Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was submitted from Councillor Bill Soane.

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 13 February 2019.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 February 2019 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

There are a number of references to the Members’ Update within these minutes. The Members’ Update was circulated to all present prior to the meeting. A copy is attached.

To receive any declaration of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

There were no applications recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

Recommendation: Conditional approval in principle, and deferral and delegation of the final decision to Assistant Director of Place Based Services, following consideration of representations received from neighbour notifications, and subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from existing mixed use to Sui Generis mixed use (B1c/B2/B8) to include erection of extension to Brook House, installation of solar panels and two silos, engineering excavation work, ancillary parking and demolition of existing ReadyPower building.

Applicant: Philip Glover, Intersurgical.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 13 to 74.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Amended condition 12;

·           Replacement of condition 14 (Employment Skills Plan, which was deleted because it instead formed part of the legal agreement) with a condition for a Project Community Liaison Group;

·           Clarification of the first sentence of condition 15;

·           Amended condition 21;

·           Amended condition 24 (incorrectly stated as condition 23 within the Members’ Update).

Emily Temple, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. She stated that Intersurgical was the second largest employer within Wokingham. Emily added that the NHS was one of Intersurgical’s largest clients, and the increase in their Wokingham headquarters would allow Intersurgical to respond to the NHS’s growing needs. Emily stated that the application sought to redevelop the adjacent and currently vacant site to allow Intersurgical to expand their manufacturing capacity. Emily added that the site would have ample parking for staff, and that environmental surveys had been conducted as part of the application process.

Angus Ross queried whether condition 23 as stated in the Members’ Update should have actually been stated as condition 24. Simon Taylor, Case Officer, confirmed that the ‘Doors’ condition should be stated as condition 24, as in the original agenda.

Wayne Smith queried whether there had been any comments on the application to date. Simon Taylor stated that as of the day of the Planning Committee, no comments had been received from neighbours or the Town Council. Simon added that should the Committee be minded to approve the application in principle, full planning permission would be granted subject to deferral and delegation of the final decision to the Assistant Director of Place Based Services, following consideration of representations received from neighbour notifications, and subject to a legal agreement.

Members of the Committee commented on their support for a large employment provider in the Borough such as Intersurgical, and welcomed their efforts to expand their Wokingham headquarters in line with planning policy and regulations.

Carl Doran queried why hours of use for delivery by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) was not conditioned. Simon Taylor clarified that there would be on average four HGV movements per day. Simon added that the HGVs originated from Lithuania, making it hard to predict when they would arrive. Simon stated that there had been no complaints regarding noise from the currents HGVs to date.

Tim Holton queried how many of the proposed car parking space would be affected by flooding. Simon Taylor stated that 14 car parking spaces would be in situated within flood zone 3B, which equated to a 1 in 20 year flood risk. Simon added that these spaces would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 10no 3 bed semi-detached, affordable dwellings at the Former Age Concern site, South Lake Crescent.

Applicant: Ms Holly Messenger, Wokingham Housing Ltd

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 75 to 118.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Amended condition 3(b);

·           Amended condition 6;

·           Amended condition 10;

·           Amended condition 15;

·           Amended condition 21;

·           New condition 24;

·           New informative 6;

·           Correction to the final sentence of paragraph 86 of the report;

·           Amended recommendation to reflect the requirement for a legal agreement to secure the employment skills plan;

·           New informative 7.

David Bragg, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that Woodley Town Council had recommended the application for refusal, based predominantly on parking related issues. David added that the Town Council want to see the current site redeveloped, however they wished for this scheme to include communal parking. David stated that there was no restriction for on street parking within South Lake Crescent and the street parking was currently used by existing residents. David added that the road width of 4.8m at its most narrow point was difficult to allow two large cars to pass, and could restrict emergency vehicles access to the properties if any cars were parked on the street. David stated that there would be an increase in the risk of collision on the road as a result of the proposed dwellings, specifically at the bend of the road where there was a blind spot. David stated that most residents would have to drive to access local amenities, and added that the Town Council would prefer less dwellings on the site with provision for communal parking. David asked the Committee to consider implementing a one way system should they be minded to approve the application.

Martin Few, Architect, spoke in favour of the application. Martin stated that he had worked alongside the applicant (Wokingham Housing Ltd) to redevelop the current site. Martin added that the plans and designs of the proposal had been tweaked throughout the process as a result of feedback and community engagement. Martin stated that the public consultations had been very positive, with most of the concerns being focussed on car parking. Martin added that the proposals, including car parking provisions, were in line with policy and regulations and were in keeping with the street scene.

