Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Rebecca Margetts and Wayne Smith.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 July 2022.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 July 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by 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To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.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

Proposal: Application for the approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline planning consent 163547 for the erection of 140 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), associated amenity spaces, play area, access, garages, parking, internal roads, pathways, drainage and associated landscaping (Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be considered).

Applicant: Vistry Partnerships (Thames Valley)

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

Whilst there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, the Committee were informed verbally by the case officer that informative 10 was no longer required as it was covered by informative 6.

Nina Lloyd, agent, spoke in support of the application. Nina stated that she was delighted with the officer recommendation for approval, and thanked all involved for their efforts and collaborative working. Nina added that the principle of development was established in 2021, and the application had received no technical objections from Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) officers or statutory consultees. Nina stated that the scheme was policy compliant, and would deliver 140 high quality houses which reflected the existing local character. 40 percent (56 houses) of houses delivered on site would be affordable and tenure blind, whilst a 2.8 hectare SANG had been approved and would connect to an existing SANG. Top quality walking and cycling routes would be installed across the development, in addition to community green space with local and native species. The existing perimeter landscape would be maintained, and the site was considered to be located in an extremely sustainable location. Nina supported the officer recommendation of approval, and hoped that the Committee would grant planning permission.

John Kaiser stated that the strategic market assessment indicated that 22 percent of all homes should be four-bedroom, whereas this development proposed 35 percent. John added that there was a housing crisis within the Borough in relation to small and affordable homes, and questioned why four-bedroom homes were being overdelivered with recent planning applications. Sophie Morris, case officer, stated that the dwelling mix had been considered against the 2020 housing needs assessment, and fell comfortably within the specifications and was therefore considered acceptable. Sophie added that it was not considered suitable for 1- and 2-bedroom flats to be delivered in this edge of settlement location, whilst apartment blocks would be delivered in other locations within the Arborfield SDL. John Kaiser stated that members needed to see the running total of homes delivered within the SDL locations, including dwelling mix and affordable homes. John stressed that the borough needed more smaller homes and not 4-bedroom houses.

John Kaiser stated that this development was presented as part of the wider SDL, and queried how this could be justified with no highway link to the wider SDL. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, stated that a highways link could not be provided due to the positioning of the school and leisure centre pitches. Connor added that a link was available at the top of the Hogwood spur and onto the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed first storey extension and raising of the roof to create a habitable first floor, single storey rear extension and changes to fenestration.

Applicant: Mr S Sidhu

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 47 to 76.

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

Tim Marsh, ACER residents’ association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that ACER had reviewed over 400 planning applications in Whitegates since 2016, including a variety of bungalows, however no applications to convert a bungalow in the middle of a row of bungalows to a two-storey house had been considered until now. Tim added that such a development would be out of keeping and out of character. Tim felt that the bungalow development to number 42 was acceptable, with the overall height only being increased by 0.75m, whereas the proposal for number 25 would add an entire additional storey and had received 9 objections. Tim requested that the application be refused as the conversion of the bungalow to a two-storey property was out of keeping with the character of the area and was not in keeping with the row of bungalows in which it resided, and the allocated parking for a 5-bedroom tenanted property was inadequate.

Peter Dorward, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Peter stated that policy CP3 was the key policy regarding planning permission, and proposals must meet key criteria and requirements including appropriate scale of activity, mass, layout, built form, height, materials and character of the area whilst being of no detriment to the amenities of adjoining land users and their quality of life, whilst integrating with the surrounding existing dwellings. Peter added that number 25 was in a row of 5 houses with very similar design, with the same frontage and same height, creating a section of the road with its own unique character. Peter felt that the proposed changes demonstrated a very significant change, with the proposed building being much taller than existing dwellings. Peter stated that other properties including his own had been sympathetically increased in size, but had remained in keeping, met planning requirements, whilst retaining their existing height. Peter added that his dining room would see a loss of light from the proposed dwelling, whilst number 23 would also experience this same issue. Peter felt that the application should be refused as it did not meet the requirements set out within CP3, and presented a number of signatures from objectors on Palmerstone Road.

Andy Croy, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Andy felt that the mass, scale and layout of the proposal would detract seriously from the existing street scene. Andy added that this section of the road was a section of bungalows, and a two-storey home in the middle of this section would detract from the character of the area. Andy stated that other properties had undergone sympathetic redevelopment, utilising space towards the rear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.