Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 8th November, 2023 7.00 pm

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

Contact: Madeleine Shopland  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist


No. Item



To receive any apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors Stuart Munro, Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey and Bill Soane.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 100 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 October 2023


Additional documents:


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


Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest



Councillor David Cornish declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in item 44 Application 236143 206 Nine Mile Ride, Finchampstead, on the grounds that he knew one of the speakers who would be speaking against the application.  He indicated that he would withdraw from the meeting for this item, and that Councillor Mickleburgh would chair this item.


Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.


There were no items to be withdrawn or deferred.


Application no 223083 - Land South of Bridge Farm, Reading Road, Arborfield, RG2 9HT pdf icon PDF 3 MB

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:


Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 11No commercial units to provide 6,986sqm GIA commercial / employment development predominantly within Class B8 and/or Class E(g) uses with supporting facilities within Class E uses comprising ancillary offices, trade counters and food/drink facilities with highway works and strategic landscaping. Matters of Access, Siting and Scale to be considered only.


Applicant: Angle Property (Arborfield) LLP and Farley Farms Partnership


The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 14 to 145.


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


·       Amended paragraph 29 to include reference to Class E(g).

·       Amended paragraph to clarify that it was considered that the scale, massing, and form of the proposed commercial units would not cause any significantly adverse effect on the character of the nearby residential properties.

·       Clarification of the status of the site in the current Local Plan.

·       Clarification of status of the site in the emerging Local Plan Update and amendment of paragraph 56.

·       Clarification of the status of the Ancient Woodland.

·       Additional condition 35 regarding foul water drainage.

·       Annotation of distances.


All Members present had attended a site visit.


Vanessa Starkey, Arborfield and Newland Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  The scale and the location of the industrial units would cause change to the rural setting next to the Ancient Woodland, Pound Copse.  She indicated that the Parish Council did not believe that the mitigations put in place by the applicant could offset the harm which would be caused.  Vanessa added that the siting of the industrial units near to the Ancient Woodland would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife due to the light, noise, and pollution.  She commented that there were no demonstrable benefits to siting the industrial units on the site, as there was already several existing, nearby small and medium industrial estates, such as Hogwood Industrial Estate, which had vacancies.  Vanessa Starkey commented that the development contravened policies stated in the Neighbourhood Plan.  Finally, she indicated that the Parish Council objected to the locating of a commercial development on a greenfield site that was situated on a green route enhancement area.


James Good, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that he and his co-applicant had worked positively with the Planning Officers over the last 12 months to submit a deliverable and flexible scheme that would suit the needs of modern businesses.  He referred to the parameter plan which showed the building location which were fixed and of a fixed height.  Observer Way Relief Road had cut off the site from the wider agricultural area, and it had been used as the contractor compound during construction.  It no longer felt like open countryside. 


James Good indicated that the site was only one of two identified by the Council for employment use in the recent Housing and Employment Land Assessment.  The site would be located adjacent to the commercial Bridge Farm and would benefit from existing bus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.


Application no 231809 - Unit 34, Suttons Business Park, Suttons Park Avenue, RG6 1AZ pdf icon PDF 2 MB

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of the existing building to a mixed use including use classes B2, B8 and E(g), creation of additional hardstanding and internal and external refurbishments to include installation of drainage, a dock leveller ramp, 2 no. additional vehicle doors, 6 no. EV charging stations and 286 no. roof-mounted PV panels, plus erection of boundary fencing and access gates, following demolition of an existing two storey side element, generator housing and removal of an external stairway to the rear.


Applicant: Mr Steven Rafferty


The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 95 to 146.


RESOLVED:  That 231809 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 107 to 110.



Application no 231643 - 206 Nine Mile Ride, Finchampstead pdf icon PDF 134 KB

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


(Councillor Cornish left the meeting for this item, which was chaired by Councillor Mickleburgh)


Proposal: Full application for the erection of a detached dwelling and outbuilding following demolition of the existing property


Applicant: Mr C Lucanu


The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 147 to 180.


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


·      To note that a revised parking layout had been received at a late stage. This had been to accommodate the request from the Highways Officer for increased parking and turning in order for the front driveway to accommodate three vehicles.  The scale of this alteration had not warranted a re-consultation of the application. 


Roger Marshallsay, Finchampstead Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application.  He indicated that the Parish Council did not object to the development of the site, but it did object to the bulk and overbearing nature of the application.  In addition, it contravened the recently adopted Finchampstead Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Policy D1 stated that building heights should reflect the character of the Parish.  The development of three storey housing would generally only be supported within the area of the Strategic Development Location and the Gorse Ride regeneration area, which the site was not.  Roger Marshally went on to comment that this was the first planning application which had come forward since the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan which had contravened it around the building heights, and it would be shame that if in the first instance the Plan was applied, it was ignored.


Pauline Grainger, resident, spoke in objection to the application.  She commented that the application contravened D1 and D2 of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and also impacted her property in respect to various WBC considerations for planning applications.  Pauline Grainger stated that the dormer windows on the second floor would deprive her property of privacy in the garden, representing a loss of residential amenity.  She felt that the dormers would not have an oblique view.  The scale of the three-storey dwelling would overshadow her property and significantly reduce the light on her east elevation.  Pauline Grainger indicated that her property was not two storeys as described in the report, but a single storey building.  Her current outlook was a low wall, a low roof and sky.  This would be replaced by a wall which was at least twice as high and a large roof.  The windows on the side of the property would look down into her bathroom.  She went on to state that the footprint of the house, because of the single-story protruding at the back and side of the building, and the outbuilding represented a large increase on the existing footprint, considerably reducing the size of the garden.  This was against design policy within the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan.  In addition, the site plan from July showed the site sitting 821cm from 204 Nine Mile Ride and 1m from 206A Nine Mile Ride, and not 1.2m and 1.8m as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.