Recommendation: Conditional Approval subject to legal agreement.

John Jarvis left the room for the duration of this item.

Proposal: Full planning application for the change of use of 21.7ha of land from agricultural use to informal recreational land ( Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace SANG ) and associated infrastructure including pedestrian and vehicle access, a car park, footpath network and landscaping.

Applicant: University of Reading.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 105 to 120.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           An updated set of head terms with regards to the legal agreement;

·           A set of conditions and informatives;

·           An updated part C, ‘Reasons for Refusal’;

·           Clarification that the Parish Council had not provided any further comments on the application.

Nina Sharp, Agent, spoke in support of the application. She stated that the application was for a change of use of 21.7 hectares of agricultural land to a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Nina added that the nearby Langley Mead SANG had a high visitor count and was popular with local residents. Nina stated that the proposed application was situated in flood zones 1, 2 and 3, however Natural England had assessed the overall viability of the land and had deemed it to be acceptable with a variety of ‘must have’ features including a variety of environments, a circular walkway, an easy to access car park and space suitable for dog walking (without leads). Nina added that Natural England had given their full support for the proposed scheme.

Anthony Pollock, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the proposed development site was currently under water due to flooding, and was of the opinion that local residents were becoming increasingly frustrated with local SANGs being placed adjacent to rivers prone to flooding. Anthony added that the river was six foot higher than the base of the land towards the edge of the proposed SANG, and that this stretch of the river had always been prone to overflowing and flooding. Anthony stated that the applicant could not use the land for housing developments, so had instead opted to develop the land as a SANG. Anthony was of the opinion that the proposed 13 car parking spaces were insufficient, and that local residents needed a much higher quality SANG provision in the area.

Connor Corrigan, Service Manager for Strategic Development Locations and Planning Delivery, responded to a number of points raised by the speakers. He stated that it was acknowledged that the proposed development site was prone to flooding (being in flood zones 2 and 3) however this was acceptable as the SANG would not be in constant use especially during times of more extreme weather and had links to a wider SANG. Connor added that the site had a one in twenty year flood level, and acknowledged that some of the footpaths and part of the proposed car park would flood in ‘extreme’ events. Connor stated that flooding was accepted to occur on the site and that Natural England supported to proposals to create the SANG in a semi-rural setting with links to a wider SANG. With regards to car parking, Connor stated that people were not encouraged to drive to SANGs as they were designed to meet the needs of local residents in surrounding housing developments. He added that the proposed parking plans were supported by Natural England.

A number of Members were concerned with the flooding risks associated with the proposed site and queried how much of the site would be available for use throughout the year. Connor Corrigan stated that it was very difficult to calculate how much the site would flood in the future (citing 2013/14 being an extremely heavy rainfall year where most of the site was flooded for example), but stated that the vast majority of the site should be useable during a normal year, most of the year-round. Connor added that at least half of the land should be useable even during times of flooding, reiterating that this was subject to the specific weather pattern of that year with conditions being worse during the winter.

Wayne Smith queried whether the proposed SANG was based on the original strategic development location (SDL) housing number, or the increased number as result of appeal. Connor Corrigan stated that the proposed SANG was sufficient for the proposed housing developments that would form a part of the SDL and would also provide capacity for future housing provision.

Carl Doran queried why the SANG was proposed to be developed in two phases. Connor Corrigan stated that the SANG would come forward in a two phased approach to accommodate more potential housing developments in the future. He added that the Council had an obligation to judge each proposed scheme on its own merits.

Angus Ross stated that the proposed SANG was in addition to other open spaces for public use. He felt that the benefit of this scheme was to promote walking to a local SANG rather than travelling to an area such as the Thames Basin Heath. Angus added that a large quantity of car parking was not necessary for the proposed SANG as it was intended to be used by local residents (predominantly arriving at the SANG on foot).

In response to Member queries regarding whether this application was linked to agenda item 73, Mary Severin (Borough Solicitor) stated that agenda item 73 required a SANG as a condition of development. Mary emphasised that the application for the SANG stood alone on its own merits. Mary stated that agenda item 73 and 74 were linked in practical terms, however they were not linked in planning terms.

The drainage consultant on behalf of the applicant stated that the site was currently flooded, however during a normal year the vast majority of phase one of the proposed SANG would remain dry. He added that the footpaths would be useable the majority of the time and mechanisms such as board walks could be used in more flooding prone areas to elevate the footpaths.

Wayne Smith proposed that the application be deferred so that a site visit could be conducted to assess the current flooding issues on the site. This was seconded by Carl Doran and upon being put to a vote the motion fell.

Connor Corrigan reiterated to the Committee that Natural England had supported the application after assessing the flooding risk, the land around the proposed SANG and other features of the land. He added that the majority of the footpaths, which include those connecting into the adjacent SANG, would be outside of the flood zones and would remain useable.

Angus Ross stated that this SANG would be an expansion of the existing SANG, and added that parts of the proposed SANG would be further away from the flood zone than the existing Loddon SANG.

Mary Severin asked the Planning Officer to explain the likely outcomes at appeal, should the application be refused. Connor Corrigan was of the opinion that Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) would have very little chance of defending a refusal decision for this application at appeal based on flooding risks, as flooding was intermittent and Natural England should have assessed the risks from the information submitted as part of the application and they supported the proposal. Connor added that there would be significant costs made payable by WBC should a refusal decision be overturned at appeal.

Chris Bowring queried what could be done if the SANG became unsuitable after a period of time. Connor Corrigan stated that appropriate action could be taken, as not doing so would be contrary to European Regulations.

Malcolm Richards queried who would be liable for costs to make the SANG fit for purpose should it be deemed not up to standard after some time. Connor Corrigan stated that the applicant would be liable for the costs as they would be managing it.

Wayne Smith proposed that the application be refused, based on insufficient information presented to the Committee regarding flooding issues and the usability of the land for SANG during flood events. This was seconded by Carl Doran.

Upon being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED: That application 181631 be refused, based on insufficient information presented to the Committee regarding flooding issues, and the usability of the land for SANG during flood events.