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, 10^th June 2008 which commenced at 7.30 pm.

Present

Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, A T Bradley, Mrs L Chambers, T Chambers and Ms P A Dunn.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs J A Lissaman and N Preston.

_________________________________________________________________________________

14.       MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 13^th May 2008 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

15.       HIGHWAY MATTERS

            The Chairman welcomed Borough Councillor Keith Baker, the Executive Member for Highways and Transport, to the meeting.

            Councillor Baker explained that, following the change of leadership at the Borough Council, there had been a reorganisation, and the posts of Deputies to the Executive Member for Highways and Transport had been ceased.

            Councillor Baker advised that he had been given notice of the various topics which the Committee had hoped to discuss with the previous Deputy for Highways and Transport for this area.

15.1            Rat Running – Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive

            Turning first to the issue of rat running in Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive, Councillor Baker advised that speed and volume surveys had been carried out in 2000 and 2004.  He advised that the 2004 survey indicated that both the volume and speed of traffic using those roads had increased slightly compared to 2000, but this had to be seen in the context of a general increase in traffic in the Borough as a whole.

            Two residents of Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive were present at the meeting, and gave details of surveys which had been carried out by residents on a regular basis.  There then followed discussion on various options which might be available to try to alleviate the rat running problem.  It was confirmed that the only certain way of completely alleviating this problem was to install a barrier at some point in the route thus making the flow of through traffic impossible. 

            Following a question from one of the residents present, it was confirmed that a 75% majority of residents affected by any such proposals would need to be in favour before the Borough Council would consider proceeding.

            It was agreed that the residents would canvass those residents affected, to try to determine the likely level of agreement for the installation of a barrier, and the most acceptable location.

15.2            Pepper Lane

With regard to the Town Council’s request for a foot traffic survey in the vicinity of Pepper Lane, Elm Road and Wilderness Road, Councillor Baker reported that he had requested that a traffic engineer should look at various proposals for improving safety for pedestrians in Pepper Lane, and produce a costing for further consideration.  Attention was drawn to the Town Council’s request for an extension of the yellow lining towards Copperdale Close, to make access for vehicles at this point safer.  The Deputy Town Clerk agreed to confirm this request with the Borough Council.

15.3            Pedestrian Access – Chalfont Square

Turning to the Town Council’s request for measures to improve the safety of pedestrians accessing Chalfont Square, once they had crossed at the recently installed pedestrian crossing in Chalfont Way, Councillor Baker reported that the suggestion put forward by the Town Council, that a new pavement should be constructed on the northern side of the access road to the Square, was prone to a number of problems, not least of which was the fact that the land was not in the ownership of the Borough Council.  Councillor Baker reported that he had requested that the Borough Council’s Consultants should look at the issue of safety in the area of the roundabout as a whole.

            Councillors considered that their previous request for the construction of a new pavement was the most favoured option to improve pedestrian safety in this area, and the Deputy Town Clerk was requested to try to ascertain the ownership of the land in question.  In the meantime, Councillor Baker was asked to suspend, for the time being, the request to the Consultants to carry out a safety survey in the area. 

            Councillors’ attention was drawn to an item on the agenda for the meeting which detailed the requested accident injury records for Silverdale Road, following the concerns expressed by a local resident about the safety of the pedestrian crossing.  It was noted that the two minor accidents which had occurred in Silverdale Road had not been in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing. 

15.4            Pedestrian Crossing – Silverdale Road

The Committee was advised that the core of the problem appeared to be the close proximity of the bus stop to the pedestrian crossing, and it was suggested that, should sufficient space and funding be available, the installation of a bus lay-by would be appropriate.  Furthermore, it was suggested that improved signage in the area might be appropriate and Councillor Bradley agreed to check the existing signage in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossing. 

            Councillor Baker confirmed that, should a favourite option to resolve this problem be the moving of the bus stop, this would be the responsibility of Reading Buses.  It was agreed that the Deputy Town Clerk would investigate further the possibility of moving the existing bus stop.

15.5            Third Thames Crossing

With regard to the Third Thames Crossing, Councillor Baker advised that the Borough Council had approached the South East Regional Assembly for funding to allow the continuation of negotiations with the relevant authorities with a view to trying to provide a third Thames Crossing.

15.6            Roundabout – Junction Rushey Way and Gypsy Lane

Councillors were reminded that a further item on their “wish list” had been the provision of a roundabout at the junction of Gypsy Lane and Rushey Way.  Councillor Baker advised that the Consultants had been instructed to investigate the feasibility of this request.

