To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 12 April 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 April 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee shared their sincere thanks to Chris Bowring, who had served on the Committee for many years in addition to serving as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee. The Committee had always benefitted from his thorough understanding of the planning system. The Committee wished him well in his future endeavours.

To receive any declaration of interest

David Cornish declared a Personal Interest in Item 113, Application 211335 Land Adjourning Lynfield House, White House Lane, and Item 115, Application 222805, High Barn, Church Lane, on the grounds that he was a Member of the Planning Committee for Finchampstead Parish Council and he had previously made comments in relation to these applications based on preliminary information. Since then, more detailed information had become available and David stated that he would consider all information and representations before forming a view, and approached the meeting with an open mind.

Rebecca Margetts declared a Personal Interest in Item 113, Application 211335 Land Adjourning Lynfield House, White House Lane, on the grounds that she had listed the application as Ward Member for Finchampstead South. Rebecca added that she would view the application with an open mind and consider it on its merits. In addition, her son had received cricket coaching in the past from Phil West who would run the cricket net.

Alistair Neal declared a personal interest in Item 221797, “Crockers”, Rushey Way, on the grounds that the application site was situated within his Ward and he was a Member of the Earley Town Council Planning Committee which had discussed this application. Alistair stated that that he would consider all information and representations before forming a view, and approached the meeting with an open mind.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Agenda Item 117, Application 213610, was withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of a section of agricultural land to a recreational all-weather cricket track and wicket with mobile cricket cage, plus fencing, parking and associated works.

Applicant: Mr R Bishop

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 40.

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

Nicola Greenwood, British Horse Society, spoke against the application. Nicola stated that there was genuine concern for the safety of road users should this application be approved, with the nearest corner of the proposed nets to be situated between 8m and 10m from the road boundary, in very close proximity to a blind bend and a single-track lane which enjoyed heavy recreational use. Nicola added that the British Horse Society conducted an equine census in 2021 with the help of DEFRA, which showed that there were 3938 horses living within the Wokingham Borough and 2024 horses living within an hour’s ride of White Horse Lane. Whilst the Council’s appointed equine expert suggested that the applicant could inform horse owners when cricket sessions were due to run, this would be unfeasible given the 117 commercial and private venues located within an hour’s ride of the site. Nicola stated that whilst police and military horses could be trained and conditioned to be resilient to sudden noises, this took an enormous amount of training, and many horses would not be able to reach this level of resilience even if such training opportunities were available. Nicola added that the bridleway network in the Borough was fragmented, and the noise of a bat on ball was not a predictable noise for equines when compared to something like a car engine. Nicola stated that horses could more easily accept sounds where they could see its origin, whilst a horse walking at 4MPH could easily spook to 54MPH. Nicola requested that should the application be approved, that a condition be added requiring the installation of additional horse rider signs 150m either side of the site, and to place the nets a minimum of 60m from the White Horse Lane boundary to follow the trend in the Borough.

Rebecca Margetts stated that she had hoped to see the precise details of exactly where the net would be situated, however this was still not clear. Rebecca added that she was compelled by the representations made by the equine expert, with regards to safety of horses, riders and the general public.

David Cornish was of the opinion that the plans before the Committee were still opaque, and felt that none of the additional information presented on the evening had made it any clearer as to precisely where the net would be situated. David felt that safety of all users of the lane had to be a top priority, and queried whether the change of use would be from agricultural land to commercial land. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that the change of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of a temporary Film Studio Backlot (for a period of 5 years).

Applicant: Shinfield Studios Ltd.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 41 to 78.

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

·         Amendment to the address name;

·         Removal of condition 15 following provision of an Archaeological Evaluation Report;

·         Addition of approved plans;

·         Amendment to the consultation responses table, to confirm that the Environment Agency had no objection subject to conditions.

Nick Paterson-Neild, agent, spoke in support of the application. Nick stated that this application was for a five-year temporary permission for a film studio backlot, adjacent to the existing studios, following successful use of part of the land via permitted development. Nick added that there had been no objections received with regards to this application. Nick added that the proposal would facilitate the filming of outdoor scenes, and would be surrounded by landscaping to further screen the development. Nick stated that the application was supported by a S106 agreement, facilitating further renewable energy provision on the main site and a twenty-percent biodiversity net gain in excess of the Council’s requirements. Nick added that the application would help meet the pressing demand for film studio space production, whilst providing economic benefits for the local economy. Nick stated that the application supported the University of Reading’s ambitions for the expansion of Thames Valley Science Park’s ‘creative cluster’. Nick asked that the application be approved.

Andrew Mickleburgh noted that there were no objections to the application whilst the development would bring with it a number of merits. Andrew added that he was inclined to support the application.

David Cornish was of the opinion that this was a good quality application with a number of merits. David queried what would happen in practice with regards to restoration of the site and the end of the temporary permission. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, stated that standard practice remediation measures would be required, which may include removing the temporary surfacing, re-seeding and additional planting.

Stephen Conway commented that much of the site had prior approval, whilst the development would bring with it a number of merits and very minor and temporary harms, whilst contributing to the local economy.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that she was very supportive of additional local jobs within the creative industries sector within the Borough.

Wayne Smith echoed comments raised with regards to restoration of the site, and urged officers to work with the applicant to ensure that suitable restoration took place once the temporary permission had ceased.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation within the agenda pack, and revisions contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda. This was seconded by Stephen Conway.

RESOLVED That application number 222906 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 67 to 72, removal of condition 15 and addition of approved plans as contained within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the change of use of agricultural paddock with proposed shed and part of private woodland to commercial land to be used for the provision of dog walking services. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr G Capes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 79 to 108.

