18 affordable flats at Liberty House, Strand Way, Earley, Wokingham

What was proposed

The application sought three two-storey buildings containing 18 flats, with parking, landscaping, footpaths and other associated development.

“Applicant [name withheld] Address Land Adjoining Liberty House, Strand Way, Lower Earley RG6 4EA Proposal Full planning permission for the erection of three 2No storey buildings each comprising of six apartments (18 in total), together with associated ancillary development, hardstanding, landscaping and footpaths Type Full Officer Mark Croucher Reason for determination by committee Major application (>10 dwellings)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was privately owned open grassland adjoining Liberty House, with two new accesses serving 18 parking spaces and communal landscaping.

“The subject site is a parcel of privately owned open space originally forming part of the Liberty of Earley House site to the west. The proposal involves the erection of three link- detached, two-storey, flat buildings, each with six units. Two new accesses off Strand Way will service two car parks with a total of 18 car spaces. The development is proposed as…”

“There are no in-principle objections to the infill development of the site and it accords satisfactorily with the surrounding character and form of development. Highway issues are to the satisfaction of the Council’s Highways Officer, including visibility and the level of car parking, subject to Conditions 8, 10 and 16-18.”

Officer report

Objections and local concerns

Twenty objections focused on traffic, parking, visibility, safety, construction disruption, design, loss of green space, wildlife and environmental measures.

“Strand Way is a narrow, curved road with limited visibility and the location unsuitable for additional traffic associated with 18 new apartments. • The road currently experiences congestion and dangerous manoeuvres, particularly near blind corners and bends. • Restricted sightlines, especially at night and during adverse weather conditions. • Construction traffic and delivery vehicles will worsen congestion and obstruct access to properties.”

“Parking from the new development would block access to driveways, exacerbate obstruction, and force cars to reverse dangerously. • The road is used by children cycling and playing, and increased traffic and parking are seen as direct risks to their safety. • The visibility and width of the road are not considered sufficient to ensure safe access for pedestrians, especially during peak times or emergencies.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The ward member spoke against the application, while councillors and officers discussed the previous approval, highways position and parking standards.

Committee discussion

Members discussed difficult on-street parking, possible parking controls, affordable housing, compatibility with the area, access, cycle parking and drainage conditions.

“Councillor Iyengunmwena agreed that on street parking at Strand Way was difficult. Alan Lewis confirmed that the application complied with the parking standards. Whilst the…”

“Councillor Andrea summarised that the principle of development was acceptable, the application was the renewal of a previously approved, lapsed application, the application was compatible with the area and would bring 100% affordable housing, access was sufficient, and 18 parking spaces would be provided. He went on to state that there would be parking for cycles and that no objections to the application had been received from Highways or Landscapes.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application subject to the legal agreement, with refusal authorised if the agreement was not completed within six months.

“RESOLVED: That application 250148 be approved subject to the following: A. Completion of a legal agreement relating to the following head of terms: Employment Skills Plan. 2. 100% on-site Affordable Housing (subject to such additional, updated obligations or conditions (if any) as agreed by officers on behalf of the Assistant Director – Place and Growth).”

“B. Alternative recommendation: That the Planning Committee authorises the Head of Development Management to refuse planning permission in the event that: A S106 legal agreement satisfactory to officers (on behalf of the Assistant Director – Place and Growth) is not completed within 6 months.”

Minutes