Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday, 12th June, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: David Hicks 1 - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

5.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted from Angus Ross.

6.

Minutes of Previous Meetings pdf icon PDF 244 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 May 2019 and the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 22 May 2019

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 May 2019 and the Minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Committee held on 22 May 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following typographical amendments:

 

Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 May 2019:

 

Agenda page 6: “that the Winnersh area was in need…”

Agenda page 7: “that the surrounding roads were usually full with on street parking…

Members' Update pdf icon PDF 235 KB

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. A copy is attached.

7.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

8.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

9.

Application No. 181499 - Land South of Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, RG2 9AG pdf icon PDF 709 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of 249 dwellings, new public open space, landscaping, surface water attenuation, access and associated works at land to the south of Cutbush Lane Shinfield.

 

Applicant: Bellway Homes and the University of Reading

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 110.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           An 37 updated list of head terms/alternative recommendation C on

Pages 17 and 37;

·           Replacement Table 1 on page 56;

·           Removal of the work ‘around’ on page 60 paragraph 40;

·           Typographical clarification on page 65 paragraph 73 stating that the total parking space allocation was 415 allocated spaces and 95 unallocated/visitor spaces;

·           Clarification regarding the SANG capacity.

 

Jack Hatch, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Jack stated that he was surprised that this application had returned to the Planning Committee so quickly, considering the amount of details that had changed including the SANG provision. Jack was of the opinion that many of the objections raised by residents and interested parties had not been adequately addressed. Jack stated that many of the objections had highlighted that the proposed development site was not originally present in the SDL and was instead released via an Executive decision. Jack was of the opinion that the surrounding area of Shinfield was not coping with the existing levels of housing development and raised concerns relating to the lack of highways traffic concerns raised. Jack added that there was concern regarding access to the proposed development, citing that the access road was very limited with regards to space, especially on the west side of the road where the proposed development would be situated. Jack was of the opinion that the proposed access was therefore not safe. Jack concluded by querying whether the proposed development met Wokingham’s needs effectively.

 

Mark Chatfield, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Mark stated that further consultation had not been carried out between the developer and the residents despite the significant changes to the application. Mark added that the report had noted that any archaeological findings on the proposed development site would be of little value, Mark felt that this was an opinion and he referenced that Shinfield had a longstanding history. Mark was of the opinion that there was no way to assess the impact to residents’ wellbeing should the site be developed, and added that the proposed development could create additional pollution. Mark stated that traffic issues were already commonplace around the proposed development site and felt that this development would only exacerbate these existing problems. Mark added that there was poor pedestrian access to the proposed development and that this could lead to dangerous situations. Mark noted that the reptile survey was undertaken in December which was contrary to advice given by Natural England on how and when to undertake such surveys. Mark concluded by commenting that local residents would concur that there was no capacity within local services such as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Application No. 190881 - Addington SEN School, Woodlands Avenue, Woodley, RG5 3EU pdf icon PDF 313 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of a new teaching block, extended car parking and the reconfiguration of the existing MUGAs and sensory garden.

 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council C/O DHA Planning Ltd

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 111 to 152.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Clarification that agenda pages 127 to 142 were duplicated due to an administrative error;

·           Additional comments received;

·           Alteration to condition 6 to replace the word ‘provided’ with ‘implemented’;

·           Altered condition 9.

 

Jenny Lissaman, on behalf of the residents’ association, spoke in objection to the application. Jenny commented that the Committee had not undertaken a site visit for this application. Jenny was of the opinion that the application would allow a much loved open space to become lost and added that residents were becoming fatigued with a lack of consultation and compromise with developments in the area. Jenny queried why there was a need for the application to include a car park, when there was capacity at other local sites including the space owned by the University of Reading nearby. Jenny was of the opinion that the Officer report did not clarify how the new development would be screened, adding that a hedge would provide inadequate screening in the winter months. Jenny asked that the overall parking strategy for the area be evaluated in order to find a more amenable solution. Jenny added that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) was ignoring its own policies with regards to this application, and asked that the application be taken away and revised.

