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

75.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor Wayne Smith.

76.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 153 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 January 2023.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

77.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

Minutes:

David Cornish declared a personal interest in agenda item 83, on the grounds that his daughter was a resident of Sandford Court, however she had not responded to the consultation on this application nor had she discussed the application with David.

 

Al Neal declared a personal interest in agenda item 82, 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.

 

Stephen Conway declared a personal interest in agenda item 81, 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.

78.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.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

Agenda item 84, Land to the South of Cutbush Lane, was withdrawn from the agenda.

79.

Application No.220663 - Land South of Old Bath Road, Sonning, RG4 6GQ pdf icon PDF 136 KB

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 25 to 162.

 

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

 

·         Revised wording in relation to the deferred payment mechanism;

·         Clarification that the S106 agreement was well-advanced and would be completed in the coming weeks should planning permission be granted;

·         Clarification that the current viability issues were largely as a result of the existing use and structures on the site, resulting in a relatively high site value.

 

Trefor Fisher, Sonning Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Trefor stated that the Parish Council wished to reiterate their very strong objection to this application, including that the site was situated within an unsustainable location. Trefor added that the previous application required £1.6m of affordable housing contributions, whilst this application would only require a fraction of that amount which could set a dangerous precedent for future applications. Trefor stated that the Parish Council hoped that a timely policy change would be implemented by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) with regards to affordable housing contributions. Trefor thanked WBC Planning officers for their work on this application, in particular for calculating the deferred payment mechanism which appeared to ensure fair affordable housing contributions going forwards should profit uplift occur. Trefor stated that in addition to this application, there were a variety of proposed developments, and developments with planning permission in the locality, which represented massive overdevelopment in what was a historic area.

 

Michael Firmager, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Michael concurred with the points raised by Sonning Parish Council, and noted the views of local residents and local MP in objecting to this application. Michael questioned who had the final say on whether a development was unprofitable, and was of the opinion that the original application would have been refused if it only offered an affordable housing contribution of £100k. Michael was of the opinion that that this was a substandard and inappropriate development, and asked that the applicant withdraw the application or that the Committee refuse planning permission.

 

John Kaiser noted that the deferred payment mechanism essentially met the Committee’s request from the previous meeting, ensuring that profit uplift made an appropriate contribution to affordable housing payments.

 

David Cornish commented that Sonning was one of the most expensive parts of the country, and as such property development should be profitable if an appropriate amount was paid for the land. David added that the Committee had pursued this line of enquiry, and were bound by prevailing Government Policy. David urged the Committee, Parish Council and residents to respond to the Government’s ongoing consultation on the NPPF to change how such calculations were carried out for future applications.

 

Stephen Conway stated that the Committee had taken the issue of viability  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

80.

Application No.223592 - Land to Rear of 6 Johnson Drive, Finchampstead pdf icon PDF 147 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the erection of 5no. dwellings with double garagesfollowing removal/demolitionof theexisting outbuildings

 

Applicant: Mr Patrick Bancroft

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 163 to 264.

 

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

 

Patrick Bancroft, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Patrick stated that the developer had been building local houses for over 30 years, and the officer report was substantively the same as that previously considered by the Committee. Patrick added that no additional objections had been received, and instead only a costly delay had been realised as a result of the previous deferral. Patrick stated that the application would end the existing brownfield use of the site, provide wildlife corridors, whilst being a significantly different application to the previously refused application for 25 houses. Patrick added that the previous Inspector’s decision noted that the site was unsustainable as it was 1000m from the California Crossroad shops, which was marginal when compared to the recommended 800m, with other properties on the road having to travel the same distance. Patrick commented that the proposal would make a meaningful contribution to Wokingham Borough Council’s five-year housing land supply, and added that he hoped not to have to appeal the decision in the event of a refusal.

 

Charles Margetts, Ward Member, commented on the application. Charles stated that the application was outside of the settlement boundary, did not feature within the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and a previous Inspector had made a very clear statement that the site was unsustainable. Charles contested the statement that 5 houses would make a meaningful difference to WBC’s five-year housing land supply. Charles stated that he had previously raised concerns that residents had not been consulted on this application, and he was still in contact with 32 residents who had yet to receive a letter and only knew of this application as it was in the local press. Charles commented that residents deplored the behaviour of the applicant and the blight he had placed on their lives over the past 20 years, however they were realistic that WBC’s local plan was on hold, and residents had decided with great reluctance not to oppose the application. Charles asked that the set of conditions put forwards by residents were applied to this application, and expected all conditions to be strictly implemented and monitored.

 

David Cornish commented that the limited weight applied to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan was not consistent with similar plans within neighbouring Boroughs, and noted that the Parish Council may wish to consider legal advice on this matter. David stated that he had not appreciated a letter from the applicant, which was written in a slightly threatening tone. David added that he respected the view of the residents and would support the proposal.

