Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 10th January, 2024 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.


There were no apologies for absence.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 127 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 December 2023.


Additional documents:


The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest



There were no declarations of interest.


Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.


There were no items withdrawn or deferred.


Application no 223691 "Lee Spring", Latimer Road, Wokingham, RG41 2YD. pdf icon PDF 2 MB

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:



Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 42 residential apartments in three blocks, including on-site parking, shared amenity spaces, enhanced green spaces to support biodiversity and waste storage facilities. Access for neighbouring garages to be provided by 3.7m wide through-route north of the site. Following demolition of the existing buildings.


Applicant: Burlington Developments


The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 122.


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

·         Parking Provision and Capacity.

·         HGV Access.

·         Clarification regarding Financial Contributions.


All members except Councillors Soane and Shepherd-Dubey had attended a site visit.


Keith Malvern, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. He referred to the lack of affordable housing as a major reason for objecting. He cited Homes England Fact sheet 9 that stated that affordable housing was key for the housing crisis, ending homelessness as well as helping people get onto the property ladder.  He felt that the application ignored these points. Keith Malvern felt that a deferred payment for affordable housing at a late stage was insufficient


Grant Leggett, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He mentioned that the officer’s report had more than covered the reasons for the deferral and the site visit. He felt that the pictures the officer had shown in the presentation gave context to the scale of the development. He also referred to an objection from the Nisa Local near to the development.  This had now been withdrawn. He summarised that the development provided delivery of housing on a highly sustainable brownfield site, replacing some tired buildings with a high-quality building, improvements to highway conditions, enhanced landscaping, and biodiversity as well as economic benefits like job creation.


Councillor Firmager asked about parking arrangements on the site and commented that there would be more people wanting to park than there were spaces. He asked officers for more detail on parking. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, indicated that a Parking Management Plan had been conditioned and that it would be strictly enforced, he added that if anyone was to be parked on the site that should not be, they would receive a ticket. The 7 car free units proposed, would have this detailed within their lease. He referred to data in the Supplementary Agenda which indicated that one fifth of parking spaces were available at council run car parks in Wokingham during peak times and that this would provide adequate parking for visitors, however, stated this was for information only and was not required to make the application acceptable in planning terms as Town Centre parking standards had been met.Councillor Firmager added the issue of vans parking for deliveries and asked where they would park safely and without blocking roads. The case officer stated that there should be no issue if they were only there for a short amount of time and added that it would be the same issue in a single access cul-de-sac.


Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.


Application no 180711 Amen Corner (South) Amen Corner Binfield Bracknell RG12 8SZ pdf icon PDF 2 MB

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval

Additional documents:



Proposal: Hybrid planning application for a residential-led mixed-use development comprising outline planning application for commercial development (Use Classes A2 (financial and professional services), B1 (business), B8 (storage or distribution))

on 0.95ha (all matters reserved, except for access); and full planning application for 302 residential dwellings, public open space and spine road, estate roads, landscaping drainage, levels and car parking. The site spans the Wokingham Borough Council / Bracknell Forest Council administrative boundary: an area

proposed as public open space to the far west of the application site falls within Wokingham Borough].


Applicant: Miss Emma Runeson


The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 123 to 148.


Stefan Fludger, case officer, presented to the committee and commented that an additional obligation that the applicant had agreed to provide a financial contribution to upgrade the surface of footpath 34.


Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked if Wokingham residents wanted to use the site, would they need to apply to Wokingham Borough Council or Bracknell Forest Council. The case officer explained that the application only referred to the change of use to public open space and that the question was an unrelated issue to this application.


Councillor Firmager questioned why it had taken so long for this application to come to committee when it had been 5 months since it had been approved by Bracknell Forest Council. The case officer said that the application needed to be dealt with correctly and that this could take time. Councillor Firmager then asked how much the financial contribution provided by the applicant would be and whether that could come to the committee. The case officer explained that the figure has not yet been agreed and that this would be part of the S106 agreement.


Councillor Smith asked whether Bracknell could still build the houses should  the application be refused by Wokingham Borough Council Planning Committee. The case officer indicated they could not. Councillor Smith then queried how Wokingham Borough Council would benefit from the application, apart from the upgrading a cycle path. The case officer remined Members that officers had to assess the application before them.  No material harms related to the scheme had been found.  There would not be a strong case to refuse given that Bracknell had approved the application. 


Councillor Neal thanked the officers for the addition of the upgrade to footpath 34. He added that it is a key to make the route more coherent.


Councillor Shepherd-Dubey asked who would be maintaining the land as it covered two local authorities. The case officer  responded that a local management company for the estate was likely to  be maintaining the land.


RESOLVED: That application 180711 be approved subject to conditions and informatives set out in pages 134 to 138, additional obligation to secure a financial contribution to upgrade WOK footpath 34 to a suitable surface, and S106 Agreement.



