To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Carl Doran.

Gary Cowan attended the meeting virtually, and was therefore marked as in attendance, and was not able to propose, second, or vote on items.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 June 2021.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 June 2021 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.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 subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the erection of TV Studio Building including studio space, workshop/storage area and production/office along with parking facilities.

Applicant: University of Reading

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 74.

The Committee were advised that the supplementary planning agenda included:

·           Correction to the site address, to state Land at Thames Valley Science Park, Shinfield, RG2 9LH;

·           Addition of CP16 to the list of policies;

·           Clarification regarding policy TB13 relating to this application;

·           Clarification relating to floor areas;

·           Updated condition 3 via insertion of a number of plan numbers;

·           Clarification of condition 3 to state that 175 additional car parking spaces would be required for this development;

·           Updated wording of condition 14;

·           Update to condition 17 to extend delivery hours to 1am.

Mark Owen, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Mark stated that the global market for film and TV production in the UK had grown rapidly, due to a number of factors including digital streaming services and the continued attraction of the UK and its skill base as a location for filming and post-production work. There was a central demand for studio space outside of the M25, which was a key reason why the proposed location at Thames Valley Science Park was suitable. Mark added that the development of the science park was a key driver in improving skills, productivity and competition in a rapidly changing global economy. The proposals would form part of the University’s future concept for the Science Park in creating “Innovation Valleys”, focussed on film, TV and media. Mark stated that the proposals would create employment opportunities including 95 direct full-time employees, whilst ensuring that student engagement was a priority via close working with the University of Reading’s School of Film, Theatre and Television, offering work placements, specialist training and mentoring schemes. Mark added that the design of the building had been carefully considered, and dark metal cladding was proposed to minimise the visual impact of the building. The existing earth bund to the south of the proposed development would assist in reducing the visual impact of the building as viewed from residential dwellings to the south of the Eastern Relief Road. Mark stated that additional screening would be placed on the existing earth bund, secured by condition, to further screen the facility. Mark stated that there was good pedestrian and cycle connectivity to the site, in addition to a frequent bus service. The parking arrangements for the development would utilise the existing Science Park car park in addition to an adjacent car park extension area which had planning consent. Mark concluded by stating that carbon emissions would be reduced by fourteen percent as a result of the proposed development, above the minimum ten percent reduction required by policy, and this was in addition to a biodiversity net gain of twelve percent, including the planting of an area of wildflower grassland.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether apprentices would be available for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Application for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Planning Consent O/2014/2179 (as varied by 181194, dated 14/11/2018). The Reserved Matters comprise details of 235 dwellings across parcels P2, P3 & P7 with access via development parcel P1 and the proposed Nine Mile Ride Extension bus loop; emergency access via Sheerlands Road, associated internal access roads, parking, provision of Public Open Space (PG1), children’s play areas including a LEAP, LAP and LLAP and NEAP, together with parking, cycleways, footpaths, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDS). Details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered

Applicant: Legal and General Homes Communities (Arborfield) Limited

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 75 to 120.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the supplementary planning agenda.

Laura Powell, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Laura stated that the Hogwood Farm site was granted outline planning permission in 2017 for a mixed-use development including 1500 new homes and formed a part of the wider Arborfield Garrison SDL. Laura added that the first phase of this development included 178 new homes, of which approximately 90 were now occupied. Laura stated that the southern section of the Nine Mile Ride extension had also been approved in early 2020, with delivery expected next year. Laura added that the application before the Committee comprised the next residential phase of the development, comprising three development parcels which would lie immediately next to the south of Phase 1. Part of this application included proposals for a large area of open space, which would provide a green connection through the development to the SANG at the south of the site. Laura added that this would incorporate the wider bridleway network, as well as children’s play areas and a trim trail exercise area. Laura stated that the application would deliver 235 high quality homes, ranging from 1 bedroom apartments to 4 bedroom houses, including provision of 82 affordable homes which was policy compliant. Laura added that the applicant had worked hard with officers to ensure that the proposals were both policy compliant and respected the character of the surrounding area. The proposals met Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) parking standards, and would achieve a ten percent reduction in carbon emissions, in part via the installation of photovoltaic panels and use of fabric first. Laura concluded by stating that the proposals would include the planting of 443 new trees across the residential area, and cited that no objections had been received from the public or stakeholders.

