Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

John Kaiser attended the meeting virtually, meaning that he could participate in discussions but not cast any votes.

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

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

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Committee thanked Mary Severin for her years of service and legal advice to the Committee, and wished her well for the future.

To receive any declaration of interest.

Stephen Conway declared a personal interest in agenda item 59, on the grounds that he had objected to the inclusion of this site in the draft Local Plan Update. The site had subsequently been included in the update, and Stephen commented that he was approaching this application as a fresh exercise with an open mind, and would consider all evidence prior to reaching a decision.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.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.

*Contains Part 2 Sheets*

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 13 to 132.

The Committee were advised that this application had been discussed and deferred at the November 2022 meeting of the Committee.

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

Trefor Fisher, Sonning Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Trefor thanked the Vice Chair for reading out his statement at the previous Committee meeting. Trefor felt that this was a fine development situated in an unsuitable and unsustainable location, which was out of proportion and character with the small Sonning community. Trefor added that Sonning Parish Council was in complete agreement with comments made by Wayne Smith at the previous Committee meeting, in that if this development was not viable here then it would not be viable anywhere. Trefor felt that allowing this application would set a dangerous precedent, where applicants may feel that they could reduce their affordable housing contributions if they purchased the land at a higher price. Trefor stated that an advertisement shown to the Parish Council by a local resident indicated that the site was being marketed as being very viable. Whilst the claims on this advertisement may be exaggerated, in the region of £9m to £14m profit, this was still a very big difference to the claims being presented to the Committee. Trefor noted that recent comments made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities indicated that applications should be judged on their merits, rather than being worried about a Planning Inspector. Trefor urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Michael Firmager, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Michael felt that the application was out of character with the surrounding area despite the comments contained within the report, whilst policy TB06 stated that the Council should resist inappropriate development of residential gardens where development would cause harm to the local area. Michael was of the opinion that this application demonstrated overdevelopment, with side roads also providing access to the local rugby club and access being granted onto the busy A4. 13 dwelling were proposed via a separate application at Pound Lane, which Michael felt could be converted to a care home. Michael stated that this application would add to existing congestion issues, in an area that lacked public transport or amenities. The application catered for older individuals, who would be forced to rely on motorised transport due to the lack of public transport, which would be contrary to the Council’s climate emergency objectives. Michael fully supported the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing and questions regarding the actual profitability of the site, and raised concerns as to what would stop the applicant coming back again if further claims of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

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 133 to 178.

The Committee were advised that this application had previously been discussed and deferred at the November 2022 meeting of the Committee.

The Committee were advised that updates within the supplementary planning agenda included a plan received from the agent on 13 December 2022 showing that the ground level of the application site was set 1 metre higher than number 51 Dorset Way.

Rob Kelly, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Rob was of the opinion that the application would not be subservient to the current built form, whilst it would be positioned too close to the boundary edge. The application would have a detrimental effect on the rear garden privacy enjoyed by Dorset Way residents, with number 51 suffering their entire garden being overlooked by rear facing rooms of Cherry Trees. Rob felt that the large footprint and smaller plot depth of Cherry Trees already caused it to be more overbearing than any other property on Limerhill Road, whilst the proposals would only exacerbate this issue. Rob disputed the late submission from the agent claiming that there was only a 1m height differential between Cherry Trees and Dorset Way, as his garden was situated on a slope. Rob stated that planning officers had previously deemed the site inappropriate for a two-storey dwelling, and urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Nigel Rainer, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Nigel stated that he was looking to create a flexible multi-generation space allowing for family to visit whilst facilitating he and his wife to stay at the property for as long as possible. Nigel added that older people should be encouraged to stay in properties with stairs for as long as possible, for multiple health reasons. Whilst neighbours had concerns that Cherry Trees should not be developed beyond its current size, Nigel stated that he had worked hard to ensure concerns were addressed as much as possible through policy compliant proposals. A full pre-application process had been undertaken, and proposals were modest and compliant with the Borough Design Guide. Nigel added that the old hedgerow and fence were rotten and unmanageable, and had been replaced separately to this application at his own cost. Nigel stated that this project was an attempt to create a home to meet the long term needs of him and his family, whilst being as sensitive as possible to neighbouring concerns.

Adrian Mather thanked the Committee for undertaking a site visit to understand the site more fully. Adrian stated that the site contained a large bungalow on the crest of a hill, which was very dominant to the properties on Dorset Way due to its proximity to the rear boundary. Adrian felt that the application would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Outline application (all matters reserved except access to the site) for the development of up to 200 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing and associated infrastructure, open space, biodiversity enhancements, landscaping and green infrastructure, following demolition of existing agricultural buildings.  (Means of access into the site from New Bath Road to be considered.)

