Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 10th March, 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: Virtual Meeting. View directions

Contact: Callum Wernham  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 384 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 February 2021.


Additional documents:


The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2021 were confirmed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at a later date subject to the following minor amendments:


Agenda page 10 – “Malcolm Richards acknowledged that the units would have flat roofs which would minimise the height…”


Agenda page 10 – “…and queried whether any of the proposed parking spaces would be for disabled use.”


Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest



Andrew Mickleburgh declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 65, on the grounds that he was a Member of the Earley Town Council Planning Committee which had made a recommendation regarding this application. Andrew added that he had formed a view regarding this application, and as such he would not participate in either the discussion or the vote for 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Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.


No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.


Application No.203456 - Waingels College, Waingels Road, Woodley pdf icon PDF 592 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed construction of a 3G synthetic pitch consisting of sports fencing, LED floodlights, storage container, spectator area and pedestrian access


Applicant: Mr John O’Keeffe


The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 58.


The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:


·           Condition 19 to be headed “Drainage Implementation and Maintenance”;

·           Additional Condition 20;

·           Confirmation that the applicant had no intention for the floodlights to be retractable;

·           Contextual information regarding the 3db noise increase;

·           Additional photographs of the site along Waingels Road and from within the school campus.


Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Keith stated that having just 24 hours notification prior to Committee had not given speakers adequate time to prepare for this meeting. As such, no residents had registered to speak. Keith was thankful for the Woodley Town Council staff for notifying him of this item coming to Committee, who themselves were notified around 24 hours prior to Committee. Keith felt that the lack of notification was unacceptable and undemocratic. Keith stated that he supported additional sports facilities within the Borough, however this application would result in the loss of total pitches. Keith added that there were existing flooding issues on Waingels Road, however he was grateful for the case officer’s reassurances that this application would not add to these issues. Keith stated that this application would place further traffic on to the Waingels Road, with the traffic from the Charvil direction having to travel the whole length of the road to reach this facility.


Alison Swaddle, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Alison stated that the lack of notice regarding this item coming to Committee was unacceptable. Alison shared her thanks to Woodley Town Council officers for their quick actions when informed that this item was coming to Committee. Alison stated that a Scout’s centre was approved at the previous meeting of the Planning Committee which would add additional traffic to the Waingels Road. Alison added that the proposed 5m high wire fence would have an impact on roosting birds and bats in the area. Adding to this, Alison stated that she could not find a bat survey or an on-site investigation report on the impact to birds as a result of the proposals. Alison concluded by stating that although she supported the provision of high class sporting facilities within the Borough, she could not support this application due to a number of outstanding issues.


Simon Weeks sought clarification that the final closing time for the facility was 9.15pm, queried whether the proposals would create an acceptable level of additional traffic on Waingels Road, and queried whether the issue of bats had been suitably considered. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that the whole facility including the floodlights had a final closing time of 9.15pm. Regarding the issue of bats. Simon Taylor stated that the ecology officer was comfortable that a bat survey had not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.


Application No.203534 - Loddon Court, Lambs Lane, Swallowfield pdf icon PDF 433 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of land from agricultural to mixed equestrian/agriculture plus erection a stable buildings with associated hardstanding. (Part Retrospective)


Applicant: Mr Kingsbury


The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 59 to 82.


The Committee were advised that there were no Members’ Updates.


Emily Temple, agent, spoke in support of the application. Emily thanked officers for their thorough report. Emily stated that the family were expert horse owners, and the family itself was quite large and required space for them and their horses to live, and as such the use of the site would not be commercial. Emily added that the base of the stable buildings had been constructed, however construction ceased when they were advised that full planning permission was required. Once the application was submitted, full reports related to trees and ecology were submitted. Emily stated that the stable would be timber clad in appearance, and away from the road and vantage points. The application would allow for mixed use to allow for grazing of both sheep and horses. Emily concluded by stating that no other changes were proposed to the wider land on the site.


Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether any additional large trees would be harmed by the proposals, and queried whether named permission could be applied to the family. Mark Chancellor, case officer, stated that the tree officer was happy with the proposals, as encroachment of the root protection area of the large tree was around 17.5 percent, and it was at around 20 percent when arboriculturists usually raised concerns. In addition, holes would be drilled on the base of the structure and the existing storage would be removed to help protect the tree. Mark added that officers were content with the relationship between the closer large tree and the proposed structures, and therefore the other large trees situated further away from the proposed structures would also be acceptable. Regarding personal permission, Mark stated that it would be unreasonable to apply a personal permission as the permission was being applied to the owners of the property, and planning policy guidance stated that personal permission should be avoided wherever possible.