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

Brian Bidston, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Brian stated that whilst the application was referred to as for dog walking, this usually referred to individuals going into a field with up to 6 dogs. Brian was of the opinion that the dogs were being picked up, mostly from Camberley, and transported in lorries. The dogs were then moved through woodland around a blocked pathway. Brian stated that his main concern was one of safety, as people working on the adjacent farm would be working in close proximity to the site. Brian quoted the recommendations of the British Dog Fields Association, via which the existence of 27 dogs and only three handlers was inherently dangerous. Brian stated that there was originally a 1.5m high mesh fence to be installed as part of a previous application, however this application had been withdrawn. The subsequent application included a 1.2m high mesh fence, however this element of the application was removed after the consultation period as the existence of the agricultural fence was thought to be adequate. Brian asked that if the application be approved, a 1.5m-1.8m fence be conditioned as recommended by the British Dog Fields Association.

David Pearce, agent, spoke in support of the application. David stated that the dogs arrived at the site in a van onto the owner’s land, with no access to the sports field. The van was parked next to a holding pen whereby the dogs were then moved into the holding pen and then taken towards the footpath. David added that once the dogs reached the footpath the applicant had installed a gate either side of the footpath, to be used whilst the dogs were moved into a further holding pen. The dogs then proceed to cross a field, again owned by the applicant, to the middle field where they are then cared for by the dog walkers. David stated that at no time during this process is there any public interaction. David added that he had witnessed 18 dogs being walked by the public along the footpath over a number of hours, with 16 off the lead and some barking or being out of control. David felt that this was normal behaviour and did not pose a concern. David raised concern over the rights of the public to walk their dogs on the applicant’s land should this application be refused. David stated that this application provided an essential service to care for and look after dogs whilst people worked, went to school, went to an appointment or travelled on holiday. David added that the dog walking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Outline application with all matters reserved for the proposed

erection of 9 no. dwellings following demolition of the existing dwelling.

Applicant: Mrs C Burrows

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 109 to 146.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included clarification with regards to access, amount of development and trees and landscape issues.

Sandra Shaw, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Sandra was of the opinion that moving from one property to 9 properties was an example of overdevelopment, and whilst the plans were indicative, they failed to address a number of concerns raised by residents and the Council. Sandra felt that the application failed to demonstrate how a suitable and safe access could be achieved, whilst a 30m junction spacing, as outlined in Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) ‘Manual for Streets’, had not yet been addressed. Sandra stated that Tiptree Close, opposite the application site, was a key entrance to Hillside Primary School and was in constant use. Sandra added that the existing angled decline into the drive at Crockers made it a dangerous blind spot to exit from. Sandra felt that the proposal contravened WBC’s Climate Emergency Action Plan by not engaging with the local community and stakeholders, whilst policies CP3, CC03, TB21 and TB06 required development to protect and retain existing landscaping features. Sandra added that the proposals was contrary to policy TB06 in that it would result in the loss of residential garden with relatively little provision of replacement of soft or green landscaping. Sandra commented that a TPO was applied to the site in 2022, requiring seven important trees and an important group of trees be retained. Sandra added that there was no protection for the existing essential hedgerow which provided screening, whilst the TPO of several trees could not effectively be protected from damage via construction work to the driveway. The existing hedgerow provided habitat, shelter, corridors, rest spaces and safety for a wide range of wild birds and animals in addition to providing screening for neighbours, and destruction of this green corridor would result in wildlife not returning for many years. Sandra stated that 14 properties bordered the quiet site, and the addition of 9 dwellings would lead to an unacceptable intrusion of privacy and amenity for existing residents. Sandra felt that the development of 9 properties, some of which could be up to three storeys in height, would radically alter the character of the area. Sandra asked that the Committee defer the application in order to conduct a site visit.

Daniel Thompson, agent, spoke in support of the application. Daniel stated that many of the issues raised by objectors would be considered in detail at the reserved matters stage, should outline permission be granted. Daniel added that the WBC highways team had initially objected to the application, however this had been withdrawn following a revision to the scheme and suitable conditions, subject to further detail at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

This application was withdrawn from the agenda.

Recommendation: Conditional approvalsubject to legal agreement

Proposal: Proposed erection of 1no. detached dwelling with associated landscaping.

Applicant: C/O Avison Young, Bristol.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 185 to 228.

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

Stephen Conway stated that whilst, in his opinion, the proposals were not a particularly attractive design, they constituted the same elements as the previously approved scheme.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

RESOLVED That application number 213587 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 205 to 209.

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the demolition of existing building and erection of new building to provide new class B2/B8 industrial unit with ancillary office space plus associated storage areas, car parking, access and landscaping.

Applicant: ABRDN

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 229 to 258.

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

·         Removal of condition 4, and renumbering of conditions thereafter;

·         Amendment of condition 6 (former condition 7);

·         Amendment of condition 11 (former condition 12).

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that this application would help to rejuvenate an important business park. Andrew sought clarity regarding provision of electric vehicle charging points. Graham Smale, case officer, stated that information provided by the applicant indicated that electric vehicle charging points would be provided, however the highways statement stated that this would fall under building control regulation.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved as per the office recommendation, and updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda. This was seconded by David Cornish.

RESOLVED That application number 230219 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 243 to 249, removal of condition 4 (and renumbering of conditions thereafter), amendment of condition 6 (former condition 7), and amendment of condition 11 (former condition 12) as set out within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.