Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Applicant: Sand Martins Golf Club Limited

Proposal: Full Planning application for the proposed part single, part two

storey side/rear extension to existing clubhouse, erection of a detached Hotel Building comprising 39no. bedrooms, function rooms, kitchen and staff room, with car parking, servicing, associated landscape enhancements and an electrical sub-station.

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 47 to 82.

The Committee were advised that updates contained within the Supplementary Planning agenda included a correction to the Wokingham Town Council comment, which the report mistakenly stated that ‘Pedestrian and cycle access should be approved’, whereas it should have correctly stated ‘improved’.

Peter Edwards, agent, spoke in support of the application. Peter stated that the club owners maintained their unwavering desire to commit to the club despite national lockdowns. An earlier proposal had been withdrawn, and the new design team had been tasked to produce a proposals which would complement the existing golf club, diversify its offer to provide financial resilience, provide facilities which would be beneficial to the wider community, and provide landscaping and ecological requirements. Peter stated that the original golf club had permission for a small hotel, which had kindled the idea for a venue building to be run by the club to be used for weddings, conferences, small functions and exhibitions. This venue building would be supported by high quality guest accommodation, a bar, and breakfast room. Peter stated that a new high quality restraint was proposed adjacent to the clubhouse, accessible to members and the wider community. Peter stated that biodiversity net gains would be achieved across the site, and the proposals were energy efficient ad of a high quality design. Electric vehicle charging and heat pumps would also be provided where possible. Peter concluded by stating that photovoltaic panels would be provided on the clubhouse, and the proposals had been well received by the community.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether two vehicles could pass on the main access route to and from the site, and queried whether a higher BREEAM rating should be applied to this site as very good was the minimum standard for a public building. Mark Croucher, case officer, stated that two vehicles could pass each other on the main access route to the site. Mark added that whilst he was not sure whether this facility constituted a public building, officers could not ask for more than the minimum BREEAM standard. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that condition 22 required the site to meet the BREEAM ‘very good’ standard.

Sam Akhtar queried what was being done to ensure that bats were not adversely affected by the proposed development. Mark Croucher stated that condition 17 related to this, and the ecology officer had looked at this and was satisfied that the development would have an acceptable impact on bats subject to condition 17. A license would also be required from Natural England, which would look further into this issue, and as such officers were confident that adequate protections for bats were in place.

Angus Ross queried whether all vehicles would be required to access the site via the Finchampstead Road, and felt that the number of trees scheduled to be replaced should be stated. Mark Croucher stated that it was not physically possible for vehicles to traverse across the site from Evendons Lane, and therefore all access would be via Finchampstead Road. Mark stated that the recommendation relating to tree replacements was borne out of comments from the applicant’s agriculturalist, however there were no set numbers. There would be numerous replacement trees on site, and officers were satisfied that the planting would be maintained and the woodland planting would be strengthened.

Gary Cowan commented that is was very odd for planning officers to go against the tree officer’s objection to this application. Gary added that he was unsure how many trees would be removed, and felt that a condition should be required to ensure sufficient replacement trees and suitable total foliage replacement. Mark Croucher stated that the recommendation was not contrary to the tree officer’s objection, as officer agreed that there was some harm as a result of the proposals. Mark added that planning officers had to balance any harm against the benefits of the proposals. Mark felt that the landscape management plan was an appropriate way of dealing with the replacement of trees in appropriate locations.

Stephen Conway proposed an additional informative, asking the applicant to replace equivalent tree foliage to that being removed. This proposals was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

RESOLVED That application number 210179 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 48 to 53, and additional informative requesting proportionate tree foliage replacement as resolved by the Committee.