Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chairman for the 2022/23 Municipal year

Stephen Conway proposed that Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey be elected Chairman for the 2022/23 municipal year. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

RESOLVED That Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey be elected Chairman for the 2022/23 municipal year.

To appoint a Vice-Chairman for the 2022/23 Municipal year

David Cornish proposed that Andrew Mickleburgh be appointed Vice-Chairman for the 2022/23 municipal year. This was seconded by Stephen Conway.

RESOLVED That Andrew Mickleburgh be appointed Vice-Chairman for the 2022/23 municipal year.

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Rebecca Margetts and Wayne Smith.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 May 2022

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 May 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any declaration of interest

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared a personal interest in items 16 and 17, on the grounds that she had spoken with the member who had listed the application. Rachelle added that she would leave the room for the duration of both items.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Items 11, 12, and 13 were withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed raising of existing roof of Rosa Building to create 11no. apartments to the second floor.

Applicant: Mr Schneck

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 25 to 50.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included confirmation that the applicant had agreed to enter into a S106 agreement with Wokingham Borough Council (WBC), including a clause known as a deferred payment mechanism.

Stephen Conway queried who would determine how much affordable housing could be delivered based on the profitability of the development. Mark Croucher, case officer, confirmed that an independent specialist party advised on this matter in consultation with WBC and the applicant.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that whilst there was an overprovision of 8 spaces, an informative allocating a number of spaces to specific flats might be useful for future residents. Mark Croucher stated that condition 5 required parking details to comply with the approved plans, however an informative as outlined above would also be reasonable.

Gary Cowan queried how WBC space standards compared to the national space standards, commented that should each unit be delivered on green space then a contribution towards local facilities and provision of green space would ordinarily be required, and queried whether planning permission be given to applications that were not providing adequate levels of affordable housing. Mark Croucher stated that WBC space standards were slightly more generous than national standards, however planning inspectors always applied national standards. CIL payments would be required for each of the 11 units, whilst WBC had one of the highest CIL charges in the UK. In relation to affordable housing, Mark Croucher stated that the viability assessment was written into the policy.

John Kaiser queried what the total CIL amount payable would be, and queried whether sprinklers would be included as part of the development. Mark Croucher stated that he would circulate the CIL amount to John outside of the meeting after calculating the total figure. Mark stated that inclusion of sprinklers was not a material planning consideration as this was covered by building regulations.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) had made any comments with regards to sprinkler provision. Mark Croucher clarified that that the RBFRS had not commented on this application, and added that they tended to comment on issues such as the siting of water hydrants.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed an additional informative, encouraging the applicant to consider allocating a number of car parking spaces to individual units. This proposal was seconded by Stephen Conway, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

RESOLVED That application number 211508 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 26 to 29, additional informative encouraging the applicant to consider allocating a number of car parking spaces to individual units, and subject to legal agreement.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of 5 no. buildings for commercial development to provide flexible light industrial, general industrial, and storage and distribution uses, with ancillary offices, associated car parking, formation of new accesses, and landscape planting, following demolition of existing buildings.

Applicant: HE2 Reading 1 GP Limited

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 51 to 134.

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

·         Correction to paragraph 11 to state that the scheme would produce 222 to 433 jobs;

·         Clarification that Members had received an email from a resident at Lily May Court, located to the west of the site, however the concerns raised related to existing impacts which occurred outside of the red line boundary of the site.  Therefore, it was not considered materially relevant to the scheme as the planning application was only required to resolve impacts caused by the proposed development;

·         Confirmation that an increase of 3 HGV movements per hour was expected as a result of the proposals, which was considered a minor increase which would not result in harm in planning terms to the extent as a reason for refusal.

Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Keith stated that officers had often repeated that applications must focus on the red line boundary and could not be expected to rectify existing issues outside of this area, which was correct up to a point. Keith added that the cumulative effect of this application on the immediate area must be considered, and there had been no response from officers with regards to this. Keith stated that an additional 3 HGV movements per hour had been identified within the Supplementary Planning Agenda, however no justification had been provided for this, and Keith queried how many HGV movements were currently carried out on site. Keith stated that the access for HGVs was via a very narrow strip of land, which restricted the number of HGVs that could access the site currently, which gave an artificially low basepoint for the suggested increase of 3 HGVs per hour. Keith added that there was in practice one company operating on site, and the narrow access suggested that the nature of their work did not require many HGV movements, whilst the contrasting proposals included 10 new units each with their own HGV parking slots with many having 3 slots for HGVs. Keith stated that assumptions had been made in relation to the suggested increase of 3 HGV movements per hour, however this information had not been made public. Keith asked that the application be refused.

Kai Meade, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Kai stated that with regards to the letter received from Lily May Court, one of the core NPPF objectives was to ensure that planning decisions were made to provide appropriate development for its location including the cumulative effect of pollution on health. Kai felt that the Committee was being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Application to vary condition 2 of application 212989 for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension with 1 no. roof light following demolition of existing conservatory and existing rear extension (part retrospective). Condition 2 refers to the approved plans and the variation is to allow an increase in the height of the roof. (Retrospective).

