Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the 2018/19 municipal year.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Tim Holton be elected Chairman of the Planning Committee for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

Councillor Holton personally thanked Councillor Philip Houldsworth for his service on the Planning Committee.

Councillor Holton personally thanked Councillor John Kaiser for his service as Vice Chairman in the previous two years’ Planning Committee.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the 2018/19 municipal year.

RESOLVED: That Councillor Chris Bowring be appointed Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee for the 2018/19 Municipal Year.

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 May 2018.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 May 2018 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There are a number of references to the Members' Update within these minutes. The Members' Update was circulated to all present prior to the meeting. It also contains details of properties to be visited prior to the next Planning Meeting. A copy is attached.

To receive any declaration of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 9 to 46.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included: 

·         a correction to the summary section of the report, the site was to the left of Hollow Lane;

·         label Informatives below condition 8;

·         paragraph 23 had an error in numbering, re number changed to 24 and numbered up subsequent paragraphs;

·         paragraph 50, the flats would meet internal space standards;

·         paragraph 51, the balconies would range from a minimum of 9m² to 20m².

Elizabeth Fowler, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. She stated that this application was a reserved matter and that application 180757 was also brought to the Committee so that they could be considered together. She added that the facility would provide 80 extra care units for residents over 55 years of age whom were in need of some amount of care. She stated that there would be communal facilities for residents and that the facility would be adaptable in terms of care. Elizabeth added that resident’s spouses could move in as at any time.  

Barrie Patman, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was representing all of Shinfield South’s ward Members’. He stated that this was to be a flagship development in a prime real estate area which would be a showcase for Shinfield South and which needed to be in keeping with the existing surroundings. He felt that the four storey design was not in keeping with the surrounding area and that the external appearance of the property did not stand out as a showcase development should. He stated that he had concerns with the appearance of the balconies. He added his sympathy with the Parish council and their concerns.

Christopher Howard, Case Officer, clarified a number of Member concerns. He stated that the proposed development was no higher than the approved  parameters. He added that the extra space provided by the fourth storey was necessary to ensure  the care provider has the minimum amount of space and  bedrooms to operate the facility at a profit. He continued by stating that the four storey design was designed to differentiate the new building with  the adjacent properties. . He stated that the development would act as an ‘entrance’ to the new village centre and that the balconies provided useful and necessary outdoor space for the residents and broke up the mass of the building.

In response to Member queries regarding the lack of sprinkler’s in the proposed design Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – SDL Planning Delivery, clarified that this was a building regulation consideration rather than a planning issue. 

Chris Easton, Service Manager – Highways Development, clarified a number of concerns from Members’ regarding car parking. He stated that the proposed car parking arrangement complied with the Council’s policies. He added that a car parking management strategy would be in place at the facility. In response to a query regarding disabled car  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

The Committee received and reviewed about this application, set out in Agenda pages 47 to 86.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         a correction to the summary section of the report, the site was to the west of Hollow Lane;

·         an amendment to the list of plans to include plan number TDA.2368.01, Rev B;

·         removal of condition 6 (boundary treatment) as stated in the report as this detail had been provided;

·         the travel plan being corrected to condition 5 and remaining conditions numbered up accordingly.

Elizabeth Fowler, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. She stated that this application was more akin to a traditional care home and would accommodate 4 wings with 17 residents in each. She added that each bedroom would provide an en suite wet room. She stated that the facility would have separate communal areas for each wing in addition to larger communal areas.

Barrie Patman, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was concerned over the appearance of the proposed development as it would be in a prime location and he felt that its design did not stand out from its surroundings. He stated concerns regarding the elevation of the property.

Christopher Howard, Case Officer, clarified that there would be storage facilities for 3 mobility scooters and that the property would back on to the extra care facility from two storeys to three storeys.

Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – SDL Planning Delivery, answered a number of Member queries regarding pedestrian access to the nearby medical centre. He stated that this was difficult to achieve as this would require the agreement of a third party land owner , however there would be consultation with the surgery and other land owners to try and secure this access.   

