Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of one 5no. bedroom dwelling with attached double garage and ancillary annex, provision of new access, gates, bike storage and bin storage.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Ramsey.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 155 to 188.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included clarification that the recommendation on page 156 had been inadvertently swapped with the recommendation on page 118. For clarity, the recommendation for the subject application was set out in agenda pages 156 to 162, with the bold text on page 156 swapped with the bold text on page 118.

Paul Kelly, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Paul stated that there were a number of inaccuracies with the report, including the number of comments for and against the application being incorrectly stated. Paul stated that the amenity value of his property would be compromised by this application, as the proposed dwelling would be 10 metres closer to his property than the existing property. Paul added that the proposed application would be overbearing, cause loss of light to his property and would have an impact on the general overlook of the setting. Paul stated that the proposed dwelling would interrupt the 45^o line within 5 meters of his dwelling which was contrary to R18 of the Borough Design Guide. Paul added that there were privacy concerns regarding the overlook from the proposed dwelling directly into the 1^st floor bedroom of his daughter’s bedroom, concerns of which had been raised with the child protection department. Paul stated that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) had approved the inclusion of the aforementioned bedroom window in 2012 and therefore it was acceptable. Paul concluded that the proposed application would be entirely unacceptable and contrary to CPO8.

Carl Ramsey, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Carl stated that both a CIL payment and a S106 agreement were applied to this application, and the dwelling would be used to accommodate family – some of whom had some health issues – allowing them to be close by. Carl added that they had worked closely with WBC’s planning department throughout the planning process, and a number of changes had been made to the application following feedback from neighbours. Carl stated that this plot had been moved further away from number 10 Victoria Road, and the proposals had received no objections from other neighbours, WBC departments of consultative authorities. Carl was of the opinion that number 10 Victoria Road had reduced their own amenity space when deciding on extending their property in 2012. Carl stated that he had removed an extremely large light blocking fern tree previously, which had allowed more light into both his property and number 10. Carl was of the opinion that the 1^st floor window at number 10 Victoria Road should never have been approved as it overlooked his property, and was likely only allowed due to the existence of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55