Minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire on Tuesday, 12th February 2008 commencing at 7.30 pm.
Chairman - Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, T Chambers, N Jorgensen, Mrs J A Lissaman, P L Willis and G B Woods.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Bradley and N Preston (due to holiday).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
132. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 15th January 2008 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
133. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
133.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
133.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
133.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
F/2008/0067 Single storey rear extension to form conservatory at 31 Erleigh Court Gardens
F/2008/0077 Single storey rear extension plus demolition of existing conservatory at 31 Chiltern Crescent
F/2008/0085 Single storey rear extension at 69 Mays Lane
F/2008/0141 Single storey side extension plus alterations to existing garage at 35 Radstock Lane
F/20080157 Two storey side & single storey rear extensions at 44 The Delph
F/2008/0168 Single storey rear extension at 7 Bassett Close
F/2008/0226 Single storey rear extension at 8 Marefield
F/2008/0074 Single storey side extension at 2 Selsey Way
F/2008/0031 Single storey front/side extension, single storey rear extension and conversion of existing garage at 3 Harwich Close
F/2008/0045 Single storey rear extension to garage plus first floor side extension at 19 Betchworth Ave
F/2008/0053 Single storey rear and front extensions plus two storey side/rear extensions at 530 Wokingham Road
F/2008/0065 Erection of two storey side/rear extension at 32 Henley Wood Road
F/2008/0106 Single storey rear extension at 2 Sibley Park Road
F/2008/0111 Erection of single storey rear extension at 2 Sutcliffe Ave
F/2008/0118 Erection of single storey rear extension at 8 Bassett Close
F/2008/0144 Erection of two storey side extension with front dormer and single storey front extension at 5 Toseland Way
133.4 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/2007/2708 Two storey side extension with integral garage plus demolition of existing garage at 10 Burniston Close
Whilst Councillors had no strong objection to this proposal, there was concern about the practicality of the proposed new garage, particularly in respect of the difficult access to it, and the fact, from the plans, the garage did not appear to be large enough to accommodate a “normal” sized car. In view of this, Councillors queried whether, if the proposal was allowed to proceed, there would be sufficient on site parking.
F/2007/2724 Erection of detached extension for use as games room, storage room in garden at rear at 75 Mill Lane
Whilst it was noted that the scale of the proposed games room and store had been reduced compared to the original application, it was considered that the proposal was still unneighbourly, and particularly to the two properties in Plympton Close.
Furthermore, Councillors remained of the view that the design and build specifications for the proposal were more than was required for a games room, and there was concern that it would be used for residential accommodation.
The Planning Committee, therefore, reiterated its previous request that should the Planning Officer be mindful to approve this application, conditions are 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.
F/2007/3026 Single storey side and rear extension to dwelling at 9 Gipsy Lane
Members of the Planning Committee had no comment on this application; however they did find the plans difficult to interpret.
F/2007/3049 Single storey front extension at 24 Cutbush Close
Councillors were not in favour of this proposal. It was considered that the extension was too large, was not subservient to the host dwelling, and would therefore be of detriment to the street scene and contrary to item 3.5 of the Borough Council’s Residential Design Guide. It was therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
F/2007/3075 Erection of 4 semi-detached dwellings with car ports to rear plus demolition of existing dwelling at 132 Church Road
Councillors considered that this proposal was unneighbourly, out of character with other properties on that side of Church Road which were predominately detached, and overbearing. Furthermore, it was considered that there was insufficient on site parking which would result in vehicles being parked to the front of the properties, and possibly in the access road, which would give the site a cluttered appearance and would be contrary to the open appearance of other front gardens in Church Road, which was achieved by properties being set back from the road and having sufficient parking. It was noted that there appeared to be an area of general open space to the rear, which it would not be possible to access through the rear of plots 1 and 4 if cars were parked in the designated areas making this proposal impractical
There did not appear to be any provision for bin/cycle storage, and with there being no garages on the site, it was likely that these items would be stored to the front of the properties which would further add to the erosion of the street scene.
For these reasons it was requested that the application was refused, and, in the view of the Town Council, it was contrary to Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan and item 2.2.1, 2.3, 2.12, and 3.5 of the Borough Council’s Residential Design Guide
F/2008/0052 Single A1 Class Use unit with 2 No. one bed and 2 No. two bed residential dwellings, plus demolition of existing building at 2 Church Road
Whilst members of the Planning Committee noted that the scale of this latest proposal was smaller than had previously been considered on this site, it remained of considerable concern.
