Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed change of use of land to residential. 

Applicant: Alex Mackenzie.

The Committee received and reviewed a report on this application, set out in Agenda pages 173 to 188.

Bill Luck, on behalf of Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the privacy of the property was deemed to be acceptable at the time of the original application. He was of the opinion that the open space provided as part of the wider development was of poor quality and non-compliant with the conditions of the application. He stated that the application directly removes public open space and offered no replacement, which went against WBC’s MPPF and could jeopardise the enforcement of conditions.

Pauline Jorgensen, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the landscaping of the wider development was not complete and that all of the open space needed to be developed to standard. She asked that application be deferred until the various issues had been resolved and the open spaces had been transferred to the Borough Council (and subsequently the Town Council).

Justin Turvey, Operational Development Management Lead Officer (Interim), clarified that the adoption (of open space) plan could only be implemented once this application had been approved, should Members be minded to. He added that the impact of the loss of open space as a result of this application would be minimal as the developer had already provided approximately 5 times the conditioned amount.

Wayne Smith queried as to why this land was not part of the property originally. Justin Turvey clarified that this was likely due to a conveyancing issue.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey asked how much land was being transferred to the property as a result of the application. Justin Turvey stated that it was under 2 metres at its widest point. Omar Sharif, Case Officer, clarified that the land would provide privacy opportunities to the property by allowing a fence to be constructed which would obscure two windows from the view of the adjacent open space.

John Jarvis queried what would happen to the ‘sliver’ of land should the application not be approved. Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor, stated that the ‘sliver’ of land would remain as part of the original plan should the application not be approved, which would result in that land being transferred to the Borough Council once the developer had met its commitments.

Carl Doran stated that he had seen the children’s play area which formed a part of the provided open space as part of the wider development. He was of the opinion that the children’s area was dangerous and not fit for purpose. He felt that the Committee could refuse the application based on the loss of open space without a suitable replacement provided.

Justin Turvey reiterated to Members that the developer was only required to provide 0.99 hectares of open space as part of the wider development, and that they had provided approximately 5 times this amount. He added that the loss of open space as a result of this was minimal (0.004161 hectares of open space lost).

Chris Bowring stated that Members could only consider the impact and harm of the loss of this open space, and as far more open space had been provided than was required that the impact was minimal.  

Mary Severin stated that although it was not relevant to this application, she could contact Officers responsible for enforcement and relay Member comments regarding the issues with the wider development at the site.

RESLOVED: That application 180887 be approved subject to the conditions set out on Agenda Page 174.