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

64.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Chris Bowring and Stephen Conway.

65.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 133 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 14 December 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 December 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

66.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

Minutes:

Al Neal declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 70, on the grounds that he had helped residents with a number of applications relating to this site prior to being elected as a Borough Councillor or being appointed to this Committee. Al added that he would leave the room for the entirety of this item.

 

Al Neal declared a personal interest in agenda item 71, on the grounds that he had been on the Earley Town Council Planning Committee for a number of years where applications relating to this site had been considered. Al added that he had never had direct contact with residents about this, and did not attend the Earley Town Council meeting last night when this application was considered. Al stated that he came to this meeting with an open mind and would consider all evidence prior to making a judgement.

 

Al Neal declared a personal interest in agenda item 72, on the grounds that he received communications from the WATCH Wokingham Group who had made representations regarding this item. Al added that he had only advised the group on the procedures of the Planning Committee, and stated that he came to this meeting with an open mind and would consider all evidence prior to making a judgement.

 

David Cornish declared a personal interest in agenda item 73, on the grounds that he had listed this item as a Ward Member both on the request of local residents and Finchampstead Parish Council, whilst there were also aspects of the application which he felt were appropriate to be considered by the Committee. David added that he came to this meeting with an open mind and would consider all evidence prior to making a judgement.

67.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items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.

68.

Application No.222138 - 6 Johnson Drive, Finchampstead, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Householder application for proposed single storey detached outbuilding with roof lantern to the eastern boundary (Retrospective).

 

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Brant

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 21 to 38.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included an additional condition in relation to obscure glazing.

 

Charles Margetts, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Charles stated that whilst members were supposed to judge applications on an individual basis, it was important to understand previous applications and the history of the site. Charles stated that there had been 10 certificates for change of use on this site since 1997, 8 refused planning applications, 7 applications for housing including a number taken to appeal, and 20 enforcement cases since 1998. Charles added that commercial waste had been dumped on the site for 25 years, whilst green waste had also been dumped and burned. Charles stated that over 200 scrap cars had been stored on the site recently, whilst residents had shown videos of people accessing the site to strip parts from the scrap cars. Charles felt that this information would help the Committee to understand the history of the site, and noted that it was in the countryside and outside of the settlement boundary and 2010 Local Plan. Charles added that the site was also outside of the settlement boundary within the Draft Local Plan Update, and was not included in the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan. Due to past behaviours, Charles felt that trust had completely broken down between residents and the applicant, and raised concerns that further buildings could be placed on the site in future without planning permission. Charles felt that the application should be refused, to make it clear that planning policies were there for a reason and should be adhered to.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that he appreciated the strength of feeling raised by Charles Margetts on behalf of local residents. Andrew commented that history of enforcement was not a material planning consideration. Andrew queried what weight was applied to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and suggested a possible amendment to conditions to require a blind to the rooflight to stop upward light spillage to protect roosting bats.

 

John Kaiser queried whether this application was submitted as a result of negotiations following the enforcement case, and sought officer comment as to what an Inspector’s view might be if this application was refused and taken to appeal by the applicant. Cameron Young, case officer, confirmed that the application had been submitted following engagement with the enforcement process. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that Council’s should act proportionally with regards to planning controls, and planning applications should be entertained where there was the possibility of approval being granted. Brian added that if the application was refused there was the chance that the applicant could appeal the decision, and should that appeal be allowed Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) could have less control over conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

69.

Application No.223592 - Land to rear of 6 Johnson Drive, Finchampstead pdf icon PDF 3 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the erection of 5no. dwellings with double garages following removal/demolition of the existing outbuildings.

 

Applicant: Mr Patrick Bancroft

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 39 to 114.

 

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

 

·         Clarification that moderate weight was applied to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, which was now at the examination stage;

·         Clarification that the application was still acceptable when applying the tilted balance irrespective of tempering due to housing over delivery;

·         Clarification that 13 resident submissions had now been received;

·         Officer responses to issues raised by resident submissions;

·         An amendment to condition 4;

·         An amendment to condition 18;

·         Additional condition 27 in relation to archaeological work.

