 |
Earley Town Council |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
PLANNING COMMITTEEMinutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council Offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, Berkshire on Tuesday 13 June 2006 which commenced at 7.30pm. Present Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen Councillors J Armstrong, N Jorgensen, T Lowe, C Rowden, D Swindells and G Woods. Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham, (due to family commitments), A Bradley (due to attendance at another meeting) and Mrs J Lissaman. 18. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING Before considering the Minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee, the Chairman welcomed Councillor Gary Woods to the Committee. The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 16th May 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. 19. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 19.1 Decision Notices RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted. 19.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate. 19.3. “No Objections” Recommendations RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
19.4 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
The Planning Committee had no objection to this application but did request that, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal, a condition was imposed precluding the use of the outbuilding for commercial purposes, or for separate accommodation to the main dwelling.
Whilst the revisions to the proposal were noted, Councillors remained extremely concerned about this proposal, and requested that it should be refused for the reasons previously stated.
Whilst Councillors noted the details submitted in the Topographical Survey, there remained concern about this proposal and, particularly, the unneighbourly aspect of it on properties in Knossington Close. The Planning Committee remained of the view that, whilst it had no objection to a Baptist Church being provided on this site, the applicant should be asked whether the proposal could be redesigned to alleviate the concerns previously expressed by this Council.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character with other properties in Milton Road which were, in the main, of a semi detached nature. It was felt that to allow the construction of a detached property would be out of character with the design of other buildings in the road and would, therefore, be in contravention of policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan. Furthermore, there was concern about the parking provision on the site and it was felt that this could lead to on street parking, or vehicles having to reverse into the carriageway. For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
The Planning Committee had no objection to this application but did request that, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal, a condition was imposed precluding the use of the outbuilding for commercial purposes, or for separate accommodation to the main dwelling.
It was noted that this application was similar to the previous application on the site, F/2005/5505, which the Town Council did not object to but which was subsequently refused by the District Council. However, since the Town Council did not object to 2005/5505, and this latest application is very similar, members of the Planning Committee could find no reason to object on this occasion.
Councillors considered that, if allowed to proceed, this proposal would create a terracing effect which would be of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Members of the Planning Committee remained extremely concerned about proposals to develop this area of land. Whilst it was noted that the number of dwellings had been reduced compared to the previous application on this site, Councillors remained of the view that the proposed development was out of keeping with the surrounding area because of the density of the design of the dwellings proposed. Of utmost concern was the increased traffic congestion this proposal would create. At a very minimum there would be 50 plus cars using the very narrow Mays Close and trying to access Church Road. This road was already severely congested at all times of the day and, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours, when traffic regularly queued from the Three Tons crossroads to as far back as the Woodlands Avenue junction and beyond. It was considered that the proposal would create additional noise and disturbance to the residents of Mays Close, and would further increase air pollution in this area. The District Council would be aware that Earley St Peter’s School had expanded considerably in recent years and there was already considerable congestion of the surrounding residential roads at the start and end of the school day and this included Mays Close. The parking provision within the development now proposed was deemed to be inadequate, which would lead to vehicles from the site being parked in Mays Close. This would reduce the amount of parking available to parents with pupils at school. Additionally, the traffic accessing the site would increase the danger to parents and pedestrians who did manage to park in the Close and to other pedestrians walking to school. Furthermore, the need to accommodate children from this site may require a further extension to the school thus exacerbating the situation further. In view of the narrowness of Mays Close, it was considered that access to the site by emergency vehicles, refuse lorries, etc. (and indeed vehicles bringing goods to the site during construction), would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, in view of the parking that already takes place there. Whilst it was understood that blanket Tree Preservation Orders had been put in place over most of this site, in the view of the Town Council, the number and density of properties now proposed would put a number of these trees in danger, not necessarily during construction, but in the future if dwellings were allowed to be constructed too near to established trees. The development of this site would it was considered result in a loss of amenity in the area, and further reduce wildlife habitat which was considerably under pressure as a whole and particularly in this area in view of the number of back land developments which had been allowed. It was also felt that the area under consideration, together with the nearby allotment site and Highwood, formed a very valuable wildlife corridor which should be maintained, hence the classification of these sites within the Wokingham District Plan as an area of urban landscape value. Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would set a precedent and may lead to residential development on the adjacent Bulmershe Allotment site, which, would also be unacceptable. During discussions of the previous application on this site, a resident made reference to the fact that the site was known to be boggy, flooded in winter and advised members of the Planning Committee that he was of the understanding that the escape of methane gas had been recorded. In view on the foregoing, the Town Council was of the view that the application should be refused on the grounds that it contravened the following policies in the current Wokingham District Plan, WOS1 (part D), WOS3, WNC7, WBE5. If the Development Control Committee was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that any Section 106 monies were allocated to the Town Council for the refurbishment of play equipment at the nearby Sol Joel Park.
Whilst it was noted that the number of houses now proposed on this site had been reduced from the previous application, F/2005/5481, members of the Town Council remained extremely concerned about this development. Firstly, and by no means least, 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 9 properties now proposed would further exacerbate this problem. 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, it was understood that there was a bus stop nearby and the plans did not seem to indicate what would happen to this stop if the proposed access was allowed. Turning to the development as a whole, it was considered that the density and design of the proposal was out of keeping with other properties in the neighbourhood. Concern was also expressed at the proposal to demolish 38 Chiltern Crescent thus leaving a detached property in a road of semi detached which it was felt would be out of character with the area. Furthermore, the design of the properties now proposed was also out of character with properties in Chiltern Crescent. 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.
