Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chair for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed that David Cornish be elected Chair for the 2023/24 municipal year. This was seconded by Alistair Neal.

RESOLVED That David Cornish be elected Chair for the 2023/24 municipal year.

To appoint a Vice-Chair for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Alistair Neal proposed that Andrew Mickleburgh be appointed Vice-Chair for the 2023/24 municipal year. This was seconded by Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey.

RESOLVED That Andrew Mickleburgh be appointed Vice-Chair for the 2023/24 municipal year.

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor Bill Soane.

Councillor David Cornish attended the meeting virtually, meaning he could participate in the debate but not vote.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 10 May 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 May 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Vice-Chair in the Chair.

To receive any declaration of interest

Alistair Neal declared a personal interest in Item 7, application number 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To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

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 15 to 60.

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

·         Clarity regarding existing trees and landscape features on site;

·         Clarity regarding that many matters of objection were in relation to reserved matters.

Caroline Smith, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Caroline thanked the Committee for undertaking a site visit as requested at the previous meeting, which allowed the Committee to better understand the context of the site including highways issues, traffic, access, trees and landscaping, and the amenity of existing residents. Caroline stated that the Earley Town Council Planning Committee had recommended refusal of this application as per the comments set out within the Committee’s agenda pack. Caroline stated that the Borough needed the right homes in the right places, however that was not the case for this application. Caroline commented that as this application was only indicative, it could result in nine 3-storey properties as a worst case scenario. Caroline added that she could not see evidence of each of the concerns raised by the Highways department being fully addressed. Caroline noted that Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) drainage department had raised a concern in relation to surface water drainage, and questioned how the guidance within the NPPF would be followed to avoid flooding at numbers 23 and 25 Beauchief Close. Caroline raised concern that there was no information provided as to how the seven TPO trees would be protected, whilst the officer report noted that it was very likely that one or more would have to be felled to facilitate the development. Caroline questioned how biodiversity would be improved or even maintained when sixty-percent of the site would be built over. Caroline noted that affordable homes in the right locations needed to be developed within the Borough, however this site was not appropriate. If approved, Caroline asked that the Committee set very firm conditions that needed to be met under reserved matters, in particular a limit of nine dwellings.

Sandra Shaw, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Sandra thanked the Committee for undertaking a site visit. Sandra commented that the site was not a major development location, as it was a major development location in the 1980s and was now fully developed without the necessary infrastructure to sustain further development. Sandra stated that residents understood the nature of outline and reserved matters applications, however they could only be expected to comment on what they could see. Sandra added that some Members had previously felt it unfortunate that this was an outline application, as it would approve the principle of development in the absence of detail. Sandra stated that there was a deep sense of concern regarding access to the site, and questioned why a minor reduction to the number of dwellings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for proposed works to reconnect a 340 metre length of historic river channel of the Emm Brook through Riverside Park, to bypass the existing weir. With associated excavation, silt removal/storage and landscaping works, plus the erection of 2 no. 8 metre x 3.5 metre wooden bridges to maintain existing access for pedestrians and maintenance vehicles, following removal of an existing piped culvert.

Applicant: South East Rivers Trust

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 61 to 362.

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

Nick Hale, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Nick stated that a huge amount of work had gone into this application, with a range of local groups being involved. Nick added that the Rivers Trust was an independent organisation, and the South East Rivers Trust was responsible for a wide range of river catchments. Nick stated that there were opportunities for engagement and education sessions as a result of the proposal. Nick stated that the applicant had delivered a number of successful projects within the South East. Nick cited a successful project carried out on the Charvil Meadows, and noted issues related to the Loddon catchment included low flows.

Michael Firmager stated that he had enjoyed reading the agenda paperwork, and sought confirmation that the proposed works would not make any flooding issues worse. Benjamin Hindle, case officer, stated that the Environment Agency no longer had any objections with the scheme, whilst the second channel would lead to improvements in terms of flood risk management.

Michael Firmager queried whether there would be any protections for existing animals within the pond. Benjamin Hindle stated that the Council’s ecology officer had considered the application in detail and had raised no objections. In addition, the applicant was committed to ensuring minimal impacts on existing species, including delivering elements of the scheme out of season if required.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether the foul sewer system would be modified as a result of the proposals. Benjamin Hindle stated that Thames Water had been consulted on this matter, and the had resolved to add a connecting section to the existing pipeline.

