 |
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, 13 February 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – until 7.50 pm. - Councillor N Jorgensen from 7.50 pm. Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, Mrs J Lissaman and G B Woods (from 7.50 pm).
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), A Bradley, Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health). Councillors Mrs P Jorgensen and G Woods apologised for their lateness in arriving at the meeting due to traffic congestion.
__________________________________________________________________________________
123. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
It was reported to the meeting that the Chairman had been delayed and it was
RESOLVED that Councillor N Jorgensen should take the chair.
124. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 16 January 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
125. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
125.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
125.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
125.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
125.4 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 found that the design of the rear dormer extension proposed as part of this application was disappointing.
With regard to the erection of the detached garage and workshop, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition be imposed restricting the use of the garage for domestic purposes only.
Councillors were unsure whether the District Council’s new planning guideline in respect of leaving a 1 metre gap between any development and the boundary applied in this case. Furthermore, from a letter received from a neighbour it seemed that the new extension proposed would encroach onto the neighbouring property. The Planning Officer was asked to check this out in considering this application.
Members of the Planning Committee found it difficult to consider this application as the existing plans submitted in support of this proposal did not show that the property had a garage. Because of this, it was difficult to see how vehicles accessed the site before the conversion took place.
Regardless of the above, however, Councillors were concerned about the parking provision on the site. Furthermore, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition be imposed to ensure that this additional part of the building could not be used for separate accommodation.
Whilst Councillors noted that this application was in respect of a single storey extension, it was noted that it appeared to be built right to the boundary and the Planning Committee queried whether the District Council’s new planning guideline requiring that a 1 metre gap between proposed development and the boundary was left, applied in this case.
Councillors were concerned to see that the University was proposing further extensions to the existing Whiteknights campus. There was concern that there would be insufficient on site parking to accommodate the additional students and staff that would be using this new building. Furthermore, there was a concern that, because of a lack of on campus provision, many of the properties in the vicinity of the University were now let for student accommodation. This type of multi occupancy often led to an increased requirement for parking in these residential areas. Furthermore, houses used for student accommodation could, sometimes, have a slightly dilapidated and uncared for appearance which had a detrimental effect on the established residents in these areas.
If the District Council was mindful to approve this application, the Town Council sought an assurance that appropriate contributions to infrastructure improvements would be sought and that a comprehensive travel plan would be produced.
Councillors considered that the parking provision shown in respect of this application was both illogical and insufficient and would result in parking on the very busy junction with Whiteknights Road. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Whilst the Town Council was aware of the need for good quality care homes for the elderly, it was considered that this application did not have sufficient on site parking. Furthermore, the increased traffic that this development had the potential to create would result in further traffic trying to access Wilderness Road and the Three Tuns cross roads which were already severely congested. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
In considered this planning application, members of the Planning Committee were concerned about the size and design of the shed being proposed. It was considered that it had the potential for use as a separate dwelling or for commercial purposes. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal, it was requested that conditions were imposed restricting the use of the shed for domestic purposes only, and to ensure that it cannot, at a later date, be used as a separate dwelling.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. The design of Odell Close was already very cramped, and not only did this proposal represent a deviation from the original design concept of the estate and reduced any existing openness, it was felt that it would be of detriment to the street scene.
It was noted that this proposal, if allowed, would not be 1 metre from the boundary and would, therefore, create a terracing effect which would be incongruous to the street scene It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
125.5 Application Withdrawn by the Applicant – TL/2006/9468
It was noted that the above application, which was in respect of the installation of a telecommunications mast on land at the junction of Beech Lane and Rushey Way, had been withdrawn by the applicant.
125.6 Appeals
125.6.1 New Appeals
125.6.1.1 F/2006/7830 – 36 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a replacement dwelling and demolition of existing dwelling at 36 Chiltern Crescent. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of a Local Inquiry at a date to be advised.
125.6.1.2 F/2006/7831 – 53 The Drive and Rear of 36-38 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of nine new dwellings and the demolition of 38 Chiltern Crescent and 53 The Drive. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of a Local Inquiry at a date to be advised.
125.6.2 Appeal Decisions
125.6.2.1 O/2006/7341 – 329-333 Wokingham Road
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the erection of nine houses and the demolition of three dwellings, had been allowed. It was further noted that, since this was an Appeal for an outline application, it would now be necessary for the applicants to submit a reserved matters application to the District Council.
125.6.2.2 F/2006/7397 – 205 Beech Lane
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of a two storey rear extension, had been dismissed.
125.6.2.3 F/2006/8255 – 384 and 386 Wokingham Road
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the erection of two dwellings (amendment to Consent F/2005/3874) to allow the addition of first floor side extensions, had been dismissed.
