Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full planning permission for the erection of three 2No storey buildings each comprising of six apartments (18 in total), together with associated ancillary development, hardstanding, landscaping and footpaths

Applicant: Mrs Kate Bessant

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 93 to 140.

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

·           Correction to the expiry date to read 17 January 2022;

·           Detailed clarification in relation to the proposal seeking 6 of the 18 units as affordable, rather than the 100 percent mentioned within the report;

·           Amendment to part A of the recommendation to delete the reference to 100 percent affordable housing.

Alf Wojtasz, neighbour, spoke in objection to the application. Alf stated that there were a total of 16 objections from residents living in proximity of the proposed development in addition to an objection lodged by Earley Town Council, whilst there were no submissions of support. Alf was of the opinion that the designs were out of character and the stylistic context did not resemble the existing housing stock in the local area or that of Liberty House. Alf added that the roof designs were of cross gable design and not box gable design like other houses locally. Alf added that Liberty of Earley House was a purpose built house for multiple occupation, and was of the opinion that the new development resembled houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) and not a home such as Liberty of Earley House. Alf stated that the proposals were inconsistent with the housing stock in the area, however local residents would accept a single building but not multiple HMOs. Alf felt that the two new access points proposed on an S-bend presented traffic hazards and traffic risks onto Strand Way, and was out of keeping as no other house on the road had a driveway opposite another driveway across the road. Alf stated that the S-bend on the road was a blind spot after Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) granted planning permission for number 20 to move the fence to the pavement line, which residents objected to, and residents had also suggested that car parking was provided at the rear of the proposed development and an internal roadway be created from the existing Liberty of Earley House access point on Strand Way. Alf was of the opinion that the proposal would introduce unwanted traffic and safety issues on this S-bend. Alf stated that some residents of Liberty of Earley House parked on Strand Way as some of the occupants owned two vehicles, and there was no guarantee that the proposals would not lead to additional on road parking in front of existing driveways. Alf stated that no considerations had been given to net zero, COP 26, or WBC’s ‘let’s talk climate’ project, whilst no electric vehicle charging points were proposed and the roof design would not allow for photovoltaic panel installation. Alf stated that additional light pollution as a result of the proposals would directly impact one resident who was a member of the British Astronomical Association who had telescopes in his garden, had written academic papers, and undertook professional research for the association in the southern sky which would affect organisations such as NASA, and could halt his research which Alf felt was unreasonable. Alf stated that an elderly resident of number 20 would be negatively affected by the shutting of car doors and the security lights of the car park switching on and off, and suggested that the car park be relocated to the rear of the development with an internal road created. Alf added that the development would look directly into number 20’s ground floor bedroom, garden and bathroom, and asked that high hedgerow be planted along Strand Way and that no new access points be constructed on Strand Way. Alf stated that none of the objections raised by residents had been considered, and residents had felt disregarded.

John Cornwell, agent, spoke on support of the application. John stated that he was stunned by some of the public speaking comments, and dismissed that this was an application for HMOs as it was instead a proposal for small affordable flats which was in line with WBC’s housing strategy, as this was the type of accommodation required in the area. John was of the opinion that the fact that an astronomer lived next door should not warrant a reason for refusal. John stated that the charity had operated for over 300 years, and had the sole remit of providing housing for those in need. John stated that officers had given unequivocal advice which had been strictly followed by the applicant. John concluded by stating that the proposals met all local and national planning policies, and urged the Committee to approve the application.

David Hare, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. David stated that the trustees of Liberty House had not appeared to have given due consideration to local residents, which was regrettable. David added that the access points contained within the proposal would cause issues for entry and exit of vehicles to the site, which would be exacerbated should residents park on Strand Way. David stated that the eastern flats would not have car parking incorporated next to their building, whilst no electric vehicle charging points nor heat pumps would be provided. David was of the opinion that the proposals were not in keeping with Liberty of Earley House or with other properties on Strand Way, and he felt that one purpose built building would be more efficient. David commented that it would be a great shame should the work of the resident involved in astronomical studies be required to stop as a result of this development.

Chris Bowring sought clarification on a number of points raised by public speakers. Chris queried whether the properties would be classed as HMOs, sought more details with regards to the sustainability points raised, and sought additional clarification with regards to the proposed car parking arrangements. Simon Taylor, case officer, confirmed that the proposals would not be classed as HMOs. With regards to sustainability measures, Simon stated that the current version of the Local Plan was behind the current standards, however there was a condition requiring ten percent reduction in energy use. Simon added that the highways officer had not insisted on electric vehicle charging points as this was an affordable scheme. In relation to car parking, Simon stated that he had visited the site and had not noticed additional on-street car parking, however he noted that on-street car parking could occur at other times of the day. Simon added that this development would effectively double the provision of car parking per unit when compared with the recent approval at Liberty of Earley House.

