Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal

Simon weeks declared a prejudicial interest in this item and took no part in the discussion nor vote.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of four x 1 no. bedroom flats with associated bin/cycle store, access, parking and amenity space

Applicant: Wokingham Area Housing Society

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 47 to 92.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Clarification that the summary report on agenda page 50 incorrectly suggested that the submission received from Wyse Hill Farm was in support of the application, and whilst the submission was reviewed, its contents were inadvertently omitted from the officer report. The points raised and officer comment was included within the update;

·           Comment that the Council’s Drainage Officer has since reviewed the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and raised objection on the grounds that the applicant had made an assumption for the infiltration rate, which was considered to be unacceptable.

Jim Bailey, Agent, spoke in support of the application. Jim stated that the applicant was a local charitable trust which provided affordable housing for Wokingham residents. Jim added that the proposals provided four affordable rent houses for locals on gifted land, and there was a proven need for affordable units in the area. Jim stated that the applicant was disappointed to see a recommendation of refusal for this application due to the location of a mature tree on site. Jim added that other sites with similar specimens had been managed successfully using appropriate construction methods. Jim stated that veteran classification of trees were carried out by volunteers, and the applicant had no desire to damage the mature tree on site, and instead wished to work to protect the specimen and improve its wellbeing. Jim added that the amenity space provided should be sufficient, especially in the context of the surrounding green land and proximity to the Finchampstead memorial hall. Jim stated that the applicant was happy to enter a legal agreement regarding provision of affordable housing, and added that a no dig construction condition could also be added to protect the tree specimen. Jim concluded by commenting that the application would provide affordable housing and employment during a time of recession.

Simon Weeks, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. Simon stated that the Wokingham Area Housing Society already provided affordable housing for a number of local residents in the local area, and the land for this application was donated by a local family for affordable housing for local residents. Simon added that there was an established need for affordable housing in the area, and the proposal was supported by Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) affordable housing team. Simon stated that the applicant’s tree expert with 50 years’ experience disagreed with the classification of the specimen tree as ‘veteran’, as did the Inspector of a recent appeal decision who deemed a veteran tree to be of 4.7m girth or greater and include signs of decay or damage. Simon added that the subject tree had a girth of 3.5m, and did not show signs of decay or damage. Simon stated that the damage as suggested by WBC officers was unquantified potential damage, and only a small protection of the root protection area would be covered by the proposed parking. Simon concluded by stating that the proposal would provide much needed local affordable housing, and the proposal was located in close proximity to the Finchampstead memorial park and was situated within a green setting.

Chris Hannington, Trees and Landscape Manager, stated that the specimen tree was a veteran tree, and the Inspector in Finchampstead was misled and incorrect. Chris added that he had confirmed with the editor of the Ancient and Veteran Tree Management Guidance, Dr David Lonsdale, that 3.7m girth was the correct measurement for a veteran tree. Chris added that the tree appeared on the Ancient Tree Inventory, and was in his opinion clearly a veteran tree.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried why lack of affordable housing was given as a reason for the recommended refusal. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that this was a formality as Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) did not enter into legal agreements where the recommendation was to refuse, as this was costly.

Gary Cowan commented that affordable housing would be a huge benefit to the local community, and stated that if a tree was of significant characteristic then it was worth protecting. Gary added that he would support mitigating measures relating to construction in order to protect the welfare of the tree. Simon Taylor stated that there was a dispute on where the root protection area was situated. Simon added that the applicant was proposing a ‘no-dig’ construction solution, however the harm to the tree was deemed to be so significant regardless of this solution that officers had recommended refusal.

