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, 11 December 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.

Present

Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, T Chambers, N Jorgensen (from 8.45 pm to 9.20 pm), Mrs J A Lissaman until 9.30 pm), Ms C M Mitchell and P L Willis.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A T Bradley (due to attendance at WBC meeting), N J Preston and G B Woods.

101. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

Attention was drawn to a typographical error on page 1 where the surname of the Chairman of that meeting had been spelt by the omission of an ‘s’ at the end.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 November 2007 (as amended) were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

102. PROCESS FOR HIGHWAY REQUESTS

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Keith Baker, the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways & Transport.

Councillor Baker gave a presentation to the meeting, outlining the process in place for dealing with highway requests which was, in essence, the replacement for the Highways Consultative Board. During his presentation, Councillor Baker made reference to four Deputies, who assisted him with his work on highways and transport and each of whom had various areas of the Borough assigned to them. Councillors were informed that Councillor T Holton was the Deputy for the Earley area.

After Councillor Baker’s presentation, there was a brief question and answer session, concerning various highway related issues. The Chairman thanked Councillor Baker for attending the meeting and it was

RESOLVED that an item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting of this Committee to consider how the Town Council would work with Councillor T Holton on various highway related issues.

103. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

103.1 Decision Notices

RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.

103.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications

RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
103.3 “No Objection” Recommendations

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

F/2007/2435
New Plans showing size reduction, both width & length of extension 671 London Road

F/2007/2450
New Plans showing extension reduced in size at 19 Harrington Close

F/2007/2668
Demolition of existing structure & erection of new single storey storage structure at 392 Shepherds Hill Post Office, London Road

F/2007/2716
Adjoining Parish – Renewal of temporary Planning Permission for use of portacabin for a further 5 years at Fryer House, Leighton Park School, Pepper Lane

F/2007/2720
Single storey front extension to form replacement porch at 512 Wokingham Road

F/2007/2747
Single storey rear extension at 10 Byron Road

F/2007/2789
Single storey front extension to form porches at 32 & 34 Measham Way

F/2007/2791
Single storey rear extension at 23 Avalon Road

F/2007/2800
Single storey rear extension at 8 Irvine Way

F/2007/2811
First floor side extension at 75 Skelmerdale Way

CLE/2007/2837
Certificate of Lawful existing use for single storey rear extension to form conservatory at 4 Bradmore Way

F/2007/2855
Ground floor side/rear conservatory & demolition of existing sun room at 27 Bradmore Way

F/2007/2890
Single storey rear extension at 84 Mill Lane

103.4 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/2007/2605
Two storey side & single storey front extensions plus raising of roof to create 1st floor extension at 10 Pitts Lane

Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, would be overbearing to neighbouring properties, and would be too close to the boundary. Furthermore it was felt that it would be out of character with other properties in the road and, as such, would be in contravention of Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.

F/2007/2671
Erection of detached granny annexe at rear of garden at 2 Ramsbury Drive

A number of local residents were present at the Planning Committee meeting at which this application was discussed to listen to the comments made by members of the Town Council.

Firstly, it was noted that the plans submitted with the application were inaccurate, because they did not show the two storey side extension approved in 2001.

Councillors considered that this latest proposal, when taken in consideration with the other development which had taken place on this site, represented an overdevelopment which would be out of keeping. Additionally, because the proposed granny annexe had a separate entrance, there was concern, that it could, in the future, be used as completely separate accommodation.

It was noted that, in order to build the proposed granny annexe, the demolition of the existing garage would be required. This was in breach of a planning condition imposed in 2001, in respect of application F/2001/4630, where condition 3 stated that the garage accommodation on the site shall be kept available for parking of vehicles ancillary to the residential use.

In view of the foregoing, the Town Council requested that this application be refused.

If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal, it was requested that a condition was imposed ensuring that the granny annexe could only be occupied ancillary to the main dwelling and could not, in the future, be sold separately or sub-let.