RESOLVED That application number 203534 be approved, subject to conditions and informative as set out in agenda pages 60 to 61.


Application No.203514 - 34 Hilltop Road, Earley pdf icon PDF 381 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Andrew Mickleburgh declared a prejudicial interest in this item and therefore took no part.


Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed conversion of bungalow to form two self-contained dwellings comprising 1 x 3 bed apartment at ground floor and 1 x 1 bed apartment at first floor. (Following recent construction of extensions permitted by application 191411) and installation of four roof lights (part retrospective)


Applicant: Mr J Singh


The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 83 to 106.


The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included additional conditions 7, 8, 9, and an additional informative.


Brenda Cutler, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Brenda stated that the area was already overdeveloped, with parking already being an issue. Brenda added that the proposals would create 6 properties in the space of the original single dwelling. Brenda stated that the flats would be out of keeping with the character of the area, and would add to parking issues. Brenda concluded that residents were upset with the proposals, and cited that number 30 Hilltop Road had been divided into two dwellings which had created issues including additional traffic.


Tim Marsh, on behalf of the ACER residents’ association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim asked that a glazed window be provided on the proposed roof light, as it was only 1 metre in height rather than the standard height of at least 1.7 metres. Tim added that the parking standards related to new developments, rather than within existing housing stock. Tim stated that development of rental properties within existing housing stock generally resulted in more vehicles within an already busy residential area. Tim was of the opinion that the proposals were out of keeping with the character of the area whilst being an example of overdevelopment. Tim asked that the application be refused.


Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that a previous application on this site granted permission to turn habitable rooms into bedrooms, and this application followed up by turning a single property into an 8 bedroom dual property. Shirley was of the opinion that there was potential for the site to house 8 permanent residents, with only 4 car parking spaces. Shirley stated that the new dropped kerb was not present on the site drawings, and there would be no access to the front of the site for vehicles to park. Shirley added that soft landscaping was recommended for this scheme, however implementation was a different matter in this area.


Carl Doran queried 4 parking spaces met parking requirements, queried where the conditioned soft landscaping would go if the proposed car parking spaces went ahead, queried how the upper floor flat would use the rear amenity space, and queried why the roof light at 1 metre height was not considered as overlooking. Roger Johnson, Senior Assistant Engineer – Highways, stated that the parking requirements were met via the provision of 4 car parking spaces.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.


Application No.210022 - 33 Cottesmore Road, Woodley pdf icon PDF 315 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:


Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a first floor

side extension and part two storey part single storey rear extension, plus conversion of the garage to habitable accommodation and changes to fenestration


Applicant: Amandeep Garcha


The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 107 to 124.


The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included clarification that the revised plans were received on 9th February, and then re-advertised on 10th February.


Jenny Cheng, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Jenny stated that when Woodley Town Council first saw the planning application for this large extension, their reaction was that it was huge and it would change the street scene and make number 33 Cottesmore Road appear very different to other properties. Jenny added that the first version of this application had the first and second storeys extend to the boundary, creating a terracing effect. Jenny stated that the current application had not done enough to mitigate the issues caused by the extension. Jenny felt that there was insufficient parking provision considering the proposed 5 bedrooms within the extended house, whilst it would be impossible for three cars to come off of the road at the same time to park as there was a wall in the way which was not proposed to be demolished as part of this planning application. Jenny added that the extension would cause loss of light for neighbouring properties, and urged the Committee to refuse the application.


Barry Morfett, on behalf of a neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Barry stated that he was speaking on behalf of one of the owners of a neighbouring property, Mrs Jane Plank. Barry stated that he and Mrs Plank would like to support the reasons for refusal as outlined by Woodley Town Council. In addition, the proposed extension would cause a significant loss of light to Mrs Plank’s first floor landing window and rear garden. The loss of light would require a house light to be on when using the first floor landing, which was not the case at present. When the properties were originally built, those with rear gardens were designed to ensure that they had a significant amount of natural light. Barry stated that the Borough Council’s own planning guidance cited loss of light as a reason to refuse. Should this application be approved, it would ruin 25 years of careful gardening by Mrs Plank, and prevent future plantings. Should the application be approved, Mrs Plank requests that the side extension element be restricted to ground floor only. Barry concluded by stating that other concerns relating to inadequacy of parking provision, overdevelopment and terracing remained.


Simon Weeks sought clarification as to whether the proposals met parking standards. Roger Johnson, Senior Assistant Engineer – Highways, stated that the proposals would meet parking standards, and officers have asked for an extended dropped kerb allowing for each car to access its own parking space without  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.