Applicant: Croudace Homes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 179 to 258.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda included:

·         Noting an additional neighbour objection;

·         Replacement of plan number within condition 1;

·         Replacement of paragraph 1 within condition 35;

·         Amendment of paragraph 1 within condition 37;

·         Minor amendment of condition 38;

·         Replacement of paragraph 1 within condition 41.

Sophie Morris, case officer, advised the Committee that an additional condition in relation to air quality was proposed.

Chris Roberts, agent, spoke in support of the application. Chris stated that the applicant had worked hard to comply with and exceed planning policies where possible. The application would provide five hectares of parklands which exceeded requirements, in addition to the provision of 350 new trees, wildflower planting, bird and bat boxes, a thirty percent increase in biodiversity net gain, a fifteen percent increase in riverside biodiversity net gain, and all homes being provided with photovoltaic panels whilst being thermally efficient. Chris added that all properties would benefit from electric vehicle charging, whilst being located near to easily accessible amenities and rail links, and was in accordance with the 15 minute neighbourhood principle. A new toucan crossing would enable access to the site from the north, whilst the site would provide a suitable mix of home types and sizes. A forty percent affordable housing contribution would be provided, whilst the developer was a family-owned housebuilder who were committed to submit a reserved matters application within eighteen months subject to approval this evening. Chris stated that the Committee could be confident of a timely manner of delivery and a significant boost to housing supply within the Borough.

Sam Akhtar, adjoining Ward member, spoke in objection to the application. Sam felt that 200 dwellings was excessive for this area, and cited issues with access from a very busy A4, whereby the application would only add to issues of traffic and congestion. Sam raised concern that part of the application site was situated on a flood plain, which would negatively impact local residents in the event of a flood. Sam commented that local school places and doctors’ surgeries were already oversubscribed, and felt that this application would exacerbate these issues.

Stephen Conway thanked the case officer for a balanced report. Stephen commented that although the outline application only related to access, it would agree the principle of development to accommodate up to 200 houses on this site. As such, Stephen felt it legitimate to consider matters other than access. As a result of the lack of five-year housing land supply, the tilted balance was in effect which meant that applications should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Application to vary conditions 2-11-17-18 and 19 of planning consent 152286 for the proposed erection of three detached dwellings with associated access and parking following the partial demolition of the existing dwelling. Variations include to Conditions 2 (Approved details) and 11 (landscaping) to supply new plans, Condition 17 (garages) to allow bike storage and Conditions 18 (Cycle storage) and 19 (Bin storage) to seek their removal

Applicant: Mr John Brunt

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 259 to 284.

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

Geoff Harper, Winnersh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Geoff stated that that planning permission set conditions which the developer must conform to prior to first occupation of this site, which was in October 2017. Geoff added that the developer had failed to comply with all of these conditions, and following extensive delays eventually constructed a layout different to the one which was approved, and had ignored the efforts of residents to resolve them. Geoff stated that the Parish Council’s sub-Committee had felt that the developer had been given ample time to resolve the outstanding issues and meet policy requirements. Geoff felt that that the developer should be held to the original planning application and conditions, and expressed disappointment with the officer recommendation of approval as he felt this had not fully taken into account the effect on local residents. Geoff urged the Committee to refuse the application.

John Rhodes, resident, spoke in objection to the application. John stated that three spaces were said to be unallocated whilst the land registry defined them as allocated spaces. John added that the driveways were 4.4m in length whilst they were required to be 5m in length, and should a 5m vehicle be parked outside 5C this would overhang the paved walkway. John stated that cars were currently parked opposite 5B and 5C on the flat landscaped garden, making it very difficult for the residents of 5B and 5C to leave. John felt that the existing cycling requirements were not complied with as there was only one resident who could be spoken to about this matter. John stated that sheds to the rear of 5A could only be accessed by 5C. John noted that forty percent of the landscaping had been omitted from this development, moving from a nicely kept area to an unsightly border made up of timber which was beginning to fail. John stated that fifty percent of the trees planted had already died, whilst the submitted biodiversity plan had been ignored. John stated that persons who found it difficult to walk would find it very difficult to walk up the driveway. John asked that the Committee listen to the concerns of local residents.

