Planning Committee 13.03.24 7pm

Planning Committee 13.03.24 7pm

E e e e e e e e e e e e ladies and gentlemen uh good evening and welcome to this evening’s meeting of the planning committee of woking and bur Council on the 13th of March I’m councelor David Cornish and I will chair the meeting the planning committee

Consists of nine elected bur counselors supported by a variety of professional officers this is not a political meeting but a quasi judicial committee which forms part of the planning process as such it has formal set procedures which must be adhered to firstly the planning officer will present the application and

Then only those speakers who have registered to speak will be invited to address the committee there is a strict time limit of 3 minutes per category of speaker those categories being town and Parish councils the projectors supporters and those burrow members affected by the application members of the committee are

More impressed by the quality of what you say rather than by how long you speak for but above all please do stay within your time limits everyone has had the opportunity to comment on each application through the uh consultation process and no one else including burough counselors town and Parish counselors agents applicants

Objectors or supporters are permitted to address the committee ask questions or in any way disrupt the meeting following the speakers members of the committee will discuss and debate each application and seek clarification from the council’s professional planning officers in order to reach a decision the decision reached by the

Committee may or may not agree with that with the recommended by the presenting case officer it is important to understand that that the committee can only determine the actual planning applications presented before it using current national and local planning policies and relevant decisions of the relevant planning inspectorate we cannot consider whether

Or not they are a good idea whether they are needed whether they are too costly whether there are alternative uses of the site or more suitable uses of land elsewhere or whether or not they are popular with residents I’m afraid that none of those things can count on influencing our decision

Finally this is a hybrid meeting with committee members present in the room and some officers attending in person and others connecting via Microsoft teams the meeting is also being live streamed on YouTube can I ask if you are joining us remotely please ensure that your camera is switched on only when you

Are speaking and that your microphone is unmuted only when you are speaking thank you so are there any apologies for absence this evening meetings all here um committee members you had copies of the minutes of the previous meeting do we have any comments requests or amendments which Cas could somebody

Propose that we accept them Andrew thank you someone to Second Michelle we all in favor thank you very much the minutes of the previous meeting are recorded and accepted do we any have any Declarations of Interest then I must recall one myself I have to declare a pre prejudicial

Interest in agenda item 76 which is application 223 528 and I declare that interest because of my role with fin champed Parish Council and in producing the fin champed neighborhood development plan which makes reference uh to this location so for that item when we get to

That on the agenda I will withdraw from the room uh Council mobra will take over chairing that item and see it through to its conclusion at which point I will come back if someone reminds me right are there any applications to be deferred or withdrawn nope thank you

In which case we’ll start with agenda item 74 application 2 32995 answer of the sou south of cutbush lane and the case officer is Christoper Howard Chris thank you chair and good evening to everybody um just to note unlike normal presentations tonight I will be presenting item 74 and 75 um

Alongside each other this is because they’re fairly codep um Cod dependant um so we will see both applications the background of the applications at the beginning and then we’ll separate these out to look at the actual um specifics of those and then we will look at the

Recommendations in turn at the end um in terms of the detail application reference 23 2995 was submitted by the universary reading for a new fine road which would effectively extend cutbush Lane East this includes associative infrastructure landscape caping and drainage attenuation the road will serve a new 25,000 squ met purpose built

Facility for the Natural History Museum application reference 232 833 and this is made on behalf of Natural History Museum for a four story building to house the collection and provide office space for Associated digitization together with space for research this includes Landscaping car parking and Associated infrastructure

In terms of context the Natural History Museum houses one of the largest collections of samples in the world with some 80 million specimens The Collection is currently stored in largely in London but um the existing facilities were not built for purposes to safeguard and preserve the collection for the future

In addition the new site would house space for um re research and dig digitalization of samples which would allow for a greater Global sharing of the collection roughly a third of the collection will be housed in KNE facility the research activities Natural History Museum are globally recognized and the building will continue to

Support this together of encouraging collaboration with the University of reading and other partners collectively they have the potential to play crucial role in climate change research and biodiversity lust further benefits Associated of the delivery of Natural History Museum and spy Road are outlined in both committee reports together with the um the

Drawbacks of those the Spy Road will enable a delivery of a natural history museum um to be built in in in this location with a landscape lead approach applied to it design um and that will come on to shortly in terms of the um spine Road

Itself now looking at the context of the area this um which is cross cut for both applications the sites are both located to the east of shinfield within the Len Len Valley Landscape character area the Spy road is is subject to application 23295 and is broadly shown outlined in

Red the this would connect to the proposed broad footprint of the Natural History Museum 232 833 to cish Lane East and a wider transport Network the Natural History Museum building will set be set between two copses St John’s and new covert both which are established landc Landscaping

Features upward Farm is located to the north of the application sites and both sites are closely related to the British museum archive the Spy Road will facilitate further access point for the British museum the site selection process for natural history museum has been influenced by Lil ability to CL

Cluster with the British Museum and the University of reading the site is also located close to ten Valley Science Park and shimi Studios for access the Spy Road and Natural History Museum collection both sites will connect on T relief Road VI cutbush Lane and South Avenue the new

Link would intersect of cutbush Lane East to the north and a British museum archive um which would cross existing fields to connect to the new facility which is highlighted in yellow now coming on to the specific specific the details of each application oh strug out the word uh committee um

The next two slides are for the Spy mode application reference 23295 and I’ll follow on with the main facility I have added a cover slide just to provide distinction for each application the recommendation for each application will be set out following the presentations for both applications this slide shows the um

Road outlined in red and it’s aign a natural history museum over to Kish Lane East geometry of road has been formed by broadly by LTM 120 principles the foot way and Cycle Way on the Northern side of the road would be 4 meters in width which includes a landscaping strip this

Element ends just to the east of the British museum which is acceptable for the level of use and level use that would be safeguarded that would be linked to the Natural History Museum land however would be safeguarded for the section 106 agreement to continue The Pedestrian facilities should it be

Required in future years on the southern side of the road similar principles are Incorporated to inform geometry a shared footpath cycle wire 3 meters is proposed here together with a 3 meter Landscaping strip secondary load road leading to the free armed round leading from the free armed roundabout serves Natural History

Museum site there would also be a farm access to the turning head the main road incorporates a landscape LD approach to delivery of soft Landscaping which includes SS ponds and Street trees looking at cross-section of route now this shows the geometry of a road um

And a part of the road and how the S strategy would provide a a soft intellect intell link network of ss basins on a southern side of the road this helps soften the impact of the highway infrastructure and provides focal points in addition these areas will provide land um provide um habitats

For landscape and biodiversity the applicant has agreed to deliver above policy um freshh shoulder % biodiversity neet gain and the left hand side of the slide shows how land will be safeguarded for section 106 agreement should it be required in future years the carriageway for the

Main element is 7.3 MERS which is um significant enough to allow two htvs to pass as mentioned we’ll come to the officite recommendation for the spine Road following presentation for the main building and um given the connections I’ll now present application 23 2833 which is for the Natural History

Museum this is site plan of proposed facility the building would be mostly four stories in height as shown in blue all parts of would be single story as shown in purple the building would be located between the two copses which helps soften this and offers partial screen into the wider

Landscape this slide shows a proposed landscape strategy for the site similar to the spine Road a SS Pond is located in the front which connects to the SS chain on the southern side of the road this also this this will also be open for Community use and contains a

Wet Pond which retains water l which should encourage Wildlife the main entrance of the facility is located off a secondary access this links to a parking court and in total there’ll be 77 parking spaces provided for the complex cycle parking is also provided with 34 spaces parking connects onto a secondary exit route

Which allows for oneway circulation for the service area which is located to the rear of the building beyond the service area a landscape area is shown and this is um this will create a buffer for the building to help St in the building and in addition it it will have seating

Areas which will allow the Natural History Museum to um allow for Community use um for the wild of population of this space appropriate landscape buffers are provided between the um two copses um the floor plans and elevations have been circulated with the agenda so I’m not going to present these in any

Detail but this is a useful image of how the internal space would generally be used the collections will be stored in a controlled environment in the light blue areas the gray shows a circulation space and the labs are shown in red the office space would wrap around a building on

The western elevation overlooking St John’s cops the building would house 115 full-time equivalent job rolls finishing off with a few perspective um cgis here is a view of the facility from the main spine road towards the front of the building a sud Pond is um is space which

Will attract Wildlife at the front of the site um for wider community and there is a deck area here which encourages safe interaction for users of the space this Slide overlooks the main entrance and gives a good impression of landscaping strategy trees are proposed to be planted in the main car park

Towards the western boundary glazing for the reception area helps to provide a sense of natural surveillance to the parking area and the main spine Road a condition is recommended to incorporate a motif or impression for the front outcrop or the front of the building to have provide more detailed and that’s

Above the reception area here is the main interest of the facility from front car park sustainability will be at the Forefront of the building design the building has been designed to be next zero um Net Zero ready and will deliver 22% of energy needs from renewable sources in

Common with a spine Road the applicant has agreed to provide above policy requirements for biodiversity net gain of 20% this is an image of the western elevation showing the glazed office section which will provide surveillance to the main spine Road the landscape officer has requested more detail um for

The landscape strategy which will be secured by condition also is acknowledge that will be impact on the countryside and landscape and in particular from the cutbush lane M4 over bridge for the reason set out in reports um the benefits of the proposed use are considered to significantly outweigh any

Harm moving on to the recommendation it this recommend this recommendation is solely for the spine Road being application 232 995 um that’s item 74 that being a route as shown by the site plan on this slide for the road it should be noted that a site visit was conducted with members for the

Application in February whilst the spine road is loc located this Countryside it will have a visual impact on the landscape for the reason set in report it will be considered that these benefits the benefits of the road and to enable the the delivery of the Natural History Museum are um are

Significant this and the other factors um as discussed within the report out why any harm the application can be recommended for approval subject to conditions in section 10 6 agreement alternative recommendation C is put forward to refuse application should a section 106 agreement not be secured within six months of the

Committee resid lution unless a longer date is agreed members are to not condition free which means the road cannot be delivered independent from the Natural History Museum collection and um just on the supplementary agenda there were a couple of bits of um just a few um amendments to some of the conditions