Applicant: Mr Harguns

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 135 to 152.

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

·         Clarification that Councillor Sam Akhtar listed the item due to the potential impact on neighbours due to loss of privacy;

·         Updated condition 5.

Danny Murphy, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Danny stated that the ward member for Charvil, Sam Akhtar, had previously addressed the Committee to advise that he had made comments on the application and had acted as a mediator between the local residents and the owner. Danny added that Sam had in fact not commented on the original retrospective application, nor did he comment on this application, and not even to have it listed. Danny commented that Sam had not acted as a mediator between the applicant and any residents, and the Supplementary Planning Agenda had noted the reason for listing as the application having a potential impact on the neighbours due to loss of privacy. Danny queried whether this was the only point that the Committee could base their decision on, or whether other issues that residents raised concerns about could be considered. Danny stated that he objected to the application based on persistent breaches and breaching on and over his boundary, resulting in the cumulative loss of light and amenity. Danny stated that whilst he was happy that so many members managed to attend the site visit, he was disappointed that residents were not allowed to engage in discussions, and members subsequently had to rely solely on the word of the planning officer, who Danny noted had knowingly accepted inaccurate drawings and had used them in decision making for the previous retrospective planning application. Danny added that the planning officer had used an image at the last Committee meeting from a Google Street view to prove that the extension could not be seen from the street, despite this image being from July 2019 and showing no recent extensions. Danny referenced a recent photograph which showed the recent extension from the street and the obtrusive angles which were also visible from the street. Danny stated that a photo was shown at the previous Committee meeting which was taken in November 2021, prior to the retrospective application being decided whilst being in contrast to the up to date photograph. Danny stated that the plans had since changed again, however no attempt had been made to correct the inaccurate details that had hidden the changes on the western boundary. Danny felt that these issues were indicative of his experience in dealing with the Council over the past 11  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Application for approval of Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Planning Consent O/2014/2280 dated 02/04/2015. The Reserved Matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) comprise details of 43 dwellings within Parcel P with access via Princess Marina Drive, associated internal access roads, parking, landscaping, open space, footpaths and drainage.

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey West London

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 153 to 188.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Ettore Poggi, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ettore stated that residents of both new and existing dwellings had objected to the application due to the lack of anticipated infrastructure and facilities. There had been a lack of progress on the district centre, the linear parks, alternative green spaces, allotments and sporting facilities. Ettore stated that one of the conditions for approval was that noting shall be deemed to effect or vary the original conditions imposed by the original planning permission. However, Ettore stated that the northern neighbourhood centre had not materialised and was now used as a Crest Nicholson sales office. Ettore stated that various conditions related to the green infrastructure with requirements to submit phasing plans had not been adhered to, whilst the linear area from the stables to the lake should have been landscaped years ago, and the park near the lake which should have opened this summer had not. Ettore stated that the lead developer should have refurbished the sports field and pavilion and made them available for use according to the triggers within the S106 agreement, whilst these triggers had passed and progress had not been realised. Ettore felt that commitments to the community were continuously broken and the community was repeatedly being misled. Ettore queried what confidence the community could have in the lead developer of the Council that the district centre would materialise, that the sports pitches and pavilion would be a reality, or that alternative green space and linear parks would be completed. Ettore stated that the application for the district centre was scheduled for later this year, with completion in phases between 2023 and 2024. Ettore asked what assurances could be given that the timelines would be followed and adhered to, and asked that the Committee defer this application until some of the significant outstanding infrastructures were undertaken. Should the application be approved, Ettore asked that this be subject to plans for the district centre being submitted for approval within specific time limits, linear parks and sports field being completed within specified time limits, a reasonable start and end date for each project being agreed and non-compliance dealt with, and the current site allocated for the district centre being cleared of rubble. Ettore noted that the application felt within the village green character area, Parcel P, and hoped that the relevant planning history would be adhered to.

Michelle Quan, agent, spoke in support of the application. Michelle stated that the Arborfield Garrison site was granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Refusal

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed conversion of existing integral dog

kennel to an end of life/care room and erection of a single storey side/rear extension to form a replacement kennel.

Applicant: Mulberry House Vets

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 289 to 308.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Stephen Conway was of the opinion that this was a modest application and he could not see any material harm should it be approved.

Gary Cowan queried how long the vets had been in-situ. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that the vets had been operating from the site since 2018 and no complaints had been received by the Council in relation to noise from dogs.

RESOLVED That application number 221007 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 290 to 292.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 3No business units within the business park with additional vehicle parking and ancillary works.

Applicant: Winkworth

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 309 to 344.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarification that the application had been listed by Councillor Stuart Munro due to the impact of the development on the countryside and the increased level of activity on the site having further adverse effects on traffic levels and highway safety.