 

Rebecca Margetts echoed comments raised by Charles Margetts and David Cornish, and added that she had not found it appropriate for the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

Application No.212720 - Land at Bridge Farm, Twyford pdf icon PDF 274 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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 265 to 392.

 

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

 

·         Minor correction to paragraph 2.1;

·         Summary of new points raised by an additional letter of objection, and associated officer responses.

 

Bridget Datcham, Twyford Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Bridget stated that whilst the Committee could not fully consider the draft Local Plan Update or Twyford Neighbourhood Plan, the policies within the neighbourhood plan were worthy and did not support this application. Bridget stated that the forty-percent affordable housing would be welcome, however there was no mention of working with a housing association, whilst it was also critical that the first homes policy within the neighbourhood plan was adhered to. Bridget added that Twyford needed expanded facilities to meet the needs of existing and future residents in addition to residents of surrounding areas. There was a serious concern that properties to the south of Twyford would be seriously restricted in terms of gaining a place at the Piggott School as a direct result of this development. Bridget stated that the proposed roundabout would cause congestion at peak times, whilst present traffic may prefer to use an east to west route which conflicted with the Parish Councils plans to regenerate the village centre to create a more pedestrian friendly environment. Bridget added that the amendments to the access routes to the south of the proposed development would aid pedestrians and cyclists, however this would not resolve the difficulties they would experience once they existed onto the south of the Wargrave Road where pavements were narrow and the sight lines were difficult. Bridget felt that whilst the proposed crossing on the A4 was an improvement, it was not an adequate solution for the safety of students at peak traffic times. Bridget urged the Committee to take note of comprehensive submissions from residents regarding flooding and mineral deposits on the site. Bridget noted that there was no mention of re-wilding within the plans.

 

Lilian Pearson Bishop, resident, spoke in objection of the application. Lilian was of the opinion that the development would bring 200 houses, 400 cars and 800 people to the area, and added that the Bridge Farm site was neither safe nor suitable for such a development, and would be detrimental for residents of surrounding villages. Lilian stated that the traffic modelling suggested that the A4/321 roundabout would have spare capacity, and referenced images of the roundabout being heavily congested whilst children were walking alongside the congested road, breathing in emissions. Lilian stated that this development would only worsen the existing congestion, whilst more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

82.

Application No.223493 - Tan House Footbridge, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 2 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 393 to 418.

 

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

 

·         Minor correction to paragraph 9, to include the word ‘not’;

·         Reference to a supplementary statement received from the Applicant;

·         An updated statement from Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) Highways department.

 

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Imogen stated that the Town Council would support measures to include ramped access within the final designs. Imogen added that the Town Council still had concerns over the use of perforated steel, which was notoriously hard to clean graffiti from.

 

Alex Cran, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Alex thanked the Committee for raising issues relating to the design and appearance of the bridge at the previous meeting, which had encouraged the applicant to consider a more suitable design. Alex stated that Members had represented the strong community feelings on this issue, and had proved that differences could be made even when faced with restrictive legislation. Alex hoped that additional progress could be made if the Council could acquire additional land to enable ramped access to be installed, and asked that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) undertake all possible works to enable the right bridge to be delivered within tight timescales.

 

Natalie Wilson, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Natalie thanked the Committee for their support at the previous meeting, and felt that the deferral had allowed for meaningful differences to be made to this application. Natalie was of the opinion that the existing temporary structure should not be the baseline used to determine whether the new structure was an improvement in terms of design and accessibility. Natalie implored all parties to deliver the correct bridge at the first attempt within tight timescales, and stated that she and other residents were dreaming of more active travel facilitated by the delivery of an accessible bridge.

 

Damian Haynus, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Damian stated that the position of the applicant was that there were no permissible reasons to refuse prior approval. Damian added that Network Rail had agreed to the previous deferral to allow the opportunity to address some of the concerns raised at the previous Committee. Damian stated that Network Rail were an arm’s length public body, and contrary to some of the views expressed the applicant was not required to take positive steps towards equality but to have due regard to protected characteristics. In the exercise of this duty, a diversity impact assessment had been carried out to estimate the level of detriment to users via the provision of a footbridge in place of the level crossing. To the fundamental question of should crossings over the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

83.

Application No.222367 - Library Parade, Crockhamwell Road, Woodley pdf icon PDF 332 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed creation of a mixed use building consisting of the retention of the existing 3 no. retail stores at ground floor level and the addition of 16 no. apartments on new first, second and third floor levels, including the erection of three and four storey rear extensions with associated car parking, cycle and bin stores, following partial demolition of the existing building.

 

Applicant: Mr Hardeep Hans

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 419 to 470.

 

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

 

·         Clarification to paragraph 64 to note that all 10 car parking spaces would have facilities for electric vehicle charging;

·         Clarification that the applicant’s energy consultants had indicated that the development could achieve CO2 savings of approximately 65 percent over the Building Regulations Part L (2021) baseline, exceeding Council policy requirements;

·         Comment that re-commencement conditions 3, 5 and 11 would cover materials, landscaping and boundary treatments, and would include CGI images;

·         Clarification regarding the ‘wind tunnel’ effect referred to by third parties;

·         Additional condition 23 in relation to window shutter details.