F/2007/2719
Erection of self contained building to form property store at Loddon Valley Police Station, Rushey Way

It was noted from the plans that the erection of this property store would mean the loss of 5 parking spaces on the site. The Police Station already had inadequate on site parking, resulting in associated parking using nearby residential roads, and, in view of the fact that this proposal would further reduce the on site parking available it was requested that the application should be refused.

F/2007/2723
Loft conversion with rear dormer window at 18 Redhatch Drive

Councillors considered that the design of the proposed dormer window was poor, and was, therefore, in breach of the Borough Council’s planning guidance. There was also concern that it could create a loss of privacy to nearby properties. For this reason, it was requested the application should be refused.

F/2007/2724
Erection of detached extension at end of garden for use as games room & storage room at 75 Mill Lane

Councillors considered that this proposal was unneighbourly, and particularly to the two properties in Plympton Close.

Furthermore, Councillors felt that the design and build specification for this proposal was more than was required for a games room, and there was concern that it would be used for residential accommodation.

If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that conditions were imposed such that the property could only be used ancillary to the main dwelling, and for the purpose for which planning permission was sought, and could not be sub-let at any time in the future.

It was also requested, that in view of the close proximity of the proposed games room to neighbours, a condition was imposed limiting the use of the games room to avoid noise disturbance late into the evening.

F/2007/2738
Conversion of 1 x 5 bedroom detached house into 2 x 3 bed semi’s plus garages at 249-251 Wokingham Road

Members of the Town Council were extremely concerned to see this application come before them for consideration.

It was understood that the previous application on this site F/2007/2103 – to which the Town Council objected most strongly, was finally approved because the applicant withdrew the part of that application relating to the conversion of 249 Wokingham Road into two semi detached dwellings.

In considering this application, therefore, members of the Planning Committee felt that this application would only exacerbate the concerns previously expressed about the large scale development on this site, particularly in relation to parking, access, and highway related issues relating to the additional volume of traffic accessing the Wokingham Road.

Furthermore, Councillors felt that if this proposal was to proceed, neither of the two new semi detached houses would have sufficient garden left, which was in breach of the Borough Council’s Draft Planning Guidelines.

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

F/2007/2769
Two storey side extension at 88 Elm Road

Councillors had no objections to this application but did request that the bedroom window on the side elevation should be obscure glazed to reduce the overlooking into neighbouring properties.

F/2007/2790
Erection of 2 blocks of 5 flats plus demolition of main building with retention of hall at Hilltop Christian Centre, 34a Hilltop Road

Councillors considered that this proposal was overbearing on the street scene, too large, and it appeared that the block of flats nearest the road would be in front of the building line.

There was also concern that there would be insufficient on site parking, and it was noted that no disabled parking space had been allocated.

For these reasons it was requested that the application was refused, and because it was considered that the proposal was in breach of the Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan and the Borough Council’s Draft Planning Guidelines.

F/2007/2792
Change of Use from A1 (Retail) to A3 (Restaurant) and A7 (Takeaway) at 7 Maiden Lane Centre

Councillors considered that, with an Indian Restaurant, Chinese Restaurant, Fish and Chip Shop and Nepalese Restaurant already at Maiden Lane Centre, the loss of a retail unit for a further restaurant/take away was in appropriate.

To maintain the viability of the Maiden Lane Centre, it was felt that a variety of retail shops should operate from there, and that the area did not require another restaurant/take away.

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

VAR/2007/2793
Variation of Conditions 1 to 5 on VAR/2005/3905 at the Brookside Church, Brookside Close

In considering this application, members of the Planning Committee agreed with the request from the Brookside Church that the facility should be opened from 8.30am to 10.00pm (as opposed to 10.00 am to 10.00 pm as at present). However, it was the view of members of the Planning Committee that the other conditions imposed by the Borough Council in respect of the previous application on this site were there to protect the residential amenity of the nearby local residents, and, it was felt that these conditions should not be amended.

