Agenda and minutes

Venue: David Hicks 1 - Civic Offices, Shute End, Wokingham RG40 1BN

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

46.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey and John Kaiser.

47.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 October 2022.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 October 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Vice Chair in the Chair.

 

It was noted that a written response would be provided to Wayne Smith in advance of the next meeting of the Committee in relation to his request for supplementary guidance to encourage applicants to achieve higher carbon reduction savings and energy efficiency standards.

48.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

49.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

50.

Application No.220663 - Land South of Old Bath Road, Sonning, RG4 6GQ pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Outline planning application for the proposed erection of 57

dwellings suitable for older persons accommodation following demolition of the existing dwellings (Access, Layout, Scale and Appearance to be considered).

 

Applicant: Arlington Retirement Lifestyles

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 106.

 

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

 

Trefor Fisher, Sonning Parish Council, provided a statement in objection to the application. In his absence, the statement was read out by the Vice-Chair in the Chair. Trefor stated that the members of Sonning Parish Council were disappointed in the continuing promotion of this site for 57 flats, whilst many Sonning residents remained very strongly opposed to this proposed development for a variety of reasons. Trefor was of the opinion that the location remained of dubious sustainability, with access to and from the site being dangerous for both pedestrians and cyclists due to the busy surrounding roads and fast-moving traffic. The existing bus service continued to provide complaints to the Parish Council, including many in the past week. Trefor added that although the site was within 30 minutes walking distance from the centre of Woodley, this route remained very hazardous as it involved the crossing of the railway bridge with no pathway. Trefor stated that Sonning Parish Council had always regarded the policy of the adjacent building being very dominant as severely flawed, whilst site 5SO008 was being promoted by WBC in the Draft Local Plan Update, and queried if this could mean that another 3 blocks of flats could be built on site 8. Trefor stated that the extant approval included an S106 agreement in which the developer had to pay WBC the sum of over £1.6 million towards affordable housing in the Borough whilst this application had reduced this amount by 94% to £100,000, due to the lack of viability of the project. This represented one-sixth of the purchase price of only one of the 57 flats to be built, and whilst the clause stated that this may be increased, this was unlikely due to falling house prices and rising materials and labour costs. Trefor noted that the contribution towards affordable housing was clearly a major factor to Committee members when the previous application was approved. Trefor queried why, if the contribution to affordable housing was so important last year, why was it not important now. Trefor asked that the Committee seriously consider all of the points raised, and provide consistency with their decision.

 

Tim Burden, agent, spoke in support of the application. Tim thanked officers for their continued work on this application, and noted that the report considered the merits of the application. Tim stated that the outline schemed secured policy compliant affordable housing contributions, though concerns were raised over the viability of the scheme. Since that approval, materials and labour costs had markedly increased which had resulted in this new application being submitted. Independent consultants had concluded that the scheme would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

51.

Application No.222516 - "Cherry Trees", Limmerhill Road, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of two-storey side extension raising the roof to create habitable accommodation following the demolition of the existing double garage.

 

Applicant: Mr N Rainer and Mrs T How

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 107 to 140.

 

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

 

Robert Kelly, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Robert stated that policy CP11 mandated that in the case of residential extensions, they should not result in inappropriate increases in the scale or form, whilst the Borough Design Guide stated that alterations and extensions should be clearly subservient to the form of the original building. Robert felt that this was not the case with this application, as the raising of the roof would not be subservient to the original dwelling. Robert added that the two-storey dwellings referred to in the report on Limmerhill Road were on significantly larger plots than Cherry Trees shared with its sister bungalow, being far closer to its rear boundary edge than these other properties. Robert stated that the original planning application on this plot proposed a house, which was refused and dismissed on appeal. Robert felt that this showed that the Planning Authority had already deemed that it was wrong to have a two-storey dwelling on this plot. Robert stated that whilst a 23.5m separation distance to the properties on Dorset Way exceeded the minimum of 22m for new developments, this was not a new development and the guidelines stated that this may not be appropriate in relation to existing properties where character and privacy needed to be considered. Robert stated that there was a requirement to provide a greater distance or incorporate additional design features where upstairs living was proposed. Robert added that CP3 mandated that there be no detriment to the amenities of adjoining land users including open spaces or occupiers and their quality of life. Robert commented that the Dorset Way properties had always enjoyed excellent levels of rear garden privacy, with no direct line of site between 51 Dorset Way and Cherry Trees. Whilst the report referenced being able to see from rear facing rear window of 53 Dorset Way to 51 Dorset Way, this would require you to physically lean out of the window, which was not the same as a rear facing window which would overlook the entirety of rear gardens on Dorset Way. Robert felt that the proposal was more akin to a two and a half storey dwelling than a two-storey dwelling due to the existing elevation of the building. Robert was of the opinion that the submission tried to apply the rules of new developments and did not account for the provisions of existing properties, running counter to the balance that guidelines required, whilst providing no overarching public good and attracting objections from four of the five impacted properties. Robert urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Heather Paxton, agent, spoke  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

52.

Application No.222366 - Land At 1100 Series and E2 Building, Winnersh Triangle, Wokingham, RG41 5TS pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the permanent retention of Stages 1 and 2 permitted under planning permission ref: 214183, and the erection of a new Virtual Production Sound Stage (Stage 3), together with associated access arrangements, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure, including security fencing and hut and welfare facilities (part retrospective).

 

Applicant: Winnersh Film Studios Ltd

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 141 to 180.

 

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

 

·         Additional consultation responses from Thames Water, National Highways, and Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service;

·         Insertion of document reference to condition 9;

·         Additional conditions 20 (foul water drainage), and 21 (sustainability);

·         Additional informatives 17 (foul water drainage), 18 and 19 (surface water), 20 (water mains), and 21 (fire safety).

 

Joanna Carter, case officer, informed the Committee that condition 20 (as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda) was now proposed to be amended as follows: “Prior to the toilet block and welfare facilities (located within the security building) hereby approved are brought into use, confirmation shall be provided that either…” Joanna added that the subsequent text attracted no proposed amendments.

 

Oliver Bell, agent, spoke in support of the application. Oliver stated that this application followed previously approved planning permission for two temporary stages and workshops at other sites within the business park. The film and TV industries were some of the fastest growing within the UK economy, whilst the shortage of purpose-built studios and production support space remained a limiting factor. Since temporary planning permission was granted at this site a short while ago, a major international feature film had been shot and in addition to a high-end TV series, bringing significant economic benefits to the local area. Oliver stated that this permanent application would mark an important step in the establishment of Winnersh Film Studios, with 50,000 square foot of office space continuing to be available for incoming productions. Approximately 300 direct jobs would be created by this application, whilst the applicant’s overall plans had the potential to create 500 jobs subject to planning approvals. Oliver stated that the local economy would be bolstered and supported by this application, and the proposals would also comply with biodiversity net gain requirements and would include the provision of solar panels. No objections had been raised by local residents, local ward members, statutory consultees or the Parish Council with regards to this application.

 

Stephen Conway commented that he approved of good utilisation of employment space within a core employment area which would benefit the wider economy, whilst the applicant had used the opportunity granted via temporary planning permission to confirm that the site could be a success for such a purpose.

 

RESOLVED That application number 222366 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 164 to 174, additional conditions 20 and 21 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, additional informatives 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 as set out within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.