Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval, subject to

i)            No new substantive planning issues being raised during the remainder of the consultation period which ends on 6 April 2016;

ii)           Contributions to mitigate the impact of the development in terms of  sport and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in accordance with paragraphs 32, 188 and 201 of this report and the Executive resolution on 18 January 2016 ; and

iii)          the conditions set out in the report.

Proposal: Full application for the erection of mixed use development for Town Centre uses comprising A1 shops including a food store, A2 Financial and Professional Services, A3 Cafes and Restaurants, A4 Drinking Establishments, A5 Hot Food Takeaways; Cinema (D2); 95-bed hotel (C1); 126 C3 residential units; re-configured town park; new and re- configured public car parking and partial closure of Elms Road (south) and provision of a new road to link Wellington Road and Shute End, as part of the regeneration of Wokingham Town Centre.

Applicant:Wokingham Borough Council & Wilson Bowden Developments

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in Agenda pages 11 to 138.

The Committee was advised that the Members’ Update included:

·       corrections and clarifications to the report;

·       additional information regarding an Average Daylight Factor Test;

·       additional consultation responses on fire and rescue and crime prevention;

·       additional representations; and

·       revised and additional conditions and additional informatives.

It was noted that Members had visited the site on Wednesday 23 April 2016.

Mark Cupit, Head of SDL Delivery, outlined the history of the town centre regeneration and the principles behind it.  He described the current proposal as the final piece of the first wave.  The Planning Officer summarised the report on the application and displayed computer-generated pictures of how the development will look.

Imogen Shepherd-DuBey and Andrew Waters, representing Wokingham Town Council, spoke to application.  They welcomed the regeneration plan but expressed concerns about road safety, tree loss, overbearing building heights, loss of green space, the absence of affordable housing in the proposal and possible unacceptable uses of the cinema.

Marc Maynard and Peter Humphreys spoke in objection to the application on behalf of local residents and other interested parties.  They raised the issues of building heights, effects on the character of the area, the fact that the great majority of representations received were in opposition to the plan, the continuous loss of green space over the last 50 years and doubts about the proposed anchor tenants.

Bernie Pich, Stan Hetherington and Councillor Mark Ashwell spoke in favour of the application.  They emphasised that the plan was in line with Council policy, there had been widespread consultation, the development was needed to provide for sustainable growth, it would greatly improve Elms Field and the concern that further procrastination would lead to a loss of confidence.

Philip Mirfin, Local Ward Member, spoke in favour of the application on his own behalf and on behalf of Bob Wyatt, also a Local Ward Member, who was unable to attend due to illness.  He stated that local people were asking for a greater choice of shops and entertainment in the town centre.  He believed that the development was needed to reverse recent decline, create jobs and bring money in.

Responding to the issues raised, the Planning Officer stated that mature trees would be lost due to their proximity to the road.  The arboricultural advice was that they could not be retained or have some roots cut, as suggested, without them becoming unstable and creating a danger to the highway.  The plans contained new planting to mitigate the losses.

Regarding the provision of affordable housing in the scheme, an independent consultant had examined the proposal and confirmed that it would not be viable if required to include affordable housing.  This is the normal procedure followed.

Addressing concerns about the cinema use, the Planning Officer stated that this would also be a matter for licensing and that condition 30 required details of the acoustic design to be submitted.

There were two main issues with regard to building height, according to the Planning Officer, the character of the area and the effect on adjoining properties.  She described the measures taken to reduce the effects such as top floors being set back and the use of obscure glazing for rear windows

On the issues of traffic and parking, Chris Easton, Service Manager, Highways Development Management, stated that the road would have a 20mph design speed and there would be 1,895 parking spaces when all related development was completed compared with 1,836 now.  These figures did not include the privately operated station car park which is about to be expanded.

Members viewed images showing the shadowing in the development at different parts of the day which was also a matter of concern.

The Planning Officer clarified that the only five storey building in the development was part of the hotel at the corner of Denmark Street.  She had examined the overlook issues with regard to No.s 9 and 14 Albert Road from various angles and found the design to be acceptable.

Members asked how much of Elms Field was to be lost under the proposal and if the park had been cited as suitable green space for other new developments.  Officers calculated the loss of area at 38 per cent and, while it may have been cited as suitable green space for historic applications, the loss was being compensated for in this application.

Members expressed concern about the pedestrian crossing to Carnival Pool both in terms of pedestrian safety and the effect on the high volume of traffic.  Chris Easton stated the overall scheme will contain improvements for pedestrians and that new traffic lights can detect flows and adjust the timing accordingly.

Asked about pillars shown in the application drawings that might restrict visibility of pedestrians, Chris Easton said that such problems would be dealt with at the detailed design stage and that full Road Safety Audits would be required prior to implementation.

RESOLVED: That application No. 153125 be approved, subject to

i)            No new substantive planning issues being raised during the remainder of the consultation period which ends on 6 April 2016;

ii)           Contributions to mitigate the impact of the development in terms of  sport and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area in accordance with paragraphs 31, 188 and 201 of this report and the Executive resolution on 28 January 2016 ; and

iii)          the conditions set out on Agenda pages 13 to 37 with conditions 2,3,7,12 and 17 amended, additional conditions 56 to 60 and additional informatives 10 and 11 as set out in the Members’ Update.