 

Jim Leivers, WBC Interim Director of Children’s Services, spoke in support of the application. Jim stated that Addington was a brilliant school which had been rated as ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted. Jim added that without the proposed development resource WBC would be required to provide alternate services for the children Addington served. Jim concluded by stating that the application had been carefully considered and assessed by himself, the Head teacher and Planning Officers, and was a resource which was very much needed.

 

A number of Members queried whether there was a need for new parking provision, when considering that there was available parking locally. In addition, Carl Doran commented that the Site of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) was being constantly eroded, and the proposed car parking would add to this. Alex Thwaites, Case Officer, stated that from a planning perspective an increase pupil and staff numbers resulted in an increase in parking provision, and this had been assessed by highways and was deemed acceptable. Alex added that there had to be a balanced approach to the SULV as the parking had to be positioned somewhere on site. Alex added that the proposed main teaching block was positioned outside of the SULV. Simon Weeks stated that if the application was approved, Jim Leivers could enter discussions with the University of Reading to explore alternative options for parking.

 

Stephen Conway asked for clarification  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Application No. 190455 - Arborfield Garrison SDL and adjoining land, Parcel X, Arborfield, RG2 9LN pdf icon PDF 827 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Application for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning consent O/2014/2280 for the construction of 70 dwellings together with access from the Primary School Access Road (PSAR), associated internal access roads, parking, landscaping and footpaths/cycleways relating to land at Parcel X.

 

Applicant: Bewley Homes Plc C/O Savills (Mr Stuart Garnett)

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 153 to 190.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Clarification of condition 6(b);

·           Alteration to condition 7.

 

Simon Weeks commented that this application was one of a series of reserved matters application for the wider Arborfield Garrison development site.

 

Gary Cowan commented that the 3 storey buildings towards the edge of the proposed development were not desirable, and sought clarification regarding parking restrictions. Alex Thwaites, Case Officer, clarified that parking restrictions would be enforced by condition.

 

Stephen Conway queried why there was a Highways objection to the application. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Strategic Development Locations Planning Delivery, clarified that the number of parking spaces were compliant and the Highways objection was related to the positioning of particular visitor spaces, and Highways suggested that trees be removed in order to reposition the spaces. Connor added that as the spaces were policy compliant, it was desirable from a planning and visual perspective to retain those trees.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried what the commuted sum would be used for in terms of affordable housing development. Simon Weeks stated that the commuted sum would be used to help redevelop the Gorse Ride estate, both renovating existing homes and creating brand new ones.

 

Carl Doran raised concerns over the split of affordable homes and the use of a commuted sum. Alex Thwaites confirmed that the proposed development conformed to the approved housing mix as stipulated at outline planning consent.  

 

RESOLVED That application 190455 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 154 to 158, clarified condition 6(b) and amended condition 7 as set out in the Members’ Update.

12.

Application No. 190618 - Liberty of Earley House, Strand Way, Earley pdf icon PDF 366 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the change of use from Aged Care Facility to residential (all affordable), the creation of six new apartments (36no flats in total) through conversion of part of existing communal areas, provision of communal lounge, managers officer and visitor room and the addition of 8no car park spaces

 

Applicant: Kate Bessant of Reading Almshouses Charity

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 191 to 222.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates. However, Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Strategic Development Locations Planning Delivery, advised that the officer recommendation be updated to read:

 

A.     Completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the provision of 100% affordable housing, the limitation of single occupancy for some units and the use of the visitor room

 

Peter Webb, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Peter stated that the charity operated from two other locations and always aimed to build a community which worked in a harmonious way with the existing area. Peter added that the average age of residents was approximately 68, however key workers including nurses and police had been accommodated for in the past. Peter stated that a large proportion of tenants tended to be single occupants, and that the residents occupied the building under terms of licence which would allow for the property to remain as affordable rent indefinitely. Peter added that the dwelling would not offer care however individuals were welcome to bring in their own care. Peter commented that the previous owner of the property had concluded that the aged care facility was not viable to continue. Peter stated that the communal meeting room would be retained in addition to the existing management office and laundry room.

