Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

71.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Carl Doran and Andrew Mickleburgh.

72.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 247 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 January 2022

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 January 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

73.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

Rebecca Margetts made a statement with regards to items 76 and 77, application numbers 213903 and 213927. Rebecca stated that she was a Parish Councillor at Finchampstead Parish Council, who was the applicant for the two applications regarding the War memorial. Rebecca added that she had not been involved with the applications or the committee set up for these applications at the Parish Council and she did not sit on the Planning Committee for the Parish Council. Rebecca stated that she came to the Planning Committee with an open mind, and she would listen to all representations from public speakers, planning officers and members of the Committee prior to coming to any conclusion on either of these applications

74.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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

Item number 75, application number 213796, was withdrawn from the agenda.

75.

Application No.213796 - 302 London Road, Wokingham, RG40 1RD pdf icon PDF 357 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

76.

Application No.213903 - Junction of Jubilee Road / B3016 pdf icon PDF 531 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval of listed building consent

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for the proposed dismantling of war memorial and relocation and reinstallation on new site.

 

Applicant: Mrs Katy Dagnall (Finchampstead Parish Council)

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 37 to 52.

 

The Committee were advised that whilst there were no updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda, additional comments and officer responses had been received in relation to this application and had been circulated to the Committee. An additional representation had also been received from the War Memorial Trust, and had been circulated to the Committee.

 

Ian Adnams, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ian maintained that the reasons stated by the Parish Council for relocation of the memorial were not relevant. Ian stated that the Parish Council believed that no significant improvements could be made to the current junction whilst keeping the memorial in its current location, despite a suggestion from himself which would have made the junction safer whilst keeping the memorial in its existing location. Ian added that the Parish Council claimed that the current location was unsafe for the Armistice Day parade, however the Royal British Legion Remembrance Parade Policy Update advised that a parade was not the remembrance event, and it was not uncommon to have an event which did not involve a parade on a highway. Ian stated that St James’ Church was fully accessible from the memorial hall car park via a direct footpath with no road to close or negotiate, presenting a viable and safe option. Ian commented that a survey from the Parish Council claimed 89 percent of respondents supported plans to relocate the war memorial, however it had been pointed out by others that in fact 90.1 percent of respondents were in objection to the proposals. Ian stated that the memorial was designated both as a war memorial and as a wayside cross, and to carry out its function as a wayside cross the monument was required to remain where it was currently situated. Ian commented that he had lived and worked in Finchampstead all of his life, and the monument was a historic icon of the village of which its location had been chosen by the village’s forefathers. Ian asked that the monument be left in its current location, where he felt it belonged.

 

Graham Jukes, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Graham stated that the key issue relating to the application was the consideration of harm, and noted that the grade two listing applied only to the memorial itself and not to its setting. Graham stated that in the war memorial’s current location the Parish Council’s legal obligation to maintain the memorial could not be fulfilled, as the site was subjected to 11,000 vehicle movements each day. Graham stated that the site was too hazardous for contractors to operate without road closures, and after careful consideration of a range of options the Parish Council concluded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

Application No.213927 - Finchampstead Memorial Park, The Village, RG40 4JU pdf icon PDF 528 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed relocation and erection of war memorial, plinth and steps, creation of a footpath, installation of culvert and power supply.

 

Applicant: Mrs Katy Dagnall (Finchampstead Parish Council).

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 53 to 84.

 

The Committee were advised that the supplementary planning agenda included an update to paragraph 17 of the officer report. In addition to the supplementary planning agenda, the Committee were advised that additional comments and officer responses had been received in relation to this application and had been circulated to the Committee. An additional representation had also been received from the War Memorial Trust, and had been circulated to the Committee.

 

Ian Adnams, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ian stated that he was the vice-chairman of the Finchampstead Park Management Committee, and stated that the issue of removal of the hedge was still ongoing at meeting discussions. Ian was of the opinion that the Parish Council had made a decision despite opposition from residents, and added that he had spoken to many residents who did not like the suggested location for the relocation of the war memorial. Ian stated that the proposal would take the monument from one busy road and place it next to another busy road, which would offer no more opportunity for quiet contemplation than at its current location. Ian commented that people in the village would prefer for the war memorial to be relocated at the church if it had to be moved, where there was adequate parking and amenities and available. Ian stated that the War Memorial Trust asked that anyone moving a war memorial should use a conservation accredited architect whereas the Parish Council had hired a landscape architect. Ian felt that the Parish Council should now go back to the village and seek their views as to their preferred location for the war memorial.

 

Graham Jukes, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Graham stated that the hedge within the memorial park was not material to this application, however it would not be removed prior to full discussion and debate with the Finchampstead Park Management Committee. Graham commented that the consultation survey was circulated to 5,500 households, with 596 responses in total, and 89 percent agreed with the proposal to remove the memorial from its current site and relocate it to the verge adjacent to the memorial park of the village. Graham added that the memorial park was purchased in memoriam to those who fell in both World Wars, and felt that it was right and fitting that the memorial was located and maintained at this site. Graham stated that each year residents gathered at the park in front of a photograph of the memorial statue. Graham added that detailed plans were considered for four separate locations including the church, and following discussions the proposed location was deemed the most suitable given the guidance from the War  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

78.

Application No.213380 - Balcombe Nurseries, Basingstoke Road, Swallowfield, RG7 1PY pdf icon PDF 356 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the erection of 5 no. detached dwellings, two with detached garages and three with internal garages and associated landscaping works including one balancing pond, 2 no. accesses with entrance gates and 1.2m post and rail fencing.

 

Applicant: Woodridge Developments, 11 Arkwright Road Reading RG2 0LU

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 85 to 120.

 

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

 

John Anderson, Swallowfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. John stated that three-storey homes were not part of the character of the Parish, and the proposals would occupy an elevated position whilst taking centre stage within the wide site entrance. John added that the proposals would give the appearance of tall town houses within a field. John felt that the proposals were inappropriate within a countryside setting. John stated outline permission was granted in 2016 for three houses, which the Parish Council had supported on balance as an alternative to a busy garden centre. John stated that this permission had removed permitted development rights, however this had been subsequently ignored and the proposals were now for 5 tall dwellings with a separate driveway leading to plot one. John was of the opinion that this was a further attempt to increase the size and scope of the development, which would further harm the character of the area and was a step too far.

 

Lisa Burns-Peake, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Lisa stated that loss of privacy to her home as a result of the proposals would have a huge impact on their quality of life. Lisa was of the opinion that the proposed dwellings were utterly out of keeping with the housing stock on the road, and added that there had been subsequent increases in the proposed size of the development of the site since 2016.

 

Tristan Parsons, neighbour and on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Tristan stated that he lived in the property two doors down from the site, and five years ago there had been an issue with travellers accessing the site and entering his back garden. As a result, the site was purchased with a view to develop. Tristan stated that he was now working from home alongside his wife whilst their children took part in home schooling when required due to Covid-19. Tristan stated that his family would be moving into plot one, and the proposed attic rooms would be added to the other four properties to allow those families space for home working. Tristan stated that many different designs had been considered, and the proposed designs were deemed to have the least impact on the countryside whilst providing space for the attic rooms without losing the attractive curve appeal of the properties, without increasing either the height of the dwellings or the footprint of the properties. Tristan felt the addition of the attics would allow for future  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.