15.7            Bus Shelter – Church Road

Councillors were reminded of the background behind the removal of the Town Council’s bus shelter in Church Road, and the ongoing correspondence with the Borough Council concerning a suitable replacement.  Councillor Baker drew attention to a letter from the Borough Council’s previous Consultants to the Deputy Town Clerk, suggesting that funding for bringing the shelter installed by the Borough Council to the Town Council’s specification may be available in the current financial year.  The Deputy Town Clerk agreed to send the quotation for the upgrading of the shelter to Councillor Baker.

15.8            Speed and Volume of Traffic – Elm Road

Turning now to the items which had been placed on the main agenda and which had not yet been the subject of correspondence with the Borough Council, Councillors were asked to consider an e-mail received from a local resident which had been circulated with the agenda which had expressed concern at the volume and speed of traffic in Elm Road.  Concern was also expressed about the safety of pedestrians on the pavements, due to the narrowness of the pavements and overhanging trees and bushes. 

            The view was expressed by some Members present that, for much of the time, the speed of traffic in Elm Road was regulated by the volume of traffic, much of which was queuing to access the roundabouts at either end. It was

            RESOLVED - that

            1.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to make arrangements for the hedges to be cut back from the pavements to improve pedestrian safety, and

            2.         the situation should be kept under review and monitored.

15.9            Parking – Junction Erleigh Court Gardens and The Drive

Councillors were asked to consider the content of a e-mail from a local resident expressing concerned about parking at the junction of Erleigh Court Gardens and The Drive.  It was

            RESOLVED – that a formal request be submitted to the Borough Council requesting that additional double yellow lines should be installed at this location.

15.10        Vehicle Impact Damage – Sindlesham Mill Bridge

With the permission of the Chairman, a Member of the Committee highlighted his concerns about damage to the Sindlesham Mill bridge which had been caused by a Polish HGV.  The Member concerned said he had been present when the incident had taken place, had photographic evidence, and confirmed that the Police had been called.  The Member expressed concern that the Borough Council did not appear to have taken any action following this incident, and the bridge had still not been repaired.  Councillor Baker agreed to follow this up.

            The Chairman thanked Councillor Baker for attending the meeting and also for his suggestion that he should attend Planning Committee meetings bi-annually, to discuss any relevant highway topics with the Town Council.

16.       APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

16.1.     Decision Notices

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

16.2.      Affected Neighbour Notifications

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

16.3.     “No Objection” Recommendations

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

16.4.     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 were concerned about this proposal, since the conversion of the garage to habitable living space would reduce the amount of on site parking.  On a visit to the site by the Planning Assistant, it was noted that one parking space was available on the site, and, at the time he visited, whilst these may not be associated with the development site, there were already a considerable number of vehicles parked on the road.

For this reason, therefore, it was requested that the application should be refused on the grounds that there would be insufficient on site parking if the garage conversion took place.

            In viewing the plans for this application, it appeared that, if the proposal was allowed to proceed, there would be no 1 meter gap between the new extension and the boundary.  It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

            Councillors considered that this proposal was neighbourly, overbearing, and was out of character with other properties in the road, and, therefore, in contravention of Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan.

            No comment

            Councillors remained concerned about the proposals for this site, and considered that it represented an over development, and was unneighbourly and out of character with other properties in Church Road.

There was considerable concern about the lack of on site parking.  It was noted that the Inspector, in respect of the comments accompanying the Appeal dismissal on application F/2007/0926 made reference to the amount of hard standing which would be required to allow for what he considered was adequate parking, 13 spaces,  for the 9 flats proposed under the first application.  It was noted that the amount of hard standing to be provided for under application F/2009/2221 was deemed to be acceptable by the Inspector.

However, at no time did the Inspector suggest that a proposal for 9 flats, but with a reduction in the number of parking spaces proposed under F/2007/0926 was acceptable.

The Town Council considered that the provision of 9 hard standing car parking spaces and 2 reserve spaces on a grass surface was insufficient for 9 flats and would result in vehicles being parked in Church Road which, the Planning Officer would be aware, was an extremely busy through route.  Furthermore, the likelihood that vehicles from this site would be parked partly on the pavement was also deemed to be unacceptable, as this was a major pedestrian route to Earley St Peter’s School.

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

Whilst it was noted that the conservatory proposed under application F/2008/0053 was not included as part of this application, there appeared to have been few other changes to the design to alleviate the Planning Officer’s concerns detailed in the Refusal Notice in respect of the previous application on this site.