Angus Ross queried whether the payment for the SANG had been received and finalised. Nick Chancellor, case officer, confirmed that this had been agreed at the outline stage, and the SANG was now open.

Stephen Conway voiced his approval for on-site provision of 35 percent affordable housing. The remaining Committee members concurred with this sentiment.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether parking standards would be met if garages were not used within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed conversion of existing garage to provide habitable accommodation to facilitate use of the property as supported living with a live-in member of staff, including internal alterations and installation of 1 no. Air Source Heat Pump to the side of the property.

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 121 to 140.

The Committee were advised that the supplementary planning agenda included an update relating to the ground source heat pump included within the planning application.

RESOLVED That application number 211045 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 121 to 123.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of an agricultural building

Applicant: Belcher Farms

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 141 to 158.

The Committee were advised that paragraph 23 on page 149 of the agenda should refer to further evaluation, rather than elevation.

Gary Cowan queried why this application could not be carried out under permitted development. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that this was classified as a major development due to the red line area and the floor space of the proposal.

Stephen Conway queried whether this application could set a precedent for other built forms on the site, should the barn no longer be needed. Simon Taylor stated that this application had a demonstrable need for agricultural purposes, and unless a future application was for a different agricultural building then it was unlikely that a different type of built form would be approved, although any future application would have to be considered on its own merits.

RESOLVED That application number 211634 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 142 to 144.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of the former car park to the storage of materials, shoring and temporary works equipment and vehicles associated with civil engineering business (Use Class B8), including welfare unit, gates, and fencing

Applicant: Hochsoll Properties Ltd

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 159 to 186.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the supplementary planning agenda.

Christian Leigh, agent, spoke in support of the application. Christian stated that there had been a productive pre-application process between the applicant and Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) officers. Christian added that the site was woefully unused, and that the use cases of the site were restricted due to the potential for flooding on the associated land. Christian stated that this application would provide a much needed viable use for the site, which would provide employment within the local area. Christian stated that the application would provide additional planting and secure fencing.

Prue Bray, Ward Member, commented on the application. Prue stated that the site flooded, however this did not preclude use of the site for storage purposes. Prue stated that one such flooding incident in 2007 was catastrophic, and caused a number of vehicles to be written off despite the flood warning system being in operation, as car had become marooned within the car park and could not reach the exit roads. Prue commented that she would hate to see this happen again, and asked that an informative be added to make the applicant aware that flood water had the potential to block the exit roads from the site.

Bill Soane commented that reference within the report to Colemans Moor Lane should have referred to Colemans Moor Road. Bill stated that he had spoken to local residents, who were mostly now content with the proposals. A few queries remained, including whether there would be any temporary tower lighting, whether there was potential for any harmful chemicals to spill into the Loddon in the event of a flood, and whether the opening hours could begin at 8am rather than 7am. Bill commented that the site flooded more frequently than every five years, and queried whether vehicles could not enter the site out of hours. Simon Taylor, case officer, clarified that tower lighting would not be allowed under conditions. Simon added that he would envisage that the vehicles would fill up with fuel off-site, meaning that no fuel would be stored at the site. Simon clarified that the 7am opening time was fairly typical for this use type as it builders required access to the materials early in the day to allow for an early start on building sites. Simon confirmed that no vehicles could access the site out of the prescribed 7am to 7pm hours.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that the site could get very damp and wet, and advised that the applicant should park vehicles carefully to accommodate for this. Rachelle added that this was a good  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.