Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting. View directions

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

19.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Stephen Conway and Pauline Jorgensen.

20.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 382 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 August 2020

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 August 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at a later date, subject to the following minor amendments.

 

Agenda page 7: “Malcolm sought clarification regarding the hours which lighting be operational on the site, and queried whether a refreshment machine could be located on site.”

 

Agenda page 17: “Malcolm Richards queried whether different proposed layouts of the pitches…”

 

Agenda page 17: “Justin Turvey stated that the nearby Dittons residential properties were a mix of houses including some terraced…

Members' Update

There are a number of references to the Members’ Update within these minutes. The Members’ Update was circulated to all present at the meeting, and published on the WBCwebsite. A copy is attached.

21.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

Simon Weeks declared a prejudicial interest relating to agenda item 23, on the grounds that he had spoken against the application at the last meeting. Simon added that he would take no part in the discussion or voting on this item, however he would address the Committee as Ward Member under the public speaking arrangements.

 

Simon Weeks declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 24, on the grounds that he had worked with the applicant on the delivery of affordable housing in the area. Simon added that he would take no part in the discussion or voting on this item, however he would address the Committee as Ward Member under the public speaking arrangements.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey stated that she had not attended the site visit associated with agenda item 23, and in line with best practice she would take no part in the discussion or voting on this item.

22.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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

23.

Application No.201143 - Land adjacent to 166 Nine Mile Ride, Finchampstead pdf icon PDF 142 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Simon weeks declared a prejudicial interest in this item and took no part in the discussion nor vote.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey took no part in the discussion nor vote on this item in line with best practice regarding participation at site visits.

 

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed addition of four pitches to an existing four pitch caravan park for gypsy and travellers, plus reconfiguration of existing site.

 

Applicant: Mr D Reed

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 19 to 46.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included clarification that Member concerns were related to movement of vehicles referred to the movement of caravans within the site, for example the ‘pinch point’ between pitches 5, 6 and 8, and was not related to the traffic generated by use of the site.

 

Simon Weeks, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Simon stated that there were originally 11 local resident objections and an objection from Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) with regards to this application. Simon added that WBC had an approximate 11 year Gypsy and Traveller land supply, and there was therefore no current unmet need within the Borough in this regard. Simon stated that at the Planning Committee last month, the primary concern from Members appeared to be the proximity of the mobile homes to the nearby Dittons residential properties. Simon stated that whilst improvements had been made to the proposed siting of the mobile homes to the Dittons, it was unclear whether objectors had been informed of this. Simon stated that he reiterated his concerns raised at the last meeting in addition to the consultation responses with regards to his concerns with this application.

 

Carl Doran commented that the improvement of the proposed siting of the mobile homes was welcome, however there was still some concern, as he would not want the mobile homes too close to the residential properties but equally not too far away as amenity space would then become a concern.

 

Angus Ross queried whether having an 11 year Gypsy and Traveller land supply would be a suitable reason for refusal, and asked how enforceable the positioning of the mobile homes on the site would be if approved. Graham Vaughan, case officer, stated that harm needed to be shown in planning terms to constitute a reason for refusal. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that in general not having a land supply was a reason to approve an application, however the reverse situation was not the case. With regards to how enforceable the siting of the mobile homes was, Graham Vaughan stated that the caravans themselves could move within the site, however pitches 5, 6, and 7 were conditioned to not be situated within five metres of the boundary. Graham added that officers could go to the site and measure distance to the boundary, and therefore this was enforceable.

 

Gary Cowan queried whether this application was in conflict to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

Application No.201566 - Land Adjacent to Wyse Hill Lodge, The Village, Finchampstead RG40 4JR pdf icon PDF 990 KB

Recommendation: Refusal

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Simon weeks declared a prejudicial interest in this item and took no part in the discussion nor vote.

 

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of four x 1 no. bedroom flats with associated bin/cycle store, access, parking and amenity space

 

Applicant: Wokingham Area Housing Society

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 47 to 92.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Clarification that the summary report on agenda page 50 incorrectly suggested that the submission received from Wyse Hill Farm was in support of the application, and whilst the submission was reviewed, its contents were inadvertently omitted from the officer report. The points raised and officer comment was included within the update;

·           Comment that the Council’s Drainage Officer has since reviewed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and raised objection on the grounds that the applicant had made an assumption for the infiltration rate, which was considered to be unacceptable.

 

Jim Bailey, Agent, spoke in support of the application. Jim stated that the applicant was a local charitable trust which provided affordable housing for Wokingham residents. Jim added that the proposals provided four affordable rent houses for locals on gifted land, and there was a proven need for affordable units in the area. Jim stated that the applicant was disappointed to see a recommendation of refusal for this application due to the location of a mature tree on site. Jim added that other sites with similar specimens had been managed successfully using appropriate construction methods. Jim stated that veteran classification of trees were carried out by volunteers, and the applicant had no desire to damage the mature tree on site, and instead wished to work to protect the specimen and improve its wellbeing. Jim added that the amenity space provided should be sufficient, especially in the context of the surrounding green land and proximity to the Finchampstead memorial hall. Jim stated that the applicant was happy to enter a legal agreement regarding provision of affordable housing, and added that a no dig construction condition could also be added to protect the tree specimen. Jim concluded by commenting that the application would provide affordable housing and employment during a time of recession.

