To receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

To receive any declarations of interest.

Councillor Haseler declared a prejudicial interest for item 4, Grove Park as he had sent a letter of objection to the application, before he became a councillor in 2018. Councillor Haseler would leave the meeting for Item 4 and the Vice Chairman, Councillor Cannon would sit as Chairman and then hand back to Councillor Haseler at the end of item 4. Councillor Haseler would take no part in any discussion or vote for item 4.

Councillors Bowden, Cannon, Hilton, Knowles and Tisi had sat on previous planning panels when the application for item 6, Essex Lodge, was discussed at Windsor Area Development Management Panel. All members were attending the meeting with an open mind.

The Panel to agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 21^st October 2020 to be a true and accurate record.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: that the minutes of the meeting held on 21 October 2020 were a true and accurate record after a small amendment in the DOI item, to change ‘he’ to ‘she’ for Councillor Tisi’s declaration.

PROPOSAL: Outline application for access, layout and scale only to be considered at this stage with all other matters to be reserved for the erection of up to x79 dwellings and erection of a nursery building (D1) following demolition of a number of existing buildings.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

APPLICANT: Sorbon Estates Ltd

MEMBER CALL-IN: N/A

EXPIRY DATE: 31 May 2019

A motion was put forward by Councillor Hill to permit the application as per Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Bowden.

A named vote was taken.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: that the application be PERMITTED as per Officer’s recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Landscaping to the front garden, new replacement front boundary treatments, with vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates, new external finishes, alterations in fenestrations and part single part two storey side/rear extension, following demolition of existing buildings.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

APPLICANT: Mr Keegan

MEMBER CALL-IN: N/A

EXPIRY DATE: 27 May 2020

A motion was put forward by Councillor Reynolds to permit the application as per Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Hilton.

A named vote was taken.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: that the application be PERMITTED as per Officer’s recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Construction of x10 flats with associated landscaping, parking and bin store and alterations to the existing access, following demolition of the existing building.

RECOMMENDATION: Permit

APPLICANT: Sorbon Estates Ltd

MEMBER CALL-IN: Councillor Mrs Lynne Jones

EXPIRY DATE: 20 November 2020

A motion was put forward by Councillor Walters to refuse the application, contrary to Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Knowles. The reasons for refusal were that the proposed development by virtue of its layout, scale and mass and given that the building would intrude further forward along Osbourne Road the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the Conservation Area and the public benefits are not considered to outweigh this harm. The proposal fails to comply with Local Plan policies DG1, H10 and CA2 of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan Incorporating Alterations adopted June 2003.

A named vote was taken.

RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, for the reasons above.

PROPOSAL: Construction of 5 residential blocks comprising of 129 residential units together with associated landscaping, car parking and infrastructure works following the demolition of the existing buildings.

RECOMMENDATION: DD (Defer and Delegate)

APPLICANT: Bellway Homes

MEMBER CALL- IN: N/A

EXPIRY DATE: 17 August 2020

A motion was put forward by Councillor Hilton to refuse the application, contrary to Officers recommendation. The reasons for refusal were the design was such that there was too little amenity space for the numbers of apartments that would be in the building, there was lack of community space in the building which would have adverse effect to health and wellbeing of people within that community. The harm was significant and would outweigh the benefits of having additional housing. The site was over-developed and would give rise to unacceptable traffic impact which would cause a significant detrimental effect. The policies that cover this included DG1, H10, H11, H14, Highways Policy T5 and NPPF policy’s 127, 127A, policy F within 127 and 130.

A motion was put forward by Councillor Cannon to defer and delegate the application to Head of Planning as per Officers recommendation in the panel update.

Councillor Hill seconded the first proposal for refusal, made by Councillor Hilton. Councillor Hill added that the proposed development was high density and the effect of people’s mental health, especially in the current times.

Councillor Reynolds seconded the second proposal to defer and delegate the application to Head of Planning as per Officers recommendation in the panel update, made by Councillor Cannon.

A named vote was taken on the first proposal that had been proposed and seconded. A named vote was taken on the motion put forward by Councillor Hilton and seconded by Councillor Hill to refuse the application.

This motion fell.

A second named vote was taken on the second proposal for approval as per Officers recommendation, proposed by Councillor Cannon and seconded by Councillor Reynolds.

RESOLVED: that the application be DEFERRED AND DELEGATED to Head of Planning, as per Officer’s recommendation in the Panel Update.

A named vote was taken to see if Panel Members wanted to continue with the meeting.

RESOLVED: that the meeting carried on to complete the items on the agenda.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing office building, and the construction of a new grade A office building with associated cafe, communal roof terrace, car parking, new pedestrian access and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: DLA (Defer Legal Agreement)

APPLICANT: Ms Broughton

MEMBER CALL-IN: N/A

EXPIRY DATE: 21 September 2020

A motion was put forward by Councillor Reynolds to refuse the application, contrary to Officers recommendation.

A motion was put forward by Councillor Hill to approve the application as per Officers recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Hilton.

Councillor Reynolds motion was not seconded.

A named vote was taken on the second proposal which was for approval as per Officers recommendation, proposed by Councillor Hill and seconded by Councillor Hilton.

RESOLVED: that the application be PERMITTED as per Officer’s recommendation.

The Panel to note the reports.

Councillor Walters highlighted that out of 15 appeals, only two refusals were allowed. This was a good record.

Councillor Walters informed the Panel and the Chairman that he was not happy that he was unable to participate in item 1.