PLANNING MINUTES 11.03.2008

Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire, on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 which commenced at 7.35 pm.

Present

Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, T Chambers, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, N Preston, P Willis, G Woods.

Also in attendance Councillor T Holton (until 8.25 pm).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Bradley and Ms C Mitchell.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

143.     MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12^th February 2008 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

144.     PROCESS FOR HIGHWAY REQUESTS

Councillors were reminded that the resolution recorded at Minute 102 of the meeting of this Committee held on 11^th December 2007 had requested that Councillor T Holton, in his capacity as this area's Deputy to the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways and Transport, should be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to discuss with him the best way of working on various highway related issues.

Councillors felt it would be useful for meetings with Councillor Holton to be regularised, and it was suggested that any highway related matters should be recorded on the Ongoing Matters list, and that Councillor Holton should be invited to attend Planning Committee meetings on a quarterly basis to update the Committee on the various ongoing projects, and to discuss any new items which had come to the Committee’s attention.  It was agreed that, in the meantime, if anything more specific or urgent needed discussion with Councillor Holton, he could be invited to Planning Committee meetings on an ad hoc basis.

145.     APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

145.1        Decision Notices

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

145.2        Affected Neighbour Notifications

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

146.3    “No Objection” Recommendations

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

146.4    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:

F/2008/0117                  Single storey rear/side extension and two storey side extension.  Demolition of existing garage at 31 Nutmeg Close

Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, would be out of character with other properties in the road and, particularly the single side extension would be visually prominent, which would be of detriment to the street scene.

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

F/2008/0158                  Two storey side & single storey rear extensions plus single storey front extension to form porch at 46 Shepherd House Lane

Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since, if it was allowed to proceed, there would be insufficient space between the extension and the boundary, which would create a terracing affect of detriment to the street scene.

F2008/0218                   Demolition of existing bungalow & erection of a two storey detached building with gospel hall on ground floor & caretaker’s flat on first floor with associated car parking at 20 Pitts Lane

Councillors did not have any objection to this proposal, but did request that conditions should be imposed on any planning approval which meant that there could be no sub letting of the facilities to outside organisations, no amplified music should be played, and no activities should take place in the grounds surrounding the Gospel Hall.

F/2008/0232                  Change of use from amenity land to residential plus erection of fence to boundary with new parking area at 7 Springdale

Councillors requested that this application should be refused, since it was felt that it represented a loss of open space, which would be of detriment to the street scene.  Furthermore, it was felt that the proposed new parking area was inappropriate as there would be poor sight lines at this corner plot.

F/2008/0264                  Part ground floor front & part first floor extensions plus garage conversion at 101 Wilderness Road

Councillors considered that this proposal would be unneighbourly and overbearing to No. 99 Wilderness Road, and may create an unacceptable loss of light.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

F/2008/0320                  Erection of 10 dwellings, vehicular access and associated parking plus demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road

Whilst Councillors noted that this latest application had reduced the proposed number of dwellings to 10, members of the Planning Committee remained extremely concerned about the proposals for this site.  Councillors considered that the design of the proposed development was out of keeping both in terms of the density of properties and their appearance.  The properties in Meadow Road and Mill Lane, in the proximity of the application site, are generally set back from the road with substantial rear gardens and mature garden planting.  This provided a valuable wildlife habitat, and it was felt that to allow development of this sort would erode further the space for wildlife in this area.  The extent of the vehicle parking and manoeuvring space in front of the proposed dwellings would leave little space for effective landscaping, which would result in a development which was in contrast with the softer landscape character established by the gardens beyond. 

Councillors considered that these latest proposals had a cramped appearance and there was considerable concern about the lack of adequate on site parking.  From the information supplied it appeared that tandem parking was proposed to the side of the dwellings, which it was felt was inappropriate, and was unlikely to be used for the purpose.  With Meadow Road already the subject of considerable on street parking, it was felt that to further exacerbate the problem by parking occurring from this site would be unacceptable.  During the morning and evening rush hour, access to Wokingham Road from Meadow Road was often extremely difficult and there was considerable congestion at that junction particularly with cars parked so that drivers could access the nearby Co-operative Store.  To introduce yet further traffic on this road was deemed to be unacceptable.  Furthermore, because of the very narrow access to the proposed site it was felt that the emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles would have difficulty accessing it.

