 |
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, 12 December 2006 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, (from 8.30 pm.), T Lowe, C Rowden and G Woods.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), Mrs J Lissaman (due to holiday), Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health) and D Swindells (due to ill health).
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
99. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 14th November 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the chairman.
100. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
100.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
100.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
100.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
100.4 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.
Councillors were concerned about the closeness of this development to the boundary, and were also concerned about the imposing and unneighbourly effect which it would have. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors could find no substantial reason to object to this application, on a visit to the site, it was noted that the entire front garden had already been converted to hard standing to accommodate the parking of vehicles once the garage had been converted. It was considered that this was of detriment to the street scene and the visual amenity of the area.
Councillors were concerned about this application. It was considered that there was insufficient on site parking and, whilst the close proximity of the development site to Earley Station was noted, it was considered that most of the potential occupants of the flats proposed would also be in ownership of a private vehicle. There was also concern about access to the site, which was across a slip road into Station Road which it was considered was dangerous.
It was noted that there did not appear to be any provision for bin storage, and that the site once developed would have little or no amenity land.
It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors do not normally have any major concerns about proposals to build rear conservatories, there was a concern about what appeared to be an excessively high wall to the side of the proposed new conservatory on the boundary. It was considered that this wall was overbearing and unneighbourly and would create a loss of light and particularly to No. 5.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned with this application, since it was felt that, if allowed, it would have an unbalanced appearance compared to the adjoining property, and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene.
Furthermore, Councillors considered that the design of the rear dormer was unsympathetic.
Whilst Councillors considered that the design of this proposed development was more imaginative than many they had been asked to consider in the recent past, the Town Council remained opposed to back land infilling, because of the further strain it would impose on the already over stretched infrastructure in this area.
There was concern about access to the site, and particularly to the properties in The Drive. This was already an extremely busy junction, and the access point was deemed to be unsafe.
Furthermore, whilst this may be a Building Control matter rather than a strict planning issue, it was understood that there were severe problems with the drainage/sewerage system in this area, which were already being experienced by local residents and had resulted in severe sewerage leaks into some existing gardens. It was felt that the additional properties proposed by this development would further exacerbate this problem.
Whilst the more imaginative design of the proposal had previously been commented on, Councillors did consider that the individual designs of the houses themselves were out of keeping with other properties in the neighbourhood.
The Town Council requested that the application should be refused for the above reasons and since it was considered to be in opposition to Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan.
Whilst Councillors considered that this latest proposal was an improvement on previous applications at this site, they remained concerned about the potential for loss of light to neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that the proposed new design of the new Church building was much improved on the previous application on this site, and did not have any strong objections to it.
However, the Town Council did still remain extremely concerned about the lack of parking on the site and requested that the Baptist Church should liaise with the Maiden Place Management Company to try to draw up a formal arrangement with regard to parking provision for the site.
Furthermore, if the Planning Office was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition was imposed precluding attendees to the Baptist Church parking in the area allocated for the Maiden Place Community Centre except on Sundays.
Councillors considered that this proposal was unneighbourly and the design was unsympathetic and out of character with other properties in the road.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
100.5 Redevelopment of Winnersh Triangle
Councillors noted receipt of a letter from Slough Estates International indicating that an Outline Planning Application had now been submitted for the redevelopment of the Winnersh Triangle Business Park.
100.6. Appeals
100.6.1 New Appeal
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension plus front porch at 20 Ramsbury Drive.
100.6.2 Appeal Decisions
100.6.2.1 F/2006/7059 – 40 The Drive
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a three bedroomed detached dwelling, had been dismissed.
100.6.2.2 F/2005/6574 – 7 Woodmere Close
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a first floor side extension had been granted.
101. WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
It was noted that a communication had been received from Wokingham District Council indicating that it had received the Inspector's report following a written representation examination that considered the soundness of the Statement of Community Involvement. The Council had amended the Statement and it had been considered at the Council's Full Executive on 30th November and was presented for adoption on 1st December.
102. HIGHWAY MATTERS – (HARTSBOURNE ROAD AND REEDS AVENUE, EARLEY) (AMBULANCE PARKING BAY & PROHIBITION OF WAITING) ORDER 2006
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the District Council indicating that, at the meeting on 12th June 2006, members of the Highways Consultative Board resolved to recommend to the Executive to advertise and consult upon a proposal to introduce an ambulance bay and "no waiting at any time" restrictions on Hartsbourne Road and Reeds Avenue. Details of the proposal were attached to the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.
