Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement.

Proposal: Full application for the erection of 5no. dwellings with double garagesfollowing removal/demolitionof theexisting outbuildings

Applicant: Mr Patrick Bancroft

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 163 to 264.

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

Patrick Bancroft, applicant, spoke in support of the application. Patrick stated that the developer had been building local houses for over 30 years, and the officer report was substantively the same as that previously considered by the Committee. Patrick added that no additional objections had been received, and instead only a costly delay had been realised as a result of the previous deferral. Patrick stated that the application would end the existing brownfield use of the site, provide wildlife corridors, whilst being a significantly different application to the previously refused application for 25 houses. Patrick added that the previous Inspector’s decision noted that the site was unsustainable as it was 1000m from the California Crossroad shops, which was marginal when compared to the recommended 800m, with other properties on the road having to travel the same distance. Patrick commented that the proposal would make a meaningful contribution to Wokingham Borough Council’s five-year housing land supply, and added that he hoped not to have to appeal the decision in the event of a refusal.

Charles Margetts, Ward Member, commented on the application. Charles stated that the application was outside of the settlement boundary, did not feature within the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan, and a previous Inspector had made a very clear statement that the site was unsustainable. Charles contested the statement that 5 houses would make a meaningful difference to WBC’s five-year housing land supply. Charles stated that he had previously raised concerns that residents had not been consulted on this application, and he was still in contact with 32 residents who had yet to receive a letter and only knew of this application as it was in the local press. Charles commented that residents deplored the behaviour of the applicant and the blight he had placed on their lives over the past 20 years, however they were realistic that WBC’s local plan was on hold, and residents had decided with great reluctance not to oppose the application. Charles asked that the set of conditions put forwards by residents were applied to this application, and expected all conditions to be strictly implemented and monitored.

David Cornish commented that the limited weight applied to the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan was not consistent with similar plans within neighbouring Boroughs, and noted that the Parish Council may wish to consider legal advice on this matter. David stated that he had not appreciated a letter from the applicant, which was written in a slightly threatening tone. David added that he respected the view of the residents and would support the proposal.

Rebecca Margetts echoed comments raised by Charles Margetts and David Cornish, and added that she had not found it appropriate for the applicant to consistently remind the Committee of the lack of a five-year housing land supply, which in her opinion was being used as leverage. Rebecca stated that residents had been blighted by the applicant in the past, and this application alongside the associated set of conditions represented a favourable outcome for local residents. Rebecca urged officers to carefully monitor the development of the site and ensure that conditions were being strictly adhered to.

John Kaiser queried if five houses would be of interest to an Inspector in relation to the five-year housing land supply. Andrew Chugg, case officer, stated that it would depend on the situation at that specific point in time, and currently this would be a significant consideration.

Chris Bowring queried if the status of the Finchampstead Neighbourhood Plan had changed, and if so had officers taken this into account. Andrew Chugg stated that the status of the plan had not changed, and the previous statement that the plan attracted moderate weight was an inaccurate statement. Andrew added that the plan currently attracted limited weight, which had been confirmed with the planning policy team.

Chris Bowring proposed that the application be approved as per the officer recommendation. This was seconded by John Kaiser.

RESOLVED That application number 223592 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 165 to 177, subject to legal agreement.