A number of Members’ raised concerns about the lack of a sprinkler system in the proposed development. Connor Corrigan clarified that this was a building regulation consideration rather than a planning issue.

Christopher Howard clarified a query from Councillor Jarvis regarding the number of rooms. Christopher stated that the third floor of the development would be for staff use only, rather than for the residents use.

Councillor Holton queried the allocation of 7 visitor car parking bays. Chris Easton, Service Manager – Highways Development, stated that the overall parking provision was in line with the use proposed on site and that the total parking provision would be managed by the facility and therefore subject to Travel Planning and unallocated parking, there would be  sufficient level of parking availablethis was deemed and acceptable number by Officers.

RESOLVED: That application 180757 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 49 to 52.

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

The Committee received and reviewed a report set out in Agenda pages 87 to 107.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         two additional conditions to be added to the application, Site Levels and Cycle Parking – details required;

·         condition 13 (Sustainable Drainage) was to be replaced with a condition regarding Drainage Details, which would assist preventing increased flood risk from surface water run off;

·         a clarification to the total number of objections received;

·         a clarification that the finished heights of the proposed dwellings be measured at approximately 8.2 metres and that both dwellings would benefit from private rear garden depths of 11 metres.

Paula Wallace, Neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Paula stated that she made it 38 objections to the application rather than the 37 stated in the Members’ Update. She stated that the application was based on a notoriously dangerous junction which had limited visibility (due to roadside vegetation and traffic) and was already confusing for road users. She added that The Piggott Senior School walk past the junction as it was the only safe walking route (as school lane was unsafe to walk). Paula felt that this additional development would only increase the danger associated with the junction. She added that she had personally seen two children knocked off of their bikes and had a pram knocked out of her hand. She stated that the Council had made efforts to make Braybrooke road safer, with a new pavement present outside her house.

Paul Woods, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that all of the planning Officer’s recommendations had been taken on board and applied to this application. He added that the proposed development was acceptable.

John Halsall, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that Paula Wallace had summarized many of the concerns associated with this application. He stated that this application had gone through three separate application numbers, and had believed that this particular application number had ceased previously. He added that this application was close to a hazardous corner and he was of the opinion that highways had not rigorously assessed the risks that this application would add to.

Chris Easton, Service Manager – Highways Development, clarified a number of Member queries. He stated that there had been no accidents reported on the official Police databases that Highways reviews when assessing proposed developmentcould use. He added that if accidents do happen they residents should be encouraged to report accidents toreported to the police so that they would appear on the official databases. He stated that approximately 40 to 50 metres of double yellow lines were present within the vicinity of around the junction.

Members’ sought clarification regarding enforcement of parking beyond the double yellow lines. Chris Easton stated that this was not feasibly enforceable as there are no parking restriction in place in these areas.

RESOLVED: That application 170994 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 88 to 92, two additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

The Committee received and reviewed a report set out in Agenda pages 109 to 137.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included an additional condition (18) which would assist in protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Neil Davis, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that there had been 5 letters in support of the application including one from the Parish Council. He added that the application would include an ecological enhanced area, a new pond and various plants to be placed around the development. He added that the proposed development posed no amenity concerns.

Garth Pearce, Neighbour, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that all of the local residents supported the application and that the owner had consulted with local residents and had taken their thoughts on board. He stated that this land had over 25 years of obscure schemes, including 3 planning inquiries that had been found in favour of rejecting the application. He stated that he and other local residents were pleased to have a developer whom had proposed a reasonable scheme and had consulted with residents and the local authority throughout the planning process.

Councillor Ross sought clarification regarding the enhancement area land. Mark Croucher, Case Officer, stated that the land was part of an ecological management plan and that the section 106 agreement would add security to that.

In response to a Member query regarding a gate at the property, Mark Croucher stated that there had been no proposals for a gate to be installed at the development.

RESOLVED: That application 173726 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 110 to 116, an additional condition 18 as detailed in the Members’ Update and a S106 legal agreement.