Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 September 2023.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 September 2023 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declaration of interest

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a personal interest with regards to agenda item 34, application number 231900, on the grounds that he was the Chair of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which had responsibility for scrutinising the delivery of Children’s Services in the Borough. Andrew added that he came to the meeting with an open mind and would listen to and consider all representations prior to forming a judgement.

David Cornish declared a personal interest with regards to agenda item 33, application number 230872, on the grounds that he was a member of the Finchampstead Parish Council Planning Committee. David added that he was not present at the meeting where this application was discussed, and came to the meeting with an open mind and would listen to and consider all representations prior to forming a judgement.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no items to be withdrawn or deferred.

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 a mixed-use District Centre including 206 dwellings, commercial floorspace (Use Class E), a preschool, public open space, pedestrianised high street, and a mixed-use community centre building including cafe, associated community facilities and day nursery. New vehicular, pedestrian and cycle accesses to be provided with associated internal roads, parking, landscaping, drainage, substations, plant, bin and cycle storage.

Applicant: Crest Nicholson Chiltern

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 11 to 80.

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

·       Amended wording for informative 17 to clarify that the CEMP will need to refer to pedestrian and cycle access to Bohunt School.

Pamela Stubbs, Barkham Parish Council, spoke to the application.  Pamela Stubbs commented that Barkham Parish Council fully supported the application for the district centre.  For almost a decade they had taken part in discussions and consultations.  The Parish Council had tried to engage with residents and the developers about what was required for residents, but this had been difficult.  She noted that the medical centre included in an earlier iteration of the proposals was no longer included.  Pamela Stubbs went on to emphasise that it was vital that the community centre facilities were built before any further housing, and that meaningful consultation with the residents be carried out.  The residents had waited some time and deserved to be heard.

David Digby, Crest Nicholson Chiltern, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  David Digby stated that the proposals for the Arborfield Green District Centre were the result of numerous pre application post submission discussions with officers, two consultations, focus groups with stakeholders including the nursery, and feedback from an independent design review panel.  Every aspect of the proposal had been refined to ensure that it would deliver the vibrant community centre that residents needed.  He went on to highlight some of the features of the proposals including over 10,000 square feet of new shops, a new community centre, nursery, and village green with children’s play area and wildflower planting.  Sustainability was key and walking and cycling would be promoted with connections into Bohunt School.  A wide range of shopping units were proposed which had flexibility to be adapted to different sizes to meet changing local demands.  David Digby stated that all buildings were designed to be highly energy efficient with wastewater heat recovery, PV panels and electric vehicle charging points.  The new commercial space would achieve a Very Good BREEAM rating, and the community centre had potential to achieve an Excellent rating subject to specifications.  Should the application be approved enabling works were planned to start in January.  The first phase would enable the supermarket and pub to be delivered and the majority of the new shops.  The second phase would prioritise the remaining shops, the village green, the community centre and nurseries.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from residential dwelling house (use class C3) to children's home (use class C2).

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 81 to 97.

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

·       To clarify, the reason for determination of this application by Committee was that the applicant was Wokingham Borough Council, and the application will result in an increase in staff members.

·       Further comments from Councillor Cowan and officer response.

Nathan Whitley, WBC, applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He indicated that the site was one of three children’s homes that the Council wished to open to support up to six children in total.  There was currently a lack of residential opportunities for vulnerable children in the Borough, with some children having to be placed over 100 miles from their family homes.  The rural location of the site would offer a quiet and therapeutic environment for the children.  Very little improvement was required to the building and it was hoped that should the application be approved, it could open in the new year.  The application would create 14 permanent jobs.

Michael Firmager asked about the narrowness of the lane.  Rowan Reynolds, case officer, responded that it was not overly narrow, and that on road parking would not be obstructive to the road.  Alan Lewis, Highways Development Manager, indicated that it was suitable for two-way traffic and that there were 25 houses and an equestrian centre in the area.  Vehicle flow was approximately 15-20 vehicles per hour, and a bus stop was located 250m away.   Michael Firmager went on to question whether the area would be too isolated for the children.  Rowan Reynolds indicated that it was considered appropriate for the children.

RESOLVED:  That application 231900 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 88 to 89.

RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

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 99 to 149.

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

·       Clarification that officers had further considered the proposed planning obligations to be secured via s106 with the applicant.  The Infrastructure Financial Contributions for South of M4 SDL and ‘My Journey’ initiative was to be secured for payment upon commencement of development rather than being considered as part of the late-stage viability review.  Hence, the application remained in compliance with the Council’s highways policies.