Which have been cited there um I shall hand back to the chair now so this item can be reviewed by the members thank you very much Christopher um just for the benefit of a quite large audience this evening just to recap there are two applications we’re

Discussing here we’ll take them one at a time um but there’s a clear linkage between the access road and the building um which is why uh Christopher presented him in the way that he has but the first application to comment upon will be uh 2

32995 which is the road and we have two speak speakers the first I call forward is Dave green um local resident who I think is speaking objection Dave welcome and thank you just remind you you do have three minutes and we will be adhering to that

You push that on and the way you go okay thank you uh good evening the site is designated within the local planners Green Field and is beyond the plan boundary of the Science Park El of the sdl if approved this site would become by my calculation the third major

Extension to the already twice as big as ever planned Science Park the proposed access itself is more extensive than needed merely to access the site and is designed to enable and protect access to possible development sites Beyond these further sites appear not to feature in any Council policy or

Document other than as Green Fields so I ask what’s going on here these matters are discussed quite quite heavily within the reports before you but somewhat dubious arguments are used to justify setting aside the planning protections on the site if I may finish by posing a

Question what exactly is the point of an expensively produced and very well consulted local plan and FDL if the planning Authority rolls over and permits these plans to be effectively ignored when faced by a high profile developer like the Natural History Museum thank you for listening Dave thank you and thank you

For being admirably concise as well um we now have uh Phil Brown who is the agent I think speaking for the application Phil as you make your way forward I just say the same rules apply you have three minutes and uh that’s it thank you thank you chairman um good evening

Committee the University of reading and the Natural History Museum have worked in Partnership to develop their respective applications and bring them forward in parallel the new access road will provide infrastructure to enable the delivery and operation of the hm building it is integral therefore to the achievement of the economic social and

Environmental benefits associated with the new nhm building the route of the road has been carefully chosen to minimize its impacts on existing habitats landscape features and local views the road has been designed in accordance with LTM 120 principles to encourage walking and cycling it’s suitable for use by buses and land has

Been safeguarded to implement future footpath and transport Corridor improvements the road incorporates sustainable drainage uh features and provides space for Street trees planting and drainage features and green verges biodiversity enhancements will result in a 20 uh 20% biodiversity net gain the road therefore represents good design and will deliver high quality public

Realm cut Bush Lane East will remain closed to traffic from tvsp the British Museum and uh shinfield Studios construction traffic will be controlled by a construction Environmental Management plan reinforced through improved signage secure by your officers conditions access is maintained to upperwood farm in the British museum at

All times upperwood Farmhouse is some 140 meters from the road meaning that there won’t be any impact on the amenities of the residents that live there as well as enabling the delivery and operation of the nhm building and a wide range of benefits associated with it the access road itself will bring

About its own benefits including local employment opportunities over the 18-month period of construction in the order of 35 construction jobs an employment skills plan contribution of £15,000 biodiversity net gain of 20% safeguarding of uh Highway Corridor land and safeguarding of land for public rights way improvements in the future

Your officers have concluded that the access road given its association with the nhm building and its good quality design and individual merits and benefits represents an acceptable form of development I hope that you will also agree that this application should be supported thank you Bill thank you very much and again

Thank you time because I thought you turn the microphone off as you leave thank you um it was made reference to in the officer’s report but we should recall the site visit that took place by the committee to see both this and uh the subsequent application 232 833 I’m from memory all committee

Members were present other than Wayne did you make that one no so I think we were all there other than Wayne thank you right questions or comments on this from any members of the committee but Michelle Andrew Michelle it was mentioned 115 new wellpay jobs will be available in this

Site uh how many apprenticeships will be available for local uh students and local young people 21 Andrew yes thank you David um it would seem to me as a lay person that the um Access Road spine Road does um include many uh commendable design features um and I

Acknowledge that um I would like though to ask um officers uh for a brief response to the uh concerns raised by uh the resident um Mr Green and um my understanding was that uh those concerns were too fold um firstly um that this is a potential um deviation departure from

The local plan so I think it would be very helpful for everybody to understand um exactly the circumstances you know under which um you know that may be uh permitted and also I think that Mr Green uh raised some concerns um um you know that the uh if granted the access road

Um uh might also uh help to facilitate um you know perhaps further um you know applications and I would like um if officers could please comment very specifically on those two um issues thank you I think in terms of the um the departure from the local plan um is

Acknowledging a report it’s not an allocated site it’s in Countryside the um the road will link onto the Natural History Museum and that will deliver significant benefit benefits um the local plan is always written a point in time um and over time things evolve and the timing of the update local plan

Doesn’t always keep up with that um in terms of allocations so we can’t preclude applications coming forward in between a local plan that is current and a local Plan update we need to consider them on their merits um for the planning benefits that have been cited within the

Report and in the context of the um planning policies um so in this case we felt given the um significant benefits that would be delivered by the facility um and together with a clustering um potential uh for the site which includes the University reading and the um British museum that that outweighed any

Significant harm in respect to that thank you I have no further questions uh yeah yeah can I just ask about the um how it connects to the uh the sort of cycle path coming down from the bridge the motorway bridge I mean you know currently you’ve got quite a downhill

Momentum you’re cycling you’re not going to be putting a load of those you know like stupid barriers in the way and stuff to to prevent to to block the site the existing cycle Ro um you’re quite correct there is a a strong desire line particularly for

Cyclists and the idea of the scheme is to provide a continuous route um the quality of the current route is degraded slightly because there are barriers at the moment but U you’re right you know even at speed on a bike you can still navigate them quite comfortably uh I think every EXP

Expectation is that there won’t be formal barriers other than to preclude people driving inappropriately Beyond where they should be uh so one of the things we are doing because it is uh a relatively quiet section we are uh looking at the uh delivering uh Street lighting uh along that section which is

Also been a fairly balanced thing given the landscape impact uh so we’re actually looking at being a bit more adventurous and looking at some solar lights uh along that section where we think that’s realistic and achievable so uh there are there are lots of benefits it’s about getting uh all of those right

Getting the balance right for everybody else so have any further questions or comments from anybody no okay I’m assuming that’s all comments are settled so can I have a proposal T yes we have a seconder sure y supplement yeah that will also need to include the items in

The supplementary agenda as well which we have a chance to read thank you so we have opposer and seconda um those in favor that we approve this thank you that is carried unanimously and we therefore move to um 2 32833 Chris have you further to say on that yeah thank you chair once

Again similar to the previously recommendation set out on this slide um I’ll just get my notes um and finishing off with the um recommendation for the Natural History Museum um collection that being application 2 32833 um it should be noted as um mentioned by the chair that the the

Members visit was held in February um whilst acknowledged in the report that a building Associated infrastructure will be the countryside and have a visual impact on the landscape again once again as said on the report the benefits for the facility would significantly outweigh any harm the application can be

Recommended for approval subject to conditions in section 106 agreement and alternative alternative recommendation C is put forward to refuse the application should the section 106 agreement not be secured within six months of the committee resolution unless the longer period is has been agreed um just to the

Members update and it’s just a couple of Corrections um which um just for clarity um we had a um additional representation from Gary Cowan councelor Gary Cowan um which um have been addressed within the update um in terms of the comments raised there um shinfield Parish Council withdrew their application on for for

Withdrew the objection sorry um following further work between the Natural History Museum and the parish C in terms of um Community engagement and we had another email this morning just on a matter of speeding um it seems that the speed along that route is 20 mil an hour it’s

Not a it’s an advisory speed limit um and there is instances where cars are going faster than that in most cases by about 5 miles hour but this is what you generally expect within in in in a site like that so um and I think that was it from the update

There’s a few changes to the conditions but I’ve recited those so that they they’re set out and full for clarity um and I shall now hand back to the chair Chris thank you very much um we have again the same record of site visits of the previous application um we

Have one speaker for this which is Nikki Brock who’s the agent Nikki okay thank you is that again can I REM mind you just have three minutes thank you thanks very much indeed chair and members of the panel good to see you all uh I’m Tim lwood director of science at

The Natural History Museum and Senior responsible owner for the program that is unlocked uh both the museum and the program are um uh sponsored by our sponsoring Department Department of culture media and sports so this is a fantastic opportunity to bring the nm’s flagship collections research and digitization Center to wokingham burough

Uh we at the naturalist Museum have a statutory duty to protect and make our collections accessible to current and future Generations the new state-of-the-art build building will secure the nhms Irreplaceable Collections and house Cutting Edge research Labs vital for understanding our planet and scientific innovation and as a hub for collaborations and

Partnerships the location strengthens links with the University of reading and the existing research cluster including the British museum developing across temps Valley community outreach and engagement will occur in the area similar to initiatives we lead from our sites in London and tring to ensure meaningful benefits are achieved through

Outreach work a community engagement plan will be developed with the parish council and other stakeholders the temps Valley Community will have employment opportunities both during construction and operation we expect 150 people to be employed at the site with at most 115 people people on site at any time some will be from the

Local area and some will be apprentices it’s also expected that over 300 people will be employed per year during the construction of the building our planned zero carbon building exceeds local policy requirements under core strategy policy cp1 by 21% in carbon savings reducing energy and water use and with significant biodiversity gains as

Required by the local and uh neighborhood plan the proposed solar panel on the roof will produce 22% of the energy demand for the building substantially exceeding the 10% policy requirement the development will achieve a biodiversity net gain of 20% on site and at the adjacent Loden Valley although the development does not

Strictly comply with the local plan uh Countryside policies in terms of planning balance any adverse impacts on the countryside are outweighed by the economic social and sustainable benefits this facility would deliver so on behalf of the project team who are in the room here today and all those we represent it

Is respectfully requested that planning permission is granted members of the project team and I are available to answer any questions thank you Timothy thank you very much indeed do we have any member questions well Andrew Andrew always yours thank you David um I do have one question but before I um ask that

Question question I would like to note um two of the items in the supplementary agenda pertaining to this application um I note that um uh councelor Cowan um had um uh made a representation and I thank which I’ve carefully read and I thank the officers

Um for uh their responses to the um uh concerns that councelor Cowan um has raised I also note um a copy included in the uh supplementary agenda of an email dated the 8th of March from shinfield Parish Council that says quote further to our conversation today I confirm that

