PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire, on Tuesday, 8^th July 2008 which commenced at 7.30 pm.

Present

Chairman – Councillor T Chambers

(Vice-Chairman in the Chair)

Councillors J Armstrong, A T Bradley, Mrs L Chambers, Ms P A Dunn, Mrs P Jorgensen (from 8.53 pm), Mrs C M Mitchell.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mrs J A Lissaman and N Preston.  Councillor Mrs Jorgensen gave an apology for her late arrival due to work commitments.

_________________________________________________________________________________

26.       MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 10^th June 2008 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

27.       APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

27.1      Decision Notices

RESOLVED that the Decision Notices as reported to the meeting be noted.

27.2.      Affected Neighbour Notifications

RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour notifications be sent as appropriate.

27.3.     “No Objection” Recommendations

            RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:

27.4.     Applications Requiring a Committee Decision

RESOLVED that the observations and comments as listed below be sent to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:

            Councillors considered that if this application was allowed to proceed there would be insufficient appropriate on site parking, which would cause cars to be parked in the road which was deemed unacceptable .

It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

            Councillors considered that this property had already been over developed, and that if permission was now granted to convert the garage into living accommodation, there would be insufficient appropriate on site parking, which would result in on street parking in a road that was already heavily congested.  For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.

            In order to comply with the deadline for comments, this application had been considered by the Town Council’s Plans Working Party.  The comments below were, therefore, ratified at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8^th July.

In considering the latest proposals for this site, it was noted that the number of dwellings proposed had been reduced from 14 to 10 compared to the most recent previous application on the site.  It was further noted that this latest application also included a bungalow.  The Town Council supported this element of the application, since it had consistently declared a need for more single storey dwellings in mixed housing type developments.

However, the area of land which was the subject of this application formed a very valuable “green lung” between Earley and Woodley, and was designated within the current Wokingham District Plan as a green wedge under Policy WCC2.  Furthermore, within that Plan the area relating to this proposal was specifically mentioned in Chapter 2.81 and was designated as an Area of Urban Landscape Value under Policy WLL5. 

This area of Earley was fortunate in having a number of well established properties with large gardens and an open aspect.  The proposal now under consideration would create an unacceptable level of infilling behind the established development of Pitts Lane.  This would harm the open character of the area and would be in contravention of Policy WOS3.

Whilst it was noted that this proposal was for the erection of 10 dwellings, it was suggested that, if it was allowed to proceed, it would set a precedent which may lead to further applications for the construction of dwellings on other areas of the open space at the back of Pitts Lane.

Turning to the detail of the plan, Councillors were concerned about the proposal for the car port for the bungalow on Plot 1.  It was considered that this was too far away from the main entrance to the property and the occupiers would, therefore, be more likely to park on the road to gain easy access to this plot.  Since it was situated on a bend, it was felt that this would cause an obstruction, and particularly to larger vehicles such as delivery lorries, refuse vehicles or emergency vehicles.

In conclusion, therefore, the Town Council remained opposed to any development of the back gardens of properties in Pitts Lane, and would request the Borough Council’s Planning Committee to refuse this application, not only on the precedent it may set for the area, but, more importantly, on the fact that it breached three of the fundamental policies contained within the Wokingham District Plan.

            In discussing this application, Councillor’s attention was drawn to a copy of a letter received from the Borough Council in which its objections to this application, on the grounds that it would not wish to see the loss of a retail unit at this site, had been communicated to Reading Borough Council.

Members of the Town Council’s Planning Committee fully supported the views expressed in this letter, and, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors remained extremely concerned about the increase in traffic the proposed development at this site would generate.

            Members of the Planning Committee remained extremely concerned about the lack of parking provision on the Whiteknights Campus, particularly as the proposals now under consideration include the provision of an additional 1000 plus student rooms on the site.  There was already a considerable parking problem around the Whiteknights Campus, causing severe congestion in many of the neighbouring residential roads.

On numerous occasions in the past, when applications from the University had been considered, the Town Council had asked that a condition should be imposed requiring that the University maintained a one mile student parking exclusion zone around the campus.  This system was very successfully operated by Bournemouth University, and with the resources available to Reading University, Members of the Town Council could see no reason why such a system could not work in Earley.

In discussing this application, Councillors’ attention was drawn to two public meetings due to take place shortly, allowing the opportunity for further discussion with the University and its Consultants over the proposals for the development of the Whiteknights Campus, and, therefore, the Town Council would wish to submit further observations on this application following attendance at these meetings.

            In considering this application, Councillors were pleased to note the amount of on site parking which had been made available, and also acknowledged the standard of design of the proposed two dwellings. 