 

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Roger stated that the Parish Council objected to this application, and were supportive of comments and concerns raised by Councillor Charles Margetts. Roger stated that the main concerns he would raise were that the application was not in accordance with the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan and was not situated in a sustainable location. Roger stated that the Supplementary Planning Agenda made comment that moderate weight should now apply to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan. Roger stated that policy ADH1 in the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan set out criteria where development was allowed outside off the development limits, however none of the criteria were met by this application. Roger stated that an appeal relating to a previous application on the site for 25 houses resulted in the Planning Inspector commenting that they were not convinced that the site was set in a location which would encourage the use of sustainable transport methods to reduce the need for vehicular use. Roger stated that the application was contrary to policies CP1 and CP6, and asked that the application be refused.

 

Patrick Bancroft, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Patrick stated that the developer had been building houses in the area for 30 years, and had worked closely with officers to make sure that the application was policy compliant. Patrick noted that the officer report was satisfied that the scheme was policy compliant, and stated that a 10m landscape and wildlife buffer would be in place around the outside of the site to ensure that all trees and wildlife were protected. Patrick stated that the application met parking standards, and had sufficient turning space for emergency and refuse vehicles. Patrick added that the properties would be spread out and would therefore not present issues of overlooking. Patrick commented that the site already had existing lawful brownfield use permissions, which would be permanently removed should this application be approved. Patrick stated that the site could only be glimpsed at from outside of the development, whilst the application would contribute to housing numbers as the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. Patrick stated that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application, and asked that the Committee approve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

70.

Application No.222963 - 72 Sutcliffe Avenue, Earley, RG6 7JN pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Al Neal declared a prejudicial interest regarding this application and left the room for its duration.

 

Proposal: (Part-retrospective) Householder application for the proposed insertion of a dormer window into the existing loft conversion and roof alterations.

 

Applicant: Mr and Mrs Khangura

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 115 to 144.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarification regarding the inclusion of the statement, “dormer windows should generally be positioned within the main roof…”, within the Borough Design Guide.

 

Heather Paxton, agent, spoke in support of the application. Heather stated that planning permission was received for this site in October 2020 for the proposed alterations and extensions, including the conversion of the loft with two Velux windows in the front and rear roof slopes. Heather added that the applicant believed that the further addition of a dormer window during the construction phase would be covered under permitted development, and as such went ahead with its construction. During the construction process, a number of complaints had been raised resulting in enforcement cases which had all been dealt with and addressed in a timely manner. Heather stated that the applicant had been fully compliant throughout this process, however these issues had drawn out the construction time by approximately 6 months. A retrospective planning application was submitted for the dormer and was subsequently refused due to its design. Heather stated that this application sought to rectify the dormer design and allow it to conform with local planning policy and the Borough Design Guide. Heather commented that there was an error in the construction of the roof to the new two-storey side extension, which was now proposed to be reconstructed to further obscure the view of the dormer to make it more subservient to the existing dwelling. Heather was of the opinion that there had been general animosity towards the applicant throughout the construction process, and asked that the application be considered based on the information provided rather than how the construction had previously taken place.

 

Mike Smith, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Mike stated that the application did not comply with policies CP1 or CP3 of the Core Strategy, whilst it did not meet R23 of the Borough Design Guide or the design guidance. Mike added that the dormer was unlawfully built, and this was the third attempt to regularise it following enforcement action. Mike stated that the plot was highly prominent and elevated, and the dormer was clearly visible from 120m down the adjacent road. Mike noted that the approved roof lights were not installed as per the approved plans to the rear of the property, and were instead installed on the street facing elevation. Mike stated that it was incorrectly stated that the application sought to reinstate the taller hipped roof form of the side extension, as this was never built properly in the first instance. Mike added that the 6.5m width of the dormer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

71.

Application No.222170 - 17 Byron Road, Earley, RG6 1EP pdf icon PDF 542 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey front/side extension, a two storey side and part two storey, part single storey rear extension with 1 no. dormer window, rear patio and changes to fenestration following demolition of existing detached garage. (Retrospective)

 

Applicant: Mr Manprit Vig

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 145 to 182.