F/2007/2794
Erection of 1 new detached dwelling on land adjacent to 1 Robindale Avenue

Councillors considered that this application, if allowed, would be out of character with properties in the area and would represent an overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore the original design concept for this estate allowed for wide open spaces on the corners of the roads and to allow building on one of these open spaces would be a deviation from this original concept which, it was felt, would be of detriment to the amenity of existing residents.

F/2007/2798
Erection of new end of terraced dwelling on land adjacent to 1 Robindale Avenue

Councillors considered that this application should be refused.

It was felt that “to add on” a further dwelling to the end of a pair of semi-detached properties, would create a terrace, which would be out of character with other properties in the area.

Furthermore the original design concept for this estate allowed for wide open spaces on the corner of the road and to allow building on one of these open spaces would be a deviation from this original concept which, it was felt, would be of detriment to the amenity of existing residents.

F/2007/2805
Part two storey & part 1st floor extensions at 99 Mays Lane

Councillors could find no strong reason to object to this application, but did request that the Planning Officer should check whether this extension would create an unacceptable loss of light to neighbouring properties, as highlighted in a letter to the Town Council from a neighbour

F/2007/2806
Two storey rear/side extension plus single storey front extension & loft conversion to provide habitable accommodation at 22 Salcombe Drive

Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character, represented an overdevelopment, and, because the property was semi-detached, would have an unbalancing effect, which would be of detriment to the street scene, and therefore would be in opposition to Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan.

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

F/2007/2824
Single storey side extension with hip roof to dwelling at 1 Launcestone Close

Whilst it was acknowledged that the height of the proposal at this site had been reduced from the previous application, it was noted that the footprint of the proposed extension was almost identical to that detailed in application F/2007/0459.

Councillors therefore considered that the reasons for the refusal of the previous application on this site were still pertinent, and, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

RM/2007/2877
Reserved Matters following Outline approval on O/2006/7341 for erection of 9 houses (3 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed & 2 x 4 bed) plus car parking & associated landscaping at 329 Wokingham Road

Councillors regretted that the outline planning permission for this site had been approved on Appeal.

With regard to this latest Reserved Matters Application, there was considerable concern about the lack of on site parking, and it was felt that vehicles may well park in the access road, which would prevent access by refuse lorries and emergency vehicles. It was also considered that vehicles may well be parked in the hammer heads, which would result in drivers having to reverse out onto the Wokingham Road, which was considered inappropriate and dangerous.

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

F/2007/2901
Two storey side/rear extension plus garage conversion at 76 Erleigh Court Gardens

Councillors requested that this application should be refused since it was considered that there was insufficient on site parking.

103.5 Appeals

103.5.1 New Appeals

103.5.1.1 F/2006/9480 – 20 Beech Lane

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the proposed change of use of amenity land and erection of a two-storey side extension plus single-storey rear extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

103.5.1.2 F/2007/1007 – 103 Mays Lane

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a single-storey rear extension plus conversion of roof space to habitable accommodation. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

103.5.1.3 F/2007/1811 – 28 Shepherds House Lane

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

103.5.1.4 F/2007/2221 – 132 Church Road

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 an erection of one building containing six residential flats with associated parking, access and amenity space. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an informal hearing at a date and venue to be advised.

103.5.2 Appeal Decisions

103.5.2.1 F/2006/9175 – 1 Sutcliffe Avenue

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

103.5.2.2F/2007/0026 and LB/2007/0028 – 1 Radstock Cottages

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a single-storey ground floor conservatory on the north elevation of this listed building had been dismissed.

103.5.2.3 F/2007/0862 – 34 Ratby Close

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a garage conversion to dining room had been dismissed.

103.6 F/2007/2558 – 205 Beech Lane

Councillors' attention was drawn to the discussions recorded at Minute 90.4 of the meeting of this Committee on 13th November. Following the meeting, attention was drawn to the fact that the applicant was a serving member of the Town Council. Past convention was that the Town Council did not comment on applications submitted either by itself or by serving Members. Therefore, as soon as this information was brought to the attention of Town Council Officers, and following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, the Town Council’s observations on this application were withdrawn, and the Local Planning Authority was asked to note that the Town Council did not have any comment on these proposals.

