 |
Earley Town Council |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire on Tuesday, 11th September 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, T Chambers, N Jorgensen, Mrs J A Lissaman, Ms C M Mitchell, N J Preston and G B Woods.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A T Bradley (due to attendance at WBC meeting) and P Willis. __________________________________________________________________________________
60. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 14th August 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
61. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
61.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
61.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
61.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
61.4 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.
Whilst Councillors noted that the proposals for this site had been reduced in comparison to the original application, it did appear that there would be no one metre gap between the proposed extension and the boundary. It was, therefore, considered that this application be refused.
The Planning Officer was asked to note that the Town Council did not receive notification of the original application on this site.
Councillors were extremely concerned about this proposal, since it was felt that the proposed entrance onto Ryhill Way was poorly conceived and unneighbourly. Furthermore, with the potential to develop further in this area at a later date, the potential to increase the amount of traffic accessing Ryhill Way was deemed to be unacceptable.
There was concern about the width of the access road and the effect that this would have on access by refuse vehicles, emergency vehicles, and, indeed, removal lorries in the future.
The size of the back gardens in this area did offer a valuable wildlife corridor, and, the Town Council was of the view that backland infilling of this sort was both inappropriate and unacceptable.
For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was overbearing and it was noted that there would not be a one metre gap to the boundary. Furthermore, it was noted that no disabled parking space had been provided, and, overall, there was insufficient on site parking.
For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst members of the Planning Committee could see no difficulty with the actual extension proposed, it was difficult to see from the plans whether there would be a loss of light to neighbouring properties and the Planning Officer was asked to check this in particular when considering this application.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would be overbearing and unneighbourly and would create a loss of light to No. 25 Robindale Avenue. Furthermore, whilst it was accepted that the Borough Council’s Draft Planning Guidelines in respect of gaps being maintained between properties was normally in respect of proposed two storey extensions, because the application site and the neighbouring properties were bungalows, it was felt that this guideline should also be taken into consideration when reviewing this application.
For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.
No comment
Whilst Councillors had no objections to this application, it was requested that a condition should be imposed ensuring that the newly created office could not be used for commercial use.
Councillors had no objection to this application provided that the Planning Officer was happy that sufficient on site parking would be available.
Councillors remained concerned about proposals for this site. It was considered that there was inadequate parking provision, and this would result in vehicles being parking on verges and pavements which would add to the overall massing and cluttered appearance of the development site.
It was felt that the number of dwellings proposed on the site represented an over development and there was particular concern about the amount of rear gardens which would remain on the two semi detached dwellings to the rear.
In conclusion therefore, Councillors were extremely unhappy with this proposal and requested that it should be refused.
Councillors felt that this proposal, if allowed, would create a development which was out of character with other properties in the road and would have an adverse visual impact, particularly because of the sites prominent position on a junction.
From the plans supplied, members of the Planning Committee could not ascertain how much on site parking would be available but, with the amount of on street parking already experienced in the vicinity of the application site, it was considered that parking could be a problem.
For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.
Councillor Ms C Mitchell declared a personal interest in this application and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon. Members of the Planning Committee were always extremely concerned about applications which propose the incorporation of amenity land into the curtilage of residential sites. It was considered that this was a deviation from the original design concept of the area, and was, therefore, of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was of an overbearing nature, would create an over development of the site, and was out of character with other properties in the road. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve the proposal, it was requested that conditions were applied which prevented the use of the gymnasium as a separate dwelling from the main property and also prevent it from being used for commercial use.
Whilst Councillors could find no strong reasons to object to this proposal, it was considered that the proposed dormer was extremely unsightly and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene.
Councillors considered that this application was unneighbourly, and had the potential to be used at a later date as a separate dwelling.
Furthermore, in conversations with a neighbour some Building Regulation implications of the proposal were highlighted and it was requested that these concerns were brought to the attention of the Building Control Officer.