Councillors considered this proposal still represented an overdevelopment of the site and it would create a building that would be out of character with other properties in the area, which, it was felt would be incongruous in the street scene. Whilst it was appreciated that the building threatened by demolition as a result of this proposal did not, as far as the Town Council was aware, carry any statutory protection, Councillors did consider that it, with the adjoining buildings in a small terrace, were of a defined character and held significant historical interest for the Town. It was felt that the loss of the existing building would therefore be extremely regrettable and contrary to Earley’s Town Plan which declared the aspiration of trying to protect remaining buildings of character within the Town.
Because of its size and position within the plot Councillors considered that the proposal, if allowed, would be overbearing to those using the adjoining pavement and would have a massing effect particularly when looking at the side elevation from Church Road.
Parking in this area was already extremely difficult, with, on occasions, vehicles being parked on the A329 quite close to the Three Tuns Junction. It was noted that, in this current proposal, there was no parking provision to the front. Whilst there was some parking to the rear, this was deemed to be inadequate and the access to this parking area would, it was considered, only heighten congestion and therefore increase air pollution, and may result in vehicles “backing up” across the Three Tuns Crossroads. Furthermore, experience had shown that those wishing to use retail facilities such as that proposed were not always prepared to walk to them from a designated parking area, no matter how short the distances involved, and would park to the front. This proposal, could, therefore, lead to more on street parking on the A329.
Whilst it is noted that the plans allowed for small glazed Juliet style balconies to the first floor flats, because of the site location on the very busy Three Tuns Crossroads, it was considered that this did not adopt the sentiment of Section 2.2.1 of the Borough Council’s Design Guides, which required that flats would either have a private garden, private balcony or access to a secure communal garden or terrace.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused for the reasons stated above, and that fact that it was in breach of Policies WOS 3 and WBE 7 of the Wokingham Borough Plan, sections of the Earley Town Plan, and sections of the Borough Council’s Design Guide particularly in relation to the scale and proportion of the building, and the accessibility to outdoor amenity space.
F/2008/0064 Part two storey, part single storey side extensions plus front and side dormer extensions at 61 Ramsbury Drive
Councillors considered that this proposal would create a property which appeared to be unbalanced, was out of character with other properties in the road, and would be incongruous in the street scene.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application it was requested that particular attention was paid to the materials used to build the proposed extension to try soften its appearance.
F/2008/0088 Two storey side & single storey rear extensions at 37 Redhatch Drive
It was noted from the Plans accompanying this application that the proposed extension would be built right up to the boundary.
It was considered that this was unneighbourly, and would create a terracing effect which would be of detriment to the street scene.
It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
F/2008/0138 Erection of replacement dwelling plus demolition of existing dwelling & garage at 10 Maiden Erlegh Drive
Whilst Councillors had no objection to this proposal, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve it, it was requested that in view of the close proximity of neighbours to the application site, stringent conditions were imposed relating to the times during which the demolition of the existing building in particular, and the construction of the new dwelling could take place.
F/2008/0167 Two storey side & rear extensions plus loft conversion at 17 Salcombe Drive (Amendment to F/2007/0927)
Whilst it was noted that this application was an amendment to a previous approval on the site, it was requested that the application was refused since the proposed two storey side extension would be less than 1 metre from the boundary, and, in view of the fact that the extension did not appear to have any “set back” it would have an overbearing and terracing effect on the street scene.
RM/2008/0224 Reserved Matters application on Outline Consent O/2006/7341 for the erection of 9 dwellings with associated car parking & landscaping at 329-333 Wokingham Road
Councillors regretted that 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 for refuse lorries and emergency vehicles. It was also considered that vehicles may reverse out onto the Wokingham Road which was considered inappropriate and dangerous.
Councillors considered that the appearance of the development would look cramped and contrived, and there was concern about the lack of amenity space.
For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused. Councillors considered that it was in contravention of Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham Borough Plan and items 2.2, 2.12 and 3.5 of the Borough Council’s Residential Guide
133.5 Appeals
133.5.1 New Appeals
133.5.1.1F/2007/1993 – 88 Elm Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two-storey side extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an informal hearing.
133.5.1.2F/2007/2769 – 88 Elm Road
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 informal hearing, at a date to be advised, and would be heard at the same time as the Appeal for Application F/2007/1993.