Chris Hannington commented that the applicant’s arborist had stated his opinion that the root protection area passed under the road and across a ditch. However, WBC officers were of the opinion that the root protection area was offset to the south by the road and ditch and therefore lied further to the south to accommodate for the road. Chris added that the applicant’s root protection area was marked as a rectangle and did not comply with standards as the area should be clearly marked as a circle as this was the way roots tended to grow. Chris stated that the default position in the standard was that no structure should be located in the root protection area and it defined ‘structure’ to include paths and carriageways so a parking area is a ‘structure’. Chris stated that in his opinion harm would be caused by the proposed application. Chris added that a buffer area of fifteen times the diameter of the tree at 1.5m above ground level, which equated to 18.7m, should also be included as per Planning Policy Guidance. This area would include part of the building and the development would therefore cause damage to the tree and its value. Chris stated that mitigation measures were possible, however the development would still go against government guidance and the NPPF as there were no compensational strategy or wholly acceptable reason such as a national infrastructure project to depart from policy. Chris added that British standards dictated that no construction should take place within a root protection area as a minimum in order to protect any tree. Chris stated that the NPPF noted that veteran trees were irreplaceable, and that penetration of water that permeated through the soil was essential for trees in order to provide nutrients and permeation of oxygen was also essential. Chris added that the proposal did not allow for a buffer zone as required in Planning Policy Guidance.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether a form of grasscrete paving would be present with the proposed parking area to allow for some water to permeate the soil, sought clarification regarding the boundary relationship between the proposed development site and Wyse Hill Farm, queried whether there were any other criteria for a rural exception site apart from the need to adjoin an existing settlement boundary and demonstrating a genuine need for affordable housing in the locality, sought clarification as to why the site was discounted within the Local Plan Update, and queried what the potential practical problems were for the site and surrounding properties should issues regarding the infiltration rate be realised. Chris Hannington clarified that there were permeable paving solutions, however these could not be used where a building was to be built, and the parking, bridge and some of the proposed building fell within the British Standards area. Simon Taylor clarified that the application site did not immediately adjoin the boundary of Wyse Hill Farm. Simon added that a rural exception site primarily focussed on the site adjoining an existing settlement, and the demonstration of the localised need via a sequential test and through a housing needs survey, which this site met. Simon stated that this site formed a small portion of a much wider site that was excluded from the Local Plan Update. Therefore, the site was considered using a sequential test but excluded as the overall site was larger than what was required. Simon stated that infiltration tests had not been carried out at present, and the drainage officer had requested additional information, however it was felt that pre-commencement requirements could resolve this concern.

Malcolm Richards commented that a form of gravelling or grasscrete could potentially be used on the driveway or parking areas to allow water permeation. Malcolm added that there was a need for more affordable housing in this area, and this small development appeared to create potential harm to a tree rather than definitive harm. Chris Hannington stated that in his opinion there would be harm caused to the tree, and any gravelling or grasscrete would only assist in water permeation where the ground levels were suitable and not where a building was proposed. Chris reiterated that the root protection area was more situated towards the south of the road as the tree would have grown its roots to mitigate for the road area.

Angus Ross commented that many of the issues had changed since the report was compiled, and had only been clarified on the evening by the Trees and Landscape Manager. Angus added that he could not support the application as it stood on the evening, however it was a good principal and it was the responsibility of the applicant to come forward and show that harm would not be caused to the tree specimen.

Chris Bowring queried whether the tree could cause damage to the new building if approved. Chris Hannington stated that oak trees were typically a thirsty species, and foundations would need to be appropriately constructed to ensure that no damage could be caused.

Chris Hannington commented that the proposed development would not cause an issue to the tree if the built form  was located further away, and ground penetrating radar surveys were carried out to show where the roots were situated, ensuring that they were not underneath any proposed structures (as defined in the British Standard)

Abdul Loyes sought clarification that the British Standard buffer zone would overlap with the proposed building. Chris Hannington confirmed that there would be some overlap, and therefore harm would be caused to the tree under current proposals.

Carl Doran queried what form of affordable housing would be provided, queried what form of affordable housing was asked for via the housing needs survey, and sought clarification as to why parking was now acceptable after being made unallocated. Simon Taylor stated that the properties would be affordable rent in perpetuity, and there was a need for four one-bedroom units in the area. Simon added that the lower height and footprint of the proposals fitted better within the area, and parking was now policy compliant as in theory the spaces would not be made unavailable as they were not assigned and had different trip generation rates.

Carl Doran sought clarification that the proposed building work would cause deterioration of the tree. Chris Hannington confirmed that in his opinion the tree would deteriorate in condition should the proposals go ahead. Chris added that under policy the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that harm would not be caused to the tree.

Rachelle Shepherd-Dubey was of the opinion that affordable housing was a priority in most cases, and added that permeable paving could help mitigate any harm to the tree. Chris Hannington reiterated that the root protection area was partly situated under the proposed building, whereby permeable paving would not be a solution. In addition Chris Hannington pointed out that as well as the British Standard minimum root protection area there was a need to have a buffer zone as required by the Planning Policy Guidance and that this should not include garden space.

Chris Bowring proposed that the application be deferred to allow for the applicant to carry out further investigative work in relation to the protected tree. This was seconded by Angus Ross.

RESOLVED That application number 201566 be deferred, to allow for the applicant to carry out further investigative work in relation to the protected tree.