104. PROPOSALS FOR THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHITEKNIGHTS CAMPUS

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 90.7, when attention was drawn to the proposals for the redevelopment of the Whiteknights Campus, and particularly a proposal to close off the footpath from Wilderness Road into the Campus, a route which was extensively used by students, University staff and the general public. As a result of those discussions, a press release was issued asking local residents to forward any comments either on the proposed closure of the footpath, or any other matters relating to the proposed redevelopment of the Whiteknights Campus, to the Town Council for discussion at this meeting.

Councillors were given a précis of the responses received, a number of which included expressions of considerable concern about the proposed footpath closure.

Councillors were further advised that a local resident had carried out a survey on the footpath between 8.00 am and 10.00 am during which period 129 people had used the footpath, 74 of which were students, 43 were University staff, 7 dog walkers and 5 unidentified.

After further discussion on this item, including discussion about the proposals to increase the amount of onsite car parking, it was

RESOLVED that the following comments be forwarded to the University in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Whiteknights Campus:

Concern about the closure of the footpath from Wilderness Road, which, it was felt, would increase the number of vehicles accessing the site.

The Town Council’s concern about the level of student parking on nearby residential roads.

The suggestion that the University should abolish its on site parking charges, to encourage students to park on Campus.

105. PUBLIC TRANSPORT

105.1. Proposed London Road Bus Route Shift

It was

RESOLVED that discussion of this matter be referred to the next meeting of this Committee.

105.2. London Road Bus Stop – The Drive (Bus Gate)

Further to the discussions recorded at Minute 92 of the meeting of this Committee held on 13th November, Councillors were asked to consider a further representation received from the Borough Council concerning the upgrade of the bus shelter at the London Road - The Drive bus stop.

The communication received from the Borough Council reiterated the fact that this stop would be seen as a flagship location stop and it was the Borough Council’s wish that the shelter should be of high quality both practically and visible. The communication continued by suggesting that the Borough Council would be prepared to accept ownership of the maintenance of the shelter for its life and would remove graffiti within four days from notification and react quickly on other repairs depending on what was required.

Councillors considered that the type of shelter preferred by the Town Council, and communicated previously to the Borough Council, was of a design which allowed anti graffiti Perspex above the seat line and a punch metal back below and which had evolved as a result of the Town Council’s significant experience of vandalism and graffiti to other shelters in the Town. Indeed, on those shelters where punch metal backs had been installed, the incidence of graffiti had been reduced considerably.

Furthermore, Councillors were advised that it was understood that the intention was that on other bus stops on this route within Woodley Town, bus shelters with a punch metal back were to be installed and, therefore, the wish of the Borough Council to install the proposed Meridian shelter was inconsistent.

After further consideration, it was

RESOLVED that

1. the concerns/comments detailed in the preamble to this resolution be communicated to the Borough Council with a copy to the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways and Transport and

2. subject to the Borough Council’s contractors removing the existing shelter to the Town Council’s store, there was no objection to the Borough Council providing a Meridian shelter, subject to the maintenance terms detailed in the preamble to this resolution.

106. CHURCH ROAD CYCLEWAY/FOOTPATH

Further to the discussions recorded at Minute 80.2 of the meeting of this Committee, Councillors were advised that the Committee Chairman had had further discussion with representatives of the Borough Council concerning the proposals to create a joint facility for pedestrians and cyclists along a section of Church Road.

Councillors were advised that, following concerns previously expressed by this Committee, confirmation had now been received that the joint footpath/cycleway would finish at the junction with Mays Lane, and the cycleway would continue along Mays Lane. A plan was made available to members of the Committee showing the exact route, and the proposal that signs would be installed at the footbridge requesting cyclists to dismount.

