Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the proposed relocation and erection of war memorial, plinth and steps, creation of a footpath, installation of culvert and power supply.

Applicant: Mrs Katy Dagnall (Finchampstead Parish Council).

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 53 to 84.

The Committee were advised that the supplementary planning agenda included an update to paragraph 17 of the officer report. In addition to the supplementary planning agenda, the Committee were advised that additional comments and officer responses had been received in relation to this application and had been circulated to the Committee. An additional representation had also been received from the War Memorial Trust, and had been circulated to the Committee.

Ian Adnams, local resident, spoke in objection to the application. Ian stated that he was the vice-chairman of the Finchampstead Park Management Committee, and stated that the issue of removal of the hedge was still ongoing at meeting discussions. Ian was of the opinion that the Parish Council had made a decision despite opposition from residents, and added that he had spoken to many residents who did not like the suggested location for the relocation of the war memorial. Ian stated that the proposal would take the monument from one busy road and place it next to another busy road, which would offer no more opportunity for quiet contemplation than at its current location. Ian commented that people in the village would prefer for the war memorial to be relocated at the church if it had to be moved, where there was adequate parking and amenities and available. Ian stated that the War Memorial Trust asked that anyone moving a war memorial should use a conservation accredited architect whereas the Parish Council had hired a landscape architect. Ian felt that the Parish Council should now go back to the village and seek their views as to their preferred location for the war memorial.

Graham Jukes, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Graham stated that the hedge within the memorial park was not material to this application, however it would not be removed prior to full discussion and debate with the Finchampstead Park Management Committee. Graham commented that the consultation survey was circulated to 5,500 households, with 596 responses in total, and 89 percent agreed with the proposal to remove the memorial from its current site and relocate it to the verge adjacent to the memorial park of the village. Graham added that the memorial park was purchased in memoriam to those who fell in both World Wars, and felt that it was right and fitting that the memorial was located and maintained at this site. Graham stated that each year residents gathered at the park in front of a photograph of the memorial statue. Graham added that detailed plans were considered for four separate locations including the church, and following discussions the proposed location was deemed the most suitable given the guidance from the War Memorial Trust relating to the visibility of war memorials. Graham stated that an arboreal expert had been involved to both protect the monument and the plants and trees at the proposed location. Graham added that the proposed location would allow visibility of the memorial from those passing on the road, a safe space for those who wish to visit the memorial, and a safe venue for the remembrance service to take place each year. Graham asked that the application be approved.

Chris Bowring sought clarification with regards to the type and qualifications of the architect which would be carrying out this work, and was required by condition. Marcia Head, Head of Development Management, stated that the contract would ensure the landowner in the proposed location agreed to the erection of the structure on their land, which was a highway verge, prior to removal from the current location. Marcia added that condition attached to the agreed listed building consent included a requirement of provision of methodology detailing how the structure was to be transported, including a detailed schedule.

Rebecca Margetts queried whether a condition managing overhanging trees and tree roots from damaging the war memorial at the proposed location was included within the scheme. Marcia Head suggested that an additional informative could be added to in relation to this. Rebecca Margetts proposed an additional informative requesting that details be submitted including the provision for access to maintain the memorial in the new location including the ability to carry out future tree works should they be required. This was seconded by Gary Cowan, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Stephen Conway commented that he appreciated that this was a delicate issue, however added that the Planning Committee needed to assess in planning terms whether the proposed location was acceptable. Stephen added that the parking located nearby would allow residents to visit the war memorial and pay their respects safely.

Chris Bowring sought clarification as to how policy TB24 might apply to this application. Kieran Neumann, case officer, confirmed that this policy applied to this application, as if the structure fell into disrepair Wokingham Borough Council would be responsible for its maintenance. Marcia Head stated that one of the conditions attached to the Listed Building consent required a very detailed scheme showing how the structure would be transported and cared for prior to its removal.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey proposed an additional informative, suggesting that the applicant provide a bench to allow people to rest and contemplate near the proposed site of the war memorial. This was seconded, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Pauline Jorgensen queried what would happen to the previous application relating to listed building consent should this application be refused. Marcia Head stated that the listed building consent required a contract showing that the war memorial could be re-erected. Marcia added that the applicant could submit a further application detailing an alternative location.

Angus Ross queried whether the addition of the informative relating to a bench was reasonable as the bench would be located outside of the red line area. Marcia Head confirmed that both the Parish and Borough Councils had permitted development rights to place benches.

Angus Ross commented that although the proposed location would be located next to a busy road, it would not be as busy as the roads it was currently positioned next to. Angus felt that the condition relating to protection of trees and protection and maintenance of the war memorial were sufficient.

Gary Cowan commented that people sat on the benches next to the Arborfield memorial cross and reflected despite this being located next to a five exit roundabout. Gary added that a qualified firm had to be procured and used to carry out the works in Arborfield, and a similar qualified firm would also be required to carry out the proposed works.

Ian Adnams commented that the local car park was a privately owned car park.

Pauline Jorgensen was of the opinion that the war memorial in Woodley was fundamentally different, as it was a brand new memorial and did not involve moving an existing war memorial.

RESOLVED That application number 213927 be approved, subject to conditions and informative as set out in agenda pages 54 to 55, and additional informatives relating to maintenance and protection of the memorial in relation to trees and the suggested provision of a bench to allow for quiet reflection.