Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 54 units (including 19 affordable homes) with associated access road from St Anne’s Drive, landscaping and open space.

Applicant: Beaulieu Homes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 159 to 242.

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

·           Confirmation that a response of no objection had been received from Natural England;

·           Amended final paragraph on agenda page 159;

·           Insertion of approved plans related to condition 2;

·           Insertion of plan related to condition 19;

·           Insertion of plan related to condition 20;

·           Clarification that agenda page 209 paragraph 63 should refer to “Open Space Typology Plan”;

·           Additional condition 40 in relation to access.

David Stack, neighbour, spoke in objection of the application. David stated that he was speaking on behalf of local residents, and this planning application had been started over 6 years ago, with previous versions being refused and appealed by the developer and eventually withdrawn on the strength of the Council’s recommendation. David added that this application had generated over 300 objections online from local residents. David stated that there were four main reasons for refusing this application, and noted that application 211686 had been refused by the Committee for the same reasons. David added that the application site currently sat within designated countryside, and core strategy CP11 stated that proposals outside of development limits, including within countryside, would not be permitted unless one of the exceptions applied, which David felt that it did not in this case. David stated that the settlement boundary sat outside of the current settlement boundary of Wokingham and failed to demonstrate how it would maintain the separation between Wokingham and Bracknell to prevent harm to the visual amenity of the local area, whilst being contrary to policy CP21 and the South Wokingham strategic development plan. David commented that the strategic development plan clearly showed that the site was not allocated for development and was not part of the South Wokingham SDL plans for housing, and was identified to be open green space to contribute to the settlement separation between Bracknell and Wokingham, and approval of this application would therefore be contrary to the strategic plan. David stated that as of 31 March 2020 Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) was able to demonstrate a 5.23 year housing land supply, whilst three large scale developments had been identified within the Local Plan Update, and as such WBC did not need to approve further small scale developments such as this one, which was contrary to a number of policies and plans.

Kay Collins, agent, spoke in support of the application. Kay stated that the applicant had engaged in positive discussions with WBC officers to makes changes to the proposed scheme with a number of positive benefits. Kay added that the proposals were well contained with a good buffer and would not lead to the coalescence of Wokingham and Bracknell. Kay stated that it was a well planned development of 54 dwellings set within a series of areas of linked open spaces, with access and junctions approved by officers having also past a road safety audit. Kay added that the layout had been significantly amended to achieve an improved relationship with the A329 and residential development to the north, whilst there were more substantial open space areas towards the north and frontage to enable further mitigation and integration with the surrounding landscape. Kay stated that walking and cycle routes were provided to the wider area within the development, which had been missing until now. Kay commented that the development was of a significantly lower density than those of the surrounding sites, with 16 dwellings per hectare compared to an assumed density within the SDL of between 25 and 30 dwellings per hectare. Kay stated that the majority of the proposed dwellings would have between 3 and 4 bedrooms, which was in keeping with the rural interface character area, whilst the affordable housing provision would provide much needed affordable properties with some of the homes being 2 bedrooms to reflect the local need. Kay commented that the site would enable increased connectivity from both Montague Park and allowing better access to the development overall. Kay stated that the development was sustainable, with a number of facilities including primary schools, retail, allotments, a public house and bus stops all within walking distance. The development would provide an overall net gain of trees across the site whilst providing a ten percent biodiversity net gain. Kay added that the site would provide a higher number of electric charging points that was required, whilst the proposals would generate significant levels of CIL and S106 contributions.

Peter Dennis, Ward Member, spoke in objection of the application. Peter was of the opinion that this application should be rejected as the previous version had also been rejected. Peter stated that the proposals sat outside of the Local Planning Document and were situated in an area of open green space. Peter added that the previous application discussed on the evening had been refused for the same reasons that this application, in his opinion, should be refused upon. Peter felt that the presumed use of the already heavily used SANGs, and the destruction of TPOd hedges to provide access to the site was dubious at best. Peter added that use of the existing SANGs would require users to cross a 6 lane main road, which would deter many users. Peter stated that the previous application was refused in part due to a lack of SANG provision, and the site was a gateway entrance to Wokingham providing a good green view into town, and the removal of many trees to provide access to the site would destroy this view. Peter suggested that the site could instead be allowed to re-wild to help meet WBC’s aspiration to become a tree city of the world. Peter stated that the site was rich in wildlife, including deer and slowworms, which would be pressured via the proposed development. Peter added that the sustainable plan would provide money to My Journey, which did not build sustainable travel infrastructure, and to build a pathway into the SANG allocated to Montague Park. Peter added that cars trying to access the site would have to drive out of Wokingham to the A329m and turn back, adding to the merging of Wokingham and Bracknell. Peter concluded by stating that this application was situated in an open green space, outside of the settlement boundary, which would lead to a lack of separation between Wokingham and Bracknell whilst causing parking issues, and residents needed to see WBC acting in the interest of residents by refusing this application.

