Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: 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: Charles Church Development Ltd.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 13 to 142 and within pages 3 to 110 of the supplementary agenda.

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

·         Comment that an additional representation had been received from a correspondent who had also commented on the original and first re-consultation, and the issues raised had been covered within the officer report;

·         Correction to paragraph 9;

·         Additional cross reference to condition 3;

·         Explanation with regards to condition 20;

·         Additional condition 60 and additional associated informative 35.

Fitzroy Morrissey, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Fitzroy stated that the area immediately to the south of the development including his own property in Chapel Green was subject to regular flooding, with the driveway and garage being continually flooded between January and March of last year resulting in the fire brigade being called, whilst the tributary of the Emm Brook regularly flooded and the ditch to the side of Luckley Road was constantly waterlogged. Fitzroy added that the road and underneath the railway bridge regularly flooded during the winter months as did a number of properties on Luckley Road and Luckley Wood, which had become significantly worse in recent years as a result of rising water tables and climate change. Fitzroy was particularly concerned that the plans for the development did not take the risk of increased flooding to this area in to account, with the latest version of the flood risk assessment showing that there would be no increased flood risk to neighbouring properties as a result of this development, however this conclusion was based on an assessment of the likely flooding of the Emm Brook itself and did not take into account the risks associated with the flooding of the tributary. Fitzroy commented that according to the flood risk assessment, no flood risk measurement nodes had been allocated to this stream. Fitzroy stated that the current situation was already dangerous and unsustainable and would be made worse as a result of climate change, and there was concern that the area will be constantly under the threat of inundation if subject to further development unless much more severe flood mitigation measures were put in place. Fitzroy added that there were concerns that users of the SANG and the allotments may try to gain access via the emergency access route via Luckley Road, which was not suitable for vehicular parking. Fitzroy stated that there was already considerable damage to the road and verge of Luckley Road as a result of parking, which would only get worse should the application be approved. Fitzroy asked that additional measures be put in place to prevent users of the SANG and allotments from using Luckley Road to park. Fitzroy commented that the owner of 1 Chapel Green Cottage wished it to be noted that the proposed SANG area at the bottom of his garden continuously flooded, turning the area into a lake and making it unusable for parts of the year, which would make it obsolete as a SANG.

Laura Jackson, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Laura stated that the applicant had worked closely with officers to make the proposal acceptable in planning and design terms. Laura added that the site was located within the SDL and was required to deliver much needed housing within the Borough, whilst importantly ensuring that all of the land required to deliver the South Wokingham Distributor Road (SWDR) would come forward, whilst providing funding though S106 and CIL for the SWDR and wider highway improvements. Laura stated that the proposal would facilitate the delivery of a much needed sustainable travel corridor, and noted that the proposal was a hybrid application which would provide residential units and a SANG, with a detailed layout to be provided at the detail stage, should this application be approved. Laura added that the proposal included a compliant housing mix, thirty-five percent affordable housing, adequate car parking, compliant garden sizes, pedestrian cycle movement corridors and open space. Laura stated that the important existing landscape features were retained, including distinctive hedgerows and trees in addition to the Emm Brook. Laura added that important habitats would be retained as part of the open space elements, whilst mitigation measures for protected species would be provided for. Laura commented that a ten percent biodiversity net gain would be achieved as part of this application, and added that it had been demonstrated that the site could be appropriately developed without increasing flood risk on the site or elsewhere, whilst suitable on-site surface water and foul drainage solutions can and would be provided within future reserved matters applications. Laura stated that the application overall would not have an adverse impact which would demonstrably outweigh the positives of the proposal. Laura was of the opinion that all three of the main objectives listed within the NPPF had been demonstrated within the officers report, and urged the Committee to approve the application.