The shinfield parish council are content that the proposed conditions in respect of this application adequately address our concerns and a number of those concerns um relate um to the community engagement strategy um and I note in the supplementary agenda um that on page 12 110 um that condition 26 is going to be

Replaced with a slightly different wording um which I’m very content um uh with but um there is one question which I would like to ask and that is that the um New that the wording um says that the community engagement strategy shall be reviewed reviewed and updated every five

Years I believe that’s an excellent you know um approach my question you know is who will actually be responsible for and uh for for for achieving this um and can we have assurances or is the intent um that those people who have currently um you know been involved in the community

Engagement strategy will continue to do so um sort of in perpetuity um yeah so the the condition essentially is is imposed upon the Natural History Museum the council is working with the the Natural History Museum as well as the parish and the idea is that between um the Natural

History Museum the university and the British museum that there’ll be Community engagement U which involve obviously Shin for parish council local schools um so it’s it’s their obligation to review it and and we will be involved in that process as well um shinfield Parish Council and any other local

Stakeholders that could be schools who involved in that as well what’s the biodiversity net gain from this project or is there any yeah it be 20% for this project have any other questions no now uh well I think worth for the general public we’re not asking many

Questions but we have been it should be noted that we have had presentations from the Natural History Museum and we have had a lot of questions answered at those at those sort of preliminary meetings so and and this report is the result of that so that might be why it

Seems that we’re not asking many questions over such a big project well made Point thank you okay so if there are no further questions then would someone like to put forward a proposal Andrew I would like sorry I would like to propose that we accept the officers recommendations with the um additions

And amendments as set out in the supplementary agenda second for that relle the second can I ask the committee members to vote that we accept this and approve this application yeah that’s unanimous so the application is approved and thank you very much and to the presentation from the national museum

Right um the next item on the agenda is item 76 um we’ve had a special request from councelor Charles Mar Jetts as far as I can tell hasn’t managed to sneak into the rumors yet not yet um he is hastening this way um so because Council

M Jets is not yet present we’re going to change the agenda item uh or the agenda order by one item only so we will advance up the agenda item 77 which is application 2325 60 for White House Farm Beach Hill um my apologies for the residents connected to the uh uh the

Item 76 but we’ll bear with us to give Charles a chance to arrive so the case officer for this is Andrew CH you there Andrew there yes have a moment yes Andrew over to you thank you chair I should just share my screen to seconds this application is for a change of use

Of agricultural residential light industrial and storage lands to an arboretum with ancillary facilities the ancillary buildings would include storage laboratory office and Auditorium space for the purpose of a private scientific research facility associated with the arum the applicant is a professional tree care specialist and carries out scientific research into to the spread

And treatment of pest and Disease Control on trees and shrubs the application site is approximately 10 hectares in size and is located out of settlement in the countryside uh to the southwest of Spencer’s wood approximately 400 meters from the boundary with West parkshire District Council the site is currently

Accessed via two vehicle accesses onto utree Lane and one onto White House Lane the site primarily comprises of open agricultural land plus light in industrial and storage buildings and a mobile home the Northwestern corner of the site is protected deciduous Woodland the existing White House Farm is outside of

The application site but within the applicant’s ownership refer to the location plan on page 273 in your main agenda The Proposal will be delivered over two phases with the auditorium arrival space and group external area arriving in the second phase of development the core facilities comprising the offices laboratory and

Maintenance building will be built out during the first phase of works as indicated in the phasing plan details provided at 239 and 240 on your main agenda The Proposal represents a sustainable rural Enterprise within the countryside and is therefore acceptable in principle it would deliver a high quality development with an excellent

Bam rating that would respect the existing rural Woodland character of the site it would also help remediate and enhance previously despoiled land on parts of the application site The Proposal would facilitate in a significant amount of new tree planting that would be comprehensively and professionally managed by the applicant

And would introduce new Wetland habitats to to secure a biodiversity net gain of at least 30% across the application site The Proposal would be acceptable in terms of its potential traffic impacts car parking flooding drainage residential amenity and mineral resource impacts and would not result in any permanent loss of best and most

Versatile agricultural land adequate measures will be secured via condition to ensure that the development be could be accommodated within the council’s existing Atomic weapons establishment awe birfield off-site plan Arrangements as indicated in the supplementary agenda the applicant’s name was in avert and emitting off the main report the

Applicant is bartler Tree Experts the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions and informative detailed in the main agenda thank you Andrew thank you um we have one speaker for this application um who’s speaking for it which is Neil Davis the agent Neil and again you have your three minutes thank

You thank you the proposed development and use of the site in the manner proposed should be welcomed by the council the applicant Bartlet Tree Experts are an international world-renowned scientific tree and shrub care company and this proposal will establish a center of excellence in this field the proposed arborium will be the

Principal leading factor in achieving this aim the location of the site with a land around it to accommodate the Arboretum is essential to its success the motivation for acquiring the site with its extensive area of Open Fields is to provide the space required to plant a new arum at the site Bartlet

Currently operate from a site leased from the University of reading on cutbush Lane East shinfield this lease is set to terminate and this has led to them acquiring the White House Farm side and surrounding land having the necessary space afforded to achieve the arum is fundamental to the entire future plans of the

Applicants their existing locality does not provide the necessary space or environment to establish the Arboretum and for the company to develop in the local area propos ancillary supporting facilities which comprise of an auditorium communal space and research office and maintenance Wings will be built in two phases with with the

Intention that it would become bartlet’s long-term home this will allow them to continue to contribute to the Bur as a highly skilled employer and to maintain their close links with the University of reading at a site will be a private scientific research establishment external visits to the arum will be

Controlled and visits arranged for a private company the proposed use of the site provides for substantial benefits which include protection of the countryside and its open spaces and trees significant environmental benefits including to existing protected trees and hedge roads as well as to biodiversity buildings of a high quality

Design using natural materials and lightweight glaze links to minimize scale and bulk a Brian rating of 79.8% of available credits equivalent to an excellent rating as a result of the applicant’s efforts to engage with the local Authority throughout the process there were no objections from any internal or external consultee

And they offer their strong support for the proposals these include the landscape officer ecologist highways drainage and the emergency planners as a result I would formerly request that members support the officer recommendation to Grant planning permission thank you Neil thank you very much ask you to turn your microphone off as you leave

The table please thank you do we have any members of the committee wish to talk speak comment I’ve got Wayne Michael wish Wayne Michael relle and L Wayne um thank you chair I’m I’m not against I’m I’m you know supportive of it as per the gentleman said it’s a it’s

A great feature and it’s something we should welcome my interest lies in page 270 Andrew um item number seven the a w dpz and I’m I’m just wondering how we’ve squared the circle there because I was always under the impression that they had a they were against housing I let’s let’s not forget

Grasley um which was the spanner was thrown in the works by the DP sorry the DZ and I was always under the impression that people working at such a site in the DZ they frowned upon and it wasn’t allowed so I’m just I’m just interested I’m more interest than is no objection

From me but I’m just interested how how you overcame that can I just say for the point of view of the audience aw pdz is the atomic weapons exclusion Zone around the facility of burfield uh yes thank you so we have had detailed discussions with our emergency planners also West parkshire also the

Office for nuclear protection as well um so I in answer to your question Wayne um in terms of new housing within the dpz um at the present the the view is really very much know that that’s that’s not going to be accepted um what we’re dealing with here is is a different type

Of use obviously it’s it’s a business use as such um also as part of this proposal we there’s a net loss there’s there’s a existing um mobile home to be removed on site as well so whilst there are people working on site um they can be controlled uh in in terms of

Like a potential offsite plan in the very unlikely event that something would happen at AWA so uh it’s a much less risk perceived by the uh emergency planners than new housing as such so on on that basis they they’re happy to secure um uh conditions for uh end user and

Construction phase emergency plans which will be part of a condition on the uh on the on the permission well done thank you chairman yeah Andrew I just want to perhaps a little bit of clarification but you I mean actually mentioned in your speech about traffic impact and I know that um beachill road

Is a Country Lane I used to drive down there to work on many occasions when I worked in basing Stoke and I’m just really wondering following all this proposed development would there be increasing traffic because the businesses themselves are changing quite drastically thank you thanks um I I really don’t think

There’s uh likely to be a significant uh increase in trips from discussions we’ve had with our highways colleagues um such that it would have any any significant impact in terms of traffic flows or uh convenience of accessing access in the site or surrounding area um so that wasn’t considered to be a problem

Yeah can I just follow up on that would you think they might be less traffic or is that really putting you on the spot I I’ll pass over to Allan on that one if that’s okay sorry yes um you’re quite right councelor um that there are whilst the traffic flows are are modest

On that road uh they’re not very quiet and in terms of daily flow variations uh quite common for those to be sort of 7% up or down a bit so it’s very difficult to kind of put your finger on actual numbers in theory by removing the residential dwelling uh and replacing

With a commercial operation uh there might be a very slight increase but equally there might be a very slight decrease uh so I think we consider it just as neutral yeah I kind of mentioned that because when I used to drive down used to frequently um meet horses down

That bit of road I don’t know if they still ride down there but you do do give them a very wide birth and they’re grateful for it because I’ve been riding before and it can be quite scary uh who have next Michelle I noce the African doesn’t really want people visiting I wondered

If they would consider Outreach to some of the walkium schools along with the uniters of reading to uh explain to them what’s what they’re doing and possibly to inspire some young people to go into science because we have a lot more science going in wam now uh especially

In the Science Park than in any other area probably in Southern England so we should use it to inspire our youth now uh just picking up on um what the agent said that they’re going to be working on um tree diseases is I mean is there any risk

To trees outside of the dis aror from this um development you know if if you if you you know how contained will these diseases be um I’m sure our ecologist is going to considered that and if if that had been a issue it would have been factored in

Terms of like biodiversity net gain or risk in terms of uh securing that biodiversity net gain um the application actually came in prior to the introduction of the 10% requirement for biodiversity Net game but it’s it’s still you know far exceeding kind of that that’s why there isn’t a specific