This latest design appeared to have made no provision for waste management facilities and with the cramped design and lack of garages to many of the properties, it was difficult to anticipate where those living in the proposed properties would place their refuse and recycling for collection.

The Town Council remained opposed to all inappropriate back land filling such as this, and was particularly concerned to note that the proposal had the potential for possible further additional development.

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

F/2008/0325                  Erection of one semi detached dwelling at 15 Gregory Close

Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would be of detriment to the street scene, would have an overbearing affect on what is 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.

F/2008/0354                  Part first floor & part two storey side extensions plus single storey rear extension at 53 Wilderness Road

Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since it was felt that it would create a loss of light to No. 51 Wilderness Road, and would be unneighbourly to No. 51 & No. 55.  Furthermore, it was considered that the proposed extension was too close to the boundary, and the large extension would have a massing affect.

F/2008/0420                  Erection of a two storey side extension at 3 Rhodes Close

Councillors noted that, from the plans submitted with the application, the fence line appeared to have been altered to accommodate the proposed extension.  However, the moving of the fence did not appear to form part of the planning proposal, and the Planning Officer was asked to check this, and, if necessary, instigate enforcement action.

Regardless of this however, Councillors considered that the views expressed by the Inspector in dismissing the appeal on the previous application on this site – F/2002/5762, had not been alleviated, and therefore the application should be refused.

146.5    Appeals

146.5.1 New Appeal – 0/2007/2343 – 29 Erleigh Court Drive

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two replacement dwellings. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

146.5.2 Appeal Decisions

146.5.2.1 F/2006/9480 – 20 Beech Lane

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

146.5.2.2 F/2007/0648 – 2 Hutton Close

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

146.5.2.3 F/2007/1641 – 69 Redhatch Drive

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a two storey rear extension, including dormers to the roof space, had been dismissed.

146.5.2.4 F/2007/1811 – 28 Shepherds House Lane

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two storey pitch roof side extension and rear conservatory, had been dismissed.

147.     UNIVERSITY OF READING – RUSHY MEAD GREEN ENERGY PROJECT

Councillors’ attention was drawn to a communication received from the University of Reading which had been circulated with the Agenda for their consideration.  The communication gave brief outline details of a proposal by the University to create a wind farm on Rushy Mead, to the South of the M4 in Shinfield Parish.  The letter contained an invitation to meet with Town and Parish Councillors to discuss the proposals.  It was

RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to contact Shinfield Parish Council to ascertain whether its Councillors would be meeting with representatives of the University, and if so whether Members of Earley Town Council could also attend.

148.     WOKINGHAM HOUSING STRATEGY STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE

Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that it produced a housing strategy every three years, setting out the strategic partnership approach to housing issues. The letter further advised that the current strategy expired in 2008 and the Borough was currently seeking views of partners and stakeholders in developing the new strategy for the next three to five years. The Borough Council was inviting representatives to attend a Stakeholder Conference on Wednesday, 19^th March 2008. It was

RESOLVED that Councillor J Armstrong should represent the Town Council at this meeting.

149.     HIGHWAYS

149.1    Parking: Falstaff Avenue – Copperdale Close

Councillors were advised that complaints had been received from several residents concerning parking in Falstaff Avenue, near to the junction to Pepper Lane, and along Pepper Lane itself towards Copperdale Close which hampered visibility at the junction.  Consideration was given as to whether the parking restrictions in Pepper Lane should be extended.  It was

RESOLVED that the Borough Council be advised of the Town Council’s concerns relating to the complaints received by residents, and requesting that officers should recommend additional parking restrictions in this area to alleviate these concerns.

149.2    (Various Roads, Borough of Wokingham) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) Order 2008

Councillors were advised that a  communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that at a meeting on 16^th November, its Executive Member for Highways and Transport approved to advertise and formally consult on proposals to introduce waiting restrictions in a number of roads in the Borough, after requests from residents and Councillors.

Amongst those roads under consideration for waiting restrictions, Northbourne Close, Lower Earley was on the list, and details of the restrictions proposed were circulated with the Agenda for  Councillors’ consideration.

It was confirmed that the original parking restrictions put in place in Northbourne Close were requested by the Town Council, and that, subsequently, a request had been forwarded asking that consideration should be given to extending these restrictions.

