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, 12th September 2006 which commenced at 7.30 pm.

Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman (until 9.15), C Rowden, D Swindells, G Woods.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), T Lowe (due to work commitments) and Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health).

58.       MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the Planning Committee held on the 15th August 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the chairman.

59.       APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

59.1      Decision Notices

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

59.2      Affected Neighbour Notifications

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

“No Objection” Recommendations

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

59.4      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/2006/8224      Revised Plans:  Erection of a single storey rear extension and two storey side extension plus loft conversion at 77 Redhatch Drive, Earley.

Whilst Councillors noted the amendment to the single storey extension it was considered that it still had the potential for loss of light on the neighbouring conservatory. It was, therefore, requested that the application be refused.

F/2006/8292      Erection of single storey side and rear extension.  Amendment to consent F/2005/5615.  Retrospective at 24 Delamere Road.

Councillors considered that the plans in support of this application were misleading, and it was difficult to determine exactly what the differences were between this and the previous application on this site.  However, it was felt that this extension had the potential to create a loss of light to number 26, and it was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

F/2006/8365      Erection of two storey semi-detached dwelling at 31 Milton Road.
                                   
Councillors considered that this proposal would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties, since it would create a terrace in the road of predominately semi detached properties.  There was also concern about access to the parking allocations shown on the plans accompanying the application, since it was felt that vehicles would be reversing out of the site at this very busy junction.  Furthermore, it was deemed that the parking provision was inadequate which would result in on street parking.  It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

F/2006/8406      Conversion of garage to family room at 2 Formby Close.

Councillors had no objection to this application provided that there was adequate on site parking for two vehicles.

F/2006/8465      Erection of part two and part single storey side extension to dwelling plus single storey front extension at 80 Redhatch Drive.

Councillors considered that this, if allowed, would create a terracing effect, and that there was insufficient gap between the proposed extension and the boundary.  It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

F/2006/8500      Erection of replacement boundary fence and repositioning of boundary wall at 19 Caraway Road.

Whilst Councillors noted the steps taken by the applicant to alleviate the concerns raised about the previous application on this site, members of the Planning Committee still had considerable concerns about this proposal. It was felt that the scale and extent of the new section of boundary fence and wall considerably reduced the sight lines for traffic exiting the adjoining garage.  It was also felt that the scale and extent of the wall had a detrimental effect on the street scene.  It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

F/2006/8517      Erection of detached pergola (retrospective) at 5a Holsworthy Close.

Councillors had no objection to this proposal and would welcome the Planning Officer’s confirmation of the reason why planning permission is required for this structure.

F/2006/8543      Erection of two storey side extension and single storey front and rear extension at 56 Harcourt Drive.

Councillors were concerned about the impact the side extension would have on number 54 Harcourt Drive, and considered the proposal was unneighbourly and overbearing.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

59.5      Application Withdrawn by the Applicant

It was noted that Application No. F/2006/8070 in respect of development at 20 Eastcourt Avenue had been withdrawn by the applicants.

59.6      F/2006/7249 – 6 Meadow Road

Councillors were reminded that the development at 6 Meadow Road had caused some concern, both with local Councillors and nearby residents, when a fairly substantial single storey dwelling was built in the rear garden but, initially, was built under Permitted Development Rights.

Subsequently, the Town Council was advised that a Planning Application would need to be submitted in respect of this development. Councillors were advised that the Town Council had recently been notified that the application had now been listed as "Planning Permission Not Required". This matter was queried with the District Council, and the response received indicated that the development was allowed under Permitted Development.  The letter continues by indicating that the outbuilding, so as not to require Planning Permission, must be used ancillary to the main dwelling.

Councillor D Swindells requested that his concern that this level of development was allowed under Permitted Development Rights be minuted.

59.7      Pre-Application Consultation – Alterations to Existing Vodafone Mobile Phone Base Station at Sibly Hall

Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main Agenda, a letter had been received from agents acting on behalf of Vodafone Ltd in respect of proposed minor alterations to the existing Vodafone installation on Sibly Hall.  The item had been placed on the Supplementary Agenda for Councillors’ consideration, since comments were required within 14 days.

The letter received from the agents stated that, in order to facilitate improvements by increasing available band width from its transmitters, Vodafone was proposing to install 3 x 0.3metre transmission dishes to the existing mobile phone base station at Sibly Hall.