Condition in terms of that but it is it is defined uh on condition 18 I in terms of the detailed Woodland management plan so those measures in there will will secure over and above the biodiversity net gain uh specifically in terms of diseases I mean um yeah I mean they are

They are specialists in the field so um yeah Brian if you wanted to yeah thanks Andrew just I’ll just on the point of any kind of scientific uh research whether it’s on a University campus or whether it’s industrial processes anything that the planning system wouldn’t necessarily be the regime that

We would Monitor and regulate for example testing you know uh biom medicine Etc um with treats yeah any any kind of scientific um or tests it wouldn’t it wouldn’t be us that would be doing that uh the same with any other uh business that was undertaking tests of any

Kind any further comments or questions got bill yeah thank you um just a question on the event parking just to wonder where the access to the event parking is and what sort of numbers you’re expecting at any one time at an event and is there parking spaces not I can’t see how

That’s actually laid out there uh yes thank you the event uh parking would be the most southernly access uh off of beachill Road and I think we have 15 proposed parking spaces and currently there are five existing parking spaces um as has been identified it’s not publicly accessible

So the movements to and from the site whether there’s uh maybe there might be a forum or something on would be tightly controlled to make sure they move those movements are contained appropriately within the site um yeah any further comments I just have one myself which is

Rarely do we see an application coming before this committee that seems to conduct quite such a lot of benefits as this one does um were they all as as good as this um if there’s no further comments I’m going to ask foros a proposal Wayne I’m presuming your proposal be accept it

On a second Bill those in favor yeah I think that’s passed unanimously thank you right in the we in the ongoing absence of councilor Mar Jets I’m afraid we can delay no longer um so we are going to now move to item 76 which is application 22 3528 as previously indicated I’m going

To have to draw from the meeting at this point um councelor melur will take over the chair um councelor Mar Jetts who’s the ward member concerned um if he arrives it’s up to the chair to whether we can then speak but we do have in any case um a copy of Charles’s address

Which he will which Andrew will read out in Charles’s absence I’m now going to have to withdraw from the meeting and I know I think councilor Marshall safe in The Parish has got a question but I’m going to leave that to Andrew to pick up if I may

Vice chair can just give us a moment to set up that’s great yes as the chair explained uh the next application is number 22 3528 33 Malcolm ride and the officer is Connie Davis thank you Connie thank you chair just to confirm there’s an update report for this item which clarified the

Time limit for the completion of the section 106 agreement as part of the recommendation and some further commentary on biodiversity and in particular badges this application relates to 33 bark and ride which currently comprises of a single large residential dwelling and out buildings The Proposal is for outline planning

Permission for 56 residential dwellings with only access to be considered it should be noted that other matters relating to scale of the development appearance layout and Landscaping are all reserved for future consideration an indicative site layout plan has been provided however is important to reiterate that this is not fixed or

Finalized at this stage the site is located in the working on Countryside AJ to Finch Hampstead North settlement limits however it is allocated for residential development within the local Plan update revised growth strategy the site is allocated for a net increase of 66 dwellings across the site and 31 baren ride which

Is located to the West Beyond Victoria Gardens since the local Plan update the finch hampster neighborhood plan was adopted and it accepts this allocation um bear with us the presentation doesn’t seem to be moving forward poies about that there we go whilst allocated as one site in the local Plan update it is

Important to reiterate that 31 and 33 are two separate sites and are currently subject to two separate planning applications an outline application at 31 has been submitted for 26 dwellings which is currently under consideration consideration as such each have to be determined on their own merits not withstanding this officers are mindful

Of the cumulative impact of these two developments and other developments on bark and ride which have featured in a number of objections to this specific scheme particular concern was raised over the Quantum of development at 31 and 33 combined given it would be above the site allocation in the local Plan

Update at present the number of dwellings across the sites equates to 82 which is 14 dwellings over the site allocation however it should be noted that dwelling numbers in the allocations are indicative minimums with a higher Quantum of development only being able to be resisted if it results in some

Identified harm in this case the dwellings per hectare is comparable to other surrounding developments the cumulative impact of the developments would have the impact the cumul the cumulative impact that on the highway network has also been raised as a concern with further detail on this in the main report the speed limit of

Bark and ride is a particularly prominent comment and has arisen and whilst there is no Highway need to alter the speed limit to encompass the access of this development this is something that is being explored under the application at 31 although not a material consideration to this planning application the council’s community

Corporate and overview scrutiny Comm committee have discussed ways to ensure effective oversight of council Ed projects on bark and ride during construction phases the communication strategy that would be secured by condition on this application could then feed into any wider Council oversight as mentioned this application is

Required to be assessed on its own merits so returning to this development itself the principle of 56 residential dwellings is accepted and has the potential to be satisfactorily accommodated in relation to trees the natural environment and the surrounding landscape whilst keeping a sufficient portion of the site retained as open

Space as can be seen on the indicative site plan however full details including building types Heights designs and positioning are all reserved for future consideration and do not form part of the detailed assessment of the application here tonight this is also the case for boundary treatment which officers acknowledge will be

Particularly essential on the western boundary with Victoria Gardens in terms of access the proposal sees the stopping up of the existing access and repositioning it further west the proposal has been robustly reviewed by WBC Highway offices and it demonstrates that in principle the development would provide a safe access

And the increase in traffic generation that would arise can be accommodated within the existing Highway Network the site is also deemed to be a suitably sustainable location with walking cycling and bus routes to to local amenities to conclude the borrow cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land Supply and therefore the Tilted balance is

Engaged as per the mppf where this is engaged the shortfalls of the scheme have to be have to be substantially and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case officers have identified a number of positive elements of the scheme such as providing a variety of housing which includes smaller units a

Compliant affordable housing provision public open space all in a location that is deemed sustainable and can integrate with the highway Network these outweigh any shortfalls that may be identified officers fully appreciate the cumulative impact of this development with those Elsewhere on bark and ride and so whilst each application does need

To be determined on its own merits hopefully it has been demonstrated that cumulative impact has still been considered particularly in terms of the highway Network the recommendation is therefore to Grant outline planning permission subject to the conditions and obligations outlined in the main report however I should add that today the

British horse Society have provided a further representation requesting an additional condition to be included on the permission to reinstate cook Lane which is considered to be a historical briway that runs along the northern boundary of the site across Victoria Gardens and 31 bark and ride this matter

Was discussed in section 10.29 of the main report in order to have this route recognized a definitive map modification order application has been submitted by the British horse Society however this is still pending consideration by the council therefore as it stands cook Lane is not a recognized route to be

Reestablished and if it were agreement from multiple land owners would be needed as it crosses multiple sites furthermore officers are mindful of potential conflict of the brid away with TPO trees on the Northern boundary of the site as such the condition is not considered to meet the required tests in

That it is not necessary to make this development acceptable particularly given given it has not been requested Ed by WBC public rights of weight officers as such the list of conditions recommended in the main report remains unaltered thank you thank you Connie um the first speaker is Roger maral from the parish

Council good evening Roger as usual you have three minutes please thank you than go good evening councelors uh my name is Roger Marshall say I’m speaking here is representing Finch CH Parish Council the last time I spoke to was on the 15th of December uh when we were

Talking about a house uh at um 204 Nar ride and I was somewhat critical at the time because the uh in the recommendation for that uh uh property uh negligible interest or concern have been expressed about the neighborhood development plan that is very recently become valid

I’m happy to say that uh this particular application much more notice has been taken of the uh neighborhood development plan uh particularly uh with regard to um particular policy ES1 which is Du which is relating to carbon neutral housing uh and hopefully that when we get to the reserve matters application

That will be included but unfortunately um this is a complex application in some respects uh because uh originally the site was 3133 barkham ride uh when it was entered in the core for sites and uh that was I believe for 70 houses and we took that through into the

Neighborhood development plan and so the neighborhood development plan is accepting that 70 houses can be built on the site comprising 31 and 33 barkham ride unfortunately that has now been split into two sites uh 33 and separately 31 and the one we’re dealing with today 33 is for 56

Houses uh and there is an application already in but has not yet been uh got got as far as um committee yet uh for the other site um for I think it’s um got it written down here somewhere 26 thank you uh which takes us to 80 houses so

We’re now effectively looking at an increase of 14% on the number of houses that we had specified in the neighborhood development plan and on that basis I would ask you to seriously consider this application and to see if this anomaly uh historical anomaly uh can be rectified in some way possibly by uh

Taking the two sites together in some respects and ensuring that the neighborhood development plan is not contravened by this application so on this basis I’d ask you to reject it at this stage thank you thank you the next speaker is Hugh Reed a resident good evening Mr Reid good

Evening once again you have three minutes my family lives directly opposite 33 barkham ride and I’m also speaking on behalf of many other immediate neighbors some of whom are here tonight our key concerns are more traffic higher housing density and the visual aspects of this development Peak traffic on barkham ride is already

A nightmare many of us have had near misses driving out into busy traffic speeding and disregard of the 6’6 width restriction are common and never properly policed this situation also poses significant dangers to many bow hunt school children and elderly Walkers Crossing bark and ride to reach the

Bridal way to California Country Park the fundamental issue is simply the sheer volume of traffic on a narrow Country Road measured Yesterday by video there were 1,060 vehicles in one hour that’s 28% higher than the 830 vehicle Baseline in this report the claimed small traffic increase of 4% for this development certainly needs

Revisiting on barkham ride there’s no real alternative to using a car bus services are infrequent non-existent on Sundays walking is impossible going westwards as there is no pavement going eastwards the Pavements narrow leaving one uncomfortably close to speeding traffic cycling is there for the brave or foolish and is mostly avoided in fact

Our grandchildren are actually banned from cycling to visitors this park of bark and ride already contains a high number of te Junctions in a Shore space including this development six t Junctions in under 200 M tea Junctions are by a large margin the most frequent location for accidents

Not a good idea where Bohan school children and elderly Walkers cross the road PCH hamster is a very pleasant area with rural aspects we be have the next slide please Willam thank you Finch hampster a very pleasant area with rural aspects and modest housing density we are therefore concerned that

This development is the thin end of the wedge in turning the Western end of the settlement on bark and ride into a higher housing density area the development proposes 56 TW dwellings on 29 hectares shown in red on the slide the next most dense area fronting barkham ride shown in yellow

