Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Chris Bowring.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 June 2018 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 25 June 2018.

The Minutes of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 June 2018 and the Extraordinary Meeting held on 25 June 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

A declaration of interest was received from John Jarvis for agenda item 22 on the grounds that he had attended a Parish Council Meeting where this application was discussed. He stated that he would come in to this Meeting with an open mind and would take part in the discussion and the vote.

A declaration of interest was received from Bill Soane for agenda item 22 on the grounds that he had a prejudicial interest. Bill stated that he would leave the meeting for the duration of agenda item 22 and would take no part in the vote.

A declaration of interest was received from Angus Ross for agenda item 21 on the grounds that he was heavily involved in the redevelopment proposals for the Bulmershe Leisure Centre in his role as Executive Member for Environment in the 2016-17 municipal year. He stated that he had taken no part in the planning process for this application and would view the application with an open mind and would take part in the discussion and the vote.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.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.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of replacement leisure centre that includes a 6-lane swimming pool and teaching pool (with moveable floor), 75no. unit gymnasium, 4no. court sports hall, 2no. studios, ancillary cafe, parking, access and landscaping along with the provision of an extension to the existing Bulmershe School car park; following the demolition of the existing leisure centre and caretaker house.

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 46. 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         Clarification regarding the prior approval application that allowed for demolition works to commence;

·         Clarification regarding the number of full and part time staff;

·         Correction to the height of the two storey section of the development;

·         An amendment to Condition 10;

·         Mark Croucher, Case Officer, suggested that an additional condition regarding sustainability and renewable energy source usage be added.

Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the Town Council was pleased to see proposals for a modern leisure facility which could be used by the community. He added that there had been a cooperative approach between the Town and Borough Council in order to bring the leisure centre up to standard. Keith stated that the proposals for a refurbishment and rebuild of the Bulmershe leisure centre had been ongoing since 2014 and that the application would deliver to the needs and aspirations of the residents and community. He added that the proposed development would be a significant improvement to the existing leisure facility and would promote healthy living for its surrounding residents, facilities for the nearby schools and would improve the character and appearance of the area. He strongly urged the Committee to approve the application.

Norman Jorgensen, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the existing facility had been degrading over time and that it was not economically viable to upgrade the existing facility and therefore a total rebuild was required. He added that the proposed development would significantly improve on the services provided by the current facility. Norman stated that Bulmershe School would be granted access to the pool and sports hall during term time between 9am and 5pm, with a 2 to 3 hour restriction on the swimming pool access to allow the general public time to use the facilities. Norman stated that the aim of the new facility would be that it would see increased use by the public (compared to the existing centre) and would encourage healthy living to the community. He added that the proposed development would be in line with the Council’s 21^st Century leisure strategy. Norman stated that the income generated by the leisure centre would exceed the costs of the development as it would be heavily used by the residents and the community.

A statement in favour of the application from Ward Member Shahid Younis was read out by Tim Holton in Shahid’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Bill Soane left the Meeting for the duration of this item.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 5no dwellings.

Applicant: Hicks Development Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report on this application, set out in Agenda pages 47 to 82.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         Corrections to various conditions;

·         Clarification of the garden sizes;

·         Clarification of parking allocation;

·         Clarification of the reasoning behind the electrical plugs sitting at 1.0m above the finished floor level.

Graham Brown, Local Resident, spoke in objection to the application. He was of the opinion that the proposed development would cause an increased risk to flooding at his property and could back up the sewage system. He stated that the proposed development was situated in flood zone two and himself and other local residents were concerned about their properties being flooded as a result of the proposed development. He stated that there was flooding on the site earlier in the year which covered half of the proposed new development site. Mr Brown added that the raised levels of the proposed development would be one metre above his back garden and would be sixty centimetres above Orpington Close. He felt that the prior raising of land and other matters contradicted clauses twelve and thirteen. He urged the Committee to refuse the application based on the concerns he had listed. 

