Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning application for the proposed erection of 1 no. 4 Bedroom detached house and 2 no. 3 Bedroom semi-detached houses with associated parking, access and landscaping.

Applicant: Hicks Development Ltd.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 17 to 44.

The Committee were advised that the Members Update included:

·           Clarification to paragraph 8;

·           Inclusion of Table 1 to paragraph 24.

Rosemary Cook, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Rosemary stated that Earley Town Council had concerns over the height of the proposed dwellings and the impact on the SULV which the development would take place within. Rosemary added that there were also concerns over the maintenance of the buffer on the eastern size of the development.

Jenny Lissaman, on behalf of the Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. Jenny stated that TB22 set out the Site of Urban Landscape Value (SULV) for the Bulmershe area, and added that the proposed development site was situated within it. Jenny commented that there had been a long history of planning applications within the area and its surrounding parts. Jenny stated that Woodley Town Council had made no comments on this application, however Jenny added that this was the case as Woodley Town Council had not been consulted regarding this application. Jenny was of the opinion that the new development would be out of keeping with the character of the area and added that many trees within the garden had been cut down, in addition to a TPOd tree which had been severely ‘pruned’. Jenny felt that the proposed dwellings would overlook the existing properties in the area, would be a case of overdevelopment and would look out of place in the context of the surrounding area. Jenny felt that there was a risk that the access road for this development could be used as a free local car park. Jenny asked that new planting and soft landscaping take place in the separate 10 dwelling development that had been allowed at appeal, as per the S106 agreement. Jenny asked that the Committee carefully consider the impact of this application on the character of the area and the SULV, and subsequently refuse it.

Steve Hicks, Applicant, spoke in favour of the application. Steve stated that a planning application for further development at Addington School had recently been approved whilst also being located within the SULV. Steve stated that the landscape buffer reduced the proposed development’s impact on the SULV and suggested that this buffer would be commuted to Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) for maintenance. Steve stated that no TPOd trees would be removed as part of this application, and added that the proposed dwellings were no higher than those of properties found on Pitts Lane. Steve stated that landscaping would be provided and a commuted sum for affordable housing contributions formed part of this application. Steve commented that each of the proposed dwellings would now comply with all amenity standards and would be situated within an area of high housing demand and would provide a social house in addition to an off-site commuted sum.

Shirley Boyt, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Shirley stated that the site fell within the SULV and development within said SULV was contrary to the local plan. Shirley stated that she was concerned with the proximity of plot 3 to a TPOd tree and added that another TPOd tree had already been ‘decimated’. Shirley stated that the SULV was a valuable community asset which could not continue to be encroached upon.

The Committee were reminded that issues regarding lack of internal amenity space and lack of affordable housing had now been addressed, and the Committee should therefore consider the impact of the proposed development on the SULV and impact on TPOd trees.

Carl Doran commented that contrary to the report, the proposed development was in fact in the SULV, in addition to being visible from Bulmershe Park. Carl added that more needed to be done in future to protect the SULV from development. Carl queried how TPOd trees would be protected, referring to how one such tree had been severely ‘pruned’. Carl queried whether a landscape and visual impact assessment had been undertaken, and commented that the proposed dwellings would be of significantly larger scale than the bungalow opposite.

Senjuti Manna, Case Officer, clarified that the previously refused application included two TPOd trees that were within the garden boundary, this had been rectified within the current application and the majority of the root protection area now sat outside of the residential curtilage, in addition, any work carried out to TPOd trees was reviewed and approved by Council Officers. Senjuti stated that a buffer of 37m to the SULV was present within this application, in comparison to a buffer of 20m that was allowed at appeal for a nearby application. Senjuti clarified that that the height of each dwelling had been reduced by approximately 1.35m compared to the previously refused application, which made each dwelling of a lesser scale than those allowed by an inspector at the nearby Hitch Hill Close development. Senjuti stated that although no official landscape and visual impact assessment had been undertaken, a landscape Officer had reviewed the proposals and had no objections to the application, subject to conditions.    

Pauline Jorgensen raised further concerns regarding the impact on the SULV should this application be approved. Pauline queried what would be done regarding the existing fencing at the proposed development site. Senjuti Manna clarified that the existing fencing would be removed and further planting would take place. Senjuti added that this would open up the SULV to the public, considering it was currently private, and would help to deter anti-social behaviour as the proposed dwellings would be able to overlook this area.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that the proposals should be considered within the context of the existing area, taking in to account the changed environment of the allowed 10 dwellings. Andrew added that the proposed double storey dwellings would be out of character with the single storey bungalow opposite.

Stephen Conway was of the opinion that the proposed benefit of the removal of the fence and the opening of the SULV to the public compared to the erection of 3 dwellings, was a matter of judgement and subjective.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that in the light of the allowed 10 dwellings for a nearby development, it would be difficult to refuse this application and the chance of a successful appeal by the applicant should the application be refused was high, thereby costing the Council money.

Angus Ross commented that the Committee needed to resolve how prejudicial this development would be to the SULV, taking in to account the previously allowed 10 dwelling development nearby. Simon Weeks added that the Committee needed to decide whether the development would be significantly detrimental to the SULV and surrounding area in the context of the existing character of the area, looking only at the application proposals in front of them.

Pauline Jorgensen queried what precedent would be set should the application be approved, and asked what the status of the buffer land would be. Simon Weeks clarified that the buffer land would be transferred to the Council should the application be approved. 

RESOLVED That application 191011 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 18 to 24, and clarifications added within the Members’ Update.