Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

37.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor John Kaiser.

38.

Minutes of Previous Meetings pdf icon PDF 67 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held on 2 August 2022 and the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 August 2022.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Committee held on 2 August 2022 and the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 August 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

39.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

Stephen Conway declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 45, on the grounds that he was the Executive Member with responsibility for social housing. Stephen added that he would speak as a public speaker as a supporter of the application, and then leave the room during the debate and vote.

40.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Minutes:

There were no applications recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

41.

Application No.221409 - Nigra House, Mulberry Business Park, Fishponds Road, RG41 2GY pdf icon PDF 181 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed demolition of Nigra House and the erection of 12 no. employment units (Use Classes E (g) (ii) and (iii) and B8) with new vehicular access and associated works including car parking, servicing and landscaping.

 

Applicant: Nigra Centre Ltd.

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 48.

 

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

 

Stephen Conway was of the opinion that this was an entirely appropriate application which had received no objections. Stephen added that he was pleased to see that the recommendation of approval was subject to agreement of a legal agreement to secure an employment skills plan.

 

Rebecca Margetts sought clarification as to how many electric vehicle charging points were proposed to be provided on site, and queried whether there was any way to encourage additional provision of electric vehicle charging points. Kamran Akhter, Principal Highways Development Management Officer, stated that the revised technical note submitted by the applicant set out that 6 active and 6 passive electric vehicle charging points would be installed. Mark Croucher, case officer, noted that Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) current policy was not strong enough to obligate applicants to secure more than what was proposed.

 

Wayne Smith commented that only a ten-percent reduction in carbon emissions was proposed as part of this application. Wayne asked that the Planning Team consider provision of supplementary guidance on this matter should the Local Plan Update be delayed, which would encourage applicants to achieve higher carbon reduction savings and energy efficiency standards.

 

RESOLVED That application number 221409 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 16 to 23, and subject to legal agreement.

42.

Application No.221788 - Swallowbrook, Julkes Lane pdf icon PDF 159 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed alterations to land levels to form orchard with raised vegetable beds.

 

Applicant: Charles Vickery.

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 49 to 72.

 

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

 

·         Confirmation that the Environment Agency had raised no objection to the application subject to proposed conditions and informatives;

·         Additional condition 4 as requested by the Environment Agency;

·         Confirmation that a Construction Environment Management Plan was subject to condition 3 to ensure any impacts upon species is mitigated during the construction phase;

·         Additional comments from local residents and associated officer response;

·         Reference to an email received from the applicant with reference to digging on site occurring in order to satisfy building regulations in relation to the retaining wall, and the soil would be going back once the work was complete.

 

Liz Connolly, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Liz stated that she spoke on behalf of the eight neighbours who had objected to this application. Liz added that in her opinion approval of this application would mean a substantial increase in flood risk, a change in the historical topography, whilst negatively impacting sewage and water drainage. A very gentle scope towards the Barkham brook had existed within the paddock prior to excavation of materials, and not a steep gradient as referenced within the report. Liz was of the opinion that the impermeable clay-based material was unsuitable to be used for planting without the inclusion of additional topsoil. Liz stated that sewage pipes ran along the paddock and served three neighbouring properties, and Liz felt that the pipes may have already been damaged given the weight of the material and the use of heavy machinery. Liz added that there were covenants in place allowing access for maintenance which the plans had not considered. Liz was of the opinion that the heritage report for the new building application appeared to be ignored, which stated that the Carter’s Hill house was the dominant status dwelling and building which sat proud of the flood plain on a bank above the flood plain. Liz referenced very substantial flooding in recent times which had required emergency evacuation of their horses and severely impacted their business, and was completely at odds with Wokingham borough Council’s (WBC’s) strategic flood assessment report which stated no historical flooding along the Barkham Brook according to Environment Agency records. Liz stated that two properties had also been flooded, and questioned why the report assumes a 1 in 100 year flood risk when she and her neighbours had provided evidence of serious flooding having occurred at least 4 times in the past 25 years. Liz stated that a landfill site upstream of the applicant’s site had increased flood levels significantly, whilst a Category A dam just half a mile to the east of the site could present catastrophic floods. Liz concluded by stating that global warming would only add to the increased flood risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

43.

Application No.222321 - 52 Mannock Way, Woodley, RG5 4XW pdf icon PDF 168 KB

Recommendation: Refusal.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a single storey front extension, single storey rear extension, two storey side extension, and change of use of amenity land to residential.

 

Applicant: Mr J Southwell.

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 73 to 88.

 

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

 

·         Clarification that whilst the applicant did not own the adjoining land, the applicant had duly met the requirements of Certificate B of the planning application form in serving the requisite notices;

·         An update that the land was classified as ancient woodland, and whilst the land to which this application related was indicated to be amenity land within the original approval for the wider site, through the passage of time this use was no longer reflected in reality as there was restricted public access and regrowth of the adjoining woodland over this area.

 

Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in support of the application. Keith stated that the comment from the Woodland Trust should not be considered as it referred to the previous application. Keith felt that it was very likely that this application would have been recommended for approval if the issue of ancient woodland was not present. Keith added that the information contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda referred to the land being designated as amenity land, and if correct then in his opinion the strict rules relating to a buffer zone would not apply, however he had not been able to research this further as the Supplementary Planning Agenda had only been published the previous evening, whilst the numerical references contained within the paperwork were not valid for the current planning system. Keith was of the opinion that any change from amenity land to ancient woodland buffer zone should likely have required a formal redesignation.  