 

Bill Soane, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Bill stated that the four storey building would overlook the neighbouring Beechwood Primary School, whilst all but five of the dedicated car parking spaces would be removed. At present, there was space for 18 car parking spaces for five retail units. Bill added that only having five spaces for the retail units could result in staff of the retail units having to pay for public parking, at a considerable cost per day. Bill felt that this proposal would therefore have a negative impact on local businesses, and noted that a ‘wind tunnel’ effect was still possible to increase as a result of this application. Bill asked that the application be approved, as it was not in the best interests of local businesses or residents.

 

Bruce Chappell, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Bruce stated that he lived in one of the flats above the Lidl building with his daughter, directly opposite Library Parade. Bruce added that one of reasons he purchased his property was due to the amenity space and privacy offered due to the building’s height, in addition to a quiet balcony. Bruce stated that he was shocked to see the addition of an extra floor at the proposed development, with windows directly opposite both his and his daughter’s bedroom, which would result in a total invasion of their privacy. Bruce added that whilst the distance between two dwellings was within planning guidelines, in his opinion the separation between the existing building and the proposed development was inadequate. Bruce commented that he would have been happy for a planning officer to visit his property and assess the impact of the potential development, however this had not happened. Bruce noted the potential detrimental impact on the value of his property in the future as a direct result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

84.

Application No.222906 - Land South of Cutbush Lane, West of Oldhouse Farm Lane and Gateway Plot 4 at TVSP pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

85.

Application No.223348 - "Addington School", Woodlands Avenue, Woodley, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 117 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for a single-storey modular building

erected on hard standing(94m2 footprint)with external access ramp and steps. For a period of up to three years including minor alterations to landscaping.

 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council (WBC)

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 509 to 540.

 

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

 

Stephen Conway commented that this application would increase the provision of Special Educational Needs places within the Borough, which was very positive.

 

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by John Kaiser.

 

RESOLVED That application number 223348 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 516 to 517.

86.

Application No.223565 - 14 Park Road, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 98 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed part single storey rear extension and part first floor front extension, including the conversion of the garage into habitable accommodation, additional fenestration and cycle storage.

 

Applicant: Mr Alex Moore

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 541 to 558.

 

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

 

Stephen Conway stated that this application was only at Committee to provide complete transparency regarding the grant of planning permission for an officer or the relative of an officer of the planning department. Stephen added that he saw no planning issues with the proposal, and noted that neither the Town Council nor residents had objected.

 

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by John Kaiser.

 

RESOLVED That application number 223565 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda page 546.

87.

Application No.223023 - "Buckhurst Court", London Road, Wokingham pdf icon PDF 145 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from office (Class E) to private school (Class F1), including installation of playground, play equipment and erection of additional fencing.

 

Applicant: Mrs Kashyap

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 559 to 590.

 

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

 

Tariq Bailey-Biggs, case officer, advised the Committee that an additional condition was proposed, requiring a remediation scheme in the event that contamination was found on the site at any time during development.

 

Charu Kashyap, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Charu thanked the planning officer for visiting the site and producing a comprehensive report. Charu stated that the applicant had instructed their legal team to work alongside the Council to agree the S106 agreement should approval be granted. Charu added that the proposal would propose a small and unique learning environment for children who had experienced poor educational experiences within mainstream settings. Charu stated that they were committed to make a significant financial investment to deliver a warm, nurturing, unique and high quality learning environment. Over 50 consultations had been received for places at the school, and a waiting list was already in operation for September. This school would be both a private school and an independent school for children who had no other education options or who were in provisions where their needs were not being met. Charu stated that at least thirty percent of student referred to them were of compulsory school age and were not currently within education. Charu noted the points of objection raised by a local Ward Member, and clarified that the school would only be able to being operation once OFSTED were satisfied that the school could be operated safely. Charu added that she would welcome an opportunity to meet with the Ward Member on site, to allay and remaining concerns. Charu asked that the application be approved.

 

Maria Gee, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Maria stated that there had been a statutory consultee objection from Wokingham Town Council. Maria added that there were issues in relation to pedestrian access and car pollution for those accessing the site by foot. Maria questioned whether the application should have been validated in the first instance by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), and raised concern as to the lack of detail on dimensions which made it difficult to assess how children would be catered for. Maria queried whether the applicant had considered that should the site have been over one hectare then it would have required a flood risk assessment. Maria felt that this site should have been assessed via a land contamination assessment as it was one of 840 potentially contaminated sites within the Borough. Maria felt that the statement within the planning application that outlined that there were no users of the site who were particularly vulnerable to contamination was incorrect. Maria added that there was a considerable amount  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Exclusion of the Public

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 79, 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.

Minutes:

The Committee did not move into a Part 2 session.