Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from John Kaiser.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 March 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 March 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declaration of interest

David Cornish declared a Personal Interest in Item 108 Application 211335 Land Adjourning Lynfield House, White House Lane, on the grounds that he had previously listed the application as Ward Member for Finchampstead South on the grounds of potential conflict with the emerging Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Following conversations with Officers he had withdrawn the listing.  He would view the application with an open mind and consider it on its merits.

Rebecca Margetts declared a Personal Interest in Item 108 Application 211335 Land Adjourning Lynfield House, White House Lane, on the grounds that she had listed the application as Ward Member for Finchampstead South. She would view the application with an open mind and consider it on its merits.

In addition, her son had received cricket coaching in the past from Phil West who would run the cricket net.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no applications to be deferred or withdrawn.

Recommendation: Approval

Proposal: Application to extinguish part of Shinfield Footpath 14 under Section 118 Highways Act 1980 and to divert part of Shinfield Footpath 14 under Section 119 Highways Act 1980.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 21 to 26.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that Footpath 14 was no longer needed for public use as alternatives of a similar length were available within the estate.  He questioned the inclusion in the information of a letter referring to the creation of a bridleway link from Footpath 14.  Andrew Fletcher explained that the letter was from the British Horse Society who whilst not objecting to the application had asked other paths to be upgraded, and had been included for transparency.  The offering of other paths did not fall within the legal tests of whether or not to make a diversion.

Alistair Neal commented that pedestrians would no longer have a priority route as they would be walking along a carriageway.  Andrew Fletcher indicated that the existing path was an offroad pedestrian route, through a natural surface path.  The proposal was an adopted carriageway with surfaced footways running alongside which would be for pedestrian use only.  Alistair Neal went on to ask whether the route would have the same status as the footpath.  Andrew Fletcher stated that under the Section 38 agreement that the Council had undertaken with the developer, there was a dedication of rights as a carriageway.

In response to a comment from David Cornish regarding the promotion of cycling, Andrew Fletcher stated that in terms of diversions, the Council actively worked with developers to achieve upgrades to paths, particularly those identified in the Rights of Way Improvement Plan.  With regards to the specific site, the agreement for the outline planning permission for the site was much earlier.  It was not possible for the extinguishment to be conditional on an upgrade for bridleway rights for other paths unaffected by the proposed order.

Stephen Conway stated that the extinguishment order was practical.

In response to a question from Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey regarding provision for cyclists, Andrew Fletcher indicated that there was not specific provision for cyclists as part of the proposal.  The existing footpath did not have specific cycle rights.

Stephen Conway proposed that the diversion order and extinguishment order be approved in line with the officer recommendation.  This was seconded by Wayne Smith.

RESOLVED:  That the making of the diversion order and extinguishment order be approved.

Recommendation: Approval

Proposal: Application for the diversion of part of Shinfield Footpath 11 & Shinfield Footpath 12 under Section 257 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 27 to 34.

Stephen Conway proposed that the diversion order be approved in line with the officer recommendation.  This was seconded by Wayne Smith.

RESOLVED:  That

1)    authorisation be given to the making of an order under s257 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to divert part of Footpath 11 Shinfield and part of Footpath 12 Shinfield as shown in Appendix A to enable development to be carried out;

2)    If no objections to the order were received or any such objections were withdrawn, that the order may be confirmed;

3)     If objections were received and sustained, the order may be sent to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 3no. general industrial units (Use Class B2) and associated changes to the existing parking spaces.

Applicant: Thomas Lawrence & Sons

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 35 to 60.

It was noted that four Members had attended a site visit.

Julia Willoughby, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She lived at 89 Blagrove Drive.  She commented that a report by Bowyer, a planning consultant, stated that properties impacted by the development were numbers 87, 91 and 93 Blagrove Drive.  Julia Willoughby was of the view that 89 rather than 87 would be impacted.  She disagreed that the proposal was unlikely to impact the stability of existing trees and shrubs and expressed concern regarding the possible impact on the stability two large conifers bordering the fence with her property.  Julia Willoughby went on to state that her extension was approximately 25ft from the boundary.  The proposal would be overbearing and minimise natural light to her property.  She had invited officers to visit her property, but this offer had not yet been taken up.

Jane Hutchings, resident, spoke in objection to the applicant.  She lived at 93 Blagrove Drive, and stated that whilst she appreciated the 1 metre boundary with her fence, and the reduction in the height of the wall nearest her house, issues remained outstanding.  The wall would be overbearing, dominant and claustrophobic.  The separation distance was less than 12 metres made up of 10.82 metres of the garden of 93 Blagrove Drive, and 1 metre of the boundary fence.  Jane Hutchings stated that there had been a welcome divide between the residential and industrial areas for a number of years, in keeping with the area and density of the buildings.  She was of the view that should the proposal be approved, it would open the floodgates for similar applications along the boundary, changing the character of the area.  Jane Hutchings went on to state that there was no indication of what the Class B units would be used for, so the potential noise and smell impact was unknown.  The houses along the boundary would experience a loss of light and a reduction in morning sun.  A ray of light survey had been conducted without residents’ knowledge or input.  Finally, she expressed concern at a lack of consultation with residents.