Councillors were reminded that they had, in the past, objected to proposals to install telecommunications equipment on Sibly Hall because of the close proximity to residential properties.  However, in view of the relatively minor scale of the alterations now proposed, it was RECOMMENDED that the agents acting on behalf of Vodafone be advised that the Town Council did not wish to comment on this proposal.

60.       DETERMINATION OF DOMESTIC EXTENSIONS

Councillors were reminded that Minute 32.1 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18th July had recorded the resolution that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the District Council’s Head of Development Control indicating the Town Council’s concerns at the seeming inconsistencies in the Local Planning Authority deciding domestic planning applications, and in particular two storey side extensions.  Councillors now noted the content of the letter received from the District Council’s Head of Development Control which had been appended to the Agenda for their consideration.

61.       PLANNING COMMITMENTS FOR HOUSING AT MARCH 2006

Councillors were advised that the above document had now been released and a copy was held in the Council Offices for their perusal.

62.       BUS SHELTERS

62.1      New Shelters

Councillors were reminded that the Planning Committee had previously agreed the concept of replacing two bus shelters every year.  The Street Furniture Janitor had been asked to identify the two shelters which were in the worst state of repair and had suggested that the shelters in Rushey Way, near to the junction with Ryhill Way, and in Beech Lane near to the junction with Hilbury Road were in the greatest need of replacement. 

With regard to the bus shelter in Rushey Way, Councillors were advised that, because of its position, this shelter had been subject to vehicle impact damage in the past, probably caused by a bus pulling in to the lay-by.  Furthermore, a regular traveller from this stop had advised the Town Council that it was difficult to see oncoming buses whilst standing under the shelter.  It was, therefore, suggested to the Committee that the shelter should be positioned at the rear of the pavement, and turned to allow greater visibility.  Furthermore, because of the relatively large number of  passengers using this stop, it was suggested that a 4 metre shelter should be provided.

With regard to the shelter in Beech Lane, Councillors were advised that, since this backed onto vegetation, a punched metal back, which was easier to maintain and keep clean, should be provided. It was RESOLVED that two shelters be purchased, as detailed in the preamble to this resolution, at a cost of £3,922.02 and £2,894.81 plus VAT respectively.

62.2      Damaged shelter – Wilderness Road

Councillors noted that this shelter had been damaged after being hit by a lorry and would, therefore, be the subject of an insurance claim. 

63.       DRAFT TOWN PLAN

Councillors were reminded that Minute 39 of the meeting of the Town Council held on 26th July recorded the resolution that the Planning Committee should be asked to look at and comment on the following sections of the Draft Town Plan:

• Planning and Residential Development
• Highways & Traffic (also to be looked at by Policy & Resources Committee)
• Bus Shelters/Street Furniture/Street Cleansing

These sections of the Plan had been circulated with the Agenda for Councillors’ consideration.  The following amendments were made:

Highways/Traffic

• At the end of the preamble on page 4 Palmerstone Road was added to the list of roads subjected to rat running.
• The sixth bullet point was deleted and replaced with the following wording:
• “Promote improvements in public transport as part of major development”.
• Bullet point eleven which dealt with the third Thames Crossing was amended to read:

“Support the proposal to create a third Thames Crossing, without adverse impact to residents of Earley”.

• Bullet point thirteen was amended by the addition of “Beech Lane” after “Elm Lane” at the end of the first sentence.
• Four further bullet points were added as follows:
• Support Wokingham District Council in its opposition to Reading Borough Council’s proposals to make the Inner Distribution Road one way, thereby pushing traffic into surrounding areas.
• Lobby the appropriate authorities to bring about improvements at the Junction 11 interchange.
• To strive to ensure that all speed limits within the area are harmonised.
• Lobby the appropriate authorities to try to obtain the creation of a fourth lane on the M4 between Junctions 12 and 7.

Planning and Residential Development

• The penultimate line of the first paragraph of the preamble was amended by the addition of “in the town” between “lack of school places” and “lack of dentists”.

• The penultimate sentence of the second paragraph of the preamble was amended by the addition of the word “adversely” between the words “further” and “impact”.

• The sub-section under bullet point 2 was removed and replaced by “Review how best to conserve the Maiden Erlegh Drive Area”.

