Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN. View directions

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Gary Cowan attended the meeting virtually, and was therefore marked as in attendance, and was not able to propose, second, or vote on items.

2.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 379 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 March 2021 and the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meetings held on 24 March 2021 and 18 May 2021.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 March 2021, and the minutes of the extraordinary meetings of the Committee held on 24 March 2021 and 18 May 2021 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

Members wished to share their thanks to the outgoing Chairman, Simon Weeks, for his service and dedication to the Committee.

3.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

Angus Ross declared a personal interest in agenda item 5, on the grounds that he had worked as the liaison between Wokingham Borough Council and the Friends of Foxhill. Angus added that he had not been involved in this application and had not formed a view regarding it. Angus stated that he would take part in both the discussion and voting related to this item.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 9, on the grounds that he was a member of the Earley Town Council Planning Committee which had made a recommendation of refusal. Andrew added that he had formed a view relating to this application, and would therefore take no part in the discussion or voting related to this item.

4.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Minutes:

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

5.

Application No 203539 Land off Bearwood Road, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 510 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for the change of use of 14.77ha from existing private woodland to informal recreational land and associated infrastructure including pedestrian and vehicle access, car parking and footpath network and landscaping.

 

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Pike

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 39 to 88.

 

The Committee were advised that there were updates within the supplementary planning agenda. However, the Committee were advised verbally on the night that the comments from Wokingham Town Council, contained on agenda page 46, were incorrect and related to a previous application at the site. Page 87 contained the correct response from Wokingham Town Council.

 

Tony Delliston, resident, commented on the application. Tony stated that the current footpath on the northern boundary was 0.6m wide, and a lot of removal of vegetation would have to occur to facilitate the path being made 2m wide. An alternative path was suggested in Tony’s comments on the application, which would not have required the removal of trees. Tony was of the opinion that his suggestion should have been progressed and used. Tony felt that as this was not an application for a SANG, fencing may not be needed at all on site. Tony stated that barbeques should not be permitted on site, as the Fire Service were often required to attend fires as a result of barbeques. Tony commented that the applicant was a Wokingham Borough Council supplier, which could arise to a conflict of interest. As such, Tony felt that the comments made by the environmental health officer should be disregarded, and instead an independent noise assessment report should be commissioned.

 

Nicola Greenwood, BHS Access and Bridleways Officer, commented on the application. Nicola stated that the RG40, RG41, RG2 and RG6 postcodes covered the area in and the around Barkham and Wokingham parishes.

Nicola added that the new postcode figures provided by DEFRA dated April 2021 showed a 25% increase in horse ownership in these postcodes with a new total of 1,548 horses. These horses brought in excess of £8.5million per annum to the local economy, almost £3 million more than 9 years ago. Nicola attributed this increase in horse ownership to the large number of new houses that have been built in this area of Borough. Nicola stated that Foxhill had been enjoyed by horse riders for over 50 years. Nicola was of the opinion that in order to retain and increase rural job and business opportunities, off road horse rider access, close to where these people lived, needed to be increased and not decreased.  Nicola asked that should this application be approved, access between Bearwood Road and Limmerhill Road be retained for horse rider use to ensure that riders who kept their horses in Limmerhill Road were not forced onto Barkham Road to get to the Coombes. Nicola concluded by asking that a circular bridleway be placed around the outside of the proposed site for recreational horse rider and cyclist use.

 

Emily Ford, agent,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Application No 202065 - 54 - 58 Reading Road. Wokingham pdf icon PDF 592 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 34 no. retirement living apartments including communal facilities and associated car parking and

landscaping, following demolition of existing 3 no. dwellings.

 

Applicant: McCarthy & Stone

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 89 to 170.

 

The Committee were advised that the updates within the supplementary planning agenda included context and clarification regarding condition 18.

 

Ian Hann, agent, spoke in support of the application. Ian stated that this application would support people in living healthy and happy lives within the Wokingham Borough. Ian added that the NPPF was clear that it was critical for this type of housing to be provided and prioritised. Ian stated that that the Wokingham Borough was seeing growth of elderly persons, which was predicted to rise above the national average going forwards. Ian added that no objections had been received from residents or the Town Council, and English Heritage and highways officers had also raised no objections. Ian commented that the site was well located within a sustainable area, within easy walking distance to shops and amenity facilities, with good transport links including buses and trains. Ian stated that the proposals would generate around £500,000 per year in increased spending for the local economy, in addition to affordable housing contributions and CIL payments. Ian concluded by stating that the proposals would combat loneliness and isolation within the elderly community by releasing under-used family houses which would be replaced by high quality retirement living accommodation.

 

Bill Soane commented that the application only provided 32 car parking spaces for 34 units. Bill stated that whilst this was marketed as a retirement facility, many of the residents would still be of working age when living in this accommodation. Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that this type of accommodation typically had a lower provision of parking spaces than regular market flats, due to the restricted age of potential occupants. Judy added that the site was in a sustainable location, and there was precedent for completely car free developments within the area. Judy stated that, on balance and within the age restricted context, the proposals were considered acceptable given that parking space provision was only 6 spaces lower than for a market development and a travel plan was conditioned which could be reviewed when required.

 

Graham Vaughan, case officer, commented that the average age of occupancy for developments such as this was typically above the age of 55.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether there was a specific car parking standard which applied to this type of accommodation, queried what the realistic age of occupants could be at this development, queried whether affordable housing could have instead been provided on site, and sought clarification that vehicles going along the reading road towards Wokingham could not turn right in to the proposed development. Judy Kelly confirmed that the requirement for this development was to provide 15 resident car parking spaces and 3 visitor spaces, whereas this site would provide  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Application No 203460 - Frog Hall, Frog Hall Drive, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 794 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the erection of fencing and hardstanding to form

a bin store to serve the existing flats (Retrospective).