David Hall, agent’s representative, spoke in support of the application.  The applicant had sought to strike a balance between providing further, smaller, commercial units on a site identified as being within a core employment area, whilst recognising and addressing the concerns of adjourning residents.  David Hall stated that the plans had been amended to reduce the height of the proposed units and the applicant had accepted conditions relating to landscaping and noise, to further mitigate residents’ concerns.  With regards to daylight, a report prepared on the applicant’s behalf, had concluded that the proposed development would not have any material impact on the adjourning residential properties,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed new multi-use hall, erection of a extension to the existing science block and the retrofit/repurposing of existing dining hall into a new admin block, school entrance and drama hall. Landscaping and erection of 4 netball court to rear/side. (Commissioned by WBC).

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 61 to 100.

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

·       Correction regarding the number of netball courts.

Stephen Conway commented that the application was located within the Green Belt and ordinarily development would not be permitted.  However, there were special circumstances which made the application acceptable, the necessary improvement for education facilities in the area.

Andrew Mickleburgh noted that no objections to the proposal had been received from the Ward Members, neighbours or the Parish Council.

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

RESOLVED:  That application 223613 be approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in pages 71 to 77.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a sports hall and new pool building following demolition of existing ancillary buildings. Creation of new landscaped permeable parking area on the site of an existing car park.

Applicant: Mr Antonio Neto

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 101 to 136.

Rebecca Margetts commented that the proposal represented an improvement on the existing facilities.

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

RESOLVED:  That application 221846 be approved subject to conditions and informatives set out in pages 110 to 115 and the completion of S106 legal agreement to secure an Employment Skills Plan.

Recommendation: Conditional grant of listed building consent.

Proposal: Application for listed building consent for the proposed erection of a sports hall and new pool building following demolition of existing ancillary buildings. Creation of new landscaped permeable parking area on the site of an existing car park.

Applicant: Mr Antonio Neto

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 137 to 158.

Stephen Conway sought clarification on the relationship with the Grade 2 listed building.  Stefan Fludger indicated that the whole building included the parts to be demolished, were listed by virtue of being attached to the old mansion, but that the old mansion ended at a specific point.  Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer had not objected to the application.

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

RESOLVED:  That listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out on pages 143 to 144.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of a section of agricultural land to a recreational all-weather cricket track and wicket with mobile cricket cage, plus fencing, parking and associated works.

Applicant: Mr R Bishop

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 159 to 178.

Nicola Greenwood, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She commented that the square at all the cricket grounds listed in the report, were placed 60 to 150 metres to the nearest road bordering reasonable straight roads or in cul de sac locations.  She referred to Twyford in particular.  Nicola Greenwood indicated that she had contacted the British Horse Society Director of Safety who had commented that without having visited the site and seen the layout and proximity of the proposed nets, it was in his opinion, misguided to comment on how horses may or may not react to the particular sound stimulus.  He had disagreed that horses could become desensitised to the sound of a cricket ball hitting a bat.  Only the degree that horses might react, differed.  Nicola Greenwood requested that any approval be conditional on additional horse rider signs being placed at 150 metres either side of the site, the cricket nets placed a minimum of 60 metres from the road, mirroring other similar sites in the Borough, or alternatively it be built as an indoor, sound proofed facility.

David Greenwood, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He stated that as the closest nearby neighbour he and his family were the most impacted by the application, and the noise that would be generated.  The sound of a cricket ball hitting a bat had been likened to the sound of a rifle crack.  David Greenwood went on to state that CP3 made clear that any development must be without detriment to the amenities of the adjourning land uses and occupiers.  He commented that the type of facility proposed could be expected to be located by existing cricket facilities.  However, the proposed location was very rural and would introduce an unacceptable level of noise.

Paddy Greenwood, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  He emphasised that the NPPF stated that sustainable development must respect the character of the countryside, avoid, and mitigate adverse impacts on, and contribute to the improvement of health and quality of life.  Section 15 indicated that new development should not contribute to unacceptable levels of noise pollution, must integrate effectively with existing business, and that existing businesses should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of developments permitted after they were established.  Paddy Greenwood went on to refer to CP1 and CP3 and Policy CC06.

Rebecca Margetts stated that the land adjourning Lynfield House, White Horse Lane was a very rural location, on a narrow winding lane.  The lane was predominantly used by walkers, cyclists, and horse riders.  Rebecca Margetts was of the view that the application to change the use of a section of agricultural land to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.