Application no 230422 Land West of Trowes Lane and North of Charlton Lane, Swallowfield pdf icon PDF 508 KB

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:



Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of 81 dwellings (including 40% affordable homes), open space, SuDS, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements, new vehicular access off Trowes Lane, pedestrian & cycle links, and associated infrastructure.


Applicant: Boyer Crowthorne House Nine Mile Ride, Wokingham RG40 3GZ


The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 149 to 208.


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

·         Education and Sustainable Location.

·         Highways.

·         The Local Plan Update.

·         Additional representations from Councillors Pauline Jorgensen and Clive Jones expressing concern about the application.


All Members had attended a site visit except Councillors Soane, Smith, and Shepherd-Dubey.


Ian Fullerton, Swallowfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to this application. He commented that the application contravened a number of planning policies and would only make a very small contribution to the Council’s 5 year land supply.  Mr Fullerton was of the view that the application was unsustainable He made  reference to the lack of infrastructure within Swallowfield to serve the extra houses. He mentioned a lack of schools at pre-school level as well as primary and secondary schools, meaning all children would need to travel to school by car. He also stated that Swallowfield had limited to no employment opportunities, no supermarket, no leisure facilities, and no capacity at the medical centre. He questioned siting much needed affordable homes in an area with such limited facilities.  Ian Fullerton disagreed with the figures in the report relating to car movements, and gave a figure of 300-400 movements per day as more realistic rather than 41-47 during peak hours detailed in the report. Increased traffic would negatively impact the village. He also made comments on the increased size of the village, which would be 42%, resulting in a loss of character and urbanise the village. He urged the Committee to respect CP9 and CP11 and to vote against the recommendations.


Jeremy Bayliss, resident, spoke in objection to the application. He commented that the Council had a good record at listening to its residents and that he hoped that they do for this application too. He believed that Swallowfield was unique in the Borough as all the other villages had been developed out. Residents of Swallowfield strongly believed the application would lead to irreversible damage to the village. Mr Bayliss mentioned that the proposal was contrary to the planning policies for Swallowfield which sought to restrict development within the boundaries of the settlement. He commented that local residents had engaged with the Council but the applicants had not engaged with the residents. He was also of the view that the 42% increase in size of the village would damage its character. The extent of harm far outweighed the benefits, and for all these reasons he asked for the application to be refused.


Chris Roberts, agent, spoke in support of the application. He mentioned three main points in regards to this application, these being the site sustainability, the proposed allocation of the site and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.


Application no 231094 Land at 69 King Street Lane, Winnersh RG41 5BA pdf icon PDF 3 MB

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:



Proposal: Outline application for the proposed erection of up to 28 dwellings, associated landscaping and open space following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings. Only access to be considered, all other matters reserved.


Applicant: Mr David Vokes


The Committee considered a report on this application, set out in agenda pages 209 to 254.


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

·         Tree Protection Order’s which are on 3 trees on this site.

·         Hedgerows on the Southern and Eastern Boundary will be protected.

·         Electricity pole will be relocated.

·         Highways/Access

·         amended conditions 1, 2, 4, 12, 22, 24, additional condition relating to a swept path analysis,


All members except Councillors Soane, Smith and Shepherd-Dubey attended a site visit.


Paul Fishwick, Winnersh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. He noted the residents’ objections from pages 211-216 of the report. He said that traffic around King Street Lane was a big issue between 7:45am to 9:15am which lead to traffic issues on Bearwood Road where a school was located and said that additional traffic would increase an already difficult situation and also create harmful emissions. He also mentioned that the walking distances from the site had been taken from the access and not from the centre, so there would be an extra 200m for some people living on the site to access shops. Paul Fishwick then referred to the mention of buses in the report and said there was no bus stop or regular bus service. He believed that the site was not sustainable. No reference had been made to the existing  foul water and sewage issues.


Justine McDonald, resident, spoke in objection of this application. She stated that the main concerns amongst local residents were, the impact on traffic, increased pressure on an already struggling sewage network, increased pressure on local services, the detrimental impact on wildlife and the impact on the privacy and light on existing properties. She mentioned that 200 local residents had signed a petition against the application. She then raised the issue of the access onto the site and that the access crosses into the boundary of 73 King Street Lane. She said that at 61 King Street Lane people had to move out in March 2023 due to sewage and had only moved back in Nov/Dec 2023. She asked that the Committee reject the application with 38 objections and 200+ signatures from residents.


Adam Constintanou, agent, spoke in favour of the application. He started by mentioning the dialogue with officers and residents. He added that this plan was the exact type of high-quality development that was in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. The site was energy efficient, reused brownfield land, had 40% Affordable Housing, and offered the protection of the TPO trees and the planting of extra trees. He indicated that there had been no technical objections from the Council’s statutory consultees on highways, drainage, ecological and tree and landscape matters. He concluded by saying that the application was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.