Issue - meetings

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of 55 dwellings (flats) with associated landscaping, parking, access and drainage. Demolition of all existing buildings on site. The proposal is for an amended design to the dwellings previously approved under reference 172012, with replacement leisure centre to be constructed pursuant to planning permission 172012.

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council (WBC)

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 113 to 152.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification of paragraph 128;

·           Insertion of plan numbers;

·           Correction of condition 11 to state “visibility splays”;

·           Amendment to condition 14;

·           Amendment to condition 21;

·           Additional condition 35.

David Smith, WBC, spoke in support of the application. David stated that this application was an alteration to the residential phase of Carnival Pool redevelopment which had previously been approved. David added that this would be the ‘last piece of the jigsaw’ for the Wokingham town centre redevelopment. David stated that the updated proposals included amendments to the residential block, which were viewed as an improvement to the previously agreed scheme. David added that the application was conditioned to deliver 10% renewable energy, however officers were hoping to achieve a significantly higher level, with the goal being a carbon neutral building to be achieved by methods including a flat roof which would allow for additional coverage of photovoltaic panels.

Carl Doran queried why the viability assessment was not being made available for public and Member viewing, when the guidance stated that such viability assessments should be made publically available unless there were exceptional circumstances. Nick Chancellor, case officer, stated that the viability assessment was not available due to commercial sensitivity. However, the assessment deemed that affordable housing was not viable for this development.

Carl Doran queried whether by stating that occupants should use the parking at Carnival Pool car park could set a precedent for private developers to argue a similar proposal. Justin Turvey, Team Manager (Development and Regeneration) stated that the Committee was realistically looking at the amendments to the scheme which was previously approved. The details regarding car parking had been previously approved at Committee. Justin added that the fall back for the applicant could be to proceed with the previously approved scheme, which would not have the updated design elements.

Andrew Mickleburgh was of the opinion that WBC should set a high standard for issues such as affordable housing and renewable energy. Andrew queried why there was no immediate commitment from WBC to provide a carbon neutral development. Nick Chancellor stated that planning policy only required a 10 percent renewable energy source for such a development, however the applicant desired to exceed this considerably.

Gary Cowan commented that it was difficult for the Committee to make a decision on this application when it had not seen the viability assessment. Gary also queried how many trees would and had been cut down, where, and how many would be replaced. Nick Chancellor stated that the original site had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98