Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors John Kaiser and Angus Ross

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 July 2017.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 July 2017 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There are a number of references to the Members' Update within these minutes. The Members' Update was circulated to all present prior to the meeting.  It also contains details of properties to be visited prior to the next Planning Meeting.  A copy is attached.

To receive any declaration of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal:  Full planning application for demolition of existing car showroom, repair/MOT garage plus "Suncroft" dwelling and proposed erection of 10 dwellings with provision of car-parking, private amenity space, bin and bicycle storage

Applicant:  Oraclemarker Ltd.

The Committee originally heard this application on 12 July 2017, whereupon it was proposed that it be deferred until the applicant had been able to address the concerns of the Parish Council and the Alms Houses.  The Committee received and reviewed an addendum to the report about this application set out in Agenda pages 13 to 52.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Responses to Parish Council comments;

·           Proposed amendments to Conditions 12 and 14 regarding construction traffic and the existing vehicular access, and

·           Proposed amendment to Condition 2 to include final plan numbers.

Neill Pitcher spoke on the application on behalf of the Alms Houses, stating that they no longer opposed the development due to the work carried out by the applicant and the officers on addressing their concerns.  He extended his thanks to Councillor John Halsall and Wargrave Parish Council.

In response to Member queries regarding road widths, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that the Berkshire Fire Authority had been consulted on the scheme.  Highways confirmed that the access was wide enough for an emergency vehicle to enter the site.  The site could also be served by an emergency vehicles stopping on the rear access road, where only pedestrian access was now possible.  In regards to the width of the main access from the High Street, he explained that 4.8m was a pretty standard width for an access road for everyday use serving a scheme of 10 units as proposed.  The conditions included a requirement that ensured a bonding surface for a minimum of 10m to ensure that if any loose material was used on the internal road surfacing that it would not migrate on to the highway.

Resolved:  That Application no 171328 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 13 to 52 and the proposed amendments to conditions 2, 12 and 14 as laid out in the Members’ Update.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal:  Application for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Planning Consent O/2014/2280 for 79 dwellings with access from Biggs Lane, with associated internal access roads, parking, landscaping and open space, footpaths/cycleways, Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDs) sub-station and gas governor.

Applicant:  Crest Nicholson Operations Limited C/O Savills

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 53 to 80.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Proposed amendment to Condition 2 to include final plan numbers.

Members had visited the site in 2015.

Stuart Garnett, Savills, spoke in favour of the application, thanking the officers for the work that had been carried out by officers on the application.

In response to Member questions regarding parking, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that the development included a higher number of spaces than was calculated to be necessary to meet Council standards.  The development had a high proportion of flats which made the parking allocation look low when compared to the number of overall units being proposed.  He confirmed that a minimum of 1 allocated space was provided per unit and two spaces per house were provided with the exception of two houses.  There was also a number of unallocated and visitor spaces well distributed throughout the site.   A proportion of the properties included garages, and in total there were 151 spaces.

In response to Member queries, the Case Officer indicated that there were a number of routes to the Bohunt School.  Any shortfall in affordable houses in the development would be addressed across the Arborfield site as a whole.

Resolved:  That Application no 171333 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 53 to 80 and the proposed amendment to condition 2 as laid out in the Members’ Update.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal:  Full planning application for the change of use from bed and breakfast (Use Class C1) to a residential hostel (Sui Generis) with 10no self-contained units including changes to fenestration and internal refurbishment.

Applicant:  Wokingham Borough Council (Housing Services)

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 81 to 102.

There were no further updates on this item.  Members had visited the site on 4 August 2017.

Simon Price, Category Manager, Housing Operations for Wokingham Borough Council, spoke in favour of the application, stating that the development would fulfil a vital role in the provision of temporary accommodation for individuals and families in Wokingham, in addition to the other two hostels in the borough.  There were currently 114 registered homeless people in Wokingham, the majority between 25-40 and many with children.  In most cases, they had been made homeless by private landlords serving notice and many were having to be placed outside the borough, impacting on their lives.  There would be a fire strategy in line with the Berkshire Fire Authority.

In response to Member questions, the Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that a barrier on the pavement would not be viable, as it would restrict the movement of other footpath users.  The main entrance to the building was set back within the building from the front elevation, which would allow a degree of protection before reaching the highway.  The Operational Development Management Lead Officer indicated that it could be written into the management plan that a buzzer, which allowed egress from the building, could be installed high enough on the wall to prevent children reaching it.

