Agenda item

Application 190990 - 128 Church Road, Earley

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

 

Minutes:

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 6 No residential apartments with associated parking and access following demolition of existing.

 

Applicant: Mr Bal Hans.

 

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 45 to 74.

 

The Committee were advised that the Members Update included:

 

·           Clarification regarding Technical Housing Standards;

·           Clarification that Woodley Town Council did not discuss the application;

·           An additional neighbour comment;

·           Updated response from Earley Town Council that the application should be refused;

·           Correction to Councillor Shirley Boyt’s name;

·           Update to table on agenda page 56;

·           Clarification that images on agenda pages 57 and 69 were duplicates.

 

Rosemary Cook, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Rosemary stated that Earley Town Council had concerns regarding the visual impact of the development on the Site of Urban Landscape Value (SULV). Rosemary added that the SULV was being eroded ‘bit by bit’ and needed protection and commented that Church Road was already very busy with traffic and Earley Town Council had concerns that this development would only add to this problem.

 

Tim Marsh, Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Tim stated that the proposed development site was situated on an exposed corner of the SULV and was therefore sensitive in terms of visual impact on the SULV. Tim added that it was Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) policy to protect the status of the SULV. Tim stated that the existing bungalow was in keeping with the character of the area and was not intrusive. Tim felt that the proposed two storey building would not be effectively screened by the tree to the front of the property, as the tree was deciduous and would not screen the property in the winter months. Tim stated that towards the rear of the development unit 5 was located in an exposed position which would be a prominent feature which would dominate the remaining open area of the SULV. Tim raised concerns over the parking allocation at the proposed development, and felt that the application should be refused as it was not appropriate to the area in which it would be located and was overbearing on the SULV.

 

Paul Butt, Agent, spoke in support of the application. Paul stated that the current scheme had been significantly reduced in scale compared to a previously refused application, with the bulk of the property being reduced. Paul commented that the inspector had no objection to the principle of development, and additional space would be provided at the front of the property for car parking. Paul stated that three outbuildings currently located within the SULV would be demolished as part of the application proposals, and tree planting would take place to provide a softer edge to the SULV. Paul stated that there would be an improved relationship with number 13 Church Road who had posed no objections. Paul concluded by stating that the application would retain the large garden, protect two TPOd trees, provide soft landscaping benefits and provide an affordable housing contribution.

 

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that the proposed development would have a negative visual impact on the SULV, as it would be a large property which would be visible from the boundary fence. Shirley stated that it was unclear whether the existing shrubbery would remain to screen the development, and added that there were mature trees towards the bottom of the garden within the SULV. Shirley raised concerns regarding the parking provision at the proposed development, and asked for clarification regarding the affordable housing contribution.

 

Natalie Jarman, Case Officer, clarified that an off-site commuted sum would be contributed toward affordable housing as part of this application.

 

Carl Doran queried why a landscape visual impact assessment had not been completed for this application, and commented that the proposal was situated within a very prominent area of the SULV.

 

A number of Members raised concerns regarding the size of the property when compared to the existing bungalow. Natalie Jarman clarified that at appeal for the previously refused application the Inspector raised no objections to the principle of redevelopment. Natalie added that the property has a smaller width than the adjacent properties.

 

A number of Members reiterated concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on a prominent part of the SULV. Natalie Jarman stated that a Landscape Officer had raised no objections to the application subject to conditions, and reiterated that the Inspector previously raised no objections to the principle of such a redevelopment at the site.

 

RESOLVED That application 190990 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 46 to 52, and various clarifications and corrections as set out in the Members’ Update. 

Supporting documents: