Agenda item

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 consider plans on their merits and planning policy.

Councillor Neal questioned officers on the connection from the cycle path from the motorway bridge and asked for assurance that the cycle route would not be blocked by barriers. Alan Lewis, Highways Development Manager, explained the current route had barriers to limit motor-vehicle access and assured Members that they would provide a continuous cycling route.

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

RESOLVED: That application 232995 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 the Assistant Director of Planning.