125.7 South East Plan – Examination in Public
Councillors’ attention was drawn to the discussion recorded at Minute 115 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16th January 2006. Following the meeting with representatives of the District Council’s Policy & Plans Team, the Town Council's written submission to the South East Plan Examination in Public had been expanded from the Draft previously submitted to the Committee, to include specific examples.
Councillors noted details of the final submission which is attached to these Minutes.
126. READING BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
It was noted that communications had been received from Reading Borough Council, advising that the preferred options version of the Central Area Action Plan and the Submission Draft Statement version of its Core Strategy Document were available for consideration at www.planning.reading.gov.uk. It was further noted that a summary leaflet had been received by the Town Council and was available on request.
127. HIGHWAYS
127.1 (Saffron Close and Amber Close, Earley) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) Order 2007 (Various Roads, Earley) (Prohibition and Restriction of Waiting) Order 2007
Councillors noted that a communication had been received from the District Council's Highways Department indicating that, at the meeting on the 6th November 2006, members of the Highways Consultative Board considered a petition received from residents requesting waiting restrictions in Saffron Close, Earley to prevent all day commuter parking. It was agreed to make a Traffic Order introducing double yellow lines at its junction with Wokingham Road and single yellow lines applying between 10.00 am and 11.00 am throughout the remaining length.
It was further noted that the Order would also include double yellow line restrictions around the junction of Amber Close and Wokingham Road, to comply with the request from the Town Council to prevent parked vehicles obstructing the visibility of drivers emerging from the junction.
The communication also advised that the Highways Board considered a petition received from residents requesting waiting restrictions in The Crescent, Earley to prevent all day commuter parking and approved a resolution to make a traffic order to introduce single yellow lines and waiting restrictions applying between the hours of 10.00 am and 11.00 am on Mondays to Fridays on both sides of The Crescent, between the Kenton Road roundabout and Nos. 21 and 23 Kenton Road. The Order would also introduce double yellow line waiting restrictions applying at any time around the roundabout and its junctions with Kenton Road and Finch Road to clear obstruction and increase visibility.
It was
RESOLVED that no comment be made on these proposals.
127.2M4 Junctions 10-12 Communications Upgrade
It was noted that correspondence had been received from the Highways Agency detailing the proposal to undertake a communications upgrade. Details of the proposals had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration. It was
RESOLVED that a request be sent to the Highways Agency asking that information given on the display boards along the motorway should be up-to-date and local and should also advise alternative routes if possible.
127.3. Beech Lane
Councillors noted receipt of a copy of a letter from residents, who live in the Cul-de-Sac section of Beech Lane, to the Rt Hon John Redwood MP concerning parking in that road, but also requesting that the 20 mph zone should be extended to cover this section of Beech Lane. The letter had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ information.
128. FOOTPATHS/FOOTWAYS
128.1 Earley Footpath 15
Councillors were asked to consider a letter received, which was attached to the agenda for their consideration, concerning a possible improvement to Footpath 15, which runs adjacent to the car sales area opposite to Loddon Bridge junction.
The letter was seeking the Town Council’s support that, should a suitable opportunity arise, there should be an upgrade of the footpath. It was
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s support for this suggestion should be appropriately communicated.
128.2. Footway Widening Scheme – Church Road
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from Wokingham District Council indicating that it was proposing to widen and resurface the footway on the eastern side of Church Road between Mays Lane and Woodlands Avenue. The work would include footway resurfacing and kerb replacement/repair for the extent of the scheme.
The communication continued by suggesting that widening of the footway would improve safety for pedestrians using the route. Consideration would be given at a later date to the conversion of the footway into a cycleway to allow cyclists to officially use the footway, and the letter indicated that the Town Council would be consulted on this in due course. The scheme would also include safety improvements for pedestrians outside the shop adjacent to Mays Close. Councillors considered that, whilst the Town Council would always support the creation of new cycleways, where possible, these should be properly separated from the highway to prevent accidents.
With regard to the suggestion in the communication that the newly widened pavement may be used for shared use for pedestrian/cyclists, it was felt that this might encourage cyclists to cycle down the narrower stretches of Church Road pavement, rather than using the prescribed route along Mays Lane. It was understood that there was already concern on the part of teachers and parents of pupils at Earley St Peter’s School about cycling on the pavement and, it was
RESOLVED that the observations and concerns as detailed in the preamble to this resolution be communicated to the District Council.
129. LITTER AT THE DISTRICT CENTRE
Councillors were advised that after consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman it had been agreed that a meeting should be set up of all interested parties, including representatives of the various Departments at the District Council to try to resolve the litter situation at the District Centre and Chalfont Square and Park once and for all.
A full report of the meeting would be given at the next meeting of this Committee.
130. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
131. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
It was
RESOLVED that
1. the item in respect of parking in The Crescent be removed from the ongoing matters list and
2. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to ascertain the latest situation with regard to the parking at Earley St Peter’s School.
132. PRESS RELEASES
No press releases were requested.
133. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.10 pm.
|