Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Application to vary conditions 2-11-17-18 and 19 of planning consent 152286 for the proposed erection of three detached dwellings with associated access and parking following the partial demolition of the existing dwelling. Variations include to Conditions 2 (Approved details) and 11 (landscaping) to supply new plans, Condition 17 (garages) to allow bike storage and Conditions 18 (Cycle storage) and 19 (Bin storage) to seek their removal

Applicant: Mr John Brunt

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 259 to 284.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the supplementary planning agenda.

Geoff Harper, Winnersh Parish Council, spoke in objection to the application. Geoff stated that that planning permission set conditions which the developer must conform to prior to first occupation of this site, which was in October 2017. Geoff added that the developer had failed to comply with all of these conditions, and following extensive delays eventually constructed a layout different to the one which was approved, and had ignored the efforts of residents to resolve them. Geoff stated that the Parish Council’s sub-Committee had felt that the developer had been given ample time to resolve the outstanding issues and meet policy requirements. Geoff felt that that the developer should be held to the original planning application and conditions, and expressed disappointment with the officer recommendation of approval as he felt this had not fully taken into account the effect on local residents. Geoff urged the Committee to refuse the application.

John Rhodes, resident, spoke in objection to the application. John stated that three spaces were said to be unallocated whilst the land registry defined them as allocated spaces. John added that the driveways were 4.4m in length whilst they were required to be 5m in length, and should a 5m vehicle be parked outside 5C this would overhang the paved walkway. John stated that cars were currently parked opposite 5B and 5C on the flat landscaped garden, making it very difficult for the residents of 5B and 5C to leave. John felt that the existing cycling requirements were not complied with as there was only one resident who could be spoken to about this matter. John stated that sheds to the rear of 5A could only be accessed by 5C. John noted that forty percent of the landscaping had been omitted from this development, moving from a nicely kept area to an unsightly border made up of timber which was beginning to fail. John stated that fifty percent of the trees planted had already died, whilst the submitted biodiversity plan had been ignored. John stated that persons who found it difficult to walk would find it very difficult to walk up the driveway. John asked that the Committee listen to the concerns of local residents.

Prue Bray, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Prue stated that she was very disappointed that this application to vary conditions was at Committee five years after these conditions should have been complied with. Prue stated that a bin store and a cycle store should have been provided, whilst the garages were too small to be used to store bicycles. Prue added that there had been a significant reduction in the landscaped area, whilst much of the landscaping that was provided had already died. Prue stated that adequate parking spaces had not been provided, as the spaces were substandard in size. Prue commented that only one of the gardens was properly fenced, and residents had been forced to put up with this unfinished development for five years. Prue urged the Committee to refuse the application to vary planning conditions.

Rebecca Margetts queried why this case had been ongoing for so long. Simon Taylor, case officer, stated that the enforcement process takes time, and two enforcement cases had been undertaken in relation to this site. Simon stated that there were likely issues that would first be discussed between the owners, developers and occupiers that had only then progressed to when Wokingham Borough Council (WBC) had become involved in the enforcement case in 2020, until the application before the Committee was then submitted.

Rebecca Margetts queried how residents would have been allowed to occupy when the original planning conditions had not been met. Simon Taylor stated that planning enforcement followed up on breaches on a reactionary basis.

Alistair Neal was of the opinion that the conditions contained within the original planning application should be adhered to. Simon Taylor stated that negotiations occur as part of the enforcement process, and officers were required to consider at what level it was expedient to pursue enforcement cases.

David Cornish stated that conditions were applied to planning applications for a reason, and he felt that they were meaningless unless WBC actively enforced them. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that WBC’s planning enforcement function was reactionary, and no Local Authority had the capacity to monitor the implementation of all schemes across the Borough. Ultimately, the Committee needed to consider whether the application in front of them was acceptable or not.

Wayne Smith queried whether these properties were sold on the open market. Simon Taylor stated that they had been sold on the open market, however there was a complicated land registry.

Wayne Smith commented that when an individual bought a house, they would be expected to check the plans and go back via their solicitor if discrepancies were present. Wayne felt that the Committee needed to decide if the application before them was acceptable or not.

Stephen Conway stated that Planning Committees had historically taken a dim view of retrospective applications and variations to conditions at developed sites. Stephen sought details on the argument for expediency in this case. Simon Taylor stated that there were four aspects to the enforcement case. Firstly, WBC policy advice had been updated since approval of this property to have bins collected on the kerbside for developments of this size. Regarding the cycle storage, the officer view was that it was not acceptable to have this condition removed. The other conditions relating to highways and landscaping achieved effectively the same outcome as they related to what was accommodated at the front of the site, and were therefore considered acceptable.

John Kaiser felt that WBC should be mindful to enforce planning conditions, however, what an Inspector may see may not be the same as what members saw. John queried if the officer recommendation to approve the application was being presented as officers deemed it reasonable. Simon Taylor confirmed this to be correct.

Andrew Mickleburgh queried whether the cycle storage condition would be contained under this application. Simon Taylor stated that the condition had been amended to suit the current circumstances, however in effect the condition would be retained.

Rachelle Shepherd-DuBey queried how the applicant would be forced to comply with the original permissions should the Committee refuse this application. Simon Taylor stated that WBC would be compelled to issue an enforcement notice in such an event.

Chris Bowring proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Wayne Smith, and upon being put to the vote the motion fell.

At this stage of the meeting, Stephen Conway proposed that the meeting be extended past 10.30pm to a finish time no later than 11pm. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh. Upon being put to the vote, the motion was carried.

The Committee sought advice from officers on the appropriate wording for potential reasons for refusal. Upon receipt of this advice, Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be refused as it failed to deliver cycle storage contrary to WBC’s sustainable travel policy, it failed to deliver the approved landscaping scheme impacting on the broader character of the area, and the application failed to comply with car parking dimension standards. This was seconded by David Cornish.

RESOLVED That application number 222590 be refused as it failed to deliver cycle storage contrary to WBC’s sustainable travel policy, it failed to deliver the approved landscaping scheme impacting on the broader character of the area, and the application failed to comply with car parking dimension standards.