Prue Bray, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Prue stated that she was very disappointed that this application to vary conditions was at Committee five years after these conditions should have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a new part two storey and part three storey care home building with associated communal spaces, back of house, and service areas, substation, parking, and landscaping following demolition of the existing care home and associated ancillary buildings and a change of use of land at the eastern end of the site

Applicant: Aedifica UK Limited

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 285 to 340.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda included:

·         Amendment to condition 4 (omission of references to species), and creation of new informative 12 therein;

·         Amendment to condition 5 (omission of references to contract gardeners), and inclusion of those omissions within informative 12;

·         Amendment to condition 28 to only require north facing balustrade elevations to be obscure glazed.

Nicola Jordan, resident, spoke in objection to the application. In her absence, a statement was read out by the Vice Chair. Nicola felt that the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area, whilst noise and pollution levels during construction would be detrimental for residents and local schools, including people working from home and pupils trying to learn at local schools. Nicola added that traffic and parking were already considerable issues in the vicinity of local schools, whilst pollution levels would increase from the increased traffic associated with this development. Nicola raised concerns of increased noise and odours from the development if it was expanded, whilst the development would also place additional pressures on the already overloaded GP surgeries and pharmacies in the local area. Nicola was of the opinion that there was not a need for any more care home placements locally, and asked that the application be refused.

Tim Spencer, agent, spoke in support of the application. Tim stated that the applicant focussed on delivery and operation of modern care homes, where there was an unprecedented need for care home provision nationally. Tim added that at least five additional care homes would be required to meet the existing needs of the Borough, and noted that the current build was not fit for purpose. Tim stated that the application would provide jobs for local people, contribute to the Borough’s housing numbers, and free up much needed family homes. Tim stated that the applicant had engaged with officers through the pre-application stage, leading to the reduction of massing and improvements in the quality of the design, which the Parish Council were now content with. Many of the existing trees were to be retained on the site, and supplementary planting would provide additional benefits to residents and provide additional screening. Tim stated that neighbouring amenity had been carefully considered, and officers had noted the sustainable location whilst parking was proposed to be increased from 13 spaces to 27 spaces. A construction management plan would be adhered to, and disruption during the construction phase would be kept to a minimum. Tim asked that the application be approved.

Wayne  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 1no. two bedroom

dwelling.

Applicant: Mr P Stelling

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 341 to 378.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda included:

·         Noting of two additional letters of support from residents;

·         Noting of an additional letter of concern received from a resident;

·         Additional comments from the Council’s compliance officer regarding potential contamination at the site;

·         Additional condition 14 with regards to land affected by contamination, and minor amendment of condition 5 to make reference to condition 14.

Nicholas Cobbold, agent, spoke in support of the application. Nicholas felt that the site was one of the more obvious residential plots that he had come across, being vacant land within an existing built-up area with established access. Due process had been followed, starting with a pre-application resulting in a single storey bungalow proposal. Nicholas stated that concern had been raised over the impact on the character of the area, however the character of the area had not been defined alongside these objections. Nicholas stated that the area was of mixed use and of mixed built form. London Road contained bungalows, some with loft conversions, with properties operating as commercial units. Proctors Road to the rear was characterised by two-storey dwellings, and the application was designed to fit into the London Road development. The single-storey nature of the development would mean that it could not overlook neighbouring properties. Nicholas stated that the immediate neighbours had not objected to the scheme, and had in fact supported the development. Highways officers had not objected to the scheme, and Nicholas asked that the Committee approve the application.

Wayne Smith queried if the entrance would be located to the side of the existing property, in line with number 73 Proctors Road. Simon Taylor, planning officer, stated that the access was existing and provided access to the building at the rear including a dwelling which was issued a certificate in 2017, and an unlawful workshop which had a current enforcement case to regularise the use. The land subject to this application was vacant land which previously existed behind number 306 London Road, with the access created ten to fifteen years ago when the owner of number 304 bought all of the land to facilitate a workshop and other uses. Access was always existing, and no changes were proposed. Such a back land development would ordinarily be opposed as it did not meet policy TB06, however there was no introduction of side lanes with this application as they already existed, and it conformed with the rhythm and pattern of development of the area.

Rebecca Margetts queried if there was access in emergencies to the property in the event of issues with the nearby commercial building. Simon Taylor stated that the commercial unit was unlawful, and an enforcement case was underway to attempt to regularise its use. The building was very well contained and low scale, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public may be excluded from part the meeting should members wish to discuss the part 2 sheets contained within agenda item 57, on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) as appropriate.

RESOLVED That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public may were excluded from part the meeting to allow members to discuss the part 2 sheets contained within agenda item 57, on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act (as amended) as appropriate.