PREVIOUSLY rejected plans to raze an office block and build 99 apartments in its place are due to go before the council this evening (July 20).

At the end of last year documents were submitted to Bracknell Forest Council asking for permission to demolish the Redwood Building and Chiltern House on Broad Lane.

Proposals to build 99 dwellings in its place were thrown out in March however, after the Committee rejected officers' suggestions to green light the plan over inadequate parking provisions.

With 115 parking spaces provided for 99 apartments housing 158 people, the plans were 63 spaces short of the Council's parking standards.

At the time, the Council's written objection read: “The proposal would not comply with the Local Planning Authority’s standards in respect of vehicle parking. This would be likely to encourage on-street parking and therefore have a detrimental impact upon road safety and the flow of traffic."

This evening the plans are due to go in front of the committee again, despite no changes having been made to the parking provision.

Since the last application additional surveys into parking demand in the area have been carried out.

Because the sites either side of the development operated at a lower parking space per dwelling ratio, the surveys concluded, the 115 spaces to 99 apartments proposed was now deemed acceptable - even though no extra spaces had been added. 

Simon Roskilly, chief planning officer for the build, said: "The previous scheme was refused by the Planning Committee at its March meeting as it felt there was insufficient parking and did not meet parking standards.

"The scheme has been resubmitted along with additional parking survey evidence and this will be presented to the Committee tonight.

"The report on this scheme recommends conditional approval. The scheme is the same as the one which was previously refused but incorporates further evidence to support the level of car parking being suggested."

In terms of affordable housing provision, 16 per cent of the apartments would be affordable - nine per cent lower than the typical 25 per cent provision, legal because the buildings being replaced are currently vacant.