Abdul Loyes, Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application. Abdul stated that Woodley needed more affordable housing, and was of the opinion that the proposed 3 bedroom semi-detached properties would be a welcome addition to the affordable housing supply within Woodley. Abdul added that he welcomed condition 13 (Off Site Works). Abdul stated that the public consultation had been very positive, however he acknowledged resident concerns regarding car parking. Abdul stated his support for the proposals, and hoped that the Committee would consider and approve more affordable housing schemes in the future. Abdul asked that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Recommendation: Refusal.

Proposal: Householder application for proposed erection of part single, part two storey side/rear extensions, single storey front extension, plus erection of garden room.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs C & J Copland

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 119 to 142.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included a correction to the table at paragraph 16.

Adrian Gould, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the application had local precedent with other properties having similar works done to their properties, and fall-back position case law. Adrian was of the opinion that common sense needed to be applied to this application, as the applicant already had permission to build large outbuildings which would cause more harm and leave a bigger footprint on the greenbelt than the current proposals before the Committee.

Chris Copland, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that his property had not been extended to date, whereas neighbouring properties had been. He added that his original application was refused due to the lack of a fall-back position, and as a result the application before the Committee was smaller in volume and footprint than the original application and included a valid fall-back position. Chris stated that the current proposals were less disruptive and impactful on the green belt that the fall-back position, however they were fully prepared to implement the fall-back position should the application be refused.

John Halsall, Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the Planning Case Officer had done a good and thorough job with regards to this application. John was of the opinion that in this particular instance the planning policy was an absurdity, which would cause more harm to the green belt. John stated that he was a strong defender of the green belt, however the green belt required families to protect and maintain it. John added that the NPPF stated that harm to the green belt should be accounted for, and if it would be more harmful to apply planning policy to this application then the policy should not be applied. John stated that the current proposals were less harmful to the greenbelt than the approved fall-back position. John was of the opinion that the Case officer shared this opinion, however they were guided by policy in this instance. John urged the Committee to approve the application as it would cause less harm to the greenbelt than the already approved proposals.

Angus Ross queried where the permitted side extension was approved. Stefan Fludger, Case Officer, clarified that the side extension was approved under delegated powers and amounted to a 34% increase in the volume of the original dwelling.

A number of Member queried why the fall-back position would be unlikely to be implemented. Stefan Fludger stated that the permitted development rights outbuildings would need to be fully constructed prior to the commencement of the side extension. He added that it would appear to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Tim Holton relinquished the Chair to Chis Bowring for the duration of this item.

Proposal: Application to vary condition 3 of planning consent 181565 for an artificial grass pitch with flood lights. Condition 3 refers to the hours of operation; condition 3 to be altered to state: 'The facility shall only be used between the hours of 07:30 until 22:00 hours Monday to Friday and 08:00 hours to 20:00 hours on Weekends and Bank Holidays'. 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 143 to 158.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Updated reason for condition 3;

·           Amended condition 5;

·           New informative 1 in connection with condition 5;

·           Additional representation received;

·           Correction to paragraph 22;

·           Appended minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 10 October 2018, agenda item 43.

Craig Hunter, on behalf of the Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the project would boost the attractiveness of the school to pupils of years 8 to 11, by providing better facilities and reducing the usage of the currently boggy grassed areas. He added that an increase in pupil admission numbers as a result of the increased attractiveness of the school would result in an increase in funding for the school. Craig stated that the development would allow staff to increase their own health and wellbeing and would allow the school to host tournaments for the community. Craig added that the development would make the school a hub of the community and would improve the scope of student opportunities.

UllaKarin Clark, Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application. She stated that the 3G football pitch would be a wonderful addition to the Emmbrook School and would allow for local football clubs to train on the site. UllaKarin added that the development would provide a huge benefit for the local community, allowing the school to host tournaments and improve the health of its staff, students and wider community. Ullakarin stated that there would be strong management strategies in place on the site, and that should the hours of use not be extended then the business case would be affected which would in turn remove the funding for the project. UllaKarin stated that all users of the site would have to sign a code of conduct prior to usage of the facilities, which would allow management to remove offenders. Ullakarin added that acoustic barriers and padding could be used in the future as a noise prevention strategy, if it was deemed necessary.

In response to the point raised regarding acoustic barriers, Senjuti Manna, Case Officer, stated that they did not form a part of this application however the applicant could implement them in the future if it was deemed necessary.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey raised concerns over the noise management plan, as it had not yet been submitted. Senjuti Manna stated that the noise management plan needed to be detailed and approved before development was first  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.