Andrew Mickleburgh sought assurances that the measures within the condition relating to drainage were sufficient to deal with any issues as the WBC drainage officer had objected due to a lack of detail. Simon Taylor stated that the NPPF required a sequential approach in terms of drainage, and the site was greenfield. Simon added that officers were confident that the condition would deal with issues related to flood risk. Simon added that the comment made by Thames Water was fairly standard, and officers felt that the sequential approach would address issues, whilst waste water was a matter for Thames Water to address.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that it was rare to secure significant numbers of affordable housing in one location, and queried whether any future changes to the affordable rent status of the units would be required to return to the Planning Committee for approval. Simon Taylor stated that the application was subject to legal agreement which conditioned 6 units to be affordable housing and delivery outside of this would require a new legal agreement. The applicant operated as a charitable alms house, and should they not deliver the scheme in line with their operational model then they could encounter issues with regards to their charitable status. Lyndsay Jennings, Senior Solicitor, stated that the S106 agreement required 6 units to be delivered as affordable housing, with any amendments to this agreement required via the usual deed of variation route. Lyndsay confirmed that the S106 agreement did not secure 100 percent of the units as affordable housing.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried why electric vehicle charging points were not being installed on this site. Simon Taylor stated that the electric vehicle comments followed on from the 2019 application for the adjacent site. Simon added that there was no local policy requirement to provide electric vehicle charging points for this application. Connor Corrigan, Service Manager – Planning and Delivery, commented that there would be a building regulations requirement to install electric vehicle charging points at developments going forwards.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed an additional informative reminding the applicant that they would be required to meet all building control regulations including those related to electric vehicle charging points in future. This proposal was seconded, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Carl Doran commented that the applicant required heavily on the premise of 100 percent of the units to be delivered as affordable housing, as the housing mix was a departure from policy. Carl queried why it was acceptable to allow this proposal on the basis of only 35 percent of units being delivered as affordable housing. Simon Taylor stated that the affordable housing documentation referred to delivery of 100 percent of the units as affordable housing which was slightly misleading. Notwithstanding, the proposals were policy compliant and the applicant operated the existing units next door as affordable housing. Simon stated that the alternative of requiring 100 percent affordable housing could result in the bank not providing the financing to the applicant for the scheme, which would result in no units being delivered and consequently no affordable housing being delivered. Simon stated that delivery of one and two bedroom units were consistent with Liberty of Earley House next door.

Carl Doran queried how the requirement for this space to be retained as open space had been removed. Simon Taylor stated that his understanding was that the land was not required as a public open space, and the application was in part a change of use from open space to residential accommodation. Simon added that the space was currently fenced off, and as such there would be no loss of open space to the public.

David Hare commented that from his discussions with the applicant, some units may be required to be charged at market rate, or the eastern unit may have to be sold to a housing association in order to pay for the overall scheme.

Stephen Conway sought additional details regarding the comments raised by the crime prevention officer, and queried whether headlight spill would have negative effects on dwellings on the opposite side of the road. Simon Taylor stated that the crime prevention officer had been fairly thorough in their assessment of this application, and they generally find objection to some aspects of many applications. The main issue raised was in relation to the lack of habitable windows to the side of the development, however this had not been considered as a major issue due to the length of the access point to the building. In relation to the impact of headlights on residents within opposite dwellings, the property in question had fencing along the roadside which would minimise the impacts of the headlights.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey commented that she liked the idea of electric charging infrastructure being installed to allow for easy future operational installation. Rachelle added that she would prefer to see 100 percent affordable housing provided, however she understood the issue in doing so.

Sam Akhtar commented that he would like to see installation of electric vehicle infrastructure, and queried whether the cycle storage could be moved any closer to the units. Simon Taylor stated that a better location for the cycle storage would be agreed in conjunction with condition 9.

Angus Ross queried whether any consideration had been given to off-site biodiversity contributions to make a more substantial impact. Simon Taylor commented that officers felt that condition 6 was as far as what could be sought.

Pauline Jorgensen commented that the fence along Cutbush Lane had never allowed access to the site. Pauline queried whether retrospective CIL would be required should units not be classified as affordable units in future. Simon Taylor stated that should all units be 100 percent affordable housing, they would not be CIL liable, and an exemption would apply should the units be operated by a charity for charitable purposes. Simon stated that the legal agreement could be modified to make any market rate units retrospectively CIL liable in future, in a similar way to a self-build exemption where the owner would be required to live in the property for three years to claim the exemption.

A number of Members raised concerns related to access being granted off of Cutbush Lane to the application site on an unrestricted basis, in part due to the vulnerability of some of the residents who may reside within the proposed dwellings. Members agreed that the option for residents of the dwellings to use the access point as a more pleasant route to walk and cycle sustainably to and from their homes was beneficial, however this access should only be available to residents of the units via a number lock mechanism. Connor Corrigan stated that the ability to restrict access from Cutbush Lane to residents of the units could be incorporated into condition 14.

Stephen Conway proposed an informative, urging the applicant to restrict access from Cutbush Lane to the residents of the dwellings. This was seconded by Pauline Jorgensen, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Chris Easton provided some additional detail with regards to comments made by Alf Wojtasz regarding access. Chris stated that Strand Way had been in place for some time with an S-bend, and no accidents had been reported on the road within the last five years. Chris added that access was being sought for a low level car park, and access would require highways safety audits throughout development.

Carl Doran sought additional details with regards to issues relating to headlight glare. Chris Easton stated that any vehicle travelling eastbound along Strand Way would pose much greater head on light spill to number 20 from the carriageway than from vehicles entering and exiting the proposed car park.

Bill Soane queried whether there was any opportunity to link the two proposed car parks. Chris Easton stated that this would reduce the total amount of car park spaces provided on the site. Chris added that the current proposals would allow for some over provision of car parking, which opened up the opportunity for the neighbouring property, Liberty of Earley House, which was also owned by the applicant to allow some of their residents to park within the unallocated car parking spaces to reduce any instances of on-street parking. Chris added that the proposals were not dissimilar to other similar developments.

RESOLVED That application number 213457 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 94 to 103, amendment to part A of the recommendation as set out in the Supplementary Planning Agenda, additional informative reminding the applicant that they would be required to meet all building control regulations including those related to electric vehicle charging points in future as resolved by the Committee, and additional informative urging the applicant to restrict access from Cutbush Lane to the residents of the dwellings as resolved by the Committee.