The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2021 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Challenger declared an interest in Item 55 as he worked for Three; Hutchison Telecommunications owned Three and had submitted some of the Prior Approval applications.

Councillor Carnell declared a prejudicial interest in Item 58 (210994/HOU – 82 Albert Road) on the grounds of predetermination.

Councillor Josh Williams asked the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee:

Local Listing Process

In early December last year this Planning Committee resolved to set up and run a new process for locally listing our heritage buildings that would allow the local community to be involved in the planning process, and decisions to reside with the Planning Committee. Can the Chair please update us on progress made towards that new process in the last 10 months? Can the Chair also tell us how many applications for local listing are in the queue at this point, ready to be assessed and determined once the process is up and running?

REPLY by the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee (Councillor Lovelock):

Planning Applications Committee (PAC) in December 2020 considered a number of options for how to approach deciding on additions to the List of Locally Important Buildings.  Committee agreed that proposed Option 2 approach, involving PAC deciding on individual proposals, should form the basis for the detailed process.  It was agreed that the Deputy Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services be authorised to set up the detailed process.

A detailed process in line with the agreed Option 2 was agreed and put in place in May 2021.  In summary, this process is as follows:

·      Stage 1 – Completion of nomination form on Council website, based on the agreed criteria in the Local Plan

·      Stage 2 – nomination form checked by Planning Technical Support

·      Stage 3 – Planning Technical Support compile information on existing designations and land ownership.  If the building is nationally listed, within a scheduled monument or is an identified building of townscape merit within a conservation area, it does not require local listing and will not be considered further.

·      Stage 4 – Consultations will be sent out to the relevant landowner(s), ward councillors, Reading Conservation Area Advisory Committee, Reading Civic Society and any relevant community or cultural/religious organisation for the area or building.  This will include a map of the site and the information provided by the party who nominated the building.  The consultation period is 28 days.

·      Stage 5 – addition of the building to the relevant PAC agenda

·      Stage 6 – the Conservation and Urban Design Officer (CUDO) will undertake a site visit.  Whether or not an internal site visit is required will be decided on a site by site basis.

·      Stage 7 – CUDO to compile consultation responses

·      Stages 8/9 – preparation by CUDO of PAC report and cross-check by managers.  PAC report to include consultation responses and analysis of building or structure against the set criteria in the Local Plan.

·      Stage 10 – PAC to determine whether or not the building should be locally listed.  There will be no public speaking either for or against at PAC unless otherwise directed by the Chair.  If PAC decides that the building is to be locally listed, that takes effect immediately

·      Stage 11 – If PAC decision diverges from CUDO recommendation, reasoning and/or local listing text to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted, at the meeting, a schedule of applications to be considered at future meetings of the Committee to enable Councillors to decide which sites, if any, they wished to visit prior to determining the relevant applications.

At the meeting it was reported that application 210975 (205-213 and Land to the rear of 215-219 Henley Road, Caversham) had been withdrawn and so had been removed from the list of site visits to be carried out agreed at the previous meeting.

Resolved -    That, unless there were any additional applications which the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services considered appropriate, no additional site visits be arranged.

(i)       New Appeals

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a schedule giving details of one notification received from the Planning Inspectorate regarding a planning appeal, the method of determination for which she had already expressed a preference in accordance with delegated powers, which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report. 

(ii)      Appeals Recently Determined

The Executive Director of Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted details of one decision that had been made by the Secretary of State, or by an Inspector appointed for the purpose, which was attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

(iii)     Report on Appeal Decision

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the following appeal decisions in Appendix 3 and in an update report tabled at the meeting:

Resolved –   

(1)      That the new appeal, as set out in Appendix 1, be noted;

(2)      That the outcome of the recently determined appeal, as set out in Appendix 2, be noted;

(3)      That the reports on the appeal decisions set out in Appendix 3 and in an update report be noted.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of ten prior approval applications received, and in Table 2 of eleven applications for prior approval decided, between 24 August and 23 September 2021.

Resolved –    That the report be noted.

(Councillor Challenger declared an interest in the above item.  Nature of interest: Councillor Challenger worked for Three; Hutchison Telecommunications owned Three and had submitted some of the Prior Approval applications.)

Conversion and extension of existing building to form 9no. flats.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the above application. 

Comments and objections were received and considered.

Resolved –   

(1)      That the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services be authorised to grant full planning permission for application 210811/FUL, subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement by 5 January 2022 (unless a later date be agreed by the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services) to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report, with an amendment to Head of Term 1 to require the off-site affordable housing contribution to be a minimum of £22,500;

(2)      That, in the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission;

(3)      That planning permission be subject to the conditions and informatives recommended.

Outline planning application (Access only. Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale Reserved for future consideration) for the redevelopment of the Meadway precinct including partial demolition, refurbishment and extension of existing retail units and creation of new retail premises within Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1 and D2, 258 new residential dwellings (Use Class C3), new car park and servicing arrangements, bin stores, engineering operations including re-profiling of embankment and associated landscaping, re-location of public toilets within precinct (amended description).

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the above application.  An update report was tabled at the meeting which corrected some errors in the original report and gave details of Zero Carbon Homes.  The recommendation had been amended accordingly, including a correction to the type of planning application, proposed amendments to the heads of terms in the S106 agreement regarding Zero Carbon Homes and a correction to the number of dwellings in Condition 7.  It was reported at the meeting that an additional objection had been received on 6 October 2021 from 103 Cockney Hill and a summary of the objection was given. 

Comments and objections were received and considered.

Resolved –

(1)           That the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services be authorised to grant outline planning permission for application 191496, subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement by 30 November 2021 (unless a later date be agreed by the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services) to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report, with the amendments set out in the update report.

(2)      That, in the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission;

(3)      That planning permission be subject to the conditions and informatives recommended in the original report, with the amendment set out in the update report.

Single storey rear extension and new Velux Cabrio windows to rear elevation of loft floor.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the above application. 

Comments and objections were received and considered.

Resolved –    That planning permission for application 210994/HOU be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives as recommended in the report.

(Councillor Carnell declared a prejudicial interest in the above application on the grounds of predetermination.  He addressed the Committee as ward councillor and took no further part in the debate or decision.)

Single storey rear extension and new Velux Cabrio windows to rear elevation of loft floor.

The Executive Director for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the above application. 

Comments and objections were received and considered.

Resolved –    That planning permission for application 210994/HOU be granted, subject to the conditions and informatives as recommended in the report.

(Councillor Carnell declared a prejudicial interest in the above application on the grounds of predetermination.  He addressed the Committee as ward councillor and took no further part in the debate or decision.)