• The fifth sub-section under bullet point 2 was amended by the deletion of “The District Council” and replaced by “the appropriate authority”.

• Bullet point 4 was amended by the addition of “inappropriate” between the words “or” and “back garden”.

Bus Shelters/Street Furniture/Street Cleansing

The second bullet point was amended by the replacement of the word “plans” by “maps” and the third bullet point was deleted.

 It was RESOLVED that the amendments to the Draft Town Plan, as detailed in the preamble to this resolution, be recommended to Council.

64.       STREET NAMING & NUMBERING

It was noted that the new dwelling on land adjacent to the House in the Trees, Maiden Erlegh Drive, will be known as 1A Maiden Erlegh Drive.

65.       TREES

65.1      Proximity of New Development to Established Trees

Councillors were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 11.2 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16th May, which had requested that the Deputy Town Clerk should try to obtain further information about the appropriate distance new development should be allowed from established trees.  A response had now been received from the Arboricultural Association indicating that the appropriate distances are dealt with under British Standard BS5837 – Trees in Relation to Construction (2005).  It was

RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to obtain a copy of this British Standard.

65.2      Tree Preservation Orders

65.2.1   TPO 1118/2006 – 12 Pitts Lane

It was noted that the District Council had consented to the following works being carried out to trees included in the above order:

• T1 and T2 Evergreen Oaks – Selectively prune to give 5.5 metres height clearance over the highway and thin the canopies.

65.2.2   TPO 724/1995 – Woodley Hill House

It was noted that the District Council had consented to limited works being carried out to a Cedar tree that extended over 66 Eastcourt Avenue but had refused consent for work to be carried out to an Oak tree and Acacia.

66.       DRAFT SOUTH EAST PLAN – EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC

Councillors were reminded that, through the Plans Working Party, the Committee had previously commented on the Draft South East Plan.

Since compilation of the main Agenda, communication had been received on behalf of the South East Regional assembly indicating that the panel overseeing the compilation of the Plan had now considered all the representations received and had drawn up a preliminary list of matters to be discussed at the Examination in Public, and had also drawn up a list of participants who were invited to actively participate in the Examination in Public.

The Town Council had been invited to participate in discussions on the section on Housing which was due to take place on the 27th March 2007 at Reading and was likely to take all day.  Prior to this a preliminary meeting was due to be held in Reading on 17th October which would give guidance on how the Examination in Public was to be handled and how the panel would approach the discussion of matters to be debated at the Examination in Public.

The Committee was asked to consider whether the Town Council should be represented.  It was

RESOLVED that consideration of this item be deferred to the meeting of the Plans Working Party on 21st September, and the Working Party be asked to make a recommendation to the full Council concerning the Town Council’s representation.

67.       PRESENTATION BY READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE IDR – 31st AGUST 2006

Councillors were reminded that at the last meeting of this Committee on 15th August Councillors P Jorgensen, D Swindells and the Deputy Town Clerk were appointed to attend the above meeting.  A copy of the Notes of the meeting had been received since compilation of the main Agenda, and were circulated with the Supplementary Agenda for Councillors’ consideration.

Concerns were raised about comments made by a representative from Reading Borough Council, and the Deputy Town Clerk was asked to determine whether an equivalent of the Standards Board was in place for the Council Officers.

The Deputy Town Clerk was also asked to find out more details about the additional statistics which were mentioned at the meeting, and to ascertain from Wokingham District Council what the next step was with regard to confirming the Town Council’s objection to the Borough Council’s proposals.  To achieve this it was felt that a set of actions as a result of the meeting of the 31st August would be more useful rather than notes and the Deputy Town Clerk was asked to obtain this information from the District Council.

68.       PUBLICATIONS

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

69.       ONGOING MATTERS LIST

With regard to the Third Thames Crossing Group the Deputy Town Clerk was asked to contact the Leader of Wokingham District Council asking for an update.

With regard to the Parking at Earley St Peter’s School the Deputy Town Clerk was requested to obtain an update.

70.       PRESS RELEASES

It was RESOLVED that the Town Council’s representation at the meeting to discuss the Reading Borough Council’s proposals for the IDR and the Town Council’s concern about the fact that the proposals were approved by the Borough Council very shortly after this meeting should form the basis of a Press Release.

71.       TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.30 pm.