Ian Fullerton, Swallowfield Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Ian stated that there had been an increase in intensity on the site over the past years, and whilst the Parish Council supports the applicants contribution to the rural economy and local employment, there comes a point when the growing intensity of this otherwise beneficial development became unsustainable for the local community whilst being a threat to the safety of neighbouring residents. The Parish Council’s primary concern related to the proximity of the site to Lamb’s Lane Primary School, which was situated a short distance from the entry to the site. The school felt that existing traffic levels were already excessive, and there was already anxiety amongst parents with regards to the risks to their children. Ian stated that the school operated from the morning till early evening, and the catchment area for the school meant that many pupils and parents used pavements immediately opposite the site entrance to walk children to and from school. In addition, there were two houses directly opposite the site entrance which had been misrepresented within the original application. With the risk of accident a real possibility, the Parish Council felt that traffic levels needed to be reduced on Back Lane, and not increased even marginally. Ian queried when incremental growth of the site would end, and stated that the Parish Council strongly opposed the application.

Roderic Vaughan, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Roderic stated that the business park was established in 1998, and 35 subsequent planning applications had since been submitted. Over this time, the site had expanded by eight-hundred percent from 0.5 hectares to 8 hectares, with the site operating 24/7 and 365 days per year. Roderic added that the entrance to the business park was situated just 50m from the junction on Back Lane and a similar distance to Lambs Lane primary school, with two residential properties located directly opposite the site entrance which had been ignored in this planning application. The business park was located within the rural parish of Swallowfield and was not located within a designated area for major development. Roderic stated that expansion in this sensitive area had continued despite Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) stating in 2012 that there was only scope for limited further development. In 2016 it was stated that development was fully developed when a proposal to build towards Lambs Lane to the west was refused at appeal. Roderic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Items 16 and 17 were debated together due to their associated nature, with sperate votes having taken place. The substantive combined minutes are contained within minute item 16.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared an interest in this application and left the room for its duration. Andrew Mickleburgh became the Vice-Chair in the chair.

Proposal: Householder application for proposed single storey rear extension, installation of glazed turret spiral staircase, extension of existing first floor roof terrace with 2No. rooflights, new terracing, lawns and stone pathing to the rear, and associated fenestration, following removal of integral spiral staircase.

Applicant: Mr and Miss Paul and Sarah Warn and Perkins

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 345 to 382.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey, Wokingham Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Imogen stated that this application involved a listed building within the conservation area of Wokingham and was the former home of William Martin who was the mayor of Wokingham Town Council. Martin’s pool was an outdoor pool area which was built by Martin using his own money, and it included bridges, fountains, rockeries and caves within a grotto. Imogen recalled the outrage when the pool was sold and demolished by Wokingham District Council. Imogen raised concerns in relation to the rockery, which was constructed in the 1920’s in the same style as Martin’s pool whilst originally being open to the public. Imogen felt that the information contained within the third party heritage report did not fully acknowledge the full heritage of the site. Imogen understood that the current family wished to modernise their space, however felt that Wokingham would lose some of its heritage should the rockery be removed completely, which the Wokingham Society concurred with.

Paul Warn, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Paul stated they had purchased the property as they loved its history and they had previously owned a listed building in Barkham. On purchase, they had accepted that the property did require significant investment to move it towards its next stage and to futureproof it for future owners. The design brief was to preserve and blend with significant historical features whilst improving upon some of the functional aspects to be more in keeping with modern living. A lot of work and efforts had gone in to ensuring that guidelines and policies were followed, including working closely with architects, undertaking historical research, and commissioning a detailed heritage assessment. There was a desire to restore the prominent historical Italianate aspect of the garden, the cross pond and associated brick works and to bring this design into a new terrace to replace the current rockery transition from the back of the house and the existing Italianate aspect. Paul stated that it was a key to the redevelopment was to use reclaimed bricks and replicating wall and pillar design seen in the existing Italianate garden and within the former Martin’s pool. The current  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Items 16 and 17 were debated together due to their associated nature, with sperate votes having taken place. The substantive combined minutes are contained within minute item 16.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey declared an interest in this application and left the room for its duration. Andrew Mickleburgh became the Vice-Chair in the chair.

Proposal: Application for Listed Building Consent for the proposed single storey rear extension, installation of glazed turret spiral staircase, extension of existing first floor roof terrace with 2No. rooflights, new terracing, lawns and stone pathing to the rear, and associated fenestration, following removal of integral spiral staircase.

Applicant: Mr and Miss Paul and Sarah Warn and Perkins

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 383 to 418.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

RESOLVED That application number 220826 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 383 to 386.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey resumed the Chair.

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a single storey rear extension.

Applicant: Mrs Anita Walker

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 419 to 436.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Chris Bowring proposed that the meeting be extended by 30 minutes to a maximum finishing time of 11pm. This proposal was seconded by Stephen Conway and carried.

The Committee noted that this application was only before the Committee due to the applicant being a member of staff, and there appeared no material reason to go against the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED That application number 221355 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 419 to 420.