 

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

 

·         Additional changes to the originally approved scheme which were not referenced within the report;

·         Clarification that the case officer would verbally update the Committee regarding comments from Earley Town Council;

·         Officer responses to additional objections and concerns received after publication of the report.

 

Kieran Neumann, case officer, confirmed that comments received following Earley Town Council’s most recent Planning Committee largely mirrored comments made on 5 October 2022.

 

Tim Marsh, ACER Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that ACER were objecting on grounds of inappropriate mass, built form, materials and character of the area. Tim added that the application was detrimental to the amenity of adjacent land users. Tim felt that the application was contrary to CP3, and was being considered as a retrospective due to the development exceeding the constraints of previously approved plans. Tim commented on some of the counterpoints made by officers within the Supplementary Planning Agenda in response to resident comments. Tim felt that non-matching bricks would not weather and blend over time as bricks were designed to retain their appearance. Tim was of the opinion that the neighbouring resident’s kitchen could be seen through the dormer which created a privacy issue. Tim stated that the protrusion of a 3m high wall which extended almost 1m cast a sun shadow over the rear terrace of number 19, which produced a loss of amenity. The 45 degree diagram supplied showed ambient light levels rather than direct sunlight, which was the key issue for number 19 due to the direction of sun travel which came from number 17. Tim questioned why the noise from fans was not a planning issue, when for other applications noise was a consideration, for example delivery vehicles. Tim stated that the dormer was applied for under permitted development, which if now null and void would have to be considered against Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) standards. Tim added that there were precedents for such dormers being refused by WBC which distorted the roof lines, including one in Byron Road. Tim quoted comments made by a planning officer for one such refusal which described a similar dormer as bulky and intrusive which would detract from the established character of the area. Tim asked that the application be judged against CP3 and be refused.

 

Manprit Vig, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Manprit stated that he had worked as a Civil Servant for over 20 years, and he and his family were hard workers and law-abiding citizens. Manprit stated that he always intended to follow  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

72.

Application No.223493 - Tan House Footbridge, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Recommendation: Grant of prior approval subject to informatives

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Application for Prior Approval under Part 18, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for the erection of a single span footbridge following demolition of 2 existing footbridges.

 

Applicant: Network Rail

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 183 to 200.

 

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

 

·         A summary of supplementary information provided by Network Rail, seeking to address some of the third-party concerns raised through the consultation which were not material planning considerations in this instance;

·         Additional informatives 9, 10 and 11 following a consultation response from Environmental Health.

 

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Imogen stated that Wokingham Town Council owned the land to the south of the railway line at this point, whilst the right of way footpath leading to the bridge was surrounded by allotments leading on to housing which created a convenient walking route to town for residents living south of the railway. Imogen felt that the applicant should have asked the Town Council for some additional land during the planning process, and the Town Council had even spoken with the allotment owners who would potentially be most affected. Imogen stated that the Town Council would have most likely have relinquished the required land if it had resulted in an accessible bridge fit for the twenty-first century. Imogen added that this bridge was a popular graffiti location, of which the Town Council were responsible for cleaning, and the proposed material consisted of perforated steel which was an extremely difficult material to remove graffiti from, which would impact the visual amenity of this location. Imogen stated that there was concern that the existing bridge would be demolished without a timeline or plan for rerouting the traffic that used it. Imogen stated that Network Rail had its own inclusive design standards, whilst there was very clear statutory legislation that required employers and service providers to take positive actions to overcome and minimise the disadvantage from a protected characteristic. Imogen felt that it was unclear why the design only had stairs, as it excluded less able, disabled and pram users from using the bridge. Should the design have been accessible, it would also have met the needs of users of other modes of transport including cyclists. Imogen stated that as this application was a prior approval application, many of the normal planning considerations did not apply, however the design and external appearance of the proposal were relevant considerations, including if the proposal would injure the amenity of the neighbourhood and was reasonably capable of modification. Imogen was of the opinion that the bridge could be modified to suit the needs of the neighbourhood, via the change of materials from perforated steel and the inclusion of ramps.

 

Alex Cran, resident and Chair of the Wokingham Active Travel Community Hub (WATCH), spoke in objection to the application. Alex stated that over 30,000 residents  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

73.