Peter Dennis, Wokingham Town Council, commented on the application. Peter stated that Wokingham Town Council had a number of objections to the application, firstly being that the greenway proposed through the development would not separate cyclists from pedestrians which would therefore discourage one or both forms of sustainable transport. Peter stated that there was a lack of kickabout space for older children in addition to a lack of outdoor exercise equipment which residents had asked for at other sites. Peter felt that it would be more beneficial to retain the group of trees at the centre of the development, thereby protecting the view of the site from the outside. Peter stated that the existing public right of way situated within countryside would now be a walk through a residential estate which would be a loss of public amenity. Peter suggested that wooden posts be placed at regular intervals at the access point near the railway bridge to protect it from cars choosing to park there. Peter added that the proposed SANG would be situated within a flood plain which could not be built upon, but would now instead be designated for dog walking rather than designating an area which would not flood as a SANG. Peter noted that the suggested bicycle storage was located with the bin store and not next to the flats which would discourage cycle use. Peter queried why the allotments were proposed to be located so far away from the flats that might wish to use them. Peter stated that the application site flooded regularly, and commented that the Environment Agency had requested additional documentation to ensure that development would not make this worse, and Peter added that climate change would make flooding in the area worse and this consideration fell under CP1, CP4, and CP9. Peter stated that this site would lead to additional traffic which would not all use the new SWDR but instead the already overused Finchampstead Road. Peter noted that concerns raised by the Environment Agency in relation to ecological enhancements had seemingly not been addressed. Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, Peter asked that consideration be given to the retention of the trees in the middle of the site, protection of the roadside verges on Luckley Road, ecological protection enhancements to the Emm Brook, and consideration of the impact of flooding downstream outside of this site.

Chris Bowring raised a number of points mentioned by public speakers. Chris sought additional details regarding flooding, sought additional details regarding potential parking on Luckley Road, sought additional details regarding removal and replacement of trees, sought details regarding siting of the bin and cycle store, queried the siting of the allotments, sought details regarding the multi-use game site, sought clarity regarding the Environment Agency asking for additional details, and sought clarity regarding the greenway provision. Emy Circuit, case officer, stated that it was difficult to comment on flooding at Chapel Green specifically, however the wider site and SDL had been assessed as one drainage system. The application required extensive flood modelling which had been carried out via the application for the SWDR. The flood risk assessment had been based on the modelling work, and the downstream flooding instances were likely to be better as a result of the wider SDL development. In relation to SuDs, the Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) Drainage officer had raised no objections. Emy stated that parking was an existing issue on Luckley Road, and as part of the detailed design the emergency access could be looked at. In relation to trees, Emy stated that the tree officer had assessed the application and had raised no objections, relatively few trees would be removed and those were of low quality which would be replaced throughout the SANG and elsewhere throughout the site which was more than compliant with policy. Emy commented that the cycle and bin storage would be dealt with via reserved matters and needed to be appropriately sited. Emy stated that the allotments were 400m or less from all properties within the proposed development. Emy added that a multi-use games area was proposed within phase two of the development, and had a slightly larger catchment area as it was aimed at a slightly older age group. With regards to the comments by the Environment Agency, Emy stated that they had asked for more detail regarding the flood risk assessment and biodiversity net gain which had now been provided. Council officers were now content and comments from the Environment Agency were awaited. The proposed specification of the greenway strategy through the site was consistent with the Council’s greenway strategy.

Angus Ross stated that the principle of development had been established and had to be accepted, and commented that it was regrettable that this application could not have come with the other SDL applications. Angus added that he was pleased to see the application was for up to rather than around 171 dwellings. Angus commented that the SANG would be linked with the phase two SANG, which was very desirable. Angus stated that it now had to be accepted that cyclists and pedestrians would have to share space, and this was working at the first greenway in Finchampstead. Angus stated that the east side of the road heading towards Ludgrove School was a private road, and there were therefore limits as to what could be done there. Angus raised some concern that the Environment Agency had still not withdrawn their holding objection, and sought officer reassurances. Angus asked whether it could be appropriate to have an informative stating that at the reserved matters stage access would be achieved from parcel C2 which would allow the Knoll Farm railway crossing to be closed. Emy Circuit stated that the Environment Agency currently had resourcing issues which was the reason why the holding objection remained, and officers were content that issues had been addressed. If the objection stood, officers could ask the applicant to amend the scheme further or refer the matter back to the Planning Committee in the case of a fundamental change. With regards to the railway crossing, Emy stated that the applicant was aware, and the most that could be expected was for the applicant to facilitate a future access point at Knoll Farm which would allow the crossing to be closed, which would be secured via the S106 legal agreement.

