Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Reserved Matters application pursuant to Outline planning permission VAR/2014/0624) (a variation of O/2010/1432) for the erection of 25 dwellings, 134.5m2 of Class A1-A5 floorspace including access roads, parking spaces, open space and landscape treatment. (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be considered)

Applicant: Bloor Homes Ltd., Bovis Homes Ltd. and Linden (Shinfield) LLP

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 125 to 200.

The Committee were advised that the updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda included:

·           A further objection received from Shinfield Parish Council on 8 October 2021;

·           Amendments to conditions 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Conditions 10 and 14 had been deleted, and as such condition 11, 12 and 13 became conditions 10, 11, and 12, and conditions 15 and 16 became conditions 13 and 14.

Nick Paterson-Neild, planning consultant, spoke in support of the application. Nick stated he was speaking on behalf of the consortium, and they were delighted that this reserved matters application had been recommended for approval. Nick added that the application formed part of the local centre within the SDL in Shinfield, which was granted outline planning permission in 2012 for up to 1200 homes and supporting uses, and this application formed one of the final phases of this important development. Nick stated that the local centre was community focussed and had been positively shaped via pre-application and public consultation processes, and was in accordance with the approved local centre development brief. Nick added that the scale, type, and density of the development was appropriate and would provide for a vibrant and attractive local centre which complement the approved community building and care home. The consortium was working closely with a potential food store operator, Lidl, to deliver a food store. The proposals had been carefully planned and amended to ensure that the operator of the food store and its future delivery were not compromised. Nick stated that the proposals would deliver 25 homes, including 6 affordable units, which was an overprovision of affordable homes when considered across the allocation of the outline site as a whole. Nick added that the site would include flexible retail space to meet local needs, a public plaza which would prioritise pedestrians, high quality landscape and green infrastructure, energy demand reduction via a fabric first approach, 19 passive and 4 active electric charging points, and space to provide a food store in the future. Nick felt that this site was in an extremely sustainable location, and supported the officer’s recommendation of approval.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether photovoltaic panels would be installed as part of this application, and queried whether the electric vehicle points would be upgradeable to any future standards. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager - Planning and Delivery, stated that the outline application was approved prior to the requirement for ten percent energy generation, and therefore the proposals were policy compliant. Connor added that building regulations would contain sustainability measures. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that the electric vehicle charging infrastructure would consist of the latest infrastructure available.

Carl Doran queried why the bus gate had been removed, queried why there was only affordable flats rather than a mix of affordable flats and affordable houses, and queried where the amenity space was for the proposed flats.  Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage, and Compliance, stated that the bus gates were historic, and where the housing was located there would always be traffic in that location. Chris added that the model had been re-run, and had deemed that there was no significant benefit to the bus gate remaining and in any case it would be hard to police. Simon Taylor stated that the delivery of affordable houses had changed over time, and there was now a demand for affordable flats. Simon stated that the amenity space was located to the north of the site was intended to be used. Simon added that the flats would be dual aspect, with Juliet balconies and good south facing aspects which would reduce the necessity for ground level amenity space. Simon commented that this was not a departure from policy, as these were only guidelines.

Stephen Conway queried why the number of retail units had been reduced over time. Connor Corrigan stated that a considerable amount of work had gone in to planning this development, and part of the site had been safeguarded for a supermarket. Connor added that the retail market had changed substantially over the past ten years, and one retail unit and a supermarket was a much better fit in the current climate. Connor stated that whilst the supermarket would be slightly smaller than agreed, the operator had standard supermarket formats and would therefore meet the needs of the community.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried why the application for the food store had not been considered as part of this application, queried what officers envisaged the use of the retail unit might be, queried whether additional details should be provided in relation to condition 5 (public art strategy), queried what guarantees were in place to guarantee the accessibility of specific properties in perpetuity, queried whether the residents of the flats would have sufficient allocated car parking space, and sought additional details with regards to the shared section of the roadway within the local centre. Simon Taylor stated that the residential application was ready for consideration whilst the application for the food store was not, and officers could not compel the applicant to bring the applications together. Simon added that the retail unit would have A1 through A5 use classes. Simon stated that public art was considered as part of the SPD but not as part of the outline application. The applicant had agreed to its inclusion within this application, however the details would only come forward with the permission. Simon stated that the intention was to ensure that the dwellings were to M4(2) standards as adaptable dwellings in the future. Chris Easton confirmed that the application met the Council’s car parking standards, including provision for the flats. Chris added that there was allocated provision for the flats within the parking court to the rear. Chris stated that the materials to be used within the local centre would indicate a change in character, with a footpath cycleway running through to create a hub area with four crossing locations. Chris added that the proposals would need to comply with road safety standards, and would be subject to various road safety audits, assessments and technical sign offs both prior to and during construction.

Angus Ross commented that, in his opinion, the proposals may not lead to a town square with only one retail unit. Angus sought additional details regarding the proposed refuse collection points on site. Chris Easton confirmed that the green dots within the provided plans indicated where each property would be served in terms of refuse collection.

RESOLVED That application number 211530 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 126 to 133, and various amendments to conditions and numbering thereof as set out in the Supplementary Planning Agenda.