Agenda item

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 a travel plan would be produced.  Grant Leggett added that the application would not cause harm to the Borough’s overall supply of employment land.  He emphasised that it had been agreed with the Council’s independent viability assessment that the scheme would not be viable and could not support any affordable housing.  However, the applicant had agreed that there would be a late stage review mechanism secured through the S106 agreement. 

Councillor Rachel Bishop-Firth, ward Member, spoke in objection to the application.  She commented that homes were needed for residents and ideally on brownfield sites.  However, she was of the view that the current proposal was too large for the site and referred to policy CP3.  Councillor Bishop-Firth stated that the large four-storey building would be shoehorned in between smaller two storey Victorian houses on Barkham Road and two storey 1960’s maisonettes on Latimer Road, which would change the character of the area.  She felt that the application would also loom over houses on Station Road.   Councillor Bishop-Firth questioned why houses on Elms Road and Outfield Crescent should be considered comparators as they were located some distance away from the site.  The majority of buildings in the immediate vicinity were two storeys, except the Queen’s Gate retirement home, which was three.  She noted that the flats on Elms Road and Outfield Crescent had the top storeys of the buildings within a number of individual pitched roofs, which broke up the overall mass.  The proposal would be the only four storey flat roofed development in the immediate area.  Lastly, Councillor Bishop-Firth referred to CP6 and expressed concerns around access and parking.  She felt that insufficient parking would be offered in an area where parking was already difficult.  Turning out on to Barkham Road would potentially be challenging.

Councillor Mickleburgh noted the viability of the scheme and the measures agreed with the applicant for a late stage viability review.  He asked about the concerns raised by Sarika Odedra around the potential impact on the loading bay of Nisa Local.  The Principal Highways Development Control Officer explained that as part of any assessment, access of a vehicle turning into a site, whether it could manoeuvre safely on site, and leave safely in forward gear, would be looked at.  As part of the assessment the developer had used the largest lorry (at 16.5m an arctic) as a test vehicle and it had been able to turn safely.  The loading bay was slightly to the south and the stock lorry would be smaller than the test vehicle.  He was satisfied that access would not be obstructed.  Councillor Mickleburgh went on to ask about the scale and density of the development and how this would compare with similar developments in the town centre.  Benjamin Hindle, case officer, referred to 19-21 Market Place.  It was a town centre development and consequently density would be slightly higher.  Nevertheless, it was 160 dwellings per hectare, which was greater than that of the site.

Councillor Firmager commented that the parking provision was inadequate for the number of homes and was concerned that existing issues with parking in the surrounding area would be added to.  He felt that a smaller development with affordable housing would be more appropriate.  Councillor Firmager questioned why the independent viability assessment had not been carried out internally.  The Operational Lead – Development Management stated that the assessment of any financial viability appraisal needed to be undertaken by a suitably qualified practitioner in valuations and the Council did not have such resource available internally.  Therefore, a third-party valuer was appointed.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey echoed Councillor Firmager’s concerns around the level of parking provision.  She commented that Wokingham was one of the largest car owning areas in the country.

Councillor Skuse expressed concern around the late stage viability review.  He questioned whether such reviews often led to the Council receiving funding.  The case officer explained why this agreement had been proposed. 

Councillor Cornish also asked about access to the Nisa Local Store.  The case officer re-emphasised that it had been clearly identified that the largest lorry could access the site and manoeuvre safely, and that this had been considered sufficient to override the objection submitted regarding this.  Whilst the proposed situation may be considered less convenient by the objector it did not constitute a highways safety concern.

In response to a Member question regarding whether there was a policy which defined apartments with no allocated parking spaces, the case officer explained that it was a case by case situation.  Due to the very high sustainability of the site and the connection to public transport it had been considered that the site would benefit from more allocated parking spaces.  In such a location not all residents would own a car.  CP6 outlined that a modal shift away from the private motor car was being sought where possible.  The unallocated parking spaces would create flexibility whilst fully allocated parking would not.  The Principal Highways Development Control Officer added that there would be 7 car free units and that this would be part of their lease.  Apart from the family units all other units would have unallocated parking.  This was similar to other locations in the Borough.  The scheme was located close to the train station and a bus route, and very close to the town centre.

Councillor Shepherd-Dubey queried if the fourth floor balconies would be overlooking.  The case officer responded that the scheme was in excess in every dimension of the Borough Design Guide recommendations, which were the minimum requirements.  There was full compliance with the Guide with regards to overlooking.

Councillor Firmager reemphasised that he felt that the parking was insufficient and commented that some residents may have vans or motorbikes.  He queried where visitors were expected to park. 

Councillor Smith expressed concerns around the bulk, scale and mass of the development.  He suggested that a site visit would be beneficial.

Councillor Cornish stated that whilst Members may dislike the situation it was established that the viability assessment had been carried out externally.  He went on to state that some housing units in the town centre did not have parking arrangements, and that if it was explicit in the lease agreement then residents would be aware of the situation before they moved.  Officers reiterated that the Local Plan promoted alternative transport and a shift away from private transport.  The site was very sustainable and as such significant attached parking would not be expected.  There were various options for visitor parking within the town centre car parks.  It was noted that there was a controlled parking zone out the front of the site and along Barkham Road, excepting loading bays for the Nisa Local. 

Councillor Smith proposed that application 223691 be deferred for a site visit to enable Members to better understand the bulk, scale, mass, access and parking arrangements.  This was seconded by Councillor Shepherd-Dubey.

RESOLVED:  That application 223691 be deferred for a site visit to enable Members to better understand the bulk, scale, mass, access and parking arrangements.