Contains only 42 dwellings that’s a 33% increase and risk compromising the semi- rural aspects of this area further developments on 31 and 24 baram ride are also under consideration they’re shown in Orange finally I’ll try to end on a positive note and complement the planning team on their intent to achieve

Good good visual screaming that seems to work however our serious concerns over increases in traffic and housing density remain so we therefore respectfully request the committee to reject this development thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr Reed next I’d like to call um Nathan ker uh the agent please good evening

Nathan you have three minutes uh thank you chair and good evening members my name is Nathan craker and I’m from Olivia Holmes we’ve been working with officers on this site for some time and we’re obviously pleased to see the officers a recommendation recommending plan permission be granted subject to

The conditions and obligations set out in the report looking at the wording of the report it is detailed well considered and we would agree draws the correct conclusions I just wanted to cover a couple of points and highlight some of the benef benefits of the scheme which I hope are helpful to

You the plan at figure one on page 159 of the committee papers is useful as it shows the site within its context being surrounded on three sides by existing development and bark and ride on the other it’s contiguous with the edge of the settlement which is a modest development location which by definition

Is sustainable location the new development in this way the site can benefit from the proximity of existing Services as well as as contribute to the Improvement of others such as the number three leopard bus service the site which will not increase the number of access points onto baram

Ride May therefore be said to be sustainably located the principle of development is also consistent with the revised growth strategy and the finch Hamed neighborhood plan both of which support the site as a proposed allocation for housing in combination with number 31 in time number 31 which

Lies to the west of Victoria BS would form the new settlement Edge your officers at par 20.8 consider that is appropriate for this site to have a lower density to create a soft development Edge and respectful transition to the adjacent Brooks Nest sang and we consider this a sensible

Approach turning to the benefits of the scheme the provision of housing housing and importantly affordable housing is of headline benefit given the current housing land Supply position and the engagement of the presumption as well as meeting the headline mix of 40% affordable housing the 10e mix has

Been agreed with the council with 70% being for social rented housing meeting the council’s priority needs the report lists the planning benefits of the scheme include improvements to sustainable transport carbon neutral housing but I would add to this the 10% net gain in biodiversity which is a tangible

Benefit the conclusions reached by your offices is that there are significant benefits to the scheme and that in a balanced consideration of these against the areas of harm the conclusion is that these are outweighed and that permission should be granted we agree with this assessment and I hope members will

Support the recommendation here this evening thank you thank you Mr CCO good to good to see you councelor marget okay perfect timing um if you’d like to to take the floor please you have three minutes thank you chair so basically this site is outside the settlement boundary the total site 31 and 33

Barkham ride was in the draft local plan for 66 houses there are 26 static homes already on the Victoria Garden site part of 31 to 33 barup ride this application is for 56 houses and there’s another for 28 houses at 31 balam r if all were approved this means 112

Houses will be built when the plan indicated 66 I had previously asked officers to present both 31 to and 33 to the committee together to give the planning committee a full and accurate picture of what’s proposed here they did not agree to do this this land was

Presented as one site and has now been split into three to exploit planning approving it would see significant overdevelopment over what was intended the application contradicts many WBC policies the officers report admits it does not comply with cp9 or 11 the location is not sustainable and any development here would simply lead to

More car use there’s a foot path leading to Finch Hamstead with one shot within 10 minutes walk there’s no access to barkham on foot the bus service is below the specified level the bus does not go near the nearest railway station at crowthorne barkham ride is 6’6 wide with

Tall hedges on either side the road when you walk on the pavement buses and vans pass less than a meter away from you residents will tell you no cyclist use the road as it’s not safe the NHS Primary Care Network advises local GPS are over capacity with no firm plans for

Expansion officers say there is capacity at fin Hamad surgery however this does not allow for many houses under construction at arborfield who will also need a GP the site does not comply with cp6 CP3 states that development should be an appropriate scale mass and layout without without detriment to local land

Users uh the this development does not through so on either side there are single story buildings and it does not comply with CP3 I understand the principle of the Tilted balance however this application fails in so many ways that even with the Tilted balance it’s

My view it should not be approved I know you’re meant to consider planning applications separately however I would ask you do consider the scale of developments already agreed for barkham ride where there are no plans to upgrade the road WBC plans to build two large send schools a solar farm a covid wood

And an adult Services reidential home and Egyptian Roma pitch on the road there’s also the planning application at 31 Barham ride and I understand three further pre-applications for housing it’s in poor condition based on WBC highways figure 60 sets of Road Works in two years the infrastructure is stretched and cannot take further

Development I’d ask the committee to approve to refuse even this application the video you’ve seen for the benefit of the planning committee was provided to me by a resident that on there board as the site that’s a badger running into it just to give you some explanation thank you chair thank you councilor

Margets so that concludes our list of registered speakers um before um we take questions from Members um I would like to have recorded in the minutes that the site visit took place on the 8th of March and was attended by all members except councilors Cornish and so on I

Think that is correct thank you I would also like to um make a short uh statement um you know to help uh to uh help us to ensure that the questions and discussion um remains um uh focused um on the task ahead this is an outline application focused on site access if approved

Subject to the conditions of and obligations in the recommendation on page 149 and page five on the supplementary agenda the number of dwellings would be fixed at a maximum of 56 and all other matters would be reserved it would certainly be my intention to exercise the opportunities

Available to seek this uh to bring this back to committee at the reserved matters stage should various stakeholders wish and I would appreciate if that could be minuted it is acknowledged in the officer’s report that this is in the countryside does not meet any of the exception criteria and is therefore

Contrary to policy cp11 however the overall aim of cp1 must be considered if approved would this harm the separate identity of settlements any adverse impacts would need to be significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits the 22 affordable homes would be widely regarded to be a very significant

Benefit the site is allocated within the lpu revised growth strategy and supported in the finch Hamstead neighborhood development plan are there questions from Members okay I see Michael first I’ll make a list um to uh sort of a first pass relle Tony others in the first pass and Wayne thank

You others will have an opportunity of course later okay so um Michael thank you Vice chairman yeah I’ve got a couple of questions actually um is mentioned I think councilor marget mentioned it about um about the traffic I think other resident as well about traffic along

Bark and ride so I got concerns over the impact of traffic along that road following um this potential um planning application and I’m just really waiting any comments on that um about increases of the traffic and and what what will happen then and I’ve got another question in a

Minute um I think Mr Reed kind of outlined a number of very good uh well researched uh points uh in terms of his objection so thank him for that obviously uh and we have interrogated this at significant length and I appreciate that there’s been uh a range

Of developments and a range of Road works that have occurred at different times again uh the war counselor is kind of U very confidently put some of those points as well um it’s right that the traffic flows have they vary daily anyway as I mentioned on the other application uh and sometimes

That they’re significantly more what we’re seeing in recent areas is where there is Road works either in Finch Hamstead uh barkham uh and alfield there there are variations in traffic flows so we do see uh a significant range of flows along bark and ride as a consequence and that that is important

Uh as far as that road is only suitable for a certain volume of traffic uh there is a balance to be struck um the road most of the time is consistently around uh 8 8 and a half thousand vehicles per day which is quite busy for Road type

That it is and it is uh uh about 5 met wide in places uh there’s lots of comments about htvs uh actually uh in in terms of the observations of of flow the hdv flows are around about 4% but actually whilst that’s significant in its own given that

There is uh a 6’6 limit there actually 63 Vehicles a week that are the larger htvs and most of those appear to be associated with some of the land uses on that lane who have the exception to that 6’6 limit um so taking those into account and in particular this application

Um if the traffic flows are higher then the proportional impact of the development traffic would be lower uh so even taking the lowest of the flows that we’ve observed um the scale of development of 56 dwellings represents less than 2% increase in traffic now of course that’s still important but most

Of it as a res residential development can I excuse me can I remind all the members of the public um that uh they are not to engage in discussion or to interrupt the proceedings thank you thank you thank you chair um so what whilst it is still important in terms of

That traffic it’s largely light traffic associated with a residential development uh and on balance uh the the scale in our view is sufficiently low we clearly as a council need to work on improving accessibility to this part of the burrow and uh one of the things that

We are making good progress on I believe uh is improving the connections particularly to bow hunt School uh supporting and enhancing the rights of way Network to join parts of the network together to deliver those safe Roots uh it’s important to the council because we

End up having to pay for home to school travel so we are working diligently towards that and there are other plans that we need to carefully balance both the landscape impact of introducing add additional footways uh and the drainage uh along barcon ride which is fairly limited um because it generally drains

Off the road into the ditch uh so there’s some compete competition for space that is available so that’s something we’re working on and we will continue to work on and part of the solar farm application which is already there is already introducing some of the drainage improvements that are needed

That aren’t currently so there are steps that are being taken they on individual applications improvements are being delivered where they’re able uh here a different access position preserving and moving away from the very sensitive oak trees at the axis uh and to give them space to kind of regrow and uh develop

Further so all in all the the measures to in ultimately extend the speed limmit to what may become uh the new settlement bed boundary will help reinforce a number of the issues that have been raised in concern um and on behalf of our Authority we’re satisfied that the

Application as it stands is uh is entirely adequate there’s no conflict with policies and safety as we see it thank you Alan um Michael you have a further question got another one actually this is to do with affordable housing um is there a danger that 22 affordable housing dwellings being reduced because

We’ve seen that before um so the maximum amount of dwellings that this application will permit is 56 however in theory at Reserve matters stage that number could be reduced and therefore the amount of affordable housing would subsequently be reduced um but in order for the applicant to Dev deviate away from the

40% required um a viability assessment would have to be provided um so it wouldn’t be reduced unless adequate information and proper scrutiny was undertaken by the affordable housing team Michael oh sorry thank you Sor um yeah so I’ll read from that there is a danger the affordable housing level could be

Reduced uh theoretically yes um it could be negotiated because at the moment it’s not clear how many houses will eventually come forward and given the layout of the site is not known for sure and there’s still a lot of play at the moment and I assume the developer will

Have to go away and and sort of negotiate these things um which may then pay a part in the overall viability of the site so so we would hope not but I can’t guarantee I could I just jump in there as well the I I guess one thing to