Angus Ross queried whether the development was dependent on the SWDR reaching that point prior to occupation, sought clarity regarding the public art condition, and suggested that footpaths through the SANG be designated and signposted. Emy Circuit stated that condition 3 required the sequence of development to be set out, whilst there was also a condition which required modelling to be carried out to demonstrate the number of occupations prior to completion of the SWDR that could be accommodated without an unacceptable impact on the highway network. In relation to public art, Emy commented that there was a requirement within the policy and guidance for provision of public art, which would be secured through condition and subsequent liaison with the appropriate arts bodies could then be carried out. Emy stated that the landscaping condition required details of signage of footways and paths.

Stephen Conway commented that his initial concern was in relation to the setting of the listed building, however this was mostly to be surrounded by green space. Stephen was concerned that the methodology for flood risk mitigation was based on historic data with only some allowance for the effects of climate change. Emy Circuit stated that the modelling work to support the SWDR application had included the expected future position and included an appropriate allowance for the effects of climate change. Emy added that a number of drainage basins would be located across the site which would form part of an integrated drainage system throughout the SDL, and officers were content with the proposals.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether all of the affordable housing would be located on site, queried whether the SuDs would be wet all of the time, queried whether the equivalent tree cover would be provided via replacement trees, queried how street trees would be maintained, queried what would happen should flooding get worse in the wider area as a result of the development, and commented her hope that residents would be told that the roads were not adopted roads. Emy Circuit stated all thirty-five percent affordable housing would be located on site. Whether SuDs features are permanently or occasionally wet would be dependent on their design and a mizxture were proposed, which the ecology officer had indicated was beneficial for the ecology of the area. Emy stated that the number of trees to be replanted would significantly out-number the number of trees scheduled to be removed. Street trees would be cared for by the developers until the land was transferred to WBC alongside a commuted sum, and the landscaping condition had been reinforced to require ongoing monitoring of plants and trees. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and Compliance, stated that a climate change allowance had been applied to the site, and added that this portion off the site would not make the flooding situation in the wider area any worse than was currently experienced.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether a large part of the SANG could be subject to flooding, sought details regarding journey times on Finchampstead Road as a result of the development and any associated mitigation measures to approve safety for cyclists prior to occupation, sought assurances regarding the road bridge widening, sought details in relation to facilities present within Montague Park, queried whether the intention was for surfaces and access to the bridge over the Emm Brook to be fully accessible, and queried whether the tallest building should instead be located towards the centre of the development. Emy Circuit stated that the SANG would follow the route of the Emm Brook which would flood on occasion however a waterside environment was very attractive for residents, and the areas most liable to flooding had alternative routes that could be used in the event of flooding. Montague Park included a small public square associated with the neighbourhood centre, and a similar space was proposed within phase 2A, whilst the application site was also located close to the town centre. The footbridge had been designed to be accessible, and the conditions and S106 for the application required upgrading of those paths within the greenway network. Emy added that the SWDR would redistribute traffic whilst providing a new route, and in some areas there would be a reduction of traffic, and a number of mitigation measures were also proposed. Chris Easton added that the transport assessment and the modelling had been consistent across all of the SDL applications, secured via an IDP and linked to a S106 agreement. Emy stated that the maximum height of the largest properties had been reduced to 12.5m, which was consistent with building heights within other phases of the development and these were proposed to be located along the SWDR, in line with the guidance in the South Wokingham SDP.

