Agenda item

Recommendation: Refusal.

Proposal: Full application for the proposed erection of a single storey front extension, single storey rear extension, two storey side extension, and change of use of amenity land to residential.

Applicant: Mr J Southwell.

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 73 to 88.

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

·         Clarification that whilst the applicant did not own the adjoining land, the applicant had duly met the requirements of Certificate B of the planning application form in serving the requisite notices;

·         An update that the land was classified as ancient woodland, and whilst the land to which this application related was indicated to be amenity land within the original approval for the wider site, through the passage of time this use was no longer reflected in reality as there was restricted public access and regrowth of the adjoining woodland over this area.

Keith Baker, Woodley Town Council, spoke in support of the application. Keith stated that the comment from the Woodland Trust should not be considered as it referred to the previous application. Keith felt that it was very likely that this application would have been recommended for approval if the issue of ancient woodland was not present. Keith added that the information contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda referred to the land being designated as amenity land, and if correct then in his opinion the strict rules relating to a buffer zone would not apply, however he had not been able to research this further as the Supplementary Planning Agenda had only been published the previous evening, whilst the numerical references contained within the paperwork were not valid for the current planning system. Keith was of the opinion that any change from amenity land to ancient woodland buffer zone should likely have required a formal redesignation.  

Joseph Southwell, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Joseph stated his family had owned 52 Mannock Way for just over two years, and they had put in a planning application in April 2022. Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) required a very recent bat survey and an agricultural survey, which was carried out in early June which showed no negative impacts on either bats or trees. The Chartered arboriculturist’s report summarised that the root protection area plan showed that there would be no impact to the woodland as a result of the development, whilst the development would result in no loss of woodland whilst having no impact on the woodland itself.

Alison Swaddle, Ward Member, spoke in support of the application. Alison stated that the arboriculture survey identified the area of woodland as having a root protection area plan which would not be immediately affected by the proposed development. The proposed development was not anticipated to have any impact on ancient woodland, ancient or veteran trees, nor was it anticipated to result in the loss or deterioration of the ancient woodland. Alison stated that she therefore fully supported the proposal, and hoped that the Committee would come to the same conclusion.

Stephen Conway stated that he fully understood why Ward Members were supporting this application, and why the application would want this application to be approved. Stephen stated that the Committee were bound to decision making via local and national framework, and the specific matter of ancient woodland had very few exceptions. Stephen stated that clear exceptions with regards to this specific application needed to be presented as to why it might be appropriate for the development to go ahead, else the Committee would be bound by policy requirements.

Andrew Mickleburgh stated that officers considered the proposed extension in terms of mass and scale acceptable and not detrimental within a countryside setting. Andrew added that the overarching issue was the impact that this proposal would have on the adjoining ancient woodland and its buffer zone. Andrew queried what the buffer zone was currently measured at and what it could be reduced to as part of this application, queried whether buffer zones had a special legal status, and sought detail with regards to TPO38-1971 and any potential impacts on this TPO. Brigette Crafer, Landscape Architect, stated that the TPO was an area border and not a single tree, and the ancient woodland did not follow the line of the ancient woodland consistently, with the ancient woodland extending closer to the application site boundary than the TPO.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried whether there were any alternative areas of the applicant’s property where development would be permitted if the root protection area was not impacted. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that the application was recommended for refusal based on infringement of ancient woodland and lack of arboriculture detail.

Chris Hannington, Trees and Landscape Manager, stated that the buffer zone for the ancient woodland was set at 15m which was in accordance with the minimum standard set by the Government. The list of exceptions for to allow development within these buffer zones included items such as major infrastructure projects. The root extension of trees was measured at twelve times the diameter of a tree measured at 1.5m, and mature trees likely had roots which extended far beyond this.

Wayne Smith queried if the Woodland Trust had specifically commented on this application. Baldeep Pulahi, case officer, confirmed that they had commented on the previous application.

Wayne Smith queried whether if the applicant provided additional details with regards to trees from a tree expert, would that have altered the officer recommendation of refusal. Brain Conlon stated that as the was an in-principle reason for refusal, infringement of ancient woodland buffer zone, additional information in relation to trees would not have changed the officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Brigette Crafer confirmed that the entirety of the proposed extension would be within the ancient woodland buffer zone, and the proposed extension would be 8.7m away from the ancient woodland.

RESOLVED That application number 222321 be refused due to incursion into an ancient woodland, insufficient submission of tree information, and loss of an irreplaceable habitat.