            Councillors considered that this application should be refused.

It was considered that the proposal was out of character with other properties in the area and that there was insufficient on site parking which would lead to vehicles being parked in Palmerstone Road, or on the access road to the site, which was deemed to be unacceptable.

It was noted that, in particular, plots 1 and 2 and 5 and 6 were of a tandem form of development, being placed immediately behind existing properties, and it was considered that this was in breach of Section 2.5 of the Borough Council’s Residential Design Guide. 

Furthermore, it was considered that, in view of the fact that the proposed new properties would have no private front gardens, the amount of private amenity space available to the rear was insufficient, and, again, represented a deviation from the Borough Council’s Planning Guidelines. 

In summary, therefore, members of the Planning Committee were totally opposed to this proposal for the reasons stated above, for the unneighbourliness of the proposal, and for the potential, should planning permission be granted, for the infilling to be continued along the backs of other properties in Palmerstone Road.

            Councillors considered that this proposal was overbearing and may create a loss of light to No. 10, which was deemed to be unacceptable.

            Councillors were concerned that this proposal may have the potential for loss of light to No. 56.

            Councillors considered that this application should be refused.  It was considered that the proposed layout was out of character with the existing residential area and would result in a form of back land infilling which would result in plots with unacceptable small amenity areas when compared to the large gardens of properties in both Chiltern Crescent and The Drive.

It was considered that the proposal was unneighbourly, since a number of the plots would result in overlooking into rear gardens of properties in The Drive and Chiltern Crescent. 

Members of the Planning Committee were extremely concerned about the lack of suitable on site parking, which, it was felt, would result in parking in the access road, and in Chiltern Crescent itself.  Furthermore, the width of the access road was queried.  If it was the subject of on street parking it would make access by emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles extremely difficult. 

It was noted that the intention was to demolish 36 and 38 Chiltern Crescent and replace them with a single detached dwelling.  In view of the fact the majority of houses in Chiltern Crescent were of a semi detached design, it was considered that to now propose a single detached dwelling on the road frontage was inappropriate, out of character and of detriment to the street scene.

In summary, therefore, the Town Council remained completely opposed to this proposal and the sister application for properties in The Drive.

            Whilst Councillors did not object to this proposal, a number of issues related to the application were listed in a letter to the Borough Council from a neighbour, a copy of which was sent to the Town Council. 

If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that consideration was given to the points made in this letter, and, where appropriate, conditions imposed on any approval to try to alleviate these concerns.

            Councillors considered that the design of the development proposed was out of keeping with existing properties in the road.  Furthermore, there was considerable concern about the access from the site at this very busy junction.

Councillors considered that with the amount of infill development taking place in North Earley , both in the past and proposed, the loss of this other area of open space was deemed to be lamentable.

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

            Councillor A Bradley declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.

            Councillors were opposed to this proposal.

It was considered that the three storey design of the proposed block of flats was out of character with other properties in the vicinity.  There was concern about the access to the site, on Elm Road, which was a very busy through route, and was also a route used by school children to access Radstock Primary School and Maiden Erlegh Secondary School.

There appeared to be inadequate on site parking, which would result in parking on Elm Lane, or in nearby residential roads which was deemed to be unacceptable.

It was considered that the second storey was of bad design, since it proposed accommodation with a substandard level of light and outlook.

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

            Councillors noted that, if this application was to proceed, there would be no one metre gap to the boundary, and for this reason, it was requested that the application should be refused.

            Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since it was felt that there would be insufficient on site parking for a house with five bedrooms.  The position of the application site, at the start of the access road to the new development in the rear gardens of properties in Mays Close, would mean that the resultant on street parking likely to occur, as a result of insufficient on site parking, would cause congestion to traffic accessing the new development.  Furthermore, it would make access by refuse lorries, emergency vehicles, etc. extremely difficult and dangerous.

It was noted that two parking spaces were provided for on the rear boundary of the property, but, it was felt, that these were unlikely to be used and that vehicles would park on the road in the front of the property thus causing the problems detailed above.

The Town Council therefore requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed to proceed, would be unneighbourly, out of character, and of detriment to the street scene. 

Furthermore, it was felt that there may be a loss of light to No. 19 Hillside Road.

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

            Councillors considered that these satellite dishes were unsightly and unneighbourly. 