Carl Doran queried how this application differentiated from its previous iteration and how the previous reasons for refusal could have been overcome, queried what consultation had been carried out, sought clarity regarding the expected number of homes to be delivered within the SDL, and queried whether the proposal was encroaching on the settlement separation gap. Joanna Carter, case officer, stated that the overall number of proposed houses had been reduced whilst an improved infrastructure contribution had now been secured. In addition, the provision of local SANGs would mitigate the impact on the Thames Basin Heath. Garden and amenity space had also been improved, including outside space for owners of apartments. The previous scheme was of greater density, and the newly secured SANG was considered on balance to provide an acceptable buffer between Wokingham and Bracknell. With regards to consultation, Joanna stated that consultation with neighbouring properties had been carried out, however the separate community involvement exercise was outside of this process. Excluding this development, the SDL was expected to deliver approximately 2450 homes. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, stated that the previous scheme was inferior to this scheme, and the SANG to the south of the site was not secured at the time of application, whereas now it was. As the SANG was secured, the application site was no longer required as open space for the South Wokingham SDL, and officers considered that the separation gap between Wokingham and Bracknell would be maintained.

Rebecca Margetts sought clarity as to how the site would be accessed from the main road. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage, and Compliance, stated that the only way to access the site was to enter from the Coppid Beech roundabout and turn left into the site.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether any dangerous manoeuvres could be attempted to access the site via a right turn. Chris Easton stated that a full central island was present outside of the site which would prevent access to the site via a right turn.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether garages and car ports were required to be retained for parking rather than for accommodation, and queried who was responsible for the proposed car parking management strategy and what recourse was available to residents should this not be sufficient. Chris Easton confirmed that all houses would be provided with two car parking spaces and each flat would have one allocated space in addition to a number of unallocated spaces, with some houses having garages in addition to the two car parking spaces with the garages having their permitted development right of conversion to accommodation removed via condition 38. In relation to the parking management strategy, this was there to help manage the car parking on the site. The site may not be adopted by WBC, in which case it would be up to a management company to manage the site, which conformed to WBC parking standards.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried the rationale behind not undertaking any air quality impact monitoring prior to development, queried why the Bracknell Forest SANG was not considered suitable previously, and queried if there were other alternative sites which supported the underlying policy objectives. Joanna Carter stated that the environmental health officer found it acceptable to secure the air quality assessment as a condition at a later stage. In addition, this site was located in a similar location to the Keephatch development, which would be subject to very similar air quality levels. Joanna stated that there was no requirement for a SANG to be adjacent or in a very close proximity to a site, and Natural England had raised no objection subject to agreement from WBC and Bracknell Forest Council who owned the SANG, which had now been agreed, and as such that original reason for refusal no longer applied. Connor Corrigan stated that the SDL plans had allocated land outside of the settlement boundary within the countryside. These sites were considered acceptable as infrastructure came with development, and this was a key difference between sites within an SDL and a windfall site within the countryside.

Gary Cowan was of the opinion that the purpose of an SDL defining an area for development was failing as these defined areas were creeping out under the justification of a nearby SDL. Gary felt that officers should monitor the tree planting strategy at development sites, as large numbers of newly planted trees were not surviving. Gary queried how many trees were being removed, what grade they were, and what they were being replaced by. Joanna Carter stated that stated that 35 trees were proposed to be felled, 19 trees within the north east corner of the site. Alternative access solutions for access were not possible on highways safety grounds. The majority of the trees proposed to be felled were of low value, whilst 3 TPO trees at the access and 7 TPO trees in total were proposed to be felled. Joanna added that only trees with a low or moderate value were proposed to be removed.

Gary Cowan was of the opinion that the application should be refused as it would result in development within designated countryside whilst not satisfying the criteria set out under the Core Strategy.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried how far away a SANG could be to satisfy its purpose, raised concern that some green land was protected whilst others were not, and noted that at a SANG in Winnersh had a very large percentage of the newly planted trees had not survived. Connor Corrigan stated that Natural England allowed SANGs to be situated around 4km to 5km from a site with car parking provision, so long as it was within a reasonable walking distance.

Bill Soane queried whether a signalised right turn in to the proposed site would be possible. Chris Easton clarified that this would not be possible based on the layout and specification of the North Wokingham Distributor Road.

In response to a variety of points from Members, Connor Corrigan stated that the principle of development was accepted for this site as it was located within the wider SDL. Connor added that the land that now had permission for a SANG was previously just a field. The South Wokingham, south of the railway development, relied on that area of SANG to facilitate its development, and as such that area of SANG would remain as green space. Connor stated that the Committee needed to resolve whether the separation gap proposed by officers was wide enough to maintain the clear separation of Wokingham and Bracknell.

Gary Cowan proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that the development failed to demonstrate how it would maintain the separation between Wokingham and Bracknell and prevent harm to the visual amenities of the local area, which was contrary to Core Strategy 21 and the South Wokingham SPD, and would result in the loss of trees which were subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs). This proposal was seconded by Carl Doran, and upon being put to the vote the motion to refuse the application was carried.

RESOLVED That application number 203544 be refused, on the grounds that the development failed to demonstrate how it would maintain the separation between Wokingham and Bracknell and prevent harm to the visual amenities of the local area, which was contrary to Core Strategy 21 and the South Wokingham SPD, and would result in the loss of trees which were subject to tree preservation orders (TPOs).