Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee - Wednesday, 14th October, 2020 7.00 pm

Venue: Virtual Meeting. View directions

Contact: Callum Wernham  Democratic & Electoral Services Specialist

Media

Items
No. Item

27.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were submitted from Carl Doran and Andrew Mickleburgh.

28.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 333 KB

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 9 September 2020

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 September 2020 were confirmed as a correct record and would be signed by the Chairman at a later date.

Members' Update pdf icon PDF 389 KB

There are a number of references to the Members’ Update within these minutes. The Members’ Update was circulated to all present at the meeting, and published on the WBCwebsite. A copy is attached.

29.

Declaration of Interest

To receive any declaration of interest

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

30.

Applications to be Deferred and Withdrawn items

To consider any recommendations to defer applications from the schedule and to note any applications that may have been withdrawn.

Minutes:

No applications were recommended for deferral, or withdrawn.

31.

Application No.201337 - Land at Parklands, Basingstoke Road, Three Mile Cross pdf icon PDF 714 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Application for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning consent 171737 for the erection of 55 dwellings and all associated parking, landscape and access. Details of Layout, Appearance, Landscaping and Scale to be determined.

 

Applicant: Mr R Permain

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 15 to 42.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

 

·           Complete amendment of the recommendation including conditions and informatives;

·           Amendment of paragraph 84 to provide greater clarity;

·           Amendment to the wording of paragraph 85.

 

Harry Glossop, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Harry stated that the concentration of the proposed affordable homes 35, 36, and 37, adjoining 3 existing dwellings, would result in an issue of overlooking and light pollution as the bedrooms of the existing and proposed dwellings would face each other. Harry stated that the concentration of properties in this specific area was unnecessary. Harry added that the concentration of homes in southern block would lead to a very crowded living situation for new and existing residents, resulting in the existing properties gaining 2 or 3 new neighbours which would feel unnecessarily crowded. Harry stated that it would be important that the houses within the southern area, within the proximity of existing dwellings, were limited in height as to not add to the issue of blocking natural light. Harry added the area north of the Brambles should have sufficient drainage in place, as an existing SUD was already in place and the area was already subject to flooding. The hill flowed northeast to southwest, and Harry had not seen any mitigation considerations regarding this particular issue.

 

Gillie York, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Gillie stated that she was the owner of Lieutenant Cottage, and her property would be surrounded by the new development. Gillie stated that the positioning of the SUD, in the context of the slope of the land going from the SANG down to Lieutenant Cottage. The field in front of the cottage already flooded in the winter, and the proposed drainage would be insufficient, whilst the SUD would continue to create additional problems. Gillie added that the soil was mainly clay based, and anything built on such land would raise the water table for all properties within the vicinity. As sewerage would be located towards the far north of the development, and it would be removed by direct flow rather than pumping, it would not be sufficient to accommodate the proposed new dwellings when sewerage problems were already present locally. Gillie stated that the access for the proposed development would be located on a road with a seemingly minimum speed of 40Mph rather than a maximum speed of 40Mph. Gillie added that traffic calming had been promised for some time now to reduce the speed limit on the road to 30Mph, however this had yet to be implemented. Gillie queried where the storage of building and construction materials would be located, as to not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

32.

Application No.202270 - 12 Rectory Road, Wokingham, RG40 1DH pdf icon PDF 291 KB

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use from dwellinghouse (C3) to non-residential institution (F1). Erection of two single storey extensions to the south-west and north-west of the property, and demolition of the existing garage.

 

Applicant: Wokingham Borough Council (WBC).

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 53 to 78.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included an amendment to condition 9.

 

Adam Davies, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Adam stated that last year it became apparent that the existing contact resource centre would be located within a new road system, and therefore the centre needed to move locations. Adam added that the contact centre formed a central part of the care plan in place for these children, and the contact was facilitated by supervisors. Some contact could be challenging, and it was essential that children enjoyed a positive experience within a safe and homely environment. The proposed location was ideal due to a good level of privacy, in a quiet setting. Adam stated that the centre would operate between 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday, with the busier times being after school. It was not intended to operate the facility at the weekends, and 4 contacts could be made at any one time. Adam added that the facility would include a reception and kitchen area, in addition to private rooms for contact to take place.

 

Malcolm Richards queried where parents would park when they had an appointment to have a contact session, asked whether sprinklers should be included in the plans if the facility was akin to an educational facility, queried whether any residential management staff would be present within the facility overnight, and asked whether it was possible to retain any of the trees on site that were proposed to be felled. Adam Davies clarified that children could be dropped off between 9am and 6pm by a carer, and parents would be expected to park locally and walk to the facility. Adam added that the facility was not an educational resource, and operational management would be present on site however not overnight. Adriana Gonzalez, case officer, stated that there were no trees of importance or quality on site, and a suitable landscaping condition was in place to ensure replacement planting, especially in the context of the nearby conservation area. Adriana confirmed that the facility was not considered as an educational facility.

 

Angus Ross queried whether there was any potential harm to the property north of the proposed development site in terms of overlooking or separation distances. Adriana Gonzalez stated that separation distances between the proposed extension and the existing dwelling conformed to standards, and obscure glazing would be implemented to retain privacy.

 

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed an informative, asking that sprinkler provision be accommodated during other construction works on the building. This informative was unanimously agreed and added to the list of informatives.

 

Gary Cowan queried whether a ground penetration radar  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.