However, there was concern that the entrance to the site was on a bad bend in Silverdale Road, right opposite the entrance to Loddon School.  This area already gets severely congested and particularly at the start and end of the school day, and, it was felt that the positioning of the entrance, and the possible introduction of further traffic onto this road was inappropriate.

If the Planning Officer was mindful to accept this proposal, it was requested that at least two conditions were imposed as follows:-  (i) that a 5 metre environmental strip in the area of the stream was, by Section 106 Agreement, passed into public ownership and (ii) that a condition was imposed preventing the creation of entrances in the rear fences of the proposed properties or any access to or across the stream.

This was to maintain the valuable wildlife habitat which existed in the stream, and to also ensure that the stream could be managed appropriately to try to prevent the flooding which has occurred in the area in recent years.

            Councillors considered that application was unneighbourly, and would create a property with an appearance which was out of character with other dwellings in the road.

Furthermore, it was felt that, as this was a semi detached property, it would create an unbalanced appearance which would be ascetically unpleasing and of detriment to the street scene.

For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.

            The Town Council did not receive any plans in support of this application, neither was the application available on the Borough Council’s web site at the date of the Planning Meeting.

Therefore, the Planning Committee could not comment on the proposa, and requested an extension on the deadline for comments, such that, when plans were available, the Committee could fully judge the application.

28.       APPEALS

28.1      New Appeals

28.1.1   F/2008/0232 – 7 Springdale

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a change of use from amenity land to residential, plus the erection of a fence to the boundary with creation of a new parking area.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

28.1.2   F/2008/0320 – 37 – 53 Meadow Road

Whilst notice had been given on the main agenda for this meeting that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of ten dwellings, vehicular access and associated parking and the demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road, Councillors were asked to note that, since compilation of this agenda, notice had been received that the Appeal had been withdrawn by the appellant.

28.1.3   F/2008/0509 – 53 The Drive

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's non-determination of this application, which was for the proposed erection of three detached dwellings with associated parking and access.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

28.2      Appeal Decisions

28.2.1   F/2007/1479 – 20 Pitts Lane

It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow the demolition of the existing derelict bungalow and the erection of a single-storey gospel hall with associated car parking facilities had been allowed.

28.2.2   F/2007/1894 – 3 Whitegates Lane

It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a detached dwelling, had been allowed.

28.2.3   F/2007/2350 – 48A Shepherds House Lane

It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council’s refusal to allow planning permission for a single storey rear and two storey side extension, had been dismissed.

28.2.4   F/2007/2798 & F/2007/2794 – 1 Robindale Avenue

It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusals to allow planning permission for the construction of a dwelling, had both been dismissed.

28.3.     Notice of Informal Hearing – Application No. F/2007/2790 – Hilltop Christian Centre

Councillors were advised that this Appeal which was against the Borough Council’s refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of two blocks of flats with parking and cycle storage and demolition of the main buildings with the retention of the hall, would be heard by means of an Informal Hearing to be held at Shute End on the 23^rd July commencing at 10.00 am.

29.       PLANS WORKING PARTY MEETING – 25^TH JUNE

Councillors were advised that the Town Council had received a planning application, No. F/2008/1129, in respect of a proposal to build ten dwellings in the rear gardens of 36-50 Pitts Lane.  In order to meet the deadline for comments on this application, with the permission of the Planning Committee Chairman, a special meeting of the Plans Working Party had been convened for Wednesday, 25^th June, to consider the application and draft comments on it.  It was

RESOLVED – That the notes of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 25^th June, as appended to these Minutes, be approved and the draft observations in respect of application F/2008/1129 be confirmed.

30.       WOKINGHAM BOROUGH LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK SUBMISSION            CORE STRATEGY

Councillors noted receipt of a copy of the above document which was due to be considered by the Borough Council's Executive at a meeting on 26^th June.

31.       DRAFT READING CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN

Councillors were advised that the comments submitted by the Town Council had been reviewed by Reading Borough Council, and the Borough Council had written to provide the Town Council with its initial responses to the observations made. 

Councillors now noted details of the responses given, which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.

32.       UNIVERSITY OF READING

32.1      Proposed Wind Farm – Rushy Mead

Councillors were reminded that Councillor J Armstrong, had attended the above meeting, together with representatives of Shinfield and Arborfield Parish Councils, to discuss its proposals for the possible installation of a wind farm at Rushy Mead.

Councillor Armstrong advised that the presentation had been very professional, and that representatives of Shinfield Parish, Arborfield Parish, the University and the University Consultants had been present. 