Furthermore, Councillors questioned the need to have two satellite dishes in what was a domestic dwelling.  Concern was expressed that it was understood that the current owners operated a taxi business, which was registered at an address in Reading.  Councillors would be extremely concerned if two dishes were required such that there could be communication with the taxis, since it would then mean that the dishes were being used for commercial purposes, and that a business was being operated from what was a residential address.

The Town Council had received numerous complaints about the number of taxis and other vehicles, associated with the business, parked at the site, and it was felt that the further promotion of the business from this site, if that was what was intended by the installation of the satellite dishes, was unacceptable, and the application should, therefore, be refused.

Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would be of detriment to the street scene and would have an overbearing effect on what was already a fairly cramped close of properties, and would be contrary to the original design concept for the estate.

Furthermore, there was concern about available parking.

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

16.5      Appeal Decision – F/2007/2325 – Land to the rear of 37-53 Meadow Road

It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow the demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road and the erection of twelve dwellings had been dismissed.

17.       APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES AND WORKING PARTIES – PLANS WORKING PARTY

Councillors attention was drawn to Part 2 of the resolution recorded at Minute 4.1, when it had been agreed that Councillors Mrs P Jorgensen and Ms C Mitchell be invited to re-stand on the Plans Working Party.  Both Councillors had indicated that they would wish to be considered for re-appointment and it was

            RESOLVED – that Councillors Mrs P Jorgensen and Ms C Mitchell be appointed to the Plans Working Party.

18.       READING BOROUGH COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK –        STRATEGIC HOUSING LAND AVAILABILITY ASSESSMENT

This document had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ attention.  The Committee was advised that the Borough Council were seeking comments on this document which prescribed the methodology which would be used to carry out a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment within Reading Borough.  It was

RESOLVED – that the Town Council should not submit any comments on this document.

19.       EXAMINATION OF THE READING CENTRAL AREA ACTION PLAN

Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from Reading Borough Council indicating that an Inspector had been appointed to conduct the examination into the soundness of the Reading Central Area Action Plan.  The communication continued by advising that the examination of oral evidence would commence at 10.00 am on Tuesday, 9^th September.  This would be preceded by a pre-examination meeting on the 1^st July 2008 which would discuss the procedural and administrative aspects of the examination, including the draft programme. Councillors were asked whether they would wish to submit any questions concerning the pre-examination meeting.  It was

RESOLVED – that the Town Council should not comment.

20.       UNIVERSITY OF READING

20.1      Press Release in Respect of the Whiteknights Development Plan

Councillors noted the content of a Press Release which had been circulated by the University, and which had been attached to the agenda for their consideration.  In particular, Councillors welcomed the content of paragraph 6 of the press release which made reference to concerns raised in respect of the possible closure of the pedestrian access from Wilderness Road.  It was

RESOLVED – that the University be asked when the proposed survey, mentioned in the press release, would be carried out.

20.2      Visit of Vice Chancellor

Councillors were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 161 of the meeting of this Committee held on 15^th April, and were advised that the University’s Vice Chancellor, Professor G Marshall, had kindly agreed to attend the September meeting of this Committee.

Councillors were further advised that an item would be placed on the agenda of the August meeting of this Committee, to allow Councillors the opportunity to consider questions which they might wish to ask of the Vice-Chancellor, so that these could be forwarded to him in good time for his attendance in September.

20.3            University of Reading – Proposed Wind Farm, Rushymead

Councillors’ attention was drawn to an item which appeared on the supplementary agenda, relating to the resolution recorded at Minute 162 concerning the attendance of Councillors at a meeting to consider the University’s proposal for the possible installation of a wind farm on Rushymead.

Councillors were advised that the meeting would now take place on the 25^th June, in the Carrington Building at the University from 5.30 to 7.30/8.00pm.  Councillors interested in attending were asked to advise the Deputy Town Clerk of their vehicle registration numbers, which were required by the University for security reasons.

21.       TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS – CONFIRMATION OF ORDER

It was noted that Order TPO/1217/2008 relating to trees on land at 2 Ramsbury Drive had been confirmed without modification.

22.       PUBLICATIONS

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

23.       ONGOING MATTERS

24.       PRESS RELEASES

            It was

            RESOLVED that the following items should receive special press attention:

The Town Council welcomed the press release from the University, and particularly the section in relation to the pedestrian access to the site.

The Committee’s thanks to Councillor Keith Baker for attending, and the very useful discussions which had taken place.

The Town Council’s continuing opposition to inappropriate backland infilling.

25.       TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting closed at 10.00pm.

Back to previous page