To consider a report from the Head of Planning in relation to the appeal at Former Imperial House/Windsor Business Quarter 67 Alma Road Windsor

Jenifer Jackson, Head of Planning, stated the purpose of the report being presented to Panel was not to reopen that application and so new reasons for refusal could not be added, it was brought back to Panel to consider the three reasons for recusal. The Head of Planning added that following correspondence, the Council needed to revisit the application to make sure the reasons for refusal stood up at appeal. Officers did not feel they could robustly defend the refusal in light of the Borough Local Plan being paused. Therefore, Officers would only present reason three as laid out in Section three of the main report.

The Head of Planning wanted to reassure residents and the Panel that it was usual to negotiate and enter into a legal agreement prior to appeal and that would not prejudice the case. The Inspectorate would want it made clear what the dispute was prior to the application going to appeal.

Councillor Stretton addressed the Panel and stated following the Full Council decision to uphold the appeal, she had read the report from the June Panel and Officers had cited three reasons for refusal. She asked why all aspects were not included; residents and Members were being told that a long pause in the Borough Local Plan was requested due to significant changes being needed. Councillor Stretton added the submission of evidence should reflect the weight of the Borough Local Plan and she suggested a robust refusal and that Officers could just remove the reference to the Borough Local Plan. Councillor Stretton said an informative could be added and that she will recommend the application is reviewed and scrutinised at the Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel. She had raised the issues in Spring 2018.

Councillor Bowden said he would attend the appeal as a Councillor and as a local resident. He would be supporting residents in objection to the application. Councillor Bicknell stated it had been made clear that the Panel were not going over the decision. Development of the site had been presented to Panel over many years but, it had never been approved. He added the Borough’s Officers were the experts and there were three reasons for refusal but, two now appeared to carry less weight and were weak. If the Borough put forward the two weak reasons, it could make the third reason weak and that was concluded from expert advice. Councillor S. Rayner agreed; she stated the third reason had given more weight to refusal and would help the case. The development was not of a high quality design.

The Head of Planning confirmed the Panel debated many issues back in June 2018 and only requested three reasons for refusal so it was not right to add any more reasons. Councillor E. Wilson said he agreed with Councillor Bicknell’s comments that the situation had changed materially since June 2018 and of the Council did not consider those material changes, the Planning Inspector would ask why . Full council had supported the Panel’s desire to defend the reason for refusal. He supported the recommendations in the report. Councillor Quick stated the Panel wanted to make sure the Council had the best case to win at appeal. She added that as the site was derelict, that would weaken the reason for employment.  The Head of Planning confirmed in June 2019 that the Borough was in a position to allocate the site for employment in the Borough Local Plan but the plan had not progressed as quickly as hoped and therefore, that did not help the Council’s case.

Councillor Beer stated he had been a Member of Development Management Panels for over 24 years and he felt the Borough was stuck. He did not like it but he thought the Panel should adopt the recommendation before them as it was best to stick to firm ground, he also supported the Officers recommendations as listed in the report. The Head of Planning stated it was not that the Borough Local Plan was proceeding very well, it was that it was taking longer than hoped. She confirmed the plan had been progressing well. The Council were prepared for the appeal and had appointed an urban design officer to make the case; she had been out to site and a survey of the site had also been carried out.

The Chairman informed residents and Members that the appeal was being held at the Windsor Racecourse and he urged all those that could to attend.

RESOLVED: That the Panel authorised the Head of Planning to:

1.    Write to the Planning Inspectorate and Appellant setting out that the Council will now only be pursuing the appeal on the third reason for refusal and then to prepare evidence and defend the Council’s case only in relation to the third reason for refusal.

2.    Finalise a Section 106 agreement with the Appellant to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

(Councillor Bowden abstained from the vote due to the interest he declared, and Councillor M. Airey did not vote as he arrived to Panel a few minutes into the debate of the item).