133.6 Dates for Informal Hearings
133.6.1 F/2007/2221 and F/2007/0926 – 132 Church Road
It was noted that the informal hearings into the above applications, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a building containing six flats and the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a block containing nine flats respectively, were due to be heard on 6th February.
133.6.2 F/2007/1093 – 301Wokingham Road
It was noted that the informal hearing into the Appeal against the Borough Council's refusal to allow for the erection of four flats with associated parking and demolition of the existing dwelling, would be heard on 14th February.
133.7 Appeal Decisions
133.7.1 F/2007/0120 – 14 Cannock Way
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 rear and a first floor side extension, had been allowed.
133.7.2 F/2007/1087 – 37 – 53 Meadow Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road and the erection of thirteen dwellings, had been dismissed.
133.8 Alleged Breach of a Planning Condition
Councillors noted receipt of a copy of an e-mail from a local resident to the Borough Council's Planning Enforcement Team, alleging numerous breaches of the Planning Conditions in relation to the times deliveries could be made to the Asda Store in Lower Earley. It was
RESOLVED that a communication should be sent from the Town Council asking for an update on what actions the Planning Enforcement Team proposed to take on this complaint.
134. MEETING OF PLANS WORKING PARTY
Councillors were reminded that the resolution recorded at Minute 120 of the meeting of this Committee held on 15th January, had requested that a meeting of the Plans Working Party should be convened to discuss the Borough Council’s Draft Methodology for the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) for Wokingham Borough and to forward comments on behalf of the Town Council.
Councillors were advised that the meeting had taken place place on 30th January, and the Committee noted the content of the report of that meeting, which had been circulated with the Agenda, and a copy of which is appended to these minutes.
135. READING BOROUGH COUNCIL – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT, ISSUES & OPTIONS STAGE
CANDIDATE DEVELOPMENT SITES AND DESIGNATIONS
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from Reading Borough Council advising that it was preparing the first stage of its Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) as part of its local development framework (LDF). The document was intended to identify land to meet Reading Borough's development needs for the next fifteen years and beyond, including development proposals for housing and employment.
The communication continued by inviting developers, land owners, elected Members, community groups, members of the public and any other interested parties to tell the Borough Council about potential candidate development sites for development or re-use in the Borough.
Councillors were asked to consider whether they wished to comment at this stage of the process. It was
RESOLVED that no comment be made.
136. HIGHWAYS
136.1 Local Deputy to the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways & Transport
Councillors were reminded that, when Councillor Keith Baker, the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways & Transport, visited the meeting of this Committee on 11th December 2007, he made reference to the fact that he had deputies acting on his behalf in various locations throughout the Borough, and that Councillor Tim Holton was the Deputy for this area.
The resolution recorded at Minute 102 of the meeting of 11th December requested that consideration should be given as to how the Town Council could best work with Councillor Tim Holton on various highway related issues. It was
RESOLVED that
1. Councillor Holton be invited to the next meeting of the Committee to consider this further and to decide what mechanism should be put in place
2. Councillor Holton should be invited to every third meeting of the Committee after that to allow Councillors to discuss Highway related issues with him
136.2 Access to Chalfont Square
Councillors were reminded that the much awaited pedestrian crossing, giving safer access to pedestrians crossing Chalfont Way, was installed prior to Christmas.
Since installation of the crossing, concern had been expressed by several local residents, and by the Maiden Erlegh Residents' Association that pedestrians, having crossed Chalfont Way from the Asda side, still found it extremely difficult to gain safe access to Chalfont Square, since the pavement petered out, requiring pedestrians to either walk down the road to the pedestrian crossing, or cross at the junction, and use a route prescribed by the Borough Council which led to a footpath running between the garage and the Toby Carvery.
Mr Brian Hackett, from the Maiden Erlegh Residents Association was present at the meeting, and, with the Chairman’s approval, detailed to Councillors the discussions which he had had with the Borough Council to date.
Members of the Planning Committee felt it was impractical and dangerous to expect pedestrians to cross at the very busy junction to Chalfont Square, and then access the site via the Borough Council’s prescribed route. As an alternative to this, it was considered that it may be possible to create a new pavement running parallel to the access road to Chalfont Square until it reached the pedestrian crossing already in place. However, Councillors acknowledged that this solution may be expensive because of the need to move street lights and the substantial amount of ground works which would be required to cut back the bank at this location.
An alternative suggestion was that a zigzag slope leading from the existing pathway at the top of the bank could be created. It was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the Borough Council with copies to Councillor Tim Holton and Councillor Keith Baker requesting that the Borough Council should consider the two options detailed in the preamble to this resolution.