Councillors were advised that the PCSO had been requested to comment on the proposals, and had suggested that the parking restrictions should be extended beyond the driveway to 5 Northbourne Close, to ensure that vehicles did not park in front of it.  The view was expressed that the occupier of No. 5 may not wish to have the parking restrictions extended in this way and it was

RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to contact the occupier of 5 Northbourne Close to seek his views on the proposal and that if he was happy with the suggested extension of the proposed restrictions, this should be forwarded to the Borough Council as the Town Council’s view.

149.3    Highways ‘Wish List’

Councillors were reminded that Minute 50 of the meeting of this Committee held in August 2007 listed the Town Council’s top three priority areas for highway improvements.  Since compilation of the main Agenda, an e-mail had been received from the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways and Transport giving an update on the three areas highlighted by the Town Council.

With regard to the Safer Routes to School programme, Councillors were advised that, with one exception, all the work previously programmed had been carried out.  Councillors were asked to consider whether there were any further areas which could benefit from investigation.

After further consideration the following items were suggested:

·         Increase pavement size under the Culver Lane railway bridge, which was currently too narrow to accommodate wheelchairs/double buggies.

·         Improved safety for pedestrians crossing Pepper Lane, Borough Council Officers asked to investigate.

·         Improve pedestrian safety when crossing Beeston Way – Borough Council Officers asked to investigate.

It was

RESOLVED that the items detailed in the preamble to this resolution be communicated to the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways and Transport for consideration under the Safer Routes to School programme.

149.4        Cycling

149.4.1   Cycling on Pavements in Church Road

Cyclists were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 136.3 of the meeting of this Committee held on 12^th February, and, as requested in that resolution, communications had been sent to Reading University and to the Police Community Support Officer in respect of the Committee’s concerns about cyclists using the pavement in Church Road, and particularly in the very narrow section between Mays Close and the Three Tuns crossroads.

Councillors were advised that, as a result of this, a number of communications had been received from representatives of Earley St Peter’s School, and from the University, which had expressed a diversity of views.

The Police Community Support Officer had responded by suggesting that it may be possible to introduce a no cycling zone each side of the entrance to Earley St Peter’s School.

After discussion of the various views expressed, it was

RESOLVED that

1.         the Police Community Support Officers be asked to attend on site as frequently as possible, to liaise with cyclists using the pavement 

2.                   the matter be included on the ongoing matters list and be reviewed again at the meeting of this Committee in July

3.                   the Town Council’s concern about this cycling “black spot” be included in the Town Council’s observations on the draft cycling strategy.

149.4.2 Wokingham Borough Council’s Draft Cycling Strategy

Councillors were advised that all Members should have received a copy of the Strategy either by e-mail, or where this is not available, in the post, on Friday, 29^th February.

It was

RESOLVED that Councillors should send any comments on the Strategy to the Deputy Town Clerk by Monday, 7 April, and that comments should be forwarded to the Borough Council after consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman.

150.     POST OFFICE CLOSURE PROGRAMME – WEST BERKSHIRE & WILTSHIRE

Councillors were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 121 of the meeting of this Committee held on 15^th January 2008, and noted that a response had now been received from Postwatch indicating that there were currently no Post Offices in Earley threatened with closure.

151.     LOCAL AMENITY REFUSE VEHICLE SCHEDULE 2008/09

Councillors noted details of the amenity refuse vehicle schedule for 2008/2009, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda.  It was further noted that that the charge per visit would be £145 plus VAT.

152.     TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS – TPO1202/2007 – 84 MILL LANE

It was noted that the above Order had been confirmed without modification.

153.     READING BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL READING

            Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main Agenda, a communication had been received from Reading Borough Council advising that it had now submitted the Reading Central Area Action Plan (RCAAP) to the Secretary of State.  A full copy of the document was available to view on the Council’s website.  A summary leaflet had also been received, and had been circulated with the Supplementary Agenda. The consultation period was 7^th March to 18^th April and Councillors were asked to consider whether they would wish to comment.

            It was

            RECOMMENDED that Councillors should forward any comments on the Plan to the Deputy Town Clerk by 7^th April, and that the comments received be considered at the next meeting of this Committee on 12^th April.

154.     PUBLICATIONS

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

155.     ONGOING MATTERS

156.     PRESS RELEASES

            No press releases were requested.

157.     TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.17 pm.