Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

John Jarvis re-entered the room.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 17 dwellings together with associated vehicular accesses, car parking and landscaping following demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings once associated with a former scrapyard use.

Applicant: The Owner and/or Occupier, Copperwood Developments Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 121 to 200. 

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Amended conditions 2, 10, 23 and 31;

·           Additional conditions 36 and 37;

·           Clarification of paragraph 37 (page 148);

·           Clarification of paragraph 113 (page 159);

·           Clarification of trip rates.

Darren Smith, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Darren stated that the application before the Committee was an improvement on the previous plans for 20 dwellings (now down to 17 dwellings). Darren added that the proposed dwellings were too high at two and a half storeys, and that the proposed development was too dense. Darren was of the opinion that the top windows should be obscurely glazed. He added that there were existing issues with parking in the surrounding area, and that the area suffered from flooding issues which would need to be addressed by a suitable flooding protection plan. Darren raised the Town Council’s concern that although the parking provision at the proposed development would meet the Council’s regulations, some overspill on to the already congested main road could occur. Darren was of the opinion that the two and half storey height of the proposed developments was overbearing compared to the surrounding area.

Chris Mason, Resident, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he was the resident of one of the neighbouring properties which backed on to the proposed development site. He was of the opinion that it was logical to develop the site, however he was concerned with the density of the application. Chris stated that car parking in the area was already overwhelmed, and that an increase in traffic and car parking from the proposed development would only add to this issue. Chris added that there would be an increase in noise and pollution (compared to its current state of usage), and the development would apply more pressure to local resources such as GP surgeries. Chris was of the opinion that the two and a half storey description of the development was ‘clever’ as the roof sloped down from its peak height. Chris added that he was concerned about the potential for the proposed dwellings to overlook existing dwellings, and stated his concerns regarding the ground and building contaminants.

Andrew Bandosz, Agent, spoke in favour of the application. He stated that the Case Officer’s report had detailed and addressed many of the concerns raised by the Town Council and residents. Andrew added that the proposed development sought to redevelop a former scrapyard, replacing it with 17 residential dwellings. Andrew stated that removal of the contaminated and polluted concrete and earth was positive in planning terms. Andrew added that a scrapyard was not recommended to be situated within a residential area, however there were existing planning rights on the site for extended hours of use as a scrapyard due to the age of site. Andrew stated that the proposed development would be situated within a sustainable urban location, would not harm the local area and was in line with the NPPF.

Abdul Loyes, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the former use of the site as a scrapyard could have contaminates the site. He added that he was not aware of any tests to identify potential contaminants that had been carried out. Abdul stated that there were flood risks associated with the site, and the proposed development could exacerbate this issue for the surrounding area. Abdul asked that should the application be approved, that appropriate soil (contaminant) testing be conducted and a flood prevention scheme implemented.

Simon Taylor, Case Officer, clarified a number of points raised by speakers. He stated that the height of the proposed dwellings were higher than other properties in the area, however they were deemed to be acceptable and would not be overdevelopment. Regarding contamination of the site, Simon stated that limited testing could currently be completed as the majority of the site was concrete based. He added that safe disposal of contaminated waste was conditioned. Simon stated that additional details regarding the drainage plans for the site would be submitted at a later date and were conditioned. Simon stated that the site was currently vacant and was therefore not producing noise. He added that there was planning permission to continue its use as a scrapyard. Simon stated that a construction management plan would be implemented to minimise noise and disruption during construction, and that the noise levels from residential use were deemed to be acceptable.

Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the parking provisions at the proposed development met the Council’s parking standards, and that the site was estimated to generate approximately nine vehicle movements during peak hours which was deemed acceptable.

Bill Soane stated that a large perimeter fence could be constructed to help obscure possible overlooking to existing properties.

Bill Soane queried whether the concrete base of the site would be disposed of, and whether the sewer below the proposed development could cause any issues. In response Connor Corrigan, Service Manager for Strategic Development Locations and Planning Delivery, stated that any contaminated concrete would be disposed of after testing. Connor stated that the sewer could be potentially moved by Thames Water if it affected development and was suitable to do so. Simon Taylor added that a £60,000 budget had been allocated by the developer for the removal of the existing concrete at the proposed development site.

The Committee made it clear that they were concerned with the lack of affordable housing provision at the proposed development. Connor Corrigan stated that an independent viability assessment had been carried out, which took in to account expenses such as demolition and safe disposal of contaminated waste. Connor added that this assessment had been conducted by a specialist and had been thoroughly checked. Officers relied on this professional assessment to make a decision. The assessment concluded that the developer would make approximately 10% profit on the proposed development, which was low compared to most developments and therefore it was not viable to provide affordable housing on site.

Carl Doran stated that the National Planning Policy Guidance stated that a viability assessment (or an executive summary thereof) should be published publically. Mary Severin, Borough Solicitor, stated that the assessment was conducted by a professional in that field, and that confidential financial information could form a part of the assessment, which could affect future contracts for the developer. Simon Taylor stated that Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC) review of the assessment had been published online, however the applicant’s initial report had not. Carl Doran was of the opinion that this was contrary to the NPPF.

Malcolm Richards queried whether the developer could have provided a smaller percentage of on-site affordable housing than the standard 30%. Connor Corrigan stated that the assessment concluded that the profits would fall under the accepted rate of return, which allowed the developer to make a case that they could not afford to provide any affordable housing.

Bill Soane queried whether there was room for emergency vehicles to access the proposed development. Judy Kelly stated that there were no concerns that vehicles such as fire response vehicles would not be able to access the site.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether the roads would be adopted by WBC. Judy Kelly stated that the roads would be built to an adoptable standard, but that it was the developer’s decision as to whether they became adopted roads or not.

Members reiterated their concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing provisions within the proposed development. Connor Corrigan clarified that a professional viability assessment had been carried out and had concluded that the development site was not financially viable for the developer to provide affordable housing.

Angus Ross suggested that Bill Soane’s request for additional fencing height be conditioned. Connor Corrigan stated that boundary treatment was already a consideration and conditioned, and added that this would be revised and agreed by the Head of Development Management, the Chair of Planning Committee and the Ward Members when finalised.

RESOLVED: That application 180988 be approved, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in agenda pages 122 to 136, amended conditions 2, 10, 23, 31 and additional conditions 36 and 37 as set out in the Members’ Update, and the condition of boundary treatment being agreed by the Head of Development Management, the Chair of Planning Committee and the Ward Members when finalised.