 |
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 March 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, D Swindells and G B Woods.
Also in attendance Councillor S Scarrott (until 8.05 pm.)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), T Lowe (due to work commitments), Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health) and C Rowden __________________________________________________________________________________
134. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13th February 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
135. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
135.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
135.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
135.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
135.4 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 considered that the proposed design of the extension and particularly the creation of rooms in the roof space would lead to a development which was out of character with other properties in the road, was ascetically unpleasing and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, it was considered that the dormer in the roof would have an element of overlooking into next door properties which would make them unneighbourly. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors requested that consideration should be given to this proposal having a different design to break up the impact of the building on the street scene. It was also felt that consideration should be given to the first floor being inset, again to reduce the terracing effect.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would represent an over development, would be too close to the boundary, and would produce a building which was out of character with other properties in the road and would, therefore, be incongruous in the street scene and in opposition to Policy W0S3 of the Wokingham District Plan.
Furthermore, Councillors felt that, with this proposed substantial increase in the dwelling, together with the large single storey detached building already used for residential accommodation in the rear garden, this property could be subject to multi occupancy in which case there was insufficient on site parking, and particularly, as it was understood that on occasions, a number of taxi type vehicles were parked at the property.
For these reasons, therefore, Councillors considered that this application should be refused
Councillors had no objection to this application provided that the 1 metre gap between the proposed development and the boundary was maintained.
Councillors could see no reason to object to this application. However, in a letter received from a resident, reference was made to the fact that the driveway was shared with neighbouring properties, and the Planning Officer was asked to ensure that, if this proposal was allowed, the proposed parking to be provided did not impinge on the shared driveway.
Councillors were extremely concerned about this proposal.
Firstly, there appeared to be a misrepresentation on the measurements on the plans, such that, in comparison to the details given on the drawings showing the existing layout, the proposed extension would encroach further onto the grass verge than was indicated.
Regardless however of the above comment, the Town Council opposed any encroachment onto the verge, and felt that this would set a precedent which would be unacceptable as it might lead to further applications in other areas of Lower Earley.
Councillors were extremely concerned about the two parking spaces which were shown as allocated to this site, but which were on the opposite side of Carland Close and which appeared to have been constructed on open space without the benefit of planning permission. Clause 13 of the original planning consent for the development of Carland Close (application 18237 dated 1982) clearly stated that this area should not be used for any purpose other than amenity open space. The Town Council cannot trace having received any planning application to alter this condition, and, it would therefore, suggest that these two parking spaces had been created without the benefit of planning permission, which, the Town Council considered was unacceptable. The amount of open space in this area was already extremely limited, and to allow encroachment such as this, particularly without the benefit of the appropriate planning permission, was deemed to be inappropriate, and may set a precedent. Councillors were of the view that a retrospective planning application should be submitted in respect of the creation of these two parking spaces, or the area should be returned to the amenity open space as defined in the original design for the estate.
Councillors considered that, without these two parking spaces, there was insufficient on site parking to allow this latest proposal to proceed.
Turning to the proposed loft conversion, Councillors felt that this would set a precedent, and would have an element of overlooking into the neighbouring properties.
At the Planning Committee meeting at which this application was discussed, it was suggested that the current occupiers of 1 Carland Close, on occasions undertook car repairs at the site, which, if this was the case, the Town Council considered to be unacceptable. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition was imposed preventing the use of the site for the repair of vehicles, or for any other commercial purposes.
In conclusion, therefore, the Town Council was extremely concerned about the proposal, and particularly the encroachment onto the grass verge, and the lack of appropriate on site parking. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was of poor design, and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, there was concern that there was insufficient room between the proposed extension and the side boundary which would create a terracing effect.
On a visit to the site, it was noted that the entire front garden had already been converted to hard standing and it was considered that this also was of detriment to the street scene and to the visual amenity of the area.
For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that this application should be refused.
No comment
Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since, because of the close proximity of the proposed two storey side extension to the boundary, it had the potential to create a terracing effect.
Councillors considered that the plans in support of this application indicated that there was insufficient sensible on site parking. It was considered that the two storey side extension, because of its close proximity to the boundary, had the potential to create a terracing effect, and may cause loss of light to neighbouring properties.
For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors had some difficulty in understanding whether the rear of the property was to be altered from the existing as a result of this proposal. The Planning Committee was therefore of the view that providing the rear of the property was not altered, they would have no objection.
Councillors had no objection to this application provided that the Planning Officer was happy that sufficient space would remain between the proposed two storey side extension and the boundary.
Councillors considered that the proposed location of this mast was intrusive in a residential area and would add further street clutter to a small area of grass and trees which currently had a positive visual impact on the area.
Councillors remained of the view that proposals such as this should not be built in residential areas and the applicant was asked to look again at possible sites on the motorway and Lower Earley Way.
135.5. Applications Withdrawn by the Applicants
It was noted that the following applications had been withdrawn:
F/2006/9420 in respect of a development at 7 Maiden Erlegh Drive and F/2007/0034 in respect of a development at 3 Thannington Way
135.6 Appeals – TL/2006/8768
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow for the erection of a 14.7m high monopole, including three shrouded antenna, radio equipment housing and ancillary development on land at the junction of Meldreth Way with Lower Earley Way.
135.7 1m Gap Between Extensions
Councillors noted details of a communication received from the Head of Planning outlining the criteria which was used in deciding whether two storey side extensions left sufficient room between the building and the boundary.
136. COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR SITE ALLOCATIONS UNDERTAKEN SEPTEMBER – OCTOBER 2006
It was noted that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that during September and October 2006, the Council undertook early consultation on issues and options for site allocations. The consultation also covered potential policies related to site allocations.
The communication indicated that 3040 comments were received, of which 2600 were in the form of a standard letter from six Residents' Associations in Wokingham Town. The letter advised that the Borough Council had made no comment on the views expressed at this stage, although, it had decided to release a summary of what was said, together with schedules recording all the comments made.
137. REGIONAL HOUSING STRATEGY REVIEW 2007
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the South East England Regional Housing Board inviting the Town Council to participate in the consultation on the revision of the Regional Housing Strategy. The letter advised that the primary focus of the consultation was to seek views on what priorities the Board should take into consideration in allocating its funds for the three-year period starting 2008/09.
The letter indicated that the consultation period ran from 5th February to 27th April, and the consultation was in the form of a standard questionnaire. It was
RESOLVED that the Plans Working Party be requested to look at this documentation and forward comments on behalf of the Town Council by the deadline of the 27th April.
138. HIGHWAYS MATTERS
138.1 Highways Board Meeting
Councillors received details of the discussions which had taken place at the recent Highways Board Meeting held on 5th March. Councillors were advised that there had been considerable discussion about variable speed limits being introduced in the District and, it was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to Wokingham Borough Council asking for more information on the variable speed limit proposals.
138.2. Mallard Close
Councillors were advised that the residents of Mallard Close were still experiencing problems associated with vehicles parking in the close, believed to be associated with the Bowling Club opposite. The Committee was asked to consider whether an approach to the District Council to impose parking restrictions in this close would be appropriate. The Committee was of the view that such restrictions would be extremely difficult to enforce and may cause some inconvenience to residents themselves. It was, therefore
RESOLVED that a further approach be made to the Bowling Club to seek their co-operation in resolving the parking problem in Mallard Close.
138.3. Footpath Resurfacing Works – Church Road
It was noted that the proposed works to the footways in Church Road, previously discussed by the Committee and contained in Minute 128.1 would commence on 19th March.
139. LITTER & RATS
Councillors were advised that, at the request of the Planning Committee Chairman, a meeting had been organised which took place on the 2nd March to which various representatives of businesses in Chalfont Square, the District Centre and Asda, together with representatives of various Departments at Wokingham Borough Council, had been invited. A copy of the report is appended to these Minutes. Councillors’ attention was drawn to item 5 of the Action List at the end of the report of the meeting which sought Councillors’ assistance in monitoring the litter situation at the District Centre.
Councillor A Bradley who had chaired the meeting, said that he felt in general it had been extremely useful, since the number of areas were identified as receiving no attention, and the responsibilities for these areas was confirmed at the meeting. Councillor Bradley continued by saying it was regrettable that Asda was not represented.
The Deputy Town Clerk confirmed that she was currently drawing up a map showing all the various areas of responsibility, so that there would be an accurate reference point for the future.
A Member said that he felt it was important to build on the impetus which the meeting had generated, and it was
RESOLVED that a further meeting be held with representatives of the Borough Council and, if possible, a representative of Asda, towards the end of April.
140. MEETING WITH LOWER EARLEY BAPTIST CHURCH
The Chairman advised that she had, together with the Chairman of the Amenities & Leisure Committee and the Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee, met with representatives of the Lower Earley Baptist Church to discuss the church’s latest planning application, in particular the Town Council’s concerns about the lack of on site parking. Various options were discussed with the church representatives, who agreed to look at the alternatives proposed.
141. ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RADSTOCK LANE FOOTPATH AND STOCKBURY CLOSE
Councillors were advised that a resident had reported that there had been a large amount of crime and vandalism in Stockbury Close over the last two years, and had requested that consideration should be given to gating the above alleyway.
Councillor Bradley advised that he had received several complaints about anti social behaviour in this area, and had been liaising with the police in recent weeks.
Councillors felt that they could not support a request that the alleyway should be gated, but agreed with the residents’ view that some measures should be put in place to try to slow down the cyclists using the alleyway to that property. It was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to ask the Borough Council to investigate the various options available.
142. PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Councillors were advised that a suggestion had been received from a local resident that a bus service between Asda and the Loddon Bridge area and Winnersh Triangle and Earley railway stations should be introduced.
This suggestion had been forwarded to Reading Buses who had responded indicating that the current No 20 which would serve this area was currently under review due to low levels of profitability, and there was likely to be an announcement in the summer about its future.
Councillors’ attention was also drawn to an email received from a local resident who questioned the profitability of the No 20 Service, and regretted the possible loss of this service. It was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to forward all the correspondence received on this matter to the Borough Council’s Public Transport Planners seeking their comments.
143. AMENITY SKIPS
It was noted that the charges for the amenity skips would be £137.00 per visit, and the charge for blue bags £1 and green bags remained the same at £4.00.
With regard to the reusable bags for green waste, it was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to seek confirmation from the Borough Council as to when this facility would be made available to the remaining residents.
144. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER
It was noted that an new Order had been made in respect of trees at the University of Reading site, near to the Earley Gate entrance.
145. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
146. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
With regard to the item in relation to the Third Thames Crossing Group it was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the District Council’s Head of Environmental Services asking him for an update.
147. PRESS RELEASES
It was RESOLVED
1. that the following items should received special press attention
a) Progress with the litter problem in and around the District Centre
b) a request for residents suggestions for bus route/bus services in the Town.
2. that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to ascertain whether it is possible to have a link off the Town Council’s web site for residents to post their suggestions about bus routes.
148. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.28p.m.
|