Remember with any development prop proposal counselor um and committee is that obviously what occurs in the future we we can’t control and the system does allow changes to a planning permission by virtue of it being outline and Reserve matters um there are some things that is are applicable to every

Application and this site is no different from any other residential scheme which may if necessary and adequate justifications provided may change in future yeah I kind of just ask it because it happened in my ward well it sounds Michael as though you would be in favor of uh bringing

This matter back to um at the reserved matters stage so only if this um committee is minded to approve it right um rashelle a couple of questions you mentioned tilted balance which is due to our fiveyear land supp not lack of fiveyear land Supply and therefore we

Have to consider this in a different thing than we would normally the second question I got is 56 houses we’re looking at just this application we’re not looking at the other three that they might possibly put in they might be in the process of doing that or not we’re just considering this

One right now without anything else to do with it at the future we may consider those other ones to see if it’s too many houses but right now 56 is perfectly within the limits that we allow so in answer to your first question yes the Tilted balance is

Engaged because the burrow doesn’t have a 5-year housing land Supply in answer to your second question you are correct that we are only assessing this application um if this application were to be approved and at a later date an application for at 31 bark and ride was presented to the committee this current

Application at 33 would then be a material consideration because it’s an extent permission a nearby site however the way around it is at the moment the one at 31 is still pending consideration and no decision has been made on it so it’s not a there’s no definitives there because

Nothing has been approved so that’s why the focus is on this one would you also like to explain to the audience what tilted balance actually means because they have no idea okay okay yes so um tilted balance it was discussed in the report um but it essentially means that

If a borrow if a council can’t demonstrate that it has a 5-year housing land Supply um its policies are then deemed out of date um and if the policies are out of date the mppf um which is the national planning policy framework has a paragraph um paragraph

11 um which states that if if a council doesn’t have an upto-date local plan A housing land Supply then applications for residential development should be granted unless the um the harm in doing so would substantially and demonstrably outweigh any benefits so the balance is tilted towards um being in favor of

Development because the policies are out of date so to bring the balance back and to tilt it the other way the harm has to be substanti substantially and demonstrably outweighed and those are the two words that are used in the mpf itself so our job here as offices is to

Work out if any harm substantially and demonstrably outweighs all the benefits that we have identified and that is how we’ve reached the conclusion that any harm do doesn’t weigh against the development to that great extent so hopefully that helps thank you Connie um Tony thank you um I I find I’ve got uh

Points in favor and points against this scheme one um I like the uh the degree of affordable housing that’s being proposed here um the uh concern of the residents and and uh other people interested parties here are really about the the uh traffic on on on barkham ride

And particularly at at at busy times I noticed you talking about uh moving the point at which the speed liit would change um can you tell us a little bit more about where you might how far you might move that yeah thank you um probably help perfect question for for me to

Actually make a clarification so for those that were on the site visit uh we did explore that that very question and I gave you an answer and it wasn’t entirely correct um so that has that was presented a moment ago in the officer’s report so uh I went back and

Checked for committee and uh the speed servey that was done at the site actually shows that uh observed speeds are close to the 30 mph limit we would expect them to be even up the point of new access uh so although the 30 mph speed limit is slightly east of this

Current site um speeds the 85% all speed is uh 35 miles an hour coming into the settlement 40 miles an hour coming out um which would be broadly consistent with people accelerating into the rural area um so there isn’t actually a need to relocate the speed limit but it’s

Certainly Our intention on the basis that the new supplement boundary when it does become fixed um that there would be a speed limit so that planning obligation uh has provisionally been identified to come with the the next site when it comes forward uh but obviously we can

Take direction from the committee if you feel very strongly otherwise thank you Alan Tony there there is there is a I think for for moving that uh speed limit a little further down the road just to slow the traffic up before this site and and that might make make it a little bit

More acceptable and make it easier for people to get out of their drives Etc so Tony when we come to consider a recommendation you know on this I wonder whether you might consider some wording um you know to capture that and not simply the location you know of the um

Um the speed limit it’s extend yeah its location but also possibly um the timing you know for uh for um making you know any any such changes thank you do you have any further questions Tony thank you uh Wayne um right I let me start at the

Beginning I did ask this when we were on site so we are talking about 56 plus the 26 when this was hold on I haven’t finished um 56 in the local plan it was 70 based on 31 and 33 we’ve now got 26 in the middle which are mobile

Homes so this site becomes 56 plus 26 six in terms of the communative effect of what was in the local plan what was in the local plan was 70 I know you tell me that we’re not discussing the three sites together but the cumulative effect is 108 versus

70 that’s as I understand it and listening to what people have said this evening and I did ask for clarity so what I’m seeking now take off the 2631 this site is um 20 56 plus 26 because when this was envisaged as a site you’re shaking your

Head you’re shaking your head rash out but I don’t think you get the point I was making on site those mobile homes weren’t in the local plan when it was set up it was it was 31 and 33 not 31a or Victoria Gardens so can I just have

Clarity on that yes so this question has been asked of the policy team as well um they confirmed that the um it’s 66 net increase um in the revised growth strategy um across 31 and 33 um that was envisaged above and beyond Victoria Gardens so it appears

That yeah Victoria Gardens was there and had been accounted for but the 66 net increase across 31 and 33 was on top of the 26 at Victoria Gardens yeah I didn’t realize that that that was in the original numbers when we worked at 31 and 33 you’re saying that is definitely

The case that’s what the policy team have advised yes that the amount in the local Plan update is above the what is at Victoria Gardens gain of 66 across both sites so 31 would be 10 in theory okay um it is it is a shame because you know we’re in this position we’re

Because we don’t have a local plan that’s the fact and we haven’t calculated our 5year land Supply since April 22 that’s another fact so we haven’t we have haven’t had an updated loc 5-year land Supply number since April 22 now you can challenge me on that but I can tell you is absolutely

Categorically the position because when it was calculated in December 22 it was the number was calculated um based on the situ the position we had in April so we’re nearly two years without this committee knowing where we are on the 5year land Supply and I bet you

Didn’t even know that and that’s that’s that’s not a good position for this committee to be in but you can challenge me on that Brian but please come back to me because I’ve been asking for an updated number I ask for it every month and I don’t get

It it was last calculated on the 13th of December 22 for a 200 site in Hurst so that’s why I know it because that’s my ward so it’s very difficult for people to to relate to the position we’re here cuz we’re all sitting in here and IDE ideally this

This this wouldn’t go through because it’s unsustainable as has been mentioned by lots of residents or is mentioned in here by lots of residents but we’re now in a position where it gets back to the Tilted balance that’s why the F 5year land Supply is so important because we don’t have the upto-date

Figures and that’s why I get frustrated every time we come here I was frustrated last month and I will keep getting frustrated until we get the numbers but there you are so this for me is purely down on sustainability the the traffic as we saw as we saw when we were there

And I know you you know Tony’s made the point about the 30 m uh 30 miles per hour speed limit which I think is essential but the other thing we’ve got to consider here is can you imagine what’s going to happen every morning when 56 properties which would based on

The numbers of the burrow which is 2.4 cars per dwelling are going to get out of one entrance they’re going to come out of that entrance can you imagine what that’s going to be like in that development so I said my points but I will come back Reserve but I I do really

Think that we’re sat around this table month in month out and we haven’t got an updated position on our five-year land Supply okay um I’d like to uh seek officer responses to those two questions okay the first question could somebody please explain why uh we don’t have an

Updated or a current a recent figure for the 5-year land Supply what are the reasons for this uh to to clarify we do um I know you sort of uh sounds like it’s a contradiction there but the um updated housing land Supply was published publicly uh first as part of

The watmore lane appeal and then it was made available on the 26th of January we believe um it’s in public circulation I’m not sure why or if members have had access to that if they’ve not been involved in either that appeal or they’ve asked the question since then um

It can be made available it is it is publicly available um as we speak um the I mean I can I can clarify the position if if councilors would feel that is beneficial uh it was the position was published as of the council’s housing

Land supply of the 31st of March 23 so a year after the 2022 position um and the deliverable Supply was 3.2 years which is 2545 dwellings um over the 5year period we need 795 dwellings over that period um that position has reduced from the previous position of 2022 which was

3.95 years which is March 22 um that yeah that’s that’s been publicly made available um that’s in the report um paragraph 3.15 thank you Brian and you know should there be further questions or clarification um uh requested from any members on this you know then I think we

Should deal with that outside um of the meeting uh the second um uh line of questioning was the volume of uh vehicles that may be uh attempting to leave the site at Peak uh peak times yes sorry thank you chair um uh sorry counselor first off I I apologize

I I perhaps pulled a face I wasn’t sure whether I misheard you or not uh so in terms of the development forecast you’re quite right the the transport statement uh does have a higher figure but on the basis that through the course of uh the application the number of dwellings was

Reduced so uh the development actually forecast to generate around 28 2A Peak movements uh uh sorry in and out of the development uh and now as a consequence of that yes that that does as I said uh represents somewhere in the order of 1.6 1.8% increase in traffic depending on

Its distribution and time uh and which day of the week because the flows are quite variable and as I said that has a significant impact uh partly because of the the time of year that some of the surveys have been done and some of the variations of Road works that have

Increased or decreased the traffic at different times thank you Ellen Wayne do you have further question questions at this stage thank you um L uh yeah but I’m just a small Point here on um 10.3.3 on page 181 about cycling he mention to and just to point out that

The um the my journey quiet link from pincham to oium Town Center has actually been it’s actually been blocked at um land land owners put a fence across it a BL Ro Drive between so you can’t can no longer get from BL Ro drive to Oakland Park so the it

Actually ends at the rather busy barkham road or bin hampon Road whichever way you go so um I don’t know if anyone’s going to sort that out um there’s a just a um or someone could make a note of that and try and try and reopen that route but

Um just I just wanted to mention um 10. 2.9 the um the missing Bridal way I mean if is there any chance of this being reinstated um at this stage it’s really hard to say um I’ve checked with our public rights of way team just today and they have still confirmed that the

Application is pending um as I mentioned before um the British horse Society has submitted their definitive map modification order application and as part of that they’re required to provide um evidence um sort of in the form of historic maps and other other other things they have to