 

Simon Weeks, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. Simon stated that the Wokingham Area Housing Society already provided affordable housing for a number of local residents in the local area, and the land for this application was donated by a local family for affordable housing for local residents. Simon added that there was an established need for affordable housing in the area, and the proposal was supported by Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) affordable housing team. Simon stated that the applicant’s tree expert with 50 years’ experience disagreed with the classification of the specimen tree as ‘veteran’, as did the Inspector of a recent appeal decision who deemed a veteran tree to be of 4.7m girth or greater and include signs of decay or damage. Simon added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Application No.201345 - Land at Fishponds Road, Wokingham, RG41 2QJ pdf icon PDF 489 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a building consisting of 1no. Self-storage facility (Use Class B8) and 2no. industrial units (Use Classes B1, B2 and B8) with associated hardstanding and soft landscaping, following demolition of existing Units 718 and 720 Millars Business Park.

 

Applicant: IPIF

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 93 to 128.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Correction that existing units 720-21 at Molly Millars Business park were proposed to be demolished;

·           Correction to paragraph 12 of the officer report, which should refer to a 10.5m ridge height and not a haunch height;

·           Revised plans relating to Condition 2;

·           Amended conditions 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 26.

 

Rob Hempsall, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Rob stated that the existing site was occupied by two industrial units comparable in size to the proposed new two units. Rob added that the existing units were in need of serious repair, and the new units would be a considerable improvement. Rob stated that a 4m wide landscaping strip would be provided at the frontage of the units to increase the number of trees on site. Rob added that the proposal complied with policy CP15 as it provided additional class B floor space in addition to providing economic growth. Rob stated that the proposals were set in an existing industrial estate, and would set a benchmark for the level of quality design expected within the area. Rob added that the proposals constituted were a sustainable development, including the provision of 70kw of photovoltaic array, LED intelligent lighting, and four electric vehicle charging points. Rob concluded by stating that the proposed development would amount to a regeneration of a gateway site to the industrial estate, providing direct job creation and enhanced landscaping and visual appearance, whilst conforming to parking standards and providing a 35% reduction in carbon emissions.

 

Angus Ross queried whether site usage would now be classified as class E. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that as this application had been received prior to September it would be considered under the old classification structure, however going forward it would indeed be a class E usage.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried the separation distance with the adjacent care home facility, and sought clarification regarding the 24 hour storage facility’s parking arrangements. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, stated that the separation distance between the proposed units and the care home facility was 6.7m at the narrowest point, and 12.1m at the widest point. The 24 hour facility was only for certain specific users, meaning any late trips would be infrequent. Justin Turvey commented that there were no special separation distance regulations related to care home facilities.

 

Simon Weeks queried why the Committee had to consider the old use class for this application, when the Committee had previously been advised that an application must conform to current policy standards. Justin  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

Application No.201370 - 20 Pitts Lane, Earley, Wokingham, RG6 1BT pdf icon PDF 485 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling (Use Class C3) with access, layout and scale to be determined.

 

Applicant: Mr David Parsons

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 129 to 158.

 

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

 

Andrew Beard, agent, spoke in support of the application. Andrew stated that there was a previous application for two houses on this site, which was withdrawn in order to bring forward the current proposals which were in keeping with the character of the area, in line with policies and constituted a sustainable development. Andrew added that the proposals retained the frontage landscaping and would remove the untidy gap currently in place. Andrew stated that the proposals would not impact on the amenity lines of adjacent properties, and provided 3 car parking spaces which was fully compliant with policy. Andrew stated that there was existing planning permission for a hall to the rear of the property, where the car parking spaces would be located, and added that the house and the hall could coexist. Andrew stated that in his opinion, there were no grounds to refuse the application.

 

Tim Marsh, on behalf of ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that the application was for a class 3 dwelling, with four bedrooms and a reasonable expectation of four cars, however only three parking spaces were provided. Tim stated that one third of the mass on number 20 Pitts lane was in front of the prevailing building line, and therefore this two storey building would protrude out and be very noticeable especially at the bend in the road. Tim added that the location problem was further compounded via the relationship with number 18, as the centre line for number 18 was set behind the rear wall of number 20 and would dominate the garden, and the owner of number 18 had complained that this would result in a loss of light for his garden. Tim stated that a possible solution would be to align the front of number 20 with the road, and adopt sloping hip-bend rooves, which would both maintain the building line and reduce the dominance of number 18 by number 20. Tim was of the opinion that the proposals were not satisfactory in their current form, and the Borough Design Guide stated that development should respond appropriately to the existing character and identity of the area and relate well to neighbours. Tim concluded by stating that the application did not fit in with its surroundings, and should be refused.

 

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, provided a statement in objection to the application which was read out by the Vice Chairman in the Chair. Shirley stated that the existing dwellings in Pitts Lane were set back from the road, creating an open environment. Shirley added that although a building line may not exist, there was a convention which should be followed. Shirley was of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.