Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 11th August, 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN. View directions

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

20.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted from Carl Doran and Rebecca Margetts.

 

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

21.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 243 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 July 2021

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 July 2021 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

22.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

Bill Soane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in items 26, 27, and 28. Bill stated that he would leave the room for entirety of these items and take no part in the discussions or votes.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared a prejudicial interest in item 30. Rachelle stated that she would leave the room for entirety of this item and take no part in the discussion or vote.

 

Stephen Conway declared a personal interest in items 26, 27, and 28, on the grounds that his son had worked in the café on the site between ten and twelve years ago amongst a number of other school children. Stephen added that he would continue to take part in both the discussions and votes for these items.

 

Stephen Conway declared a personal interest in item 30, on the grounds that he had been referred the applicant at one point for a medical issue. Stephen added that he had not been in contact with the applicant since, and would therefore take full part in both the discussion and vote for this item.

23.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

24.

Application No.211024 - Land at Arborfield Garrison Parcel V1S, north of Nuffield Road/Lakeside Bus Route, Arborfield pdf icon PDF 594 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Applicant: Bloor Homes Ltd

 

Proposal: Application for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Planning Consent O/2014/2280 dated 02/04/2015. The Reserved Matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) comprise details of 126 dwellings within parcel V1S with access via the Lakeside Bus Loop, associated internal access roads, parking, landscaping, open space, footpaths and drainage.

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 13 to 46.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

 

Rebecca Fenn-Tripp, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Rebecca stated that the site had been granted outline planning permission, and this application sought reserved matters approval for 126 high quality homes. The site would include 25 affordable homes, delivering twenty percent on-site provision of affordable housing, in line with the S106 agreement. Rebecca stated that the development incorporated a variety of house types, materials, and architectural details to provide sufficient interest and differentiation across the site. Rebecca added that all of the proposed dwellings met or exceeded national space standard requirements, whilst the site would also meet the Borough’s parking standards, whilst also incorporating electric vehicle charging points. The proposals would include the planting of 43 new trees in addition to new hedgerows, whilst retaining the three mature oak trees found on-site. Rebecca concluded by stating that the proposals would provide a ten percent reduction in carbon emissions including via the provision of photovoltaic panels.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether electric vehicle charging infrastructure would be put in place across the site to allow activation when needed, queried whether photovoltaic panels would be offered to residents, and queried whether there were any plans to install heat pumps across the development. Christopher Howard, case officer, stated that condition 5 set out the requirements relating to electric vehicle charging. Christopher added that it was up to the developer as to how they wished to install, or offer up for installation, photovoltaic panels.

 

Stephen Conway queried whether thirty-five percent affordable housing would be delivered on-site across the wider SDL. Christopher Howard stated that this application would deliver twenty percent on-site affordable housing, and a monetary contribution for fifteen percent off-site affordable housing, in line with the S106 agreement made at outline. The off-site contribution would go towards affordable housing developments across the Borough, an example of which could be seen at the Gorse Ride redevelopment. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager - Planning and Delivery, clarified that it was agreed at outline to allow off-site contributions towards affordable housing, and it was down to Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) to decide where the off-site affordable houses should be developed. Across the wider SDL, twenty percent of the homes would be affordable whilst a contribution for the equivalent of fifteen percent affordable housing would be received in line with the S106 agreement.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether all associated infrastructure relating to electric vehicle charging including transformers would be installed at the point of development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Application No.210179 - Sand Martins Golf Club, Finchampstead Road, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 478 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Applicant: Sand Martins Golf Club Limited

 

Proposal: Full Planning application for the proposed part single, part two

storey side/rear extension to existing clubhouse, erection of a detached Hotel Building comprising 39no. bedrooms, function rooms, kitchen and staff room, with car parking, servicing, associated landscape enhancements and an electrical sub-station.

 

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

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning agenda included a correction to the Wokingham Town Council comment, which the report mistakenly stated that ‘Pedestrian and cycle access should be approved’, whereas it should have correctly stated ‘improved’.

 

Peter Edwards, agent, spoke in support of the application. Peter stated that the club owners maintained their unwavering desire to commit to the club despite national lockdowns. An earlier proposal had been withdrawn, and the new design team had been tasked to produce a proposals which would complement the existing golf club, diversify its offer to provide financial resilience, provide facilities which would be beneficial to the wider community, and provide landscaping and ecological requirements. Peter stated that the original golf club had permission for a small hotel, which had kindled the idea for a venue building to be run by the club to be used for weddings, conferences, small functions and exhibitions. This venue building would be supported by high quality guest accommodation, a bar, and breakfast room. Peter stated that a new high quality restraint was proposed adjacent to the clubhouse, accessible to members and the wider community. Peter stated that biodiversity net gains would be achieved across the site, and the proposals were energy efficient ad of a high quality design. Electric vehicle charging and heat pumps would also be provided where possible. Peter concluded by stating that photovoltaic panels would be provided on the clubhouse, and the proposals had been well received by the community.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether two vehicles could pass on the main access route to and from the site, and queried whether a higher BREEAM rating should be applied to this site as very good was the minimum standard for a public building. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that two vehicles could pass each other on the main access route to the site. Mark added that whilst he was not sure whether this facility constituted a public building, officers could not ask for more than the minimum BREEAM standard. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that condition 22 required the site to meet the BREEAM ‘very good’ standard.