Support their case so um it it’s really hard to say without having a sort of specialist here that deals with those applications as to whether the submission is robust enough to pass just on that point I think it’s important to have minuted that the application uh for a bridal path

Reinstatement of the bridal path is pending uh um and I think Connie you explained um that in its pres because of that its pending status um it doesn’t meet the test uh would not meet the test for us including uh reinstatement as a condition is that correct yes that’s

Correct okay so I think that’s also very important um um uh to note thank you Al do you have any further questions uh no just to say that I did actually cycle to the site visit here at 9 o’ in the morning and survived so I’m quite sure

How thank thank you Al okay Stuart yes thank you I I think evening sounds to me a bit like a numbers game about the number of houses that were in what plan and when and if before before the the the mobile house but one on site

One of the one of the only questions I remember asking which was the housing density proposed of this site and I was told that it was less than the one SED which our members of the public have told us it’s not the case now please can

You explain to me is that true or is that not true it’s all numbers tonight so um off officers have carried out their own sort of density calculations I suppose without comparing exactly how Hugh has um done his calculations it’s quite hard to um know know for sure what parameters we’ve both

Done um but paragraph uh 4.30 sort of outlines the densities of neighboring residential developments um so we’ve got um wood Cy close which we’ve equated to 24 dwell per hectare to the north for cottage roads equates to approximately 18 um dwellings per hectare and then to the West Victoria Gardens is 5117 dwellings

Per hectare because that’s a really dense development on a on a small piece of land um the proposed um density at 31 bark and ride um so the pending application is presently 17.6 dwellings per hectare and this site it’s 19.3 so they’re all roughly around the same ballpark with the exception of

Victoria Gardens which obviously has a much higher density thank you Connie Stuart do you have a further question uh Wayne you said that you would oh I I am I give it to you p and I it is interesting when I’ve asked officers for this number I keep being told that the calculations

Have been done by various people some of which have left and they and they’ve used different methodology for calculating and the last one we had um was as I said in I think it was the 13th of December 2022 so the current number we’ve got is

3.2 which is about a year year old what I think it would be useful because this is this this issue isn’t going to go away is we sit here and we approve sites which is like a a funnel we’re putting stuff into the hopper hopefully the land

Supply goes up so as we keep putting stuff in that land Supply position should in Theory start going up now we’re putting stuff in now I don’t know if unless they’re building more than 890 houses across the B each year we seem to be in a position where we’re putting stuff

In but it’s not going up and I think we we need to we need to have site because there’s a few sites that have been that have been approved by this committee large numbers and another one we’re coming on to a bit later although that’s already been

Proved and I’m hoping that Connor will tell us he can get that into the hopper even quicker um it’s so important this because this is going to be a contentious ID issue every time we come here now in this situation we wouldn’t be here if we

Had a local plan although the local plan did say 70 and as the gentleman said the finch champed plan did support 70 so as Stuart says we’re back to a numbers but I do have a lot of Sympathy for the people who live on that road CU they’re

Looking at something and they must be frustrated they’re looking to the futur and thinking all of this is going to happen around us where are we going to push the settlement boundary and yet all tonight we’re talking about is one increased site yeah I think you uh again I think that

You raise a very very important Point Wayne and um my suggestion would be that we uh continue this discussion in a structured way um you know perhaps with a meeting with officers outside you know of this meeting because as you’re as you quite rightly say you know this is um

This will be a recurring issue and we need you know we need to um um you know to have informed discussion about it so thank you very much you know for that suggestion um if there are no further questions at this point I would like to um uh to make

One comment um and also to ask one um uh one question um I noted that uh the reason that the primary reason U that is cited um in the um agenda documents pack uh for councilor maret’s listing uh this application was on the grounds that he considered it to be an unsustainable

Location and that um that view was certainly expressed also um uh by at least uh at least one other uh occasion uh this evening my own personal view um is that the site visit combined with the empirical evidence provided on page uh 180 really do not provide um very much

Support for this uh Viewpoint I would suggest limited support um you know at best um now there is um some extensive reference um on page Pages 196 to 198 um on a matter that uh I also believe um uh has um generated a lot of very

Understandable um uh concern by um uh by stakeholders um including uh residents and that is concern over the relation ship with this with other developments on barkham ride and I thank officers for including um you know a fairly meaty uh section in the report on this matter

There’s a note on page 198 on the possibility of a project board to look into wider coordination of developments in the area and it’s also noted that this has been discussed by amongst others by the community and corporate overview and scrutiny committee I think that um many members of this committee um um

You know would uh support um um uh this approach um but my question is can officers please explain why it would not be permissible or it may um you know to include um as a condition um a condition relating to a project board similar to help coordinate um manage um the number of

Developments you know that may or may not um eventuate um on barkham ride thank you chair um so the the uh activities of the council wider than the planning function cover many different statutory and obviously non-statutory roles um the the executive the administration have priorities and they

Have um formats uh to discuss you know issues that they’re alert to and one of them obviously is the cumulative impact of a number of developments whether they be Council developments whether they be private developments um such as this whether they be infrastructure um whether it be drainage transport that

Cut across a number of different functions now each site obviously has its own impacts and implications and where Poss um and where necessary as as Connie has highlighted the cumulative impacts of development can be considered when they are material so for example if a permission has been granted on this land

Or next to this land and is extent and a developer could go on site and put a spade in the ground then that is a material consideration there are also considerations we need to bear in mind with possible development that could come forward there’s no guarantee and as Michael mentioned before planning per

Missions change you know the the economy changes we don’t know what’s next week let alone next year so in terms of whether all Sites will come forward what order they will come forward what composition what nature that is very fluid each application must be considered on obviously on its own

Standalone with its own conditions that support the impacts that mitigate the impacts of this development we can’t as it’s made clear by government we can’t ask a developer to sort out a problem unrel related to that development however if numbers of developments contribute towards a problem absolutely they can p pull mitigation that’s

Section 106 contributions Community infrastructure Levy and so on in this case activities the council May undertake at a higher level to coordinate with developers would require that overarching role of go government local government and would not be within the remit or control nor meet the of an individual planning permission what we

Can do is require each development to wash its own face construction management Environmental Management you hours of operation Communications plan those things especially things like Communications plan can feed into departments within the council Allen’s Department in transport will be responsible for assessing certain aspects related to transport likewise

Planning will deal with other aspects waste e ology so on but that needs to be coordinated at a higher level and obviously once we have details once permissions are in in in train then that can be coordinated through the structures at the council and not through the planning permission itself

So hopefully that clarifies what we can and can’t do there okay chair thanks yes it does thank you Brian do any members have more questions any more questions okay way I think in simple terms Brian if I’m going to say again if we had a local plan we’ve now got a finch

Hamsted neighborhood plan so in theory in theory that should be enough that should be enough to pre protect this area if one were in place I know what you’re saying about an hierarchy I know what you’re saying but in theory if we had a plan a 5e supply

Etc etc then we wouldn’t be in a predicament to look at C the cumulative effect of developments within barkham ride Road sorry a brief response from anyone so I do feel this has been covered yeah before yeah so um this was uh touched upon in paragraph 3.24 of the main

Report and that paragraph discusses the situation where the Tilted balance is engaged but there is an upto-date neighborhood plan um and that’s covered then by paragraph 14 of the mppf um so I’ll I’ll just read it out um so it says in situations where the presumption at paragraph 11d applies to Applications

Involving the provision of housing the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighborhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits providing both the following apply so a the neighborhood plan became part of the development plan within five years or less before the date on which the

Decision is made which is the case here because the finch hamstad neighborhood plan was adopted just last year but then it goes on to say B the neighborhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement and then paragraph 3.25 uh paragraph 3.25 of the report

Then goes on to say how although um subsection a is complied with B is not because the finch hamsted neighborhood plan does not contain any housing allocation sites if it did then things would change and the neighborhood plan would then have greater weight in this situ ation so it’s just unfortunate the

That the neighborhood plan doesn’t comply with both A and B because as you said we would then be able to assess it differently yeah thank you Connie okay if there are no more further questions um from Members um I’d like to draw um the members attention to the officer

Recommendation um as outlined on pages 149 and 150 plus the update regarding section 106 agreement is stated on pages five and six um in the members update is there a member who would like to make a Proposal sorry your proposal I propos we um accept the officer’s recommendations okay seconded Tony okay all those in favor of accepting the officer’s recommendation thank you okay against okay thank you excuse me thank you I’ve been advised by uh Democratic services that I as chair have

Casting vote um and so I support this application the approval of this application right thank you members of the audience we still do have other applications to consider this evening so unless you would like to remain to listen to those um could you please quietly leave the room

Ladies and gentlemen if I could ask you please to leave the room quickly and quietly as we have not concluded our business for this evening For e e did I miss [Laughter] anything right ladies and gentlemen uh let us crack on um to the final two is the final package application which is agenda item 78 which is combining application numbers 1 19914 1 91 0681 92325 um now it’s listed in the agenda

As being for information only which it was but the supplementary agenda is saying actually we do now need to actually just take a formal decision on this um for reasons that I think Emmy will explain thank you thank you um the purpose of this report to the

Committee is to provide an update on the delivery of the South wokingham strategic development location and specifically on some of the changes to how the supporting infrastructure is to be secured um just to start with a little bit of background um the core strategy which was adopted in 2010 established

The vision for sustainable development in the burough in the period of to 2026 including over 13,000 new homes the majority of which were to be concentrated in for strategic development locations and of those two and a half thousand to be in an urban extension to the south of wokingham and

The reason for this approach was to allow for comprehensive planning and delivery of high quality development critically including including the supporting infrastructure that’s necessary for that in the case of South wokingham one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure is the South wokingham distributor Road um which will

Be a continuous new route running through the sdl connecting the a329 London Road in the North to the 321 Finch Hampsted Road in the South just near Tesco um in terms of what’s happening on the Strategic development location um it’s divided roughly by the um into watero Railway line and the first phase

Which was 636 dwellings on land north of the Railway at montue Park is now complete that’s outlined in yellow on the plan before you it represents roughly a quarter of the development in the sdl and delivered its proportionate share of the necessary infrastructure including the first section of the