Application No.223021 - Land West of Twin Oaks, Longwater Lane pdf icon PDF 262 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from equestrian to mixed use, comprising equestrian and 1 no. caravan pitch including a day room for Gypsy and Traveller residential use (Retrospective)

 

Applicant: Mr Gabby Lee

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 201 to 230.

 

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarity regarding personal permissions and how this site differed from the decision of the Inspector at “Twin Oaks” to the west of the site.

 

At this stage of the meeting, Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed that the meeting be extended by up to 30 minutes to a finishing time no later than 11pm. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, put to a vote, and subsequently carried.

 

Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Roger stated that the proposal was not in accordance with the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan which was now at the examination stage. Roger commented that he had heard conflicting reports (on the evening) of the weight given to the Neighbourhood Plan, and was working on the comment given within the Supplementary Planning Agenda for a previous application whereby the plan was awarded moderate weight. Roger felt it unfortunate that the officer report commented that the Neighbourhood Plan had limited weight, and was not referred to at all subsequently, which Roger felt indicated that the Neighbourhood Plan had been disregarded. Roger stated that section 18 of the officer report noted that additional supply of gypsy and traveller pitches was supported (even when a five year supply of pitches was available) where it provided a safeguard for future supply and was established in previously developed land. Roger felt that in section 18 of the report and subsequent sections made no reference to the Neighbourhood Plan which attracted moderate weight, and was of the opinion that this application was invalid on this basis.

 

Roland Cundy, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Roland was of the opinion that the site was unsustainable, whilst CP6, CP9 and CP11 set out the core strategies with regards to access to local retail, leisure, medical facilities and the promotion of sustainable transport. Roland added that the local shop, post office and petrol station in the village had been closed for two years, with no other facilities available. Roland stated that CP1 clause 11 required developments to demonstrate how they supported opportunities for reducing the need to travel by private car, which this development failed to demonstrate. Roland felt that more sustainable gypsy and traveller pitches could be found in the extra provision of pitches at land to the rear of 166 Nine Mile Ride, which was why this site was supported for expansion. Roland was of the opinion that this proposal was a form of creeping development, where a stable was previously allowed to be developed which now constituted existing built form on the land. Roland stated that the site was accessed by a public footpath leading to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

74.

Application No.223108 - Templecombe, Wargrave Road, Remenham, RG9 3HU pdf icon PDF 4 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 1 no. dwelling, amendments to the internal access road, erection of a detached covered car port and associated landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling and pool house.

 

Applicant: Atlantic Swiss Agency LLP

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 231 to 282.

 

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

 

·         Amended condition 2 to make correct reference to updated plans;

·         Officer responses to a letter received from Berkshire Gardens Trust which followed up on their objections;

·         Note that the Council’s Landscape Officer had raised an outstanding objection, responded to in point 1 of the report;

·         Amendment to condition 12.

 

Simon Taylor, case officer (consultant), advised the Committee of an additional suggested condition number 18 in relation to excavated soil.

 

Alan Gunne-Jones, agent, spoke in support of the application. Alan stated that this application had been subject of a lengthy pre-application process which commenced during March 2021, and had been subject to two rounds of discussions with officers and external consultees. Alan stated that the proposal had been amended in response to these discussions, whilst officer recommendations had resulted in elevation changes and the removal of the bin storage area and pool house. Alan felt that the fact that the application was supported by English Heritage, and was recommended for approval, was testament to the pre-application, consultation and engagement processes. Alan stated that assessments had been undertaken including landscape and visual impact, archeology, heritage and trees, which demonstrated that all such considerations had been addressed. Alan stated that the woodland management plan, conservation management strategy and construction environmental management plan would continue to be progressed. Alan stated that the applicant’s commitment to these strategies was paramount, and they were committed to maintain the collaborative approach with officers and partner organisations. Alan asked that the application be approved.

 

David Cornish proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation, including amended conditions 2 and 12 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, and the additional condition number 18 with regards to excavated soil as verbally suggested by the case officer. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

 

RESOLVED That application number 223108 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 257 to 264, amended conditions 2 and 12 as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, and additional condition number 18 with regards to excavated soil as verbally suggested by the case officer, and subject to legal agreement.