·       Amended recommendation.

·       Correction of typographical error at the end of paragraph 12.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that he was pleased to see the revised recommendations including the infrastructure and My Journey contributions.  He went on to state that should the proposal be approved, it would enable a late stage viability review at which time the actual contributions to the affordable housing would be determined.

In response to a question from Alistair Neal about the approach taken by the valuers to the modelling, Andrew Chugg, case officer, indicated that two different approaches had been taken.  In October 2022 policy compliant affordable housing and highways related contributions had been secured.  Following this, issues around developer viability had arisen, and the developer had indicated that they could not make a reasonable profit and make an affordable housing contribution, and had submitted a Financial Viability Appraisal.  This document had been independently assessed by viability experts.  Whilst not all aspects were agreed, it was agreed that the scheme was in deficit and the developer could not afford to pay the affordable housing contribution at that point.  A financial review would take place after 70% of the build out had taken place.   Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, provided further clarification around viability.

Some Members expressed concern that the level of the final contribution was not yet known.  Andrew Chugg indicated that it was not viable at this point in time, but the situation could change.  Brian Conon added that the planning system had a degree of flexibility to take changing circumstances into account.

RESOLVED:  That application 222304 be approved subject to the completion of a legal agreement as detailed in the Supplementary Agenda, and conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 130 to 136.

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a sound stage building for commercial filming with access, parking, landscaping and associated works, following demolition of the existing buildings.

Applicant: Mr J Atack

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 151 to 191.

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

·       Revised recommendation.

·       Comments from Councillor Prue Bray, ward member, and officer response.  Members were informed that Councillor Paul Fishwick, ward member, had indicated that he agreed with Councillor Bray’s comments following the production of the Supplementary Agenda.

·       Updated conditions 11 and 12.

Jonathan Rowlatt, agent, spoke in support of the application.  He stated that the site was a key constituent of the creative quarter in Winnersh and would provide additional sound space and floor space, strengthening the film industry in the Borough.   It would provide significant employment opportunities both in the construction and operation stages.  The proposal would help to address the shortfall of film production space in the UK.  Jonathan Rowlatt went on to state that the high quality design and materials proposed would greatly enhance the part of the business park and optimise previously developed land.  He went on to state that it would help to assist with traffic calming and provide a safer pedestrian environment along Eskdale Road.  Additional soft landscaping and biodiversity net gain would be delivered.

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey commented that more employment was needed in the Borough. 

Andrew Mickleburgh was pleased to note the 20% biodiversity net gain and the Excellent BREEAM standard.

RESOLVED:  That application 231602 be approved subject to prior completion of a S106 legal agreement as detailed in the Supplementary agenda, within 3 months of the committee resolution (unless a longer date is agreed by the Chair Chairman of Planning Committee), and conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 173 to 185 and updated conditions 11 and 12 as set out in the Supplementary Agenda.

RECOMMENDATION:  Conditional Approval

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of a new Gateway building containing offices for creative industries (including film, television and ancillary support uses) and ancillary café with associated landscaping. (Application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and is a potential departure from the Local Plan)

Applicant: Shinfield Studios

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 193 to 255.

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

·       Amendment of applicant name from University of Reading to Shinfield Studios.

·       Update building height from 5 stories to 4 stories with plant room above

·       Confirmation that Southern Gas Networks have withdrawn their objection.

·       Updated recommendation.

·       Amended paragraph 25.

Mark Owen, agent, spoke in support of the application.  He indicated that the application would provide space for creative industries, including film and television.  He went on to state that the Gateway policy which controlled the type of businesses to be located at the Science Park had been amended under the wider Shinfield Studios application to include businesses relating to the digital and creative sector.  This amended Gateway policy would be included as part of the S106 agreement for the application.  Providing space for creative industries would align and support the wider influence of Shinfield Studios at a local and national level.  The proposal would create employment opportunities for approximately 415 employees and 420 jobs at the construction stage, boosting employment in the area.  He highlighted that the mass would be broken up by cladding, and energy efficiency measures such as PV panels and the use of heat pumps.  It was noted that the proposed building would achieve BREEAM ‘Excellent.’

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey encouraged the applicant to offer apprenticeships.

Michael Firmager questioned whether the cladding would be fire retardant and was informed that it need to meet building regulations so should be.

RESOLVED:  That application 231837 be approved subject to completion of a legal agreement within 6 months of the committee resolution (unless a longer date is agreed by the Assistant Director of Planning and Chairman of Planning Committee) as detailed in the Supplementary Agenda, and conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 217 to 227.