 

Sam Akhtar queried what was being done to ensure that bats were not adversely affected by the proposed development. Mark Croucher stated that condition 17 related to this, and the ecology officer had looked at this and was satisfied that the development would have an acceptable impact on bats subject to condition 17. A license would also be required from Natural England, which would look further into this issue,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

Application No.211084 - Hare Hatch Sheeplands, London Road, Hare Hatch pdf icon PDF 731 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item contains the substantive minutes for agenda items 26, 27, and 28. The individual resolutions for each item are contained within their respective minute item.

 

Bill Soane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

 

Applicant: Hare Hatch Sheeplands

 

Proposal: Full Planning application for the proposed change of use from Horticulture use to Exhibition Space (Use Class F1(e)) for the display of Haworthia and associated plants

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 83 to 108.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

 

·           Correction to condition 4 to include reference to other associated plants;

·           Clarification that the information contained within paragraph 6a was incorrect, and that horticultural use was already being lawfully undertaken and that planning permission was never enacted for this purpose.

 

David Hall, agent, spoke in support of application 211084, 211085, and 211086.  David stated that Hare Hatch Sheeplands (HHS) was a community minded business which had uses comprising of a plant nursery, café, butchers, garden shop, space for community events, and a farm shop. David added that HHS was a valued community asset, and the site had been operating on a fully authorised basis since July 2017. David stated that the horticultural business across the site had continued, however the horticultural industry in general was still under pressure due to Covid-19 and Brexit, amongst other issues. David stated that these issues and delays had interrupted the implementation of the temporary permissions previously granted for the site, the purpose of which was to allow the horticultural business to survive and develop whilst allowing sufficient time to review with the Council the requirements for the business and future plans for the wider area. David added that under these exceptional circumstances, the applications submitted were asking for two additional years to allow the business to develop, whilst providing the applicant with some certainty over the operations uses of the site, in line with the Inspector’s decision. David stated that the enforcement notice and injunction remained in place, however they did not prohibit ancillary activities to the plant nursery such as the holding of events. Examples of the community focussed approach to the site included hosting flower shows, children’s activities, activities relating to community events such as the RG10 front gardens competition (Twyford in Bloom), and food and drink tasting events. David stated that some of these events would take place during the winter when the greenhouses were not in full growing use, supporting the enterprise during the off-season. David stated that the applicant was disappointed that officers had only recommended a one year extension, as opposed to the two year extension requested by the applicant. David was of the opinion that a two year extension was seen to be a realistic approach to the timescale required for the applicant to work on the business during the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

27.

Application No.211085 - Hare Hatch Sheeplands, London Road, Hare Hatch pdf icon PDF 675 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Item 26 contains the substantive minutes for agenda items 26, 27, and 28. The individual resolutions for each item are contained within their respective minute item.

 

Bill Soane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

 

Applicant: Hare Hatch Sheeplands

 

Proposal: Application to vary condition 1 of planning consent 192018 for the Full application for the Change of Use of three existing nursery glasshouses into events area relating to the existing nursery. Condition 1 refers to temporary permission and the variation is to extend temporary permission for two years.

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 109 to 130.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

 

·           Amended condition 3, in order to carry over part (iv) of the types of events allowed within the permission;

·           Clarification that the information contained within paragraph 7a was incorrect, and that horticultural use was already being lawfully undertaken and that planning permission was never enacted for this purpose;

·           Correction to paragraph 5 to correctly refer to application number 211084 as the correct application for the exhibition space.

 

RESOLVED That application number 211085 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 110 to 112, and amendment to condition 3 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

28.

Application No.211086 - Hare Hatch Sheeplands, London Road, Hare Hatch pdf icon PDF 1002 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Item 26 contains the substantive minutes for agenda items 26, 27, and 28. The individual resolutions for each item are contained within their respective minute item.

 

Bill Soane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

 

Applicant: Hare Hatch Sheeplands

 

Proposal: Full application for the continued use of existing sales area

permitted temporarily under 173316 and change of use to include an additional sales area.

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 131 to 170.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

 

·           Clarification that the information contained within paragraph 6a was incorrect, and that horticultural use was already being lawfully undertaken and that planning permission was never enacted for this purpose;

·           Correction to paragraph 10 to correctly refer to application number 211085 as the correct application for the extension of the temporary permission for events use.