Andrew Mickleburgh thanked officers for the very comprehensive report. Andrew welcomed the close working relationship between the applicant, external agencies, volunteer organisations and the wider community.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed an additional informative, requesting that the applicant consider installing a commemorative plaque on the site to recognise the history of the original diversion to facilitate the operation of a mill. This was seconded by Tony Skuse, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Wayne Smith proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation and additional informative in relation to the request for the installation of a commemorative plaque as resolved by the Committee. This was seconded by Tony Skuse.

RESOLVED That application number 203617 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 82 to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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 14 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 363 to 410.

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

·         Clarification that the two accessible units were located on the first and second floors;

·         Clarification that all 10 car parking spaces were intended to have facilities for electric vehicle charging;

·         Clarification that overall 21 cycle stands would be available for residents and retail stores combined.

Bruce Chappell, resident, submitted a statement in objection to the application. In his absence, the statement was read out by the Vice-Chair in the Chair. Bruce stated that he owned and lived with his daughter in one of the flats above the Lidl building which was directly opposite Library Parade.

Bruce stated that he continued to voice his opposition to this development on the grounds of encroachment of his privacy. Bruce noted that the developer had made an attempt to negate the encroachment of privacy to his windows and patio doors, which were bedrooms and a lounge, but this had not taken into consideration his privacy when it came to the use of the balcony. Bruce stated that this was his only outdoor space and was used often, and was one of the reasons for purchasing the flat. The balcony was just under 2 metres in depth and as a consequence when in use was within 10 metres away from the windows on the proposed development. Bruce added that he exercised, socialised, sunbathed, and hung up laundry on the balcony, which would be in clear view of the proposed development. Bruce felt it was inadequate to draw a straight line of sight from one window to another, as it was not a good way of ascertaining privacy and boundaries. Bruce stated that people did not simply look straight ahead. Bruce commented that should the lines be drawn from all of the proposed windows to his balcony railing, it would clearly detail the issue of developing too close to an existing building. Bruce stated that he would be able to look down and see into various rooms of the proposed develop and vice versa. Bruce commented that outdoor space was so important to health and well-being, and he hoped that the Council would protect his privacy so he could continue to enjoy this space.

Joseph Baum, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Joseph stated that the applicant had truly listened to the community after the Committee had refused the previous application based on concerns relating to overlooking. Joseph stated that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 6 no. dwellings with associated landscaping, parking and means of access following the demolition of the existing dwelling.

Applicant: Palatine Homes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 411 to 444.

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

·         Summarised comments from the Council’s Ecology Officer;

·         Additional conditions 20 and 21;

·         Amendment to Informative 1.

Stuart Shafran, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Stuart stated that the site was classified as designated woodland, with a woodland TPO covering the entire site. Despite these protections, Stuart stated that the community was faced with yet another unpopular and inappropriate development proposal. Stuart stated that access to the proposed site was via a single lane byway next to a school, where there had been a history of near misses. Stuart added that the proposed development site was located directly opposite a school, whilst noise and dust as a result of the development would cause a significant impact to pupils. Stuart stated that there was no management plan in place to mitigate against construction impacts. Stuart stated that the biodiversity net gain statement within the ecology report was only valid where the remaining woodland was retained and managed properly, and was of the opinion that the woodland management plan could not possibly be applied to private gardens. Stuart cited Government guidelines that stated biodiversity offsetting should only be used as a last resort in exceptional circumstances. Stuart stated that parking for residents and visitors of this properties would be problematic, with only three spaces being provided for a 4-bedroom house, and no provision for visitors, leading to cars being parked on the byway leading to yet further safety issues. Stuart stated that the last ecological survey was carried out many years ago, whilst there was no highways safety report associated with the application. Stuart was of the opinion that the previous application should not have been approved, whilst an additional two dwellings would compound issues. Stuart felt that what was required was an alternative scheme, delivering one or at most two houses whilst retaining the existing woodland.

Steven Brown, agent, spoke in support of the application. Steven stated that for a site of this size, within development limits, it had a disproportionally long planning history which would be concluded via grant of planning permission. Steven stated that the applicant would bring six much needed family homes in a verdant setting, which respected the character of the area. Steven added that the application would include root protection measures, ecological buffers, and would respect the amenity of neighbouring property and visual amenity enjoyed along Oaklands Lane. Steven stated that the proposal for six dwellings would make more efficient use of the site via provision of smaller dwellings with lower ridge heights. Steven added that the applicant was a privately owned development company focussed on delivering high quality and bespoke schemes such as this. Stephen noted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.