Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of 2 no. three bedroom dwellings with associated parking, following demolition of the existing dwellinghouse.

Applicant: David and Carol Row

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 57 to 92.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Andy McKinnon, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Andy stated that the road where access was proposed was not adopted, and residents paid for the upkeep of the road. Andy added that there was no footpath to the property as shown within the planning documentation, where a grassed area was situated. Andy stated that residents’ main objection was in relation to the increased construction traffic which had never been planned for in addition to increased vehicle movements via the creation of two properties which could accommodate 5 vehicles.

Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, commented that condition 4 required a construction management plan in the event of approval of the application.

Bill Soane stated that construction vehicles parked on Colemans Moor Road during the development at the rear which had caused chaos, and residents feared that this may continue with the approval of this application. Bill added that the bus stop had been moved during the construction phase of the development to the rear of the application, and queried whether this could occur should approval be granted for this application. Bill queried how construction vehicles would access the proposed site. Chris Easton, Head of Transport, Drainage and, Compliance, stated that the development to the rear was much larger in scale which resulted in the bus stop being temporarily relocated. Chris stated that rights of access to the private road was a civil matter, and added that construction management was secured by condition.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether there was any significance to the 3^rd room being classed as a study rather than as a bedroom. Baldeep Pulahi stated that all rooms including the study met space requirements for a bedroom, and it was not reasonable to condition the room to be kept as a study. Baldeep added that the scheme in front of the Committee was based off of the plans as submitted. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, stated that the studies could be converted into a bedroom, and the properties had sufficient car parking to meet the standards should the applicant or future owners wish to do so.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey suggested that the future owners strongly consider joining the association to contribute to the upkeep of the road, should the application be approved.

Stephen Conway commented that the planning application was for two dwellings, and access to a private road was a civil matter. Stephen added that the Committee had to judge the application based on its planning merits.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) could be challenged by the owners of the private road for granting planning permission where access was not controlled by WBC, and queried what was meant by the statement that notice (certificate B) had been served to the developer of Loddon Gardens in relation to access requirements. Lyndsay Jennings, Senior Solicitor, stated that the NPPF was clear that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there was an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and the ability to actually access to and from this development site was a private issue as it was a private road. As such, it was very unlikely that WBC would become involved in a private civil matter. Baldeep Pulahi stated that certificate B had been serviced as it was a private road and the developer did not own the road.

Andrew Mickleburgh sought confirmation that the access road was no narrower than similar residential roads to enable safe reversing into the properties, queried why sustainability measures were suggested rather than committed to, and queried whether an energy statement should be required for a development of this scale. Chris Easton stated that the proposed parking bays would be off of the carriageway, and the design was not atypical from other similar developments. Chris added that the Highway Code suggested that road users reversed in to their driveways. Baldeep Pulahi clarified that the scale of the development did not require an energy statement. Baldeep added that sustainability measures had been suggested and were subject to building control regulations, and there was no policy available to enforce such measures over and above what the applicant wished to provide.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed an informative encouraging the applicant to follow through with the suggested sustainability measures. This was seconded by Carl Doran, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Carl Doran commented that many properties in the area were two storeys rather than three storeys, and queried what the heights of surrounding properties were. Baldeep Pulahi stated that the proposals were higher than that of existing properties to the west, however the proposals would complement the dwellings within the Loddon Garden development. Baldeep added that the front elevations were not south facing, and therefore the height was comparable to other dwellings and would therefore not be detrimental to the character of the area. Bill Soane commented that the nearby Bridges Resource Centre was three storeys in height.

RESOLVED That application number 213520 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 58 to 64, and additional informative encouraging the applicant to follow through with the suggested sustainability measures as resolved by the Committee.