Members of the Planning Committee were concerned about this proposal, and, therefore, requested that it should be refused.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to accept this proposal, it was requested that a condition was imposed which prevented the construction being used as a separate dwelling at any time in the future.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character with other properties in Church Road and the neighbourhood in this area as a whole. Furthermore, it was felt that the overbearing nature of the construction would have an unneighbourly effect on the nearby bungalows and would set a precedent for further development of this sort in Church Road which would be deemed to be unacceptable.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors noted the scheme of works proposed for this site had been reduced somewhat from the previous application, they remained concerned about the overbearing nature of the development proposed and particularly to No. 8 Meadow Road and the fact that the design was out of keeping with other properties in the road.
It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
61.5 Appeals
61.5.1 Appeal Decisions.
61.5.1.1F/2006/8519 – 35 Egremont Drive
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension had been dismissed.
61.5.1.2F/2006/9184 – 53 The Drive, 36 & 38 and land to the rear of 34, 40 and 42 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow for the demolition of 53 The Drive and 36 and 38 Chiltern Crescent and the erection of 14 dwellings with garages and associated parking, had been dismissed.
61.5.1.3 F/2007/0005 – 5 Fringford Close
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow a single storey rear extension, first floor side and rear extension, had been dismissed.
61.5.1.4F/2007/0494 – 84 Mill Lane
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a side and rear two-storey extension had been dismissed.
62. PLANS WORKING PARTY
62.1. Meeting of 8th August 2007
Notes of a meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 8th August were circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration. Particular attention was drawn to the recommendations at note 3 and 4. On the proposition of Councillor Mrs J Lissaman, seconded by Councillor T Chambers it was
RESOLVED that the recommendations at note 3 and 4 be adopted and the notes of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 8th August, as appended, be noted.
62.2 Meeting of 29th August 2007
Notes of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 29th August were circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration. Particular attention was drawn to the resolution at note 5, concerning the Working Party’s observations on the provision of caravan sites for gipsy/travellers. On the proposition of Councillor D Woods, seconded by Councillor J Armstrong it was
RESOLVED that
1. the Working Party’s observations on the provision of caravan sites for gypsies and travellers be forwarded to the Consultants.
2. the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 29th August 2007, as appended, be noted.
63. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Councillors noted details of the financial transactions for the period to 30th June 2007 as appended to these Minutes.
64. SOUTH-EAST PLAN – PUBLICATION OF THE PANEL REPORT
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Government Office for the South-East indicating that the Draft South-East Plan was submitted to the Government by the South-East Regional Assembly in March 2006. The examination in public of the Plan had been held between November 2006 and March 2007. A report, prepared by an independent panel of Planning Inspectors, as a result of the Examination in Public, was submitted to Government on 6th August 2007. Councillors noted that a copy of the report had been forwarded to the Town Council and that representations were not invited on the recommendations in the report.
65. PLANNING COMMITMENTS FOR HOUSING AT MARCH 2007
It was noted that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that its "Planning Commitments for Housing at March 2007" document was now available on its website.
66. TOWN & PARISH COUNCILS' LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK BRIEFING
Councillors noted details of the report submitted by Councillor Gary Woods following his attendance at the above event on the 24th July. Councillor Woods was thanked for attending on behalf of the Town Council.
67. HIGHWAYS
67.1 Aldbourne Avenue
67.1.1 Speed & Traffic Survey
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded under Minute 35 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 24th July which recorded the Borough Council was requested to carry out a speed and traffic survey in Aldbourne Avenue. Councillors were advised that a response had been received from the Borough Council indicating that it would not pay for a survey, however, the Town Council could arrange for the survey to be carried out at a cost of £200. It was
RESOLVED that
1. no further action be taken on this matter for the time being and
2. the residents be advised that they can make their own arrangements with Thames Valley Police for a speed indication device to be made available in Aldbourne Avenue.
67.1.2 Alternative Parking Arrangements
Councillor N Preston declared a personal interest in this item and with the approval of the Chairman addressed the meeting as a member of the Parish Pastoral Council of Our Lady of Peace Roman Catholic Church. Councillors were advised that the Church, at every available opportunity, had requested its congregation to park on one side of Aldbourne Avenue only and, recently, these requests appeared to have been complied with.
Councillors also noted details of a letter from the University of Reading, which stated that the University would, unfortunately, be unable to assist with providing additional parking for use either by the Church or by the users of Sol Joel Park.
