chair to write a letter on their behalf to the housing department to ask what they were going to do to control parking.

Resolved:  That Application no 172385 be approved, subject to the conditions laid out in Agenda pages 83 to 118, and the additional information as laid out in the Members’ Update.