Councillor Armstrong continued by advising that the University were proposing to submit a planning application to Wokingham Borough Council in the Autumn for up to six turbines each 125 metres high to the tip of the blade, with the first turbine being operational by 2011.  Councillors were further advised that a representative of the University had agreed to attend a Town Council meeting to discuss the proposal.  It was agreed that a representative from the University should be invited to attend the Planning Committee meeting at which the planning application would be discussed.

32.2      Re-Development of the Whiteknights Campus

Councillors were asked to note that, in association with its proposals for the halls re-development on the Whiteknights Campus, two Public Consultations were being held:

·         Friday, 11^th July – 10 am to 8 pm (Consultants in attendance 4 pm to 8 pm)

·         Saturday, 12^th July – 10 am to 2 pm (Consultants in attendance 10 am to 2 pm)

in the foyer of the Carrington Building at the Whiteknights Campus.

It was further noted that response forms would be available at the public meeting, and the deadline for comments was 5.00 pm on Thursday, 24^th July.

33.       HIGHWAY MATTERS

33.1      Saffron Close & Amber Close – Proposed Waiting Restrictions

Councillors were reminded that this Committee had, previously, been asked to comment on proposals to introduce waiting restrictions into these two roads.

A communication had now been received from the Borough Council indicating that, in view of the public comments received in respect of the last set of proposals, the Borough had now come forward with a revised proposal details of which had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.  It was

RESOLVED – that the Town Council’s no objection to these proposals should be communicated to Wokingham Borough Council.

33.2     Parking Restrictions – Beech Lane

            Councillors Mrs C Mitchell declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.

Councillors were asked to note receipt of a copy of a petition sent to the Borough Council's Traffic Management Team, from residents of Beech Lane, requesting that parking restrictions were introduced at the junction of the “no through road” section of Beech Lane with Rushey Way and extending along that section of Beech Lane to approximately house No. 201.

The letter accompanying the copy of the petition, suggested that much of the parking problem was a result of people attending the nearby Police Station parking in the road as there was not sufficient on site parking.

Councillors were reminded of several planning applications which had been submitted by the Thames Valley Police Authority in respect of Loddon Valley Police Station in recent years, which had both increased the capacity of the building and reduced the number of car parking spaces.  The Town Council had, without exception, requested refusal on these applications because of the parking problems on site.  It was

RESOLVED – that

1.         a letter be sent to Wokingham Borough’s Head of Planning seeking comments on the fact that the Town Council’s objections to planning applications at the Loddon Valley Police Station on the grounds of insufficient parking had not been considered when the applications had been approved which was now resulting in unwanted on street parking and

2.         a letter be sent to the Inspector at Loddon Valley Police Station highlighting the Town Council’s continued concerns over the parking problems at the Station, and the resultant overspill parking in nearby residential roads.

33.3      Cycling – Cycling on Pavements in Church Road

Councillors were reminded of previous discussions which had taken place on this subject, when the Committee had requested that it should be placed on the on-going matters list for review at this meeting.  Attention was also drawn to an e-mail received from a local resident, who was a governor at the school advising that the situation did not appear to have improved.  It was

RESOLVED – that

1.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to reply to the resident concerned as appropriate

2.         the matter be discussed with the Vice-Chancellor at his proposed visit to the September meeting of this Committee.

34.       FOOTPATH TO REAR OF HARRINGTON CLOSE

It was

RESOLVED – that discussion of this item be deferred to the next meeting of this Committee.

35.       BUS SHELTERS

Councillors were reminded that the Town Council had a policy of replacing one or two of its bus shelters every year, to ensure that the current stock was kept to a reasonable standard.  The 2008/09 budget allowed for the replacement of one shelter.

Councillors were asked to consider replacement of the bus shelter in Elm Road, between the roundabout with Elm Lane and Pepper Lane.  The Committee was further advised that, whilst this shelter appeared to be reasonably structurally sound, it was in a very poor condition and was an “ eye-sore” on what was a very prominent route through the Town.  It was

RESOLVED – that subject to there being no need to replace a bus shelter with structural deficiencies, the shelter, as detailed in the preamble to this resolution, be replaced with a three metre Metro cantilever shelter with punched metal back and seat at a total cost of £3,544.24, plus VAT.

36.       TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS – TPO1243/2008 – LAND TO THE REAR OF 52    SILVERDALE ROAD

It was noted that permission had been given for the selective pruning of the Oak Tree covered by this Order.

37.       PUBLICATIONS

            It was noted that the following publication had been received and was held in the Council Offices:

38.       ONGOING MATTERS

39.       PRESS RELEASES

            No press releases were requested.

40 .      TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.00 pm.

Back to previous page