Concern was expressed about the fact that there was already evidence of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists on the Church Road footpath, and, that these may continue whether or not the cycleway was introduced. It was felt that to formalise the arrangement might encourage more cyclists onto the footpath and increase the potential for such collisions in the future.

After further considerable discussion on this item, Councillors were asked to consider whether the proposal to create the Church Road joint footpath/cycleway should still be rejected in view of the new information which was available to it. It was

RESOLVED that the rejection as detailed at Minute 80.2 of the meeting of this Committee, should stand.

107. 2008/90 BUDGET

107.1. CResCent Community Association – Extension to Footpath

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 95 of the meeting of this Committee held on 13th November, when Officers of the Council were asked to obtain financial information on the Earley CresCent Community Association so that the Committee could better assess its request for funding for the extension of the footpath to the CresCent building.

A brief verbal appraisal of the current financial status of the Association was given.

The general view of the Committee was that the Town Council had already paid for the original installation of the footpath and any further expansion or adjustment of this facility should be the responsibility of the Association. It was, therefore

RESOLVED that the request be refused.

107.2 Instow Road Street Lights

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 95 of the meeting of this Committee held on 13th November, and it was noted that a site meeting had taken place between the Deputy Town Clerk and a representative of Southern Electric Contracting to discuss the possible upgrade of the street lights in Instow Road.

108. MID AND WEST BERKSHIRE COUNTRYSIDE LOCAL ACCESS FORUM

Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from Reading Borough Council indicating that the Council were seeking people to join the Mid and West Berkshire Countryside Local Access Forum, which provided a device to Reading Borough, West Berkshire and Wokingham Borough Councils and other agencies on improving access to the countryside and outdoor recreation. The communication continued by suggesting that this was a voluntary role and included advising on the management of "open access" land and changes to the public rights of way network. The Forum was made up of representatives from a cross section of interests from walkers, cyclists, horse riders and other users, to rural business owners, farmers and land owners.

The Borough Council was seeking nominations from people to join the Forum by the 31st January 2008. It was

RESOLVED that the Town Council should not submit a nomination to the Forum.

109. TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRE-ROLL OUT MEETING

Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council advising that the Annual Meeting with Mobile Phone Operators to discuss the Telecommunications Roll-Out information had been set for Monday, 21st January between 2.00 pm and 4.00 pm.

Councillors were advised that the Planning Committee had been represented at the last meeting by Councillor A Bradley in 2007, and it was

RESOLVED that Councillor Bradley be invited to attend the above meeting.

110. TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS – TPO/1213 - 2007

It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees to the rear of 108 Elm Road.

111. PUBLICATIONS

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

Wokingham Borough Council:
Agenda for meeting of the Planning Committee held on 28th November 2007.
The Town & Parish News – November 2007.
Environmental e-mail Bulletin No. 29.
Winter Maintenance Service Plan 2007/2008.

Sustrans Organisation:
Route to Action Publication – Autumn 2007.

112. ONGOING MATTERS

08/12/04 (103.1)
Third Thames Crossing Group
Report given at Council Meeting – 28th November.

16/03/05 (149)
Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act
Guidance notes now issued by DEFRA to be assimilated.

18/07/06 (36.4)
Parking – Earley St Peter's School

Situation to be monitored.

17/04/07 (152)
Public Transport
Reading Buses CEO to attend the January meeting of this Committee.

24/07/07 (35)
Parking in Aldbourne Avenue
Residents to be asked to confirm the current situation.

13/11/07 (90.7)
Redevelopment to the Whiteknights Campus
Comments forwarded to the University.

It was

RESOLVED that the item in respect of the redevelopment to the Whiteknights Campus be removed from the On-Going Matters list.

113. PRESS RELEASES

It was

RESOLVED that the following items should receive special press attention:

The Town Council’s opposition to the proposed joint Church Road footpath/cycleway.

Details of the Town Council’s submission to the University on the proposals to redevelop the Whiteknights Campus.

114. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.12 pm.