Distributor Road um from the London Road down to the railway which is now known as William heer’s way and you can see red arrow on the drawing the second section of the distributor road which is commonly referred to as the Eastern Gateway um was approved in February 2018 and opened in early 2022

And it includes a bridge over the railway line extending William heer’s way to a new roundabout on water Road an application for the third Central section of the distributor Road from water road to Finch Hampstead Road was approved on the 24th of May 2021 um there’s no updates in relation

To that element of the sdl um work is actually due to start on the road imminently um with dealing with um conditions for that um once constructed it will provide access to the new development form a corridor for sustainable travel and offer an alternative route and thereby from traffic relief through the historic

Town center of wokingham um so that will result in reduced traffic congestion improved air quality and also create opportunities for further public realm improve improvements in the Town Center in terms of the um housing development in the stdl there were four applications submitted during 2019 which complete the comprehensively planned

Proposals for the sdl there are a suite of three applications referred to as phase two which you can see dotted in Blue on the plan and then an applica fourth application for phase three um which was reported to Committee in 2021 um so there were resolutions to approve all of those applications

Subject to 106 um and together they would deliver up 1,820 new homes of which 637 would be affordable um together with the supporting infrastructure um and as I say the the resolutions were to approve subject to Legal agreements to secure the infrastructure including um particular relevance to this update the land for

The distributor Road and among other things the primary school Community facility and public open space including allotments so um since the committee resolutions in 2020 um 1 and two uh we’ve been working with the developers to progress to section 106 agreements I think the broad requirements were set

Out in the core strategy the infrastructure delivery and contributions SPD and the now historic regulation 123 list um which also established an expectation that sdl applications would be accompanied by an infrastructure delivery plan and the infrastructure delivery plan for South wokingham it’s been prepared jointly by the five applicants which include the

Council in its capacity as the developer for the sudden distributor Road it sets out the comprehensive package of infrastructure to support development in the develop strategic development location how the infrastructure is to be secured and delivered so that’s generally either conditions an obligation for the the developer to

Deliver the works or a financial contribution to allow the council to carry out works and then also the proportionate share for each party of of the contributions and that then informs the section 106 agreements so the committee reports when the applications were first reported to committee um set out heads of terms for

The legal agreements and then through the subsequent um IDP negotiations there have been detailed discussions about the costs and how they’ll be fairly apportioned um inevitably it’s been a long and complex process um for a few reasons it’s been necessary to agree very robust costs for the infrastructure

Because of the way the apportionments happening and that’s particularly critical for the council and costs associated with the um Road um just in order to reduce the risk to the council um and also just the number of parties involved you’ve got five applications five different developers and numerous

Land owners as well who all need to be in a agreement so the key change um emerging from the negotiations and which is the reason we really need to bring this back to committee relates to who’s responsible for construction of the primary school Community facility and allotments originally the developers

Were going to provide the land and the council was going to deliver those facilities funded through sill however due to escalating cost generally just to Global situations the pandemic Ukraine cost of living all these things um the cost of the road has increased significantly compared to original forecasts and we’re now looking at

Something over 56 million for the road as a whole and there are many competing demands you’ll be well aware on the council’s budgets as well so to help Meet The increased cost it’s been agreed that the developers will now deliver the school the community facility and the

Lots so for the that works they will be delivering the council would have had to fund through sill um a saving of probably around2 million for the council associated with that change um there are changes to the triggers for delivery of those facilities um to make sure that they’re ready when they’re

Needed um and so the this report is effectively updating the heads of terms to it secure the land and the delivery and it will the 106s would now also set out the specification for facilities to ensure that they’re built to an appropriate standard um and I think just to be aware

If this isn’t agreed the original resolution would still stand so the council would remain liable for the costs of the school Community facility and allotments I think it’s a slight as side to um the S purpose of this report um but if the important that the distributor road is open early in the

Development and although it’s not directly relevant to this decision the council’s been pursuing other funding streams to help with the delivery of the road and has been offered a fully recoverable interest free loan from homes England to bridge the gap between sill income when the housing starts to

Be delivered and needing to deliver the road earlier on um which the alternative would be something like taking a loan with interest or delaying the road and therefore having an impact on the network so um that’s also a a great positive um another change um which I think the original recommendations

Allowed the assistant director to make amendments to conditions um arising from the post committee discussions um and I think the key change there is where at the time of committee the package of infrastructure was known but not who would be delivering what and that’s been

Refined a lot more now so some of the conditions listed all um I think particularly we’re looking at the off-site highway and pedestrian Cycle Works um and they listed all the necessary Works in each decision whereas now we can um narrow them down to be specific to what each developer is doing

Um and that’s set out in more detail in the committee report um also um an update to the S condition for the largest phase to allow for the likely phasing of that and there are some other you know updates like for example the tariffs for my journey and um Sam

Contributions have changed since the earlier resolutions and just um to note that all index all um contributions are index linked in any case so then um moving on to the resolution um as Chairman’s already mentioned um there is a change to the recommendation from the originally published report in the update that went

Out um because we we had legal advice that to make sure that we were robust and not open to challenge um the committee should vote on it even though I think essentially the infrastructure being delivered is unchanged it’s just a benefit to the council that um we there

20,000 sorry 20 million pounds um that we would have needed to meet from Sil but wouldn’t now um so the um recommendation which applies to all three of the applications um is to agree the revised mechanism for delivery of the school Community facility and allotments um so the developers will be

Providing the land and constructing the infrastructure um as I mentioned if it’s not agreed the original resolution still stands and then it also reiterates the authorization for the assistant director to update conditions and um that the applications could be refused if the 106 Agreements are not signed thank

You Emy thank you very much for that I mean my reading of this and listening to what you said this is AIT belts and braces exercise to actually just make sure we remove any possibility of a challenge that slows the thing up um I’ve done quite extensive reading

That you sent in the the sub in the supplementary thank you for that does anybody have any questions or challenges on this so I’ve got Wayne Tony Michelle just so that I’m clear so we were going to deliver the school Etc ourselves we were going to

Deliver it yeah yes now they’re going to deliver it yes so the cost of living crisis can’t be that bad um and this goes to the hub of what I was saying at the last application and I have all the sympathy for you two cuz I know what Journey

You’ve been on on this nightmare but had we had had those numbers we won’t be in the issue that we come again or come up against at every planning committee because you’ve got over two years here worth of land Supply you know and so I mean all I would say

Is whatever we can do to get them to get on with this so that we’ve got a plan so we can put it into the hopp it needs to be done because they’ve said all this before and they’ve not delivered so I just hope they do this

Time yeah just in response to that um we’ve obviously very closely working with the developers and everybody involved in this um they are looking subject to an approval um they are looking to get on site uh in about six months time to be building houses next

Year um so that uh could be factored into the local PL clear the local plan the B landit numbers um clearly what a what a inspector will need to see is evidence that that’s happening because we can’t just say it’s going to happen but um we’re we’re working up Reserve

Meers with them we’re working up conditions with them so that’s a lot of cost to the developers so they’re they’re very serious about getting going on this site um the delay essentially in in the recent times has been our our um uh conflict with the road and the cost

Because things have gone up massively clearly so um yeah essentially the scheme before you is is really a better deal for the taxpayers road is so essential because it’s doing development in the right way not what we’ve just experienced peace stuff on barkham ride yeah not right but

Yeah I mean the some of the cil’s biggest successes is the ability to forward fund infrastructure we’ve done that the whole way um and that’s what the homes England um loan securers for us it’s the ability to to plug that Gap in the funding from s um to Ford fund

The road and also by delivering a one go it’s 556 million pound pretty expensive you do it in lumps you’re talking 7080 million pound so it’s again a tax saving to the to the local residents yeah it’s sort of simp I’m I’m a very simplistic level here we we’ve

Had a renegotiation with the developers which which they’re going to pay 20 million uh that we were going to have to pay there must be some payback on that having dealt with builders in the past is you don’t get anything out of the fdaf I just wonder what what what’s

What how that negotiation went what what we’ve given up um I think well I mean that’s what it would probably have cost the council if they were building it we would we don’t won’t have the figures of what it actually costs them to implement

It um but I think the thing is that they are very much dependent on delivery of the road as well they can’t get in and access a lot I mean they could they could make a start but but the development can’t be completed you can’t build out fully without the road so it’s

A sort of you know a symbiotic relationship we need the housing land delivery and they need the road to be able to build the houses so um that’s really their interest in it two things one on your thing that’s up there please put a comma after school and then Community facility so the

School it’s not the school Community facility uh it’s the school comma Community facility um yeah two separate things and make sure the community facility is actually fitted out unlike monteu Park and live put nowhere near the school so actually it can be used at other times um that’s the problem with

Most of the community facilities we’ve had they either are next to a school so then we can’t use it during the day the burrow can’t use it or the residents can’t use it because of uh child endangerment uh but also to make sure that the facility actually is usable

Mont Park is absolutely worthless as it is right now because it’s an empty shell and no one’s got 250,000 pounds to fit it out to run it just on that point so the montue park there is a room there it isn’t been used but it was never it was never intended

As part if you look if you look at the the the development plan for South Bim there was never Community intended there what happened was um the developers Dave Wilson um because they came ahead of everybody else for quite a long way um essentially offered that up as a as as a

Assistance to get them planning permission because it’s something the new um Center would be so there’s the school which is separate to the community building so where we did it in the past we built them together it was a cost-saving exercise clearly There’s issues with that we’ve learned our

Lesson and it’s two separate buildings just just sure we’ve learned the lesson because it was a real disaster I mean we couldn’t no one can find anybody who wants to run the community center because it’s an empty storefront and they have to even fit out the plumbing and the electricity and everything like

That and so it’s a great place but it’s useless he um I mean I’ve kind of echo Wayne sentiments in t sake crack on with this because we need these houses and we need them soon um hases anybody else got any further comments or questions about

It no in that case actually I’m going to propose that we accept the off of recommendation and passes across Michelle seconding yeah those in favor that’s great crack on and give us our houses yeah that was the last item on the agenda which brings the meeting to an

End thank you all for your time and patience and see you all next month for