Pauline Jorgensen commented that the Luckley Road was being damaged via vehicles parking there as the route was heavily used by walkers. Pauline queried whether anything could be done to stop people parking on the road, and queried whether the allotments would be shielded to protect the setting of the listed building. Emy Circuit stated that the emergency access situated on Chapel Green could be looked at as this was at an early stage. With regards to the allotments, Emy stated that there was quite a substantial hedge between the listed building and the allotments in addition to a landscaping condition. Emy added that the allotments were due to be transferred to the Council, and discussion could be had as to where the sheds were situated. Emy commented that an additional informative could be added which suggested what could be built on the site and outlined a suggested use of the site. This proposal was agreed by Members, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Rebecca Margetts commented that parts of the proposed SANG flooded every year, leaving footpaths unusable. Emy Circuit stated that the proposal should improve parts of the SANG in relation to flooding.

Gary Cowan commented that in 2017 a public petition was submitted to the Council in relation to traffic levels on Finchampstead Road, which was subsequently debated at a full Council meeting. Gary added that this showed that a large number of residents were concerned about this issue a number of years ago. Gary commented that there were very few affordable one and two bedroom units proposed, and there was little detail as to what trees were scheduled to be cut down and where replacements would be planted. Gary stated that he would like to see an area TPO placed on the application site, and added that there was one tree on site which had not been referenced within the report. Gary noted that details relating to electric vehicle charging points was being left to officers, and felt that the detail was generally lacking within the applicant’s tree report. Gary commented that lack of new school infrastructure was disappointing. Gary felt that the application should be deferred to allow outstanding points to be addressed. Emy Circuit stated that an area TPO was usually applied to sites under direct threat and where a tree survey had not been carried out, whereas this site had been surveyed. Emy added that the existing paddocks were not a particularly ecologically rich environment, and additional landscaping across the SANG would enhance the site overall. Biodiversity net gain was conditioned and would be assessed in line with the Natural England assessment for measuring net gain. Emy stated that education was a planning issue, and within the SDL as a whole there would be two new primary schools being delivered whilst CIL payments would contribute to secondary education.

Stephen Conway stated that he would be minded to wait to read the Environment Agency’s updated comments.

Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, stated that there was a plethora of documentation online and officers had provided the most pertinent and relevant information within the lengthy Committee report. Connor added that there was scope to reduce the housing numbers down from 171 should flooding issues arise, and noted that extensive flood modelling had been carried out to support the SWDR application. Connor stated that should a substantial amendment to the scheme be required, this would be taken back to the Planning Committee.

Pauline Jorgensen commented that threat to trees was usually only presented once they were in the process of being cut down. Emy Circuit noted that paragraph 65 of the report stated the numbers of trees scheduled to be removed.

Gary Cowan proposed that this item be deferred, to await updated comments from the Environment Agency and to explore the option of applying an area TPO. This was seconded by Stephen Conway, and upon being put to the vote the motion was lost.

Pauline Jorgensen proposed an informative, asking that the applicant have regard to the need to manage informal parking on the lane between Luckley Road and Chapel Green including consideration of timber bollards or other means of preventing parking on verges. This proposal was seconded, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Members raised a number of points with regards to placing TPOs on trees on the site. Connor Corrigan stated that there were conditions in place to protect the trees which would give time for tree officers to assess which trees required a TPO. Stephen Conway proposed an additional informative, asking the Council’s landscape team to consider placing Tree Preservation Orders on trees that have been identified as high quality and worthy of retention within the development. This proposal was seconded by Angus Ross, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

RESOLVED That application number 192325 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 15 to 47, with condition 3 updated and an additional condition 60 and additional associated informative 35 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, additional three informatives relating to allotment use, parking on Luckley Road, and TPOs as resolved by the Committee, and subject to legal agreement.