Jim Bailey, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the principle of the five proposed dwellings was set out in the local plan and that the site was set out in a highly sustainable location. He added that the proposed houses would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and that they were all three bedroom family homes with an eleven metre garden depth. He stated that the proposed development would not harm the neighbouring properties amenities. Mr Bailey stated that flooding had been recognised as a key issue which had been addressed with various improvements to the scheme and subsequently the environment agency had removed their objection to the development. He stated that an underground storage system would be installed to store the excess surface water. He added that affordable housing would be delivered at the development and would be secured by a section 106 agreement.

Lindsay Ferris, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that due to flooding in 2014 the majority of the proposed development site was underwater or boggy ground. He stated that he had objected to the site being included in the local plan in 2012. He stated that flood zones should only be used for development in exceptional circumstances for example where they would provide a wider sustainability benefit and he queried how this proposed development would provide any wider sustainability benefit. Lindsay stated that the residents of the residents of 14, 15 and 16 Orpington Close felt exposed due the risk of water flowing down to their existing properties from the heightened new development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval.

Bill Soane re-entered the Meeting.

Proposal: Full Application for the proposed erection of a 3 bed detached dwelling following demolition of existing garage.

Applicant: Mr Levi Alleyne

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 83 to 110.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         A clarification to condition 2;

·         An additional neighbour comment;

·         Comments from Councillor Emma Hobbs outlining her concerns over the application.

John Jarvis stated that he was concerned that of the flood risk posed by this application as it was situated in a zone that was deliberately flooded to relieve London from flooding. He added that a local car park is one such place that is deliberately flooded and was refused permission to raise the car park level. He stated that should this application be approved then it would result in a loss of land that had been designated for deliberate flooding. He added that the site was not at risk of flooding, but instead a designated deliberate flooding area.

Francesca Hobson, Flood Risk Manager, clarified that there was no history of the proposed site nor the neighbouring dwelling flooding in the past 25 years and the raising of the property would take it out of the flood zone and the Flooding Officer had been happy with the assessments completed.  

Justin Turvey, Operational Development Manager Lead Officer (Interim), stated that the Environment Agency (who are responsible for the deliberate flooding of the rivers) had not made an objection to the application.

Carl Doran queried why a previous application at the site had been refused. In response Stefan Fludger, Case Officer, stated that the previous dwelling at the application had been deemed to be to narrow and out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area. He added that the current application had made alterations to the design which were now deemed acceptable.

Stefan Fludger clarified to Members’ that Thames Water had made no objections to the application.

RESOLVED: That application 180716 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 84 to 88 and the clarified condition 2 as contained in the Members’ Update. 

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed raising of roof height to create a new second floor to create 14no self-contained residential apartments including a communal garden and upgraded cycle storage and refuse facilities.

Applicant: Mr Daniel Rose

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 111 to 134.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·         An updated description;

·         Corrections to the report;

·         Additional conditions 11 and 12.

Members queried the lack of local amenity space near the proposed development. In response Justin Turvey, Operational Development Management Lead Officer (Interim), clarified that the other floors of the dwelling had prior approval consent and therefore all that could be looked at with regards to this application in terms of amenities was the harm on the amenity space that would be caused by the proposed development which he stated would be limited. He added that the nearest ‘green field’ amenity space was the Viking Field, which was within walking distance of the proposed development.

Carl Doran stated his concerns over the lack of affordable housing at the development. Justin Turvey clarified that the application would provide an off-site contribution for affordable housing of approximately 97% of the expected amount. He also stated that the prior approval process of the other floors of the dwelling meant that only flooding, contamination and highways could be looked at during the planning process. Tim Holton stated that due to the small size of the development the commuted sum could be put to better use elsewhere than could be provided at this small development.

RESOLVED: That application 180029 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 112 to 115 and additional conditions 11 and 12 as contained within the Members’ Update. 

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the change of use of part of the Emmbrook building from D2 (Country Park) to D1 (Nursery).

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council (Dinton Pastures Country Park)

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 135 to 148.

Members discussed the detail of the application and stated that the site was a suitable place for a nursery and that it would benefit the community.

RESOLVED: That application 180190 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 135 to 142.