It was confirmed that the Amenities and Leisure Committee was looking at proposals to extend the existing car park at Sol Joel Park. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church thanking them for their assistance to-date with this problem and also asking for their support for any planning application which the Town Council may submit to increase the size of the car park at Sol Joel Park 2. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write back to the resident concerned asking her to comment on whether the situation in Aldbourne Avenue had improved.
67.2 Speed Cushions in Elm Lane
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 42 of the meeting of this Committee held on 24th July, when the Deputy Town Clerk was requested to write to the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways and Transport to obtain an update on the current situation with the speed cushions in Elm Lane. A copy of his response had been appended to the agenda for Councillors’ information. It was
RESOLVED that this matter be removed from the on-going matters list.
68. FLOOD RELIEF FOR THE LODDON AREA
Councillors were reminded of the discussions which had taken place at a recent Town Forum when a resident of Thistleton Way had questioned whether the Town Council would be likely to become involved in discussions with the Environment Agency concerning additional flood relief for the Loddon area. At this meeting a member of the Borough Council had indicated that that Council was already involved in correspondence with DEFRA concerning the flooding issue in the Loddon area. Councillors were advised that the Borough Council had indicated that it was undertaking a survey of all road and storm drains within the area, and any deficiencies with the sewerage system were being reported to Thames Water. Other flooding related issues were the responsibility of the Environment Agency, and the Borough Council would continue discussions with that Agency. It was
RESOLVED that no further action be taken on this matter.
69. SEAT – CUTBUSH LANE
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 54 of the meeting of this Committee held on 14th August, and their attention was also drawn to further correspondence received from local residents about reported anti social behaviour in the vicinity of both the seat at the junction of Cutbush Lane and Gipsy Lane, and the seat in Cutbush Lane opposite Redhouse Close.
The Town Council’s representative on the Neighbourhood Action Group agreed to obtain an update from the Police at the next meeting of that Group.
Suggestions were made at the meeting of possible other deterrents which would encourage the groups involved in anti social behaviour to move on and the Deputy Town Clerk was requested to contact the Community Police Officer to obtain further details. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the issue of anti social behaviour in the area be referred to the Youth and Community Sub Committee to investigate further and
2. the matter be considered again at the next meeting of this Committee on the 9th October.
70. MAIDEN ERLEGH DRIVE
Councillors’ attention was drawn to the item on the Ongoing Matters list and were advised that a response had now been received from the Borough Council's Conservation Architect, a copy of which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration. It was
RESOLVED that no further action be taken on this matter for the time being, and that the item be removed from the on-going matters list.
71. FOOTWAYS TO STOCKBURY CLOSE & ELDERBERRY WAY, EARLEY
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 34 of the meeting of this Committee held on 24th July and were advised that a letter of confirmation had been received from the Borough Council indicating that the barriers had been ordered and should be installed within the next 28 days.
72. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROLL-OUT INFORMATION
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 38 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 24th July, when the status of the proposed T-Mobile mast on Lower Earley Way had been queried. Councillors now noted that confirmation had been received from the Borough Council that this proposal had been refused on Appeal.
73 TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
73.1 New Orders
73 .1.1 TPO116/20007 – Land at the University of Reading, Earley Gate
It was noted that the above Order had been confirmed without modification.
73.2 Applications to Carry Out Works to Protected Trees
73.2.1 TPO726/1995 – 103 Elm Road
It was noted that the Borough Council had consented to the Sweet Chestnut covered by this Order to be felled to ground level.
73.2.2 TPO1175/2007 – Land to the Front of 399 Wokingham Road
It was noted that permission had been given for the removal of the Copper Beech Tree covered by this Order, as it was found to have a fungal infection which would make it more liable to failure in the future.
73.2.3 TPO1175/2007 – Land to the Front of 395 Wokingham Road
It was noted that a Cedar Tree in the front of the property had been removed from the above Order, as it was a smaller specimen and was deemed to have less visual significance than other trees within the same Order.
74. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
75. ONGOING MATTERS
With regard to the Third Thames Crossing, it was
RESOLVED that the Leader of the Borough Council be asked for an up-date on the progress with the Feasibility Study into the Third Thames Crossing.
76. PRESS RELEASES
No press releases were requested.
77. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed the Chairman at 9.55 pm. |