 

Applicant: Ms Sarah Cleaver

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 171 to 188.

 

The Committee were advised that the updates within the supplementary planning agenda included:

 

·           Amending the word impending with impeding on agenda page 171;

·           A consultation response had been received from the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) advising that the Fire Authority had no issues regarding access to the houses along the road that followed the boundary of Frog Hall.

 

David Rowland, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. David stated that this was a retrospective application which restricted the access for neighbouring properties, as had been happening over decades. The restricted access caused issues with delivery vehicles, and David felt that the concerns of residents should have been considered prior to construction. David stated that the storage area did not have any drainage, and was in a full sun position which led to smells and odours. David was of the opinion that the storage was an eyesore, but not for the residents of the flats. David felt that a private company had built the storage in the cheapest and most convenient location with no planning consent or consultation. David commented that there was a suitable storage area on the other side of the car park area which was near drainage, in a shaded area, and on a site with previous planning permission for garages. David was of the understanding that this application would not have been allowed should it have gone through the planning permission process, and it should not be allowed retrospectively.

 

Carole Allam, resident, spoke in support of the application. Carole clarified that the alternative site proposed by neighbours was not owned by the applicant. Carole stated that residents believed that permitted development allowed for the application to progress, but once it was clarified that planning permission was required the applicant progressed with a retrospective planning application as soon as possible. Carole added that the access to neighbouring properties by emergency vehicles and delivery drivers had been clarified within the officer report, and the Fire Authority had confirmed that they had no issues regarding access to neighbouring properties.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey read out a statement on behalf of Ward Member Maria Gee. Maria stated that the approval of this planning application rested on the arguments about access and safety for residents at the lower end of Froghall Drive. Maria drew the Committee’s attention to the arguments presented by residents objecting to the application regarding restricted access to their homes, and the accessibility for emergency vehicles. Maria asked that the Committee satisfy itself that access was not impeded, particularly from a fire safety perspective.

 

Adriana Gonzales, case officer, stated that the RBFRS had confirmed that they had no objection to the application, and clarified that they had access towards the properties at the end of the carriageway.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Application No 210805 - "Dolphin School", Waltham Road, Hurst, Wokingham, RG10 0FR pdf icon PDF 442 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a two storey building to create additional classrooms, toilets and library facilities, with associated roof terrace.

 

Applicant: Mr Adam Hurst

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 189 to 214.

 

The Committee were advised that the updates within the supplementary planning agenda included additional details from the applicant which would result in fewer pre-commencement conditions. As such, conditions 2 through 7 had been slightly amended.

 

Stephen Conway stated that there was the issue of the listed building setting and historic wall, however the proposals were very effectively screened.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey sought confirmation that an informative had been added which asked that sprinklers be installed on site. Adriana Gonzalez, case officer, confirmed that informative 4 sought the inclusion of sprinklers.

 

RESOLVED That application number 210805 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 190 to 193, and amended conditions 2 through 7 as set out in the supplementary planning agenda.

9.

Application No 210448 - 57 Chiltern Crescent, Earley, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 318 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a prejudicial interest in this item and took no part in the discussion or vote.

 

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed loft conversion to create habitable accommodation with rear dormer extension, hip to gable conversion and the installation of 2no. roof lights.

 

Applicant: Mr M Mand

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 215 to 228.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the supplementary planning agenda.

 

Tim Marsh, ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that large dormers were appearing frequently in the locality, and all such dormers would have been refused if they were required to go for planning permission instead of permitted development. Tim stated that there was still a clear character in the area of having semi-detached hip-ended properties. Tim added that once a third storey was placed on top of the property with windows in this manner overlooking became an issue, as a traditional smaller dormer had its windows set much further back. Tim stated that the concern from residents was that overlooking would occur from looking directly down from the third floor of the property. Tim stated that CP3 made it clear that development should be appropriate for the area where it is located. The principles of the Borough Design Guide referred to CP3, stating that developments should respond appropriately to the existing character of the area and relate well to neighbours. Tim felt that these proposals did not comply with CP3 or the Borough Design Guide, and the application should be refused.

 

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that Chiltern Crescent was characterised by semi-detached properties with hip-ended roofs. The Borough Design Guide stated that developments should maintain the rhythm of the street scene, which these proposals would not in Shirley’s opinion. Shirley added that there were only two examples similar to the proposals in the area, which did nothing to enhance the street scene. Shirley felt that officers should look for exemplary examples of extensions rather than referring to poorly designed outliers. Shirley felt that a small partial hip joint would not impinge on the floor area and would only have a minor impact on the dormer, and should have been considered instead of the proposals.

 

Carl Doran queried what measurements were taken when assessing the dormer as subservient, queried how much of the development could be carried out under permitted development, and queried why examples of poorer design which were carried out under permitted development were being used as examples to promote this application. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, stated that the gross volume of the proposals were in keeping with permitted development and followed the Borough Design Guide advice. This application could have been carried out under permitted development, if not for a previously agreed planning application of which this application relied on part of that roof structure. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that the Borough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Application 210378 - Buildings 4 and 5 Microsoft Campus, Thames Valley Business Park pdf icon PDF 516 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for proposed alterations to external areas to provide improved landscaping, outdoor gym, amenity and presentation areas, plus erection of refuse store and reconfiguration of car parking.

 

Applicant: BREO TVP4 LTD & BREO TVP5 LTD

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 229 to 248.

 

The Committee were advised that the updates within the supplementary planning agenda included amendment to condition 4.

 

Carl Doran commented that this application would be an upgrade to the existing business park, which would hopefully lead to the creation of additional jobs in the local area.

 

RESOLVED That application number 210378 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 230 to 233, and amended condition 4 as set out in the supplementary planning agenda.