Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillors David Cornish and John Kaiser.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 February 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 February 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declaration of interest

Rebecca Margetts declared a Personal Interest in item 95 - 222603 St Crispins School, London Road, Wokingham, RG40 1SS, on the grounds that she was a governor at Nine Mile Ride School which was part of the Circle Trust, which St Crispin’s also belonged to.

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a Personal Interest in item 94 – 223604 The Emmbrook School, Emmbrook Road and item 95 22603 St Crispins School, London Road, on the grounds that he was the Chair of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee which included oversight of education provision. He stated that he came to this meeting with an open mind and would consider all evidence prior to making a judgement on the applications.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no applications to be withdrawn or deferred.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed creation of a mixed-use building consisting of the retention of the existing 3 no. retail stores at ground floor level and the addition of 16 no. apartments on new first, second and third floor levels, including the erection of three and four storey rear extensions with associated car parking, cycle and bin stores, following partial demolition of the existing building.

Applicant: Mr Hardeep Hans

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 21 to 89.

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

·       Clarification that the correct CIL rate for 2023 was £500.29 index linked.

·       Clarification of points raised by Councillor Boyt during the February Committee meeting regarding amenity space, internal amenity space, clarification around accessible units, parking provision, heating and extraction units and retail units.

·       Briefing note from the applicant’s consultant;

Michaela Dalton spoke in objection to the application. Michaela commented that she was the owner of Woodley Pets whose service area was at the rear of Library Parade, opposite the proposed site. She stated that the application would have an impact on this already congested, high traffic area. There was already a limited turning circle for HGVs, and many reversed back from the Headley Road due to the fencing. Michaela stated that already unauthorised vehicles were using the existing parking space, which was difficult to police.  She felt that the application offered insufficient parking provision, with 8 spaces for 16 apartments, only 31% of any incoming residents.  She commented that whilst they were being marketed as being without parking, the same was the case for the flats above Lidl, and every resident had a car. Michaela also questioned what provision was being made for the overflow of retail staff who would no longer be able to park in the development site, and also during the construction period when contractors would be on site.

Bruce Chappell, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Bruce stated that he lived with his daughter in one of the flats above the Lidl building, directly opposite Library Parade. He raised concerns regarding privacy for himself and his daughter, the close proximity of the proposed site, the potential for sunlight to his property to be blocked, and the fact that he felt that the proposal was not in keeping with surrounding area. Bruce commented that he had offered for officers to come and see the proposed site from his flat to assess the impact, but that this had not been taken up.  He had also been unaware of the Members site visit.  Bruce went on to question what measures would be taken to ensure that residents were not impacted by noise pollution from the plant equipment which was to be situated on the roof at the highest point.  In addition, he questioned plans in place during construction.  During the warmer months his balcony and windows were often open, and he had concerns regarding the potential impact of dust,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a two-storey 6th form centre with external stairway and disability ramp and a single storey office/admin extension with external disability stairway and disability ramp along with landscaping works following demolition of the existing admin block.

Applicant: Mr T Searle (Wokingham Borough Council)

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 90 to 130.

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

·       Amended Condition 6;

·       Amended Condition 18;

Nick McSweeny, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that Emmbrook School had increased in popularity and was admitting more pupils than ever.  There was a demand within the community for places at the school.  The school had taken an additional 30 pupils over its admission number the previous year and would so again this September.  Additional pupils created operational pressures within the school.  An office had been converted into a Sixth Form teaching area.  The application would allow more teaching space and also greater independent study space for the older pupils. 

Stephen Conway asked about relationships with existing dwellings.  Officers indicated that the recommended distance for three storey buildings was in excess of 30 metres, which would be the case for 113 and 115 Emmbrook Road.  The separation distance to 93 Emmbrook Gate would fall below 30 metres, however due to the positioning and orientation of the building, and the fact that the windows were proposed to be obscure glazed, it was felt that this would not have an unacceptable impact on the residents.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Wayne Smith.

RESOLVED: That application number 223604 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 102 to 109, and amended conditions 6 and 18, as set out in the supplementary agenda.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a single storey extension to the existing dining hall and a two-storey extension to the existing Sixth Form block to provide 8 no. new classrooms, plus a new canopy to the front entrance and a services and bin store, following demolition of the existing services and bin store.

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 131 to 186.

Andy Hinchcliff, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Andy stated that for September 2022 St Crispins had taken an additional 100 pupils to help local communities to gain secondary school places, and would take an additional 55 pupils in September 2023.  Factors such as a bulge year moving from primary to secondary school, incoming families from Hong King, Ukraine and other areas, and new housing developments, increased pressure on school places.  Andy commented that St Crispin’s had opened in 1953 and the planned cohort had been 450.  The dining space seated 140 people.  The school now had 1400 pupils.  Whilst the school had grown over the years the dining space had remained unchanged and was now inadequate in size.   The new dining area would have greater capacity and allow the school curriculum to grow.  Currently other areas such as the hall were used for pupils. Meaning it could not be used for Duke Edinburgh activities, sports, and exams.  Andy stated that extending the Sixth Form would support the growth of the school and create an additional 8 classrooms.

