Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 March 2020.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 March 2020 were confirmed as a correct record, to be signed physically at a later date, subject to the following minor clarification:

Item 95: RESOLVED That application number 193059 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 16 to 22, and additional three conditions as resolved by the Committee (delegating officers to assess a reasonable vehicle weight limit and condition it to the subject application site; 2m boundary fence; and an 8am opening time).

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consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no applications recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the erection of a 1No bed two storey dwelling following demolition of existing workshop

Applicant: Mr Ray Cook

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 17 to 56.

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

In line with the given deadlines, two public written submissions were received for this item. These submissions were circulated to Members in advance, and noted on the evening. A summary of the submissions can be found below.

Selena Durrant, neighbour, provided a submission objecting to the application. Selena stated that the subject application was situated towards the rear of her property, alongside her garden. Selena added that her personal view, and the view of her family, had not changed since the subject application was first submitted. Selena stated that the Twyford conservation area was unique, and included special architectural and historical aspects. Selena was of the opinion that the development of the garages was completely wrong for the conservation area, which residents and the Council should be working together to protect and maintain. Selena added that the modern design of the proposals were not in keeping with conservation area, and did not enhance the conservation area. Selena stated that any loss of parking spaces would only add to the existing poor situation in the area, creating further friction within the community which would lead to anti-social behaviour. Selena added that the close proximity of the development would encroach on her family’s right to privacy, with any owner or occupier of the proposed development being able to see directly into the rooms at the rear of her house, particularly affecting the privacy of her young son whose bedroom is at the rear of the property. Selena concluded by stating that the proposals would result in a life changing impact on her family’s lives.

Thomas Rumble, agent, provided a statement in support of the application. Thomas stated that at the March Committee, he mentioned a previous Inspector’s decision that established important parameters for how this application should be considered. Thomas added that the Inspector referred to the site’s existing negative contribution to the Twyford Station Conservation Area (‘CA’) and this brownfield site’s highly accessible and sustainable location. Thomas commented that the Inspector also identified that a contemporary design forms an approach that would be far better than a pastiche of the existing nearby buildings. Thomas stated that the Inspector had previously found two revisions that should be made to the scheme’s design, namely a glazed first floor and the first floor being realigned by half a metre to be in line with its neighbour. Thomas stated that both of these revisions were included within the scheme before the Committee. Thomas added that the Inspector did not consider the amenity space to be in conflict with the development plan or design guide. Thomas stated that the development would release a new property appropriate, for example, to a first-time buyer and removed an existing workshop use inappropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a workshop including associated office accommodation and storage following demolition of existing outbuildings

Applicant: Mr Lyon

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 57 to 78.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Confirmation that the overall volume increase on site would be net zero, as the other buildings on site were due to be demolished;

·           The previous appeal decision.

Simon Weeks commented that some Committee Members would have visited this site previously. Simon added that the current proposals were now single storey, well set back from the road, and there was clear guidance from the Inspector’s report with regards to this application.

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

Carl Doran queried whether additional landscaping would be required on site, and whether condition 2 would restrict the usage of the outside area of the site. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that additional landscaping would not be required as there was already sufficient screening from the Bath Road and the standard landscape plan would suffice. With regards to usage of the outside area of the building, Mark stated that the previous owners had used this area for storage, however it would not be appropriate for the outside areas to be used for more general B2.

Abdul Loyes asked for clarification as to whether car breaking could be allowed on site under the proposed B2 classification. Justin Turvey, Team Manager (Development & Regeneration), stated that car breaking would solely be a suis generis use which would not be covered under B2. In addition, the owner restored classic cars in a forensic and calculated operation, and it was very unlikely that any car breaking would be considered within this operation.

Andrew Mickleburgh whether any additional parking spaces would be required on site, and whether additional screening would be required on parts of the site away from the entrance. Mark Croucher stated that the proposed 20 additional staff would be accommodated by the existing car parking on site, which currently had a good amount of extra capacity above 20 spaces. Mark stated that the proposals amounted to a relatively discreet development and it was felt that additional landscaping would not be required.

Malcolm Richards asked for further clarification with regards to the demolition condition. Mark Croucher clarified that occupation of the proposed building could not take place until the other building had been demolished.

RESOLVED That application number 193047 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 57 to 62, and subject to completion of a legal agreement.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the erection of 5 No detached dwellings, one with separate garage and four dwellings with internal garages. Associated landscaping works including one balancing pond. 2 No accesses with entrance gates and 1.2m post and rail fencing

Applicant: Woodridge Developments

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 79 to 114.

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

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

Gary Cowan queried whether this specific application had taken into account the comments of the current AWE leadership, or the comments of the former AWE leadership. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that further consultation may be required in the future, however based on current legislation it was unlikely that the scheme was unacceptable. The scheme before Members had taken into account the consultation responses previously received relating to this scheme.

Simon Weeks proposed that the legal agreement have a timescale of three months imposed upon it, unless agreed by the head of development management and the Chair of the Planning Committee. This was put to Committee Members and agreed.

RESOLVED That application number 193356 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 80 to 87, subject to satisfactory completion of a legal agreement within three months unless agreed by the head of development management and the Chair of the Planning Committee.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed change of use from

agricultural to personal leisure use including erection of summer

house. (retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Justin Fletcher

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 115 to 132.

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

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether the summer house could be used as a form of permanent or semi-permanent residential accommodation. Brian O’Donovan, case officer, clarified that the proposals did not include permission for residential accommodation. The applicant would be required to apply for a change of use permission if they wished to use the dwelling as residential accommodation.

A number of Members commented that it was regrettable that this application had come to Committee as a retrospective application.

RESOLVED That application number 193422 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 116 to 117.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the erection of a single storey

extension to the sales area to include 2No roller doors and 2No security doors

Applicant: Ashridge Manor Garden Centre

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 133 to 152.

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

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried where the proposed extension would be situated on the site. Brian O’Donovan, case officer, stated that the extension was to be located on the southernmost point of the site.

RESOLVED That application number 200323 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 133 to 134.

Recommendation: That the Diversion Order is made

Proposal: Diversion Order Hurst Footpath 20

Applicant: St. Nicholas Hurst C of E Primary School

The Committee received and reviewed a report, set out in agenda pages 153 to 160.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) were the landowners of the playing field where the footpath ran, and the WBC commercial property team were in support of the proposals;

·           The stile at Point E on Plan No. 1 had now been removed by the School.

Members were asked in turn for any comments or queries on this application. Specific comments or queries are summarised below.

Simon Weeks queried whether all gates could accommodate wheelchairs and buggies. Andrew Fletcher, case officer, clarified that the proposals were compliant to accommodate both wheelchairs and buggies.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the school was happy with the removal of the top fence rail, with regards to safeguarding. Andrew Fletcher stated that the removal of the top fence rail had been proposed by the open spaces society. These proposals had been agreed in conjunction with the school.

Malcolm Richards queried whether approval of this footpath would nullify the existing footpath. Andrew Fletcher confirmed that if approved, the existing rights would be removed and the new lines would be officially added.

A number of Members commented that they were pleased that the proposals increased the safety of children at the school and safeguarding measures.

RESOLVED That the diversion order be made, subject to the points contained within the recommendation set out in agenda pages 153 to 154.