Agenda item

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 in support of the application.  He indicated that they supported the application and the economic development it would bring to the area.  Whilst they had had concerns regarding traffic coming out of Gazelle Close and the impact this might have on their congregations using the area at weekends, these had been addressed.

Councillor Soane expressed concern around the highways arrangements and turning left out on to Reading Road.  Many vehicles already turned left on to Reading Road and then turned right into the Premier Inn site, undertook a U turn, and then turned right, in order to avoid the traffic lights at the Showcase roundabout.  He went on to refer to the entrance to the site coming from the direction of the Showcase roundabout.  There was a cycle lane on the inside of the road with a broken line, which allowed cars to move into the cycle lane if safe to do so.  Many motorists did not appreciate that this was possible and backed up behind those waiting to turn right, creating queues.  Councillor Soane was concerned that the proposal may worsen this situation.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey questioned whether a traffic signal would be appropriate.

Councillor Skuse questioned whether the creation of a traffic island to oblige people to turn left, would alleviate the issue of people turning right illegally on to Reading Road. 

Councillor Neal questioned whether there should be further protection for the cycle lane.  The Principal Highways Development Control Officer responded that if a vehicle had to cross a cycle lane, the cycle lane should have a broken line.  Councillor Neal also queried whether dropping the speed limit in the area to 30mph would have a positive impact and was informed that any change to the speed limit would need to be approved by the Police.

Councillor Mickleburgh queried whether the safety of the junction was a material planning consideration and was informed that it was.  Councillor Mickleburgh asked what alternative options had been considered around highways, and why.

Councillor Smith also expressed concern regarding the potential impact on the highway, the junction, and the capacity of the road.  Whilst a supermarket would benefit the area, supermarkets were often busy and would contribute to traffic in the area.

Councillor Firmager noted that the Highways officers were of the opinion that the proposal would have minimal impact on the highways network and result in minimal queuing.  Whilst he was supportive of the proposal for a store and believed that residents should have a choice, he was concerned about the possible impacts on the highway network.

Mark Croucher, case officer, highlighted paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that development should only be refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe.  Although it was accepted that the highway network would be impacted, it was considered that these thresholds had not been met.  Formal modelling had been undertaken.  He emphasised that alternative options considered were not a material planning consideration but had been referenced to provide assurance that other options had been considered.  All other options had projected worse queuing.

The Principal Highways Development Control Officer indicated that other options considered had been a right turn lane out onto Reading Road, a right hand turn lane on Reading Road, a mini roundabout on Reading Road and signalisation.  For various reasons these options were not considered viable.  A mini roundabout would be impractical due to the capacity of the road and buses accessing the road.  A right hand turn lane would potentially cause issues with traffic waiting and trying to pass those waiting to turn.  A right hand turn lane out of Gazelle Close would likely create issues with operational capacity.  The Principal Highways Development Control Officer commented that it was likely that some of the increased traffic would already be part of the network e.g. people stopping at the store on their way home from work.  There should be sufficient space for those travelling south from the Showcase roundabout and waiting to turn right into Gazelle Close to be passed on the inside, as Reading Road was quite wide.  The Principal Highways Development Control Officer referred to the possibility of adding signage indicating a ‘no right turn.’

Some Members were of the opinion that the cycle lane was not wide enough for vehicles to enter if safe to do so, if cyclists were on the road.

Councillor Firmager commented that in the past the junction had been both a left and right turn, and asked this had been considered.  It was confirmed that it had.

A number of Members commented that it would have been helpful to have had more information on other options considered around improving the junction and why they had not been taken forward, to assist the Committee in its decision making.  The Committee requested that high level technical data be provided where appropriate in future Committee reports.  The Operational Lead - Development Management emphasised the need for balance in the information provided.

Councillor Munro asked if there had been accidents in the past from cars turning into Premier Inn and then doing a U turn.

Councillor Cornish stated that the Committee had concerns around the highways situation.  The Operational Lead - Development Management reminded the Committee that the application was not proposing any works to the highways and that no further highways works were considered necessary. 

In response to a question from Councillor Mickleburgh around informatives, it was clarified that the purpose of an informative was to bring the applicant’s attention to something which related to the specific application, not wider preexisting matters. 

Councillor Cornish suggested that the Committee discuss with the relevant Executive Member and Leader of the Council, situations where the knock on effect on the highway network may be outside the consideration of an application could be taken forward and discussed within the Council, with a follow up meeting with the Director of Place and Growth, with a view to developing how a better understanding of how such concerns could be logged and potentially actioned. 

Councillor Firmager questioned whether the applicant could be asked to withdraw and amend the applicant and was informed that this was not possible.

It was proposed by Councillor Neal and seconded by Councillor Soane that the application be approved.

RESOLVED:  That

1)    application 230099 be approved subject to the

a)    Completion of a legal agreement relating to the following head of terms – Employment Skills Plan.

b)    Conditions and informatives as set out in Appendix 1 on pages 134 to 145, (subject to any additions and updates agreed with the Assistant Director – Place and Growth between the date of the resolution and the issue of the decision) and amended conditions 9, 12, 13, 25 and 26 as outlined in the supplementary agenda.

c)    The expiration of 21 days beginning with the date with which the Secretary of State tells the authority in writing they received the material specified in paragraph 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021, and have either notified the authority that they do not intend to call in the application under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and may proceed to determine the application , or no comments are provided in 21 days.

2)    the Committee discuss with the relevant Executive Member and Leader of the Council situations where the knock on effect on the highway network may be outside the consideration of an application could be taken forward and discussed within the Council, with a follow up meeting with the Director of Place and Growth, with a view to developing how a better understanding of how such concerns could be logged and potentially actioned.