Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval subject to legal agreement

Proposal: Full application for the proposed creation of a mixed use building

consisting of the retention of the existing 3 no. retail stores at ground floor level and the addition of 14 no. apartments on new first, second and third floor levels, including the erection of three and four storey rear extensions with associated car parking, cycle and bin stores, following partial demolition of the existing building.

Applicant: Mr Hardeep Hans

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 363 to 410.

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

·         Clarification that the two accessible units were located on the first and second floors;

·         Clarification that all 10 car parking spaces were intended to have facilities for electric vehicle charging;

·         Clarification that overall 21 cycle stands would be available for residents and retail stores combined.

Bruce Chappell, resident, submitted a statement in objection to the application. In his absence, the statement was read out by the Vice-Chair in the Chair. Bruce stated that he owned and lived with his daughter in one of the flats above the Lidl building which was directly opposite Library Parade.

Bruce stated that he continued to voice his opposition to this development on the grounds of encroachment of his privacy. Bruce noted that the developer had made an attempt to negate the encroachment of privacy to his windows and patio doors, which were bedrooms and a lounge, but this had not taken into consideration his privacy when it came to the use of the balcony. Bruce stated that this was his only outdoor space and was used often, and was one of the reasons for purchasing the flat. The balcony was just under 2 metres in depth and as a consequence when in use was within 10 metres away from the windows on the proposed development. Bruce added that he exercised, socialised, sunbathed, and hung up laundry on the balcony, which would be in clear view of the proposed development. Bruce felt it was inadequate to draw a straight line of sight from one window to another, as it was not a good way of ascertaining privacy and boundaries. Bruce stated that people did not simply look straight ahead. Bruce commented that should the lines be drawn from all of the proposed windows to his balcony railing, it would clearly detail the issue of developing too close to an existing building. Bruce stated that he would be able to look down and see into various rooms of the proposed develop and vice versa. Bruce commented that outdoor space was so important to health and well-being, and he hoped that the Council would protect his privacy so he could continue to enjoy this space.

Joseph Baum, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application. Joseph stated that the applicant had truly listened to the community after the Committee had refused the previous application based on concerns relating to overlooking. Joseph stated that the proposal in front of the Committee responded to these concerns by reducing the number of units from 16 to 14, with two units from the top floor being removed whilst no top floor units would face Sandford Court. Joseph stated that separation distances between the existing and proposed building of between 15m and 15.2m exceeded Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) guidelines. Joseph added that privacy screens would be included on both balconies, which was in keeping with similar balconies within the Sandford Court development. Joseph commented that the application would make use of an existing brownfield site within a sustainable town centre location, reducing the need to deliver homes in less sustainable locations. Joseph stated that the application promoted sustainable travel and would deliver energy efficient homes which could achieve over a 65 percent reduction in CO₂ emissions. Joseph added that the development would retain the existing retail units whilst delivering 14 much needed one and two bedroom homes, including two wheelchair accessible units. Joseph concluded by stating that the application would also deliver £166k of affordable housing contributions, and urged the Committee to approve the application.

Tony Skuse commented his appreciation that the applicant had taken into consideration previous concerns and had made improvements to the proposed scheme. Tony was of the opinion that it would not be unreasonable to live in such an arrangement within a built up urban environment. Tony queried whether there would be sufficient parking for workers of the retail units. Connie Davis, case officer, stated that the site would deliver 10 parking space, with 5 for the retail units and 5 for the residential units inclusive of 2 allocated spaces for the two disabled residential units. Connie added that the rest of the development was car free, which was deemed acceptable by officers given the sustainable town centre location.

Stuart Munro queried how much parking provision was available to the retail units via existing arrangements. Connie Davis stated that the current parking arrangements were not formalised, and there were up to 18 vehicles parked at any one time. At present there were no parking bays, and the proposed development would introduce a formalised arrangement to parking and was deemed acceptable.

Wayne Smith queried how an affordable housing contribution of £166k equated to 2.8 units. Connie Davis stated that this calculation was carried out by the affordable housing team, whilst a payment was preferable when less than 4 affordable units were to be delivered as fewer units were less attractive to registered housing providers.

Wayne Smith commented that the Committee needed a more thorough oversight as to how such calculations were carried out. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that the Local Plan allowed for on site provision or an offsite commuted sum. Brian added that the contribution amount was not based on the market price of a unit, but a percentage value of an affordable unit. Brian added that the calculations went into much greater detail. Brian clarified that it was unlikely that a registered housing provider would be attracted to manage 3 units at one site as they preferred greater numbers of units on larger development sites. Wayne Smith was of the opinion that this was a very sustainable site for affordable housing provision.

Andrew Mickleburgh commented that this was a good example of an applicant and WBC working together to address concerns which had led to an earlier refusal.

Andrew Mickleburgh proposed that the application be approved in line with the officer recommendation. This was seconded by Tony Skuse.

RESOLVED That application number 230743 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 385 to 391.