In response to Member questions regarding disabled access, the Case Officer stated that of the three units on the ground floor, two were big enough to allow for wheelchair access and that the third could be used too if required.  All the units had a small kitchenette to allow cooking and food storage and there was a larger kitchen available on the second floor for people who wanted to cook larger meals.

In response to Member questions regarding the number of people permitted to be resident in the accommodation, the Case Officer stated that such developments did not typically restrict the number of children.  They were designed for short-term stays and had single beds or sofa beds in each unit.  The restriction of numbers to 19 adults was due to road safety and parking.  The Category Manager explained that the manager’s office would not always be manned, as the team tasked with that role were responsible for the other two hostels in the borough as well.

Resolved:  That Application no 171648 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 81 to 102.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal:  Full application for the proposed erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings at the rear of 484-488 Reading Road following demolition of existing garage & outbuilding at rear of 484 Reading Road.

Applicant:  Mr M Porter

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 103 to 124.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included: 

·           Reference to a revised scheme as part of further assessment;

·           Proposed additional information regarding separation distances;

·           Proposed amendment to Condition 2 to include final plan numbers, and

·           A clarification regarding the development on Calver Close.

Members had visited the site on 4 August 2017.

Councillor Prue Bray, Ward Member, spoke against the application, stating that the development breached policy TB06 of the Wokingham Borough Development Plan as an inappropriate development in residential gardens and, as such, would cause harm.  She went on to suggest that access would be restricted by parked cars and that there was no available parking in surrounding streets.

In response, the Case Officer stated that the scale was in keeping with other developments in the surrounding area.  The revised plan offered reduced size and massing, resulting in improved separation distances.  The design itself would use materials that were in keeping with other developments and would create an active frontage onto Baslow Road, masking other backland development.

The Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that, as Baslow Road was an unclassified road, there was no requirement to cater for turning within the curtilage of the development.  The proposed properties offered two parking spaces each with side-by-side parking and the carriageway was wide enough to allow for parked cars and passing traffic. The width of the road, which had verges and footpaths meant that vehicles reversing either into or out of the proposed driveways could do so sufficiently, as well as complying with visibility requirements.

In response to Member questions, he indicated that there had been no recorded accidents in the previous five years on Baslow Road and that there was a rear garage on one of the existing plots that could be used in the same way as the proposed development.

In response to Member questions, the Case Officer clarified that properties 484 and 486 were separate.  The plan alluded to a building that was to be demolished and moved to plot 486.  The Case Officer stated that this was an error and that the building was to be demolished and not rebuilt.

Resolved:  That Application no 171358 be approved, subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 103 to 124 and the proposed amendment to condition 2, the additional information and clarification as laid out in the Members’ Update.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Proposal:  Full planning application for proposed redevelopment of site to provide a new Class 2/B8 industrial unit with ancillary office space and associated car parking and landscaping.

Applicant:  Standard Life Assurance Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 125 to 146.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included: 

·           Proposed additional plan relating to the height of the building relative to the surrounding land;

·           Proposed additional condition pertaining to sustainable drainage;

·           Proposed amendments to Condition 2 and Condition 6 to include final plan numbers;

·           Proposed amendment to Condition 13 regarding tree protection;

·           Proposed amendments to Conditions 8 and 15, and

·           Proposed deletion of Condition 4 relating to archaeology.

Members had visited the site in 2016.

In response to Member questions regarding fire safety, the Case Officer, stated that fire safety was a matter for Building Control and that all materials used in the development would meet regulations. 

In response to Member questions regarding delivery times, the Case Officer stated that this was covered by condition and was consistent with deliveries to other properties within the site.

Resolved:  That Application no 171496 be approved subject to the conditions set out in Agenda pages 125 to 146, and the additional condition, amended conditions and deletion of condition 4 as laid out in the Members’ Update.

Recommendation: Authorise diversion

Proposal:  Shinfield 10a Footpath diversion

Applicant:  Persimmon Homes, Thames Valley.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 147 to 152.

There were no further updates on this item.

Resolved:  That the diversion of Shinfield 10a Footpath be authorised