136.3 Church Road Pavements
Councillors were advised that despite the fact that the Town Council had objected to the proposal to create a formal shared route for cyclists and pedestrians along Church Road, there was still a problem of cyclists using the pavements in this area. It was considered that this was dangerous to pedestrians, and particularly on the very narrow sections of the pavement. It was
RESOLVED that
1. a letter be sent to the University requesting that it should highlight the problem to its students
2. the Police Community Support Officer for the area be asked to attend on site
136.4 (Saffron Close and Amber Close) (Prohibition of Waiting) Order 2008
It was noted that the Borough Council was intending, subject to there being no material objections, to introducing "no waiting" restrictions at the junctions of Saffron Close and Amber Close with Wokingham Road.
136.5 A4 London Road Temporary Prohibition of Driving Order 2008
It was noted that a Temporary Prohibition of Driving Order would be put in place to prohibit any vehicle from proceeding along the A4 London Road between its junctions with Kings Road and the A3290. The reason for this restriction was to allow for the installation of bridge timbers on the A4 London Road railway bridge to be undertaken safely.
The Order would come into operation on 17th February 2008 and would continue in force for a period not exceeding eighteen months or until the works had been completed, whichever was the earliest. However, it was expected that the works would be carried out between 0115 hours and 0700 hours on 17th February only.
136.6 Woodley Area Cumulative Traffic Impact Study
Councillors were advised that, since compilation of the main Agenda, notification had been received that the Borough Council had reported on the completion of the Woodley Area Cumulative Traffic Impact Study. The Study assessed the potential traffic impact of the future development in the Woodley area in the coming years and identified potential mitigation measures and transport solutions that could be funded by Section 106 Developer Contributions. Councillors were further advised that the study did include some parts of Earley, specifically Church Road and Pitts Lane.
Concern was expressed that the Borough Council appears to be treating Woodley in isolation, and that much of the traffic generated by the development taking place in that town would impact on Earley, and it was felt that the Borough Council should not treat Woodley in isolation. It was
RECOMMENDED that a communication be sent to the Borough Council expressing the concerns detailed in the preamble to this resolution and asking whether the Borough had plans to carry out a similar study in Earley.
137. MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ROLLOUT MEETING REPORT
Councillors were reminded that Minute 109 of the meeting of this Committee held on 11th December had requested that Councillor A Bradley should attend the Telecommunications Pre-Rollout Meeting on behalf of the Town Council.
Councillor Bradley had subsequently submitted a report, which had been circulated with the Agenda for Councillors’ consideration, the content of which was noted and which is attached to these minutes.
138. CLEAN NEIGHBOURHOODS & ENVIRONMENT ACT
Details of the powers afforded to Parish and Town Councils under the terms of the Clean Neighbourhoods & Environment Act 2005 had been circulated with the Agenda for Councillors’ consideration.
Following a question from a Member, it was confirmed that the powers of the Act could only be brought into force against those actually committing an offence of littering, graffiti, fly posting etc, and could not be brought to bear against those who were failing in their duty to clean up or remove such items.
Councillors’ attention was drawn to the recommendation at the end of the report which suggested that Members should note the extent of the Act and the powers that would be available to the Town Council through the Act’s provisions, but that adoption of the powers should be considered as and when a need was identified.
With the permission of the Chairman, a local resident who was present at the meeting expressed her concern at the amount of litter in and around the Loddon Valley Leisure Centre, the District Centre and the Asda complex. It was requested that this matter should be followed up by Council officers.
It was
RESOLVED that this recommendation be adopted.
139. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
|
Wokingham Borough Council: |
Minutes of the Telecommunications Rollout Meeting held on 21st January 2008. Agenda for meeting of the Planning Committee held on 30th January 2008.
|
140. 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 |
Recommendation of report adopted. |
|
24/07/07 (35) |
Parking in Aldbourne Avenue |
Residents to be asked to confirm the current situation.
|
It was
RESOLVED that the item in respect of the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act be removed from the Ongoing Matter list.
141. PRESS RELEASES
It was
RESOLVED that the following items should receive special press attention.
· The Town Council’s concern about the danger posed to pedestrians and cyclists using the Church Road pavement.
· The fact that the Town Council was very much looking forward to working with the Borough Council to improve access for pedestrians into Chalfont Square.
· The Town Council’s continuing concern about the level of litter in and around the District Centre and Asda complex.
142. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.35pm.