Councillors were further advised that the proposal arose from requests received from the Manager and residents of the housing care for the elderly at Douglas Court. They had expressed their concern about the inability of disabled residents and their allocated transport to park and unload safely, due to the indiscriminate parking on the section of the road alongside Douglas Court.
The proposed restrictions included an ambulance only bay to ensure that there was always a convenient parking location for daily transportation of the elderly and disabled, whilst also ensuring that the nearby junctions remained free from parked vehicles.
A member present expressed the view that the proposed double yellow lining should be extended along Hartsbourne Road to prevent parking on either side of the road in the vicinity of Douglas Court, but this was not resolved.
It was, however,
RESOLVED that
1. the District Council be asked to install a dropped kerb in the vicinity of the proposed ambulance bay and
2. the proposals, other than the amendment detailed above, be approved by the Town Council.
103. WOODLEY HILL HOUSE, EASTCOURT AVENUE
Councillors noted receipt of a copy of a letter sent from the District Council's Conservation Architect to English Heritage, requesting that consideration was given to applying Listed status to Woodley Hill House.
The Deputy Town Clerk was requested to forward the information previously compiled on Woodley Hill House to the Conservation Architect in support of the application.
104. FUTURE BUDGETS
104.1 Instow Road Street Lighting
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 90 of the meeting of this Committee held on 14th November which had requested that residents in Instow Road be consulted on their views about the Town Council improving the street lighting in that road.
It was noted that 25 households had responded and, in some instances, more than one member of the household had responded hence the difference between the number of households and the numbers given below. The results of the consultations were:
For an upgrade 7
Against an upgrade 21
Undecided 1
In view of the high number of respondents who were against the upgrade, it was
RESOLVED that no further action be taken on this matter.
104.2 2007/08 Budget
Further to the discussions recorded at Minute 90 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 14th November, Councillors were asked to consider whether there were any further projects which they would wish to undertake in 2007/08. It was
RESOLVED that a sum of £1,000 be allocated to an Environmental Enhancement Budget.
104.3 3-Year Financial Planning
To assist the Town Clerk in the production of a three-year budget Councillors were asked to consider any projects which the Committee would wish to undertake in 2008/09 and 2009/10. It was
RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be asked to provide for the provision of two new bus shelters per year to maintain the Town Council’s programme of replacement. It was also suggested that £1,000 per year should be allocated to the Reserve to upgrade the Town Maps, and £1,000 per year be allocated to the Environmental Enhancement Budget.
Councillors were reminded that, capital projects undertaken by this Committee had, in the past, been as a result of direct requests from local residents. Whilst the Committee did not have any such requests at the present time, Councillors felt that the Committee should be in a position to reserve the right to request allocation in future budgets to meet specific projects in the future.
105. STREET NAMING & NUMBERING
It was noted that the new dwelling on land adjacent to 12 Plympton Close would be known as 12A Plympton Close.
106. TREES
106.1 New Preservation Orders
106.1.1 TPO 1154/2006
It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees in the rear gardens of 128, 134A and 136 Church Road.
106.1.2 TPO 1155/2006
It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees in the rear gardens of 88 and 92 Pitts Lane.
106.1.3 TPO 1152/2006
It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of various trees in the front and rear gardens of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 20 Pitts Lane.
106.1.4 TPO 1153/2006
It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees in the front and rear gardens of 30, 38 and 42 Pitts Lane.
106.2 TOP 1109/2006 – Rear of 42 Squirrels Way
It was noted that an Ash tree previously covered by this Order had now been removed from the Order since the poor condition of the tree in question meant that major surgery would be required to ensure that it could be safely retained in a garden location. The amount of work required would reduce the amenity value of the tree and, therefore, it was unsuitable for inclusion in the Order.
106.3 Notification of Works to Trees on Land to the Rear of 37 Kerris Way
It was noted that an Ash tree at the rear of 37 Kerris Way, covered under Order 197/1980 would be removed because it is infected and in a dangerous condition.
107. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
108. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
109. PRESS RELEASES
It was
RESOLVED that the District Council’s move to try to obtain Listed Status for Woodley Hill House should receive special press attention.
110. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.15 pm. |