Stephen Conway commented that the Built Heritage Officer had objected to the application as it was a listed building.  He went on to state that whilst he was in favour of preserving listed buildings, he was of the view that any harm that the proposal may cause to the listed building, was outweighed by the improved facilities at the school and the additional capacity that would be created.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

RESOLVED: That application number 223603 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 149 to 160.

Recommendation: Refusal

Proposal: Full application for the proposed ground floor and first extensions to the existing buildings to provide additional workshop, gallery, and mezzanine level for dry storage along with recreational floorspace. Re-cladding of external walls with vertical timber boards. Creation of a river cutting to provide additional /replacement moorings.

Applicant: Mr Adam Toop

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 187 to 224.

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

·       Details of 21 additional representations, 3 of which supplement an existing representation, and 18 which were new;

·       Details of volume calculations;

·       National Planning Policy Framework clarification;

·       Clarification around local employment

John Merkel, Remenham Parish Councillor, spoke in support of the application.  John was of the view that the proposal was uniquely suited to the activities that took place in Remenham.  The development of the museum aspect was a long-term project and would have a positive impact on the local area.  He stated that it was a small community and that the activities would develop and grow.  John felt that the proposal for refusal related to the question of scale, but he believed that changes would be incremental.

Adrian Gould, agent, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the proposal was not a redevelopment, but an extension.  It would not be harmful to the Green Belt as it complied with NPPF Guidance that allowed for proportionate extensions to existing buildings.  The extension would amount to a volume metric increase of 12%.  Adrian commented that the proposal did not involve a change of use, and that the principal use would remain the storage, maintenance and repair of boats.  The mezzanine would be used for complementary purposes which were ancillary and would not exist in isolation.  Adrian emphasised that the proposed extension would enhance the design quality of the building, in a developed part of the river frontage.  Whilst part of the central section would increase in height, it would remain in keeping with the height of neighbouring buildings.  The proposed planting would provide landscape enhancement and significant biodiversity net gains.  Adrian commented that the proposed moorings would not impact adversely on Green Belt openness and were different to a previous proposal.

Adam Toop, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He emphasised that the collection was of national significance and urgently required a suitable home and to stay together.  Adam commented that the artefacts needed to be stored in a safe, controlled environment of modest scale.  The proposed mezzanine would protect the items from annual flooding.  Adam stated that the boatyard had been used to store, maintain, and moor boats for over a century, and the proposal proposed a continuation of this.  Adam referred to local support for the application.  He stated that the proposal represented sensitive, community focused improvements that valued and safeguarded the importance of the site.

Graham Howe, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application.  He was also speaking on behalf of John Halsall, his  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Recommendation: Refusal

Proposal: Full planning permission for the erection of 2 buildings for Class E use. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr Graham Adams

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 225 to 264.

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

·       Financial information provided by the agent in response to reason for refusal 2;

·       Agricultural consultant comments;

·       Officer analysis of financial report.

Jo Unsworth, agent, spoke in support of the application.  She stated that the application was a retrospective application for two buildings which had been built by the applicant in order to economically support and diversify Lockey Farm.  The Council’s adopted planning policies and the NPPF stated that planning decisions should encourage the sustainable growth and expansion of rural businesses including through the provision of appropriate new buildings, and specifically through the diversification of farming enterprises.  Jo indicated that Lockey Farm had been in the same family since the 1940s.  The owners had 180 sheep and helped to farm neighbouring Newlands Farm.  Until recently they had kept cattle and were planning to do so again.  They had previously kept chickens but had given this up in the last two years due to its financial unviability.  Jo stated that Lockey Farm, like many other farms, was struggling, and was on the brink of ceasing altogether.  This would also result in the closure of the café and the farm shop.  The income streams provided by the office and shop buildings were vital to ensuring the continuation of the building.  Jo commented that officers had recommended refusal due to inadequate justification in the financial information to show that the income from the two buildings supported the farm enterprise.   Officers were of the view that the family did not actually farm, with only a proportion of the income coming from egg production, which was historic.  Jo emphasised that this was a misunderstanding of the information provided and did not take account of the sale of Lockey lamb, eggs and goat meat through the farm shop and elsewhere.  It was only through small scale diversification that the farming business remained viable.  Jo commented that the officers report referred to the excess scale of the buildings and their encroachment into the countryside.  She indicated that the buildings had been positioned so as to represent a modest extension of the courtyard and did not encroach into the countryside.  Jo suggested that should the Committee required further consideration of the financial information provided, the application be deferred so that it could be discussed further with officers.

The Vice Chairman read a statement of support from Gary Cowan, Ward Member.  Gary referred to the small family run farm shop which was supported by the local community, employed local residents, and used local suppliers.  Gary was of the view that the Council should not miss any opportunity to assist local businesses in survival following the pandemic.  He indicated that the Parish Council supported the farm and saw it as an important local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.