Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal

Andrew Mickleburgh declared a prejudicial interest in this item, and in doing so left the room and took no part in the discussion or vote.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a food store (Use Class E), 43 no. dwellings (Use Class C3) and associated access,

servicing, parking and landscaping.

Applicant: Lower Earley Properties Ltd.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 43 to 118.

The Committee were advised that the Supplementary Planning Agenda included reference to an additional letter of objection from Jigsaw Planning on behalf of ASDA, requesting two additional reasons for refusal, and reference to the existing officer responses within the report.

Geoff Littler, Earley Town Council, spoke in objection of the application. Geoff stated that the Earley Town Council Planning Committee had considered this application on two occasions, June 2021 and October 2021. Geoff stated that each of the reasons for refusal had been voted on separately by the Town Council Planning Committee, and were all agreed unanimously. Geoff added that the current development plan clearly showed that the land of the subject application was designated as countryside, was not allocated for development, and was outside of the development boundary. Geoff stated that the policy CP11 afforded protection from development to land within that designation as countryside, unless it fell within specified exceptions, which in this case the application did not fall within any of those exceptions. Geoff stated that this parcel of land had remained in its natural state since the inception of Lower Earley, with exception to some partial degradation when the developer undertook some scrub clearance. Geoff added that within the first iteration of the Local Plan Update, this land had been put forward as local green space, and it had been proposed once more for consideration as local green space within the current consultation of the Local Plan Update.

Malcolm Gaudreau, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Malcolm stated that he had lived in the area for 34 years, and his property was side on to Swallows Meadow via the gated entrance. Malcolm added that 358 objections had been received, and since the inception of Lower Earley Swallows Meadow had been an open green space, without a lock or prohibition of access, and the grass had been maintained over time. Malcolm stated that many different species were present on the site, including deer, badger, and muntjac deer. Malcolm stated that vehicles regularly exceeded the speed limit on the road, and the addition of a supermarket could lead to serious accidents. Malcolm added that the proposals would only add to existing congestion issues on the road, whilst the effects of the proposals would be devastating for residents of Witcham Close via additional noise, light, vehicle emissions and HGV movements in addition to a loss of privacy and a reduction in house prices. Malcolm stated that flooding was already an issue in the area, and the proposals would only add to this issue. Malcolm concluded by stating there was not the need for an additional supermarket in the area, whereas green spaces within Earley were at a premium.

Andy Jansons, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Andy stated that Jansons property had developed 25 properties within the Thames Valley over the past 19 years, including an application in 2014 for a project on Peach Street and Cross Street which also had a recommendation for refusal which the Committee overturned at the time. Andy added that Lower Earley Properties was a wholly owned subsidiary of Jansons property, and the proposals would include 43 houses, forty percent social housing, and a pre-let supermarket to Lidl. Andy stated that the application had received 600 letters of support, and the land was privately owned via a freehold purchased from the University of Reading. Andy was of the opinion that the site was an edge of settlement development, bounded by two roads being Lower Earley Way and Meldreth Way, was not within the greenbelt and was an obvious in-fill site. Andy commented that officer feedback and the timing of the feedback had been challenging, including a refusal reason for detrimental impact on acoustic amenity despite no objection from the environmental health officer, and a recommended refusal from highways as neither the applicant nor highways officers have had sufficient time to deal with the issues. Andy stated that he hoped that planning applications would be dealt with on their merits and not on technical issues, and asked that the application be deferred to allow time for technical issues to be resolved prior to returning to the Committee.

David Hare, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. David stated that he lived less than half a mile away from the site, and there were a variety of reasons for refusal of this application. David added that his main concern was that this piece of land was a designated countryside area, and Earley Town Council had asked for this land to be designated as local green space prior to this application being submitted. David stated that the idea of including this site as part of a larger nature reserve corridor was being considered, and the retention of the site was crucial for biodiversity and as a carbon sink. David stated that this site was a valuable part of Earley which allowed local residents to make use of the footpaths on the site and enjoy the surrounding nature. David commented that part of the site had been destroyed by the applicant, however many trees were now subject to a TPO. David added that badgers, foxes, bats and many other animals could be found on the site, and a very valuable scrubland was found on the site where the housing was proposed. David concluded by stating that the application should be refused, and reiterated the importance for local residents, wildlife and biodiversity in retaining the site in its natural state.

Clive Jones, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Clive stated that his constituents had never expected this to be an application for development as it was a designated countryside area. Clive felt that the proposal for a supermarket would be overbearing and would dominate the views of local houses whilst creating unacceptable noise throughout the day all-the-while having a detrimental impact on the area with several homes losing their acoustic privacy and amenity. Clive stated that a social media survey undertaken by himself and colleagues revealed that 82% of residents did not want improved retail choices in Earley whilst 79% did not want new homes. Clive added that the planning documents showed 57 respondents in favour of the proposals, whilst 24 of those did not live in the Earley (RG6) area, whilst of the 358 objectors on 6 of them did not live in the Earley area. Clive urged the Committee to refuse this application, as it was an unacceptable development within the countryside which have a detrimental effect on local residents within the area.