 

Joseph Southwell, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Joseph stated his family had owned 52 Mannock Way for just over two years, and they had put in a planning application in April 2022. Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) required a very recent bat survey and an agricultural survey, which was carried out in early June which showed no negative impacts on either bats or trees. The Chartered arboriculturist’s report summarised that the root protection area plan showed that there would be no impact to the woodland as a result of the development, whilst the development would result in no loss of woodland whilst having no impact on the woodland itself.

 

Alison Swaddle, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. Alison stated that the arboriculture survey identified the area of woodland as having a root protection area plan which would not be immediately affected by the proposed development. The proposed development was not anticipated to have any impact on ancient woodland, ancient or veteran trees, nor was it anticipated to result in the loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland. Alison stated that she therefore fully supported the proposal,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

44.

Application No.222304 - Land Adjacent To Lane End House, Shinfield Road, Shinfield pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 6no. dwellings, with associated landscaping and access.

 

Applicant: Mr R Mellett.

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 89 to 120.

 

The Committee were advised that the Supplementary Planning Agenda included amendments to conditions 2, 15, and 16.

 

Pierre Dowsett, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Pierre stated that this application represented a resubmission of an application currently at appeal, whilst the material considerations surrounding the weight of planning considerations no longer had the same weight of determination. Pierre stated that the development was located within a sustainable location, whilst 2 units would be provided as on-site affordable housing, with electric vehicle charging points supplied at each unit. Pierre praised officers for their quick action in considering the new planning balance, and Pierre asked that the Committee support the officer recommendation of approval.

 

Jim Frewin, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Jim stated that he had been asked by Shinfield Parish Council to call-in this application, who were unhappy with the planning approach taken by the Council. Jim felt that this was the fourth application for this site, and was an example of how developers repeatedly submitted application with the knowledge that WBC would eventually approve it. Jim stated that Parish Councillors were questioning the point of a neighbourhood plan if the policies therein were ignored by WBC. Jim added that the planning application did not comply with the parking standards policy 5 of the neighbourhood plan, nor did it meet the drainage policy 8 or the tree retention policy 6. Jim stated that the site was actually within the countryside, and there were significant concerns with regards to construction traffic and access. Jim stated that there was not a lot of open green space in Shinfield, and Shinfield had already delivered a number of houses towards WBC’s housing stock. Jim asked that officers work to ensure that applications complied with locally adopted neighbourhood plans, and added that Shinfield Parish Council requested that officers to find ways for the application to comply with the polices within the neighbourhood plan.

 

David Cornish sought clarification from officers with regards to some of the concerns raised by Jim Frewin. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that that the Shinfield Neighbourhood Plan was considered within the standard policy hierarchy, whereby local policy such as this plan would be the starting point for considerations. Part of the NPPF had been engaged as the Borough could no longer demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which meant that the local planning authority now had to consider whether this application would have such adverse impacts which would outweigh any benefits. The officer’s detailed assessment of the proposal concluded that the less than desirable impacts of this development were not considered to significantly outweigh the benefits of the scheme. Brian added that the Local Plan remained valid and was used as a starting point for planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

45.

Application No.222001 - Land East of Gorse Ride South, South of Whittle Close and to the North and South of Billing Avenue, Finchampstead, RG40 9JF pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Recommendation: Conditional approval.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Stephen Conway declared a prejudicial interest in this item, and left the room after speaking during the public speakers section as a supporter, and as such did not take part in the discussion or vote.

 

Proposal: Application to vary conditions 2 (approved plans), 24 (affordable housing), 28 (landscape management) and 35 (planning obligations) of planning consent 202133 (full planning application for the proposed redevelopment of the existing Gorse Ride South Estate, comprising demolition of existing buildings and replacement with 249 no. dwellings (mixed-tenure flats and houses) together with associated access, parking, landscaping, public open space and drainage). The application seeks to introduce variation to the design of the approved scheme.

 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council (WBC).

 

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 121 to 158.

 

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

 

Stephen Conway, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Stephen stated that the application was before the Committee to amend some of the agreed conditions, including those related to design and layout of some of the car parking bays. Stephen stated that the Gorse Ride project was a flagship project for WBC, started by Stephen’s predecessor but very much supported by himself. Stephen noted that there was a shortage of truly affordable housing within the Borough, with many residents priced out of living in the Borough.

 

David Cornish queried the reason for the change in roof design. Joanna Carter, case officer, confirmed that the design of the roof had changed due to concern of leaves falling from mature trees into the gulley between the roofs.

 

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the replacement to the energy block would be as equally environmentally friendly, and queried whether there was any possibility to allow some additional disabled bays to be unallocated if the current proposal of 5 allocated spaces was deemed insufficient. Joanna Carter stated that following the phasing strategy, it was realised that some properties at the edge of the site would not be in a position to be provided with sufficient energy. As such, it was now proposed to provide externally located substations, with their location and appearance to be agreed via conditions. Kamran Akhter, Highways Development Manager, stated that there was an overprovision of parking spaces proposed, and the disabled parking would be managed by a parking management plan.

 

Wayne Smith queried whether power would be delivered via gas or electricity. Joanna Carter confirmed that the applicant had moved from gas to electricity.

 

RESOLVED That application number 222001 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out within agenda pages 133 to 147.