 

RESOLVED That application number 211086 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 132 to 134.

29.

Application No.210693 - Reading Blue Coat School, Holme Park, Sonning pdf icon PDF 562 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to the approval of planning application 210694 and amendments to conditions relating to application number 170118

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Applicant: Mr Simon Jackson

 

Proposal: Application to vary condition 13 of 170118 and F/2010/1641 for the erection of a two-storey classroom block, construction of an internal access road (part temporary part permanent) and erection of two temporary buildings containing 4 classrooms following demolition of three existing classroom buildings. Condition 13 refers to pupils enrolled at the school and the variation is to allow for up to 1,100 pupils to be enrolled at the school

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 171 to 200.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

 

·           Correction to the recommendation set out on agenda page 172, which should refer to the grant of planning permission of planning application 210693;

·           Clarification that the AM peak was in relation to school arrivals in the morning between 7AM and 9AM;

·           Clarification that the maximum additional vehicle movements referenced within paragraph 25 was the absolute maximum, and the real number was likely substantially lower across the two hour arrival period;

·           Additional clarification of paragraphs 26 and 27, relating to vehicle movements from different routes to the school.

 

Trefor Fisher, Sonning Parish Council, spoke in support of the application. Trefor stated that Sonning Parish Council strongly objected to this application, as whilst residents were pleased to accommodate the school within the Parish, there was concern relating to issues including the traffic associated with the school. Previous planning applications had restricted pupil numbers to 750, and later to 825. The reasons for these restrictions were mainly due to highway safety and to congestion. Trefor stated that an enrolment of the proposed 1100 pupils compared to the 785 currently on roll would represent a forty percent increase, subsequently leading to a forty percent increase in traffic, congestion, and pollution. Trefor added that at school arrival and departure time, the section of Sonning Lane adjacent to the school entrance became gridlocked. Trefor added that local residents and commuters would avoid this area and take other routes due to this congestion. Trefor stated that the traffic survey accompanying the application focussed on the junctions of Sonning Lane and the A4, showing thirty-eight percent of school traffic went via this junction. Trefor added that the survey therefore failed to recognise that sixty-two percent of traffic travelled via the Pearson Road in Sonning, which was a narrow road with parking along its length. Trefor was of the opinion that the suggestion that a forty percent increase in school traffic was nonsensical. Trefor added that the increase in pupil numbers would place additional pressures on existing infrastructure, including the drainage and sewage systems, whereby the drains within the school site already experienced blockages with current pupil numbers. Trefor stated that approval of this application was subject for approval to a separate application for an extension of the car park at Berkshire County Sports Club. Sonning Parish Council had also objected to this application, on the grounds that it involved the loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

Application No.211754 - 25 Camellia Way, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 234 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item and therefore left the room and took no part in either the discussion or vote.

 

Applicant: Dr Robert Koefman

 

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of the site from residential (Use Class C3) to a mixed use of residential and a beauty salon (Use Class Sui Generis) (Retrospective).

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 201 to 216.

 

The Committee were advised that there were no updates within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

 

John Walsh, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. John stated that he had been subject to a campaign of harassment from the business owner and neighbours. John added that his wife had been subject to several verbal onslaughts on her own doorstep. John stated that there were only three formal parking bays at number 25, as the modified garage was too small to accommodate any vehicle. John added that he had submitted photographs, land registry maps, title deeds, and a solicitor’s letter confirming that that he had driveway ownership and intended use. John added that after considering the vehicles owned by number 25, there were no formal bays left for use by either the intended clients or business owner. John stated that prior to the business operating, the closest public viewpoint into his property was 25m away at the end of the driveway, and the closest pedestrian walkway route was closer to 40m away. John was of the opinion that there was therefore a significant reduction in privacy, as the nearest window of his property to the business entrance was only 3m distance, and his family’s privacy was particularly important to them during the evening and weekends when the children were at home and adults were not working. John was of the opinion that the business operator had not been adhering to any planning rules, whilst operating outside of the proposed hours and client volume contained within the planning application, whilst the published opening hours on social media did not align with those on the application. John asked the Committee to consider how the operating conditions would be enforced by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), should this application be approved. John stated that whilst his preference was for the business to relocate somewhere more suitable, he hoped that the Committee could at least consider additional conditions, including restricting opening hours to 9-5 on weekdays and excluding all weekends and bank holidays, use of an alternative business entrance point such as the property front door or rear gate, and finally asked that the driveway forecourt was not used by the business operator or client parking during the agreed business hours.

 

Matthew Miller, agent, spoke in support of the application. Matthew stated that this was a retrospective application as the applicant had not realised that permission was required, and had applied for permission as soon as they were advised to do so. Matthew stated that the business operated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.