Chris Bowring sought clarification regarding the height of the supermarket compared to the height of the residential dwellings. Senjuti Manna, case officer, confirmed that the proposed supermarket would be lower than the height of the residential dwellings. However, the height of the residential houses would be significantly higher than the height of the houses within the existing estate.

Chris Bowring queried how no objection from the environmental health officer was compatible with a refusal reason on the grounds of noise. Senjuti Manna stated that the environmental health officer had reviewed the noise report supplied by the applicant which was assessed during lockdown when there was a significantly reduced volume of traffic. Whilst no objection was lodged, a number of pre-commencement conditions were requested. Taking all of this into account, officers believed that noise disturbance would be caused to neighbouring properties as set out within the officer report.

Angus Ross commented that in his view applications such as this one should always be referred to the Committee to allow the public to see the process being carried out. Angus queried why the economic impact on other retail in the area was not considered a viable reason for refusal, and queried whether a caveat could be placed on the Committee’s eventual decision to allow further discussions to take place between Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) and the applicant, as the expiry date of the application was 15 December 2021. Senjuti Manna stated that the applicant had provided a sequential test in addition to a retail impact assessment, and based on these documents they had demonstrated that there was no alternative site. Officers queried the reports as there was a site already included in policy CP12, however the applicant stated that this was not part of their catchment. Senjuti commented that there were a number of reasons why the application would not be acceptable in principle, for example development within the countryside, and as such a deferral would not address these in-principle reasons for refusal. Chris Bowring commented that some reasons for refusal, for example highways issues, could be removed should the applicant appeal a refusal decision and those issues were subsequently resolved

Sam Akhtar commented that he would have liked to have seen a biodiversity net gain report for this application. Sam raised concerns relating to noise pollution for local residents and additional risk of serious accidents due to the movement of HGV vehicles.

Bill Soane had concerns in relation to noise and vehicle movements, and HGV movements, and questioned whether delivery timings could be conditioned should the Committee be minded to approve the application. Bill added that in his experience, refrigeration equipment was quiet when new however grew increasingly loud as the equipment aged.

Pauline Jorgensen stated that the site was a clear continuation of a green band along the peripheral road, and many of the houses proposed would be situated very close to the main road with a minimal gap. The main road was often noisy with people racing on it, whilst the road was also used as a primary diversion route when the M4 was closed which only make the noise impact on the proposed houses worse. Pauline stated that she had huge sympathy for residents who purchased a property with a large area of open space designated as countryside, who were now facing the prospect of a large supermarket being situated next to them, which would pull a lot of traffic and vehicle movements from outside of the Earley area.

Carl Doran commented that other such major applications recommended for refusal with a large amount of objections should come to Committee in future. Carl queried why this portion of land had not been transferred to WBC as per the original agreement of the Lower Earley development. Senjuti Manna stated that officers had investigated this issue and whilst not being able to ascertain the specifics, the land had not been handed to WBC in time and time had now run out to enforce this. Senjuti commented that this application had come to Committee as it had been listed by the Assistant Director for Place, whilst the application was brought to the attention of the Chairman given the considerable amount of objections and support.

Carl Doran commented that the application had seen a lot of support outside of the Earley area, whilst the leaflet distributed by the applicant only offered the opportunity to show support for provision of a new supermarket. Carl added that the habitat survey had been carried out after some of the area was felled, and in his opinion there was no essential need for a food store. Carl stated that the site was part of a green corridor, and approval of this application would set a dangerous precedent for development on other parts of the green corridor, whilst at least four of the refusal reasons would not be able to be overcome via negotiations, as they were strictly contrary to policy.

Pauline Jorgensen queried when the opportunity to enforce the transfer of the land elapsed, and queried why highways issues had not been resolved despite having around a year to negotiate. Senjuti Manna stated that the opportunity to enforce the transfer ended around 1999. Senjuti added that other options, or example an injunction, were possible and were being explored by officers. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and Compliance, stated that some of the highways information had only arrived two days prior to the Committee meeting and left officers with no time to thoroughly review the information. Justin Turvey, Operational Manager – Development Management, stated that the officer recommendation of refusal would likely remain irrespective of the highways issues being resolved due to the in-principle reasons for refusal remaining.

RESOLVED That application number 211686 be refused for the reasons set out in agenda pages 45 to 47.

Andrew Mickleburgh re-joined the meeting.