 

Simon Weeks commented that the living spaces were smaller in area than in many applications, however many residents could be transferring from temporary accommodation solutions such as Bed & Breakfast, in addition to many of the residents being single occupants. Simon added that the smaller living spaces were therefore acceptable in the circumstances, especially when considering the communal meeting room and garden area available to residents.

 

A number of Members raised concerns regarding the parking provision at the proposed development, including the possibility of increased on-street parking as a result of the proposed development. Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the parking provision met Wokingham’s parking standards. Judy added that Wokingham’s parking standard was 0.5 unallocated spaces per 1-bedroom rental flat property, and as the development provided 24 spaces for 36 homes the provision exceeded standards. Judy added that a car parking management strategy was to be provided by condition.

 

Members of the Committee welcomed the provision of more affordable housing in the Borough.

 

RESOLVED That application number 190618 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 192 to 197.

Continuation of the Meeting

At this point in the meeting 10.25pm, in accordance with Procedure Rule 8.2.9, the Committee considered a Motion to continue the meeting beyond 10.30pm, up to no later than 11pm, to enable further business on the Agenda to be transacted. This was proposed by Simon Weeks and seconded by Chris Bowring.

 

RESOLVED That the meeting be extended past 10.30pm, up to no later than 11pm, to enable further business on the Agenda to be transacted.

13.

Application No. 190673 - Luckley House School, Luckley Road, Wokingham, RG40 3EU pdf icon PDF 801 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed construction of a reduced size

multi-use synthetic turf sports pitch with a 3m-4.5m high fence and 6no 12m column floodlights

 

Applicant: Mr Norman Patterson

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 223 to 292.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Correction to condition 12;

·           Officer response to an additional letter of objection from neighbouring properties, represented by ET Planning Consultant.

 

Adrian Mather, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Adrian stated that Wokingham Town Council Planning Committee had previously resolved this particular application and could therefore no reconsider it within a six month period. Adrian stated that since resolving this application, further information had come to the attention of the Town Council Planning Committee that was pertinent to the application. Adrian asked that the Committee consider all the relevant information and allow time for the Town Council to reconsider the application.

 

Emily Temple, Planning Consultant on behalf of local residents, spoke in objection to the application. Emily stated that she was representing 14 residents and commented that a formal stage 1 complaint had been submitted to Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) with regards to this planning application. Emily added that residents had commissioned an independent noise impact assessment which had taken into account noise sources including spectators, traffic noise, PA system(s), referee’s whistle and background noise. Emily was of the opinion that many of these noise sources had not been fully assessed or modelled by the applicant’s noise impact assessment. Emily was of the opinion that although condition 6 was intended to mitigate harm it did not meet the test to be an enforceable condition. Emily stated that light intrusion from the proposed floodlights would be harmful to residents, especially in the winter months and there was inadequate screening proposed between the residential properties and the proposed development site. Emily was of the opinion that the application had been returned to the Committee far too early, and urged the Committee to allow time for a further noise impact assessment to be commissioned.

 

Norman Patterson, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Norman stated that a revised community involvement statement had been submitted for consideration. Norman confirmed that the application had no association with or funding supplied by Sports England and that the school’s business plan was not dependant on the pitch producing any income from third party use. Norman stated that use of whistles would be restricted to Saturday mornings and added that this was easily enforceable by only allowing bookings which required use of a whistle to Saturday morning slots.

 

 

Maria Gee, Ward Member, submitted a written statement which was in objection to the application. In her absence, Chris Bowring read out the statement. Maria noted that the residents did not object to the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) itself but instead the current plans for its design and use. Maria sought confirmation that a site visit had been carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Application No. 190747 - Land Rear of Stanbury House, Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood, RG7 1AJ pdf icon PDF 457 KB

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for change of use of agricultural land to provide Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and associated access, car park, footpaths and landscaping works (Renewal of planning permission 161920)

 

Applicant: Cooper Estates Strategic Land Limited

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 293 to 318.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.

 

Carl Doran queried whether the 57 houses at Stanbury had been approved, Simon Weeks confirmed this to be correct.

 

RESOLVED That application 190747 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 294 to 298.