Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Chris Bowring, Gary Cowan, and Rebecca Margetts.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 March 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 March 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Vice Chairman in the Chair.

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consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.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 proposed creation of 24No residential units consisting of 10 x 1 bedroom, 10 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3-bedroom units with ground floor foyer, communal roof terrace, addition of balconies and dormers, changes to fenestration and provision of parking and bin storage following demolition of existing roof structures and link between No 47 and the main building

Applicant: Mr Bryan Naftalin

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 19 to 76.

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

·         Correction to the first line of agenda page 30 to state a contribution of £520 per unit to MyJourney;

·         Point of clarification in relation to car parking;

·         Point of clarification in relation to the commuted sum.

Angus Ross commented that listed building consent would be required at a later stage, and was noted as such within an informative. Angus added that the building to the rear of the site had permission to be demolished and replaced, and noted that application 211977 was granted planning permission for this site in July 2021 and the Committee needed to take this in to account when considering the application in front of them.

Stephen Conway queried whether there was any requirement for on-site affordable housing as part of the prior approval application for 27 units. Senjuti Manna, case officer, confirmed that there was not a requirement for on-site affordable housing as part of the prior approval application. Stephen Conway commented that it was unfortunate that there was no affordable housing provided on site, and added that whilst he had some concerns with the proposals there was a long and complex planning history which constrained what the Committee might consider as reasons to refuse the application.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that he was pleased to see that a number of concerns had been addressed following on from the prior approval application in July 2021. Andrew queried whether access to the roof terrace for persons with disabilities had been addressed and whether the units designed to be accessible would have access to a balcony to ensure amenity space for those persons who could not access the roof terrace. Senjuti Manna confirmed that the roof terrace would not have any lift access, whilst accessible units would be required by condition to provide balconies.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the disabled car parking spaces could be moved closer to the building via condition, rather than being dealt with via the parking management plan. Brain Conlon, Development Management Operational Lead, stated that condition 7 included a strategy to provide the disabled spaces on-site which would give the local planning authority the ability to control where the disabled spaces were to be provided. Kamran Akhter, Principal Highways Development Management Officer, stated that the provision of disabled spaces would be managed via the car parking management plan. The Committee insisted that every effort be made to situate the disabled car parking spaces closer to the proposed units.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Recommendation:  Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 of planning consent 203223 for the proposed erection of 1 no. five bedroom dwelling, following demolition of existing dwelling. Condition 2 refers to the approved details and the variation is to lower the approved site levels and lower approved drainage cover levels (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Ian Scott

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 77 to 96.

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

John Staves, agent, spoke in support of the application. John stated that the reasons for the changes to the original application were due to a survey error in relation to the vertical levels, and subsequently a decision was taken to lower the building into the ground rather than increasing the ridge height. The building as designed was taller, due to a survey error, than it was originally intended to be. John added that a chartered structural engineer assessed issues in relation to retention via the lowering of the ground levels, and reassurance was provided to the neighbour and a written undertaking was provided by the applicant to undertake any retaining structure that might be needed. The mass of the house and its position on the site had not changed from the original application, and as such there was no additional impact on the street scene, which had been confirmed by officers. John requested that planning permission be granted.

Maria Gee, Ward Member, commented on the application. Maria was of the opinion that the property now looked quite out of place on the street scene, whilst adding that it appeared to have been lowered more than 225 millimetres. Maria was not convinced that property in its current design would have been approved, and questioned the decision to continue with the development despite the issue being raised with planning enforcement officers. Maria was of the opinion that residents had the right to have their boundary supported throughout the building process, and was concerned that this was not carried out for this planning application. Maria stated that highways officers had not agreed the driveway opening being wider, whilst the property was opposite double yellow lines and a junction whilst also being situated within zig-zags which appeared to contradict Wokingham Borough Council’s crossover policies. Maria added that she was very concerned that a delivery management plan had not been included for this development, as lorries had been parked within the zig-zag zone throughout development, causing a lot of stress for parents using the crossing and for drivers who did not have a lot of space to pass or turn off at the junction.

Angus Ross commented that although it was regretful to see a retrospective planning application, it did give the Committee the opportunity to see the built form of the proposals. Angus queried whether the issue relating to the supporting neighbouring boundary was a planning matter or a building control consideration. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, confirmed that this would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.