Councillors were unclear from the plans submitted in support of this application whether the property was in fact in Earley or in Reading, since the boundary seemed to traverse the rear garden. Regardless of this however, Councillors were concerned about the size of the proposed extension since there were already quite severe traffic problems in Elm Road. A number of properties in that road had been let for student accommodation, which had generated a considerable amount of parking congestion, and the proposed extensions to No. 36 may well generate more vehicles, increasing the parking problems further. In view of this it was felt that the application should be refused. 20. PLANS WORKING PARTY MEETING – 31ST MAY Councillors were reminded that the resolution recorded at Minute 7 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16th May, requested that a meeting of the Plans Working Party should be convened to discuss the latest draft of the South East Regional Plan, and forward comments on behalf of the Town Council. A copy of the report of that meeting had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration. It was RESOLVED that the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 31st May 2006, as appended to these Minutes, be approved. 21. WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL'S STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Councillors were reminded that the Town Council had commented on the Wokingham District Submission Draft Statement of Community Involvement. Councillors now noted that a suggestion forwarded to the District Council, concerning the administration of Planning Applications which the District Council received, had been accepted and would be contained within the Statement of Community Involvement. Details had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ information. 22. MAIDEN ERLEGH DRIVE – POTENTIAL CONSERVATION AREA Councillors were reminded that Minute 9.2 of the meeting of this Committee held on 16th May, had recorded the discussions in respect of a letter received from the District Council giving indicative costs of the likely costs of an independent study of Maiden Erlegh Drive for its potential as a Conservation Area being carried out. A further communication had been received from the District Council indicating that, to-date, none of the other interested Town and Parish Councils had commissioned an independent conservation area study, and the District Council did not have a definite timetable for the District wide conservation area study. It was RESOLVED that the District Council be asked to give an indication as to when the decision on the District wide conservation area study might be made. 23. STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME 2006-07 Circulated with the agenda for this meeting was an "observation sheet" supplied by the District Council for proposed resurfacing works to be carried out in Earley. The District Council was asking for any feedback that might have an impact on the design or programming of the works. It was requested that the District Council should also be reminded of the very heavy use which Gipsy Lane received and that to close the road for maintenance work, whilst essential, would cause considerable congestion. It was RESOLVED that these observations be forwarded to the District Council. 24. RATS & LITTER AROUND THE DISTRICT CENTRE The Deputy Town Clerk reported to the meeting that she had now had some very positive feedback from Property Services at the District Council, and had also a positive meeting with the Manager of Asda. As a result of the meeting with the Manager of Asda, several litter “black spots” were pointed out to him and he agreed to get the areas cleared. With regard to the hedgerow between the Asda site and Chalfont Way, the Deputy Town Clerk was able to report that, on her most recent visit to the site, the area did seem to have been cleared of a substantial amount of litter, and this was confirmed by the fact that the Manager of Asda had advised that a litter pick had been undertaken and in excess of 26 large sacks of litter had been removed. During the meeting with the Manager of Asda, the litter problem generated by people using the kebab van which parked in the nearby bus layby in the evenings was highlighted. As a result, the Deputy Town Clerk had forwarded a request to the District Council that two substantial litter bins should be provided in this layby, and the Manager of Asda had agreed that, if the District Council would supply the bins, he would request his own staff to empty them on a daily basis, along with the other bins on the Asda site. The Deputy Town Clerk reported that, whilst there were still some areas that needed attention, she did consider that improvements had been made but felt that what was now important was that the area should continue to be monitored to the ensure that the regimes put in place would now be continued. It was RESOLVED that 1. all members of the Town Council be requested to report any litter problems sighted in and around the District Centre and Chalfont Park to the Deputy Town Clerk so these could be followed up 2. the Police Community Support Officer also be asked to report any litter problems on her visit to the site 3. the Senior Action Group Earley be asked to report similarly 4. the invitation to the Manager of Asda and a representative of the Property Services to attend a future meeting of the Planning Committee as proposed at the last meeting, be suspended for the time being and be resurrected should the problem worsen again in the future. 25. TREES 25.1 New Order It was noted that a blanket Tree Preservation Orders had been made in respect of all trees in the back gardens of properties at 128-140 Church Road and on land at 2-104 (even numbers) Pitts Lane. 25.2 Existing Orders 25.2.1 TPO 654/1994 – 87 Redhatch Drive It was noted that permission had been given for selected pruning of the nine lowest limbs of a Pyrenean Oak covered by this Order. 25.2.2 TPO 1118/2006 – 54 Pitts Lane It was noted that the District Council had granted planning permission for the two Elwood Cyprus, covered by this Order, to be felled to ground level. 25.2.3 TPO 1118/2006 – Land at 6 Pitts Lane It was noted that the District Council had consented for the following works to be carried out – felling of non-Pine species to allow Scotts Pine more space to grow and a mixed Conifer species on the neighbouring property to be cut back to the boundary as required. 25.2.4 TPO 1118/2006 – Land to the rear of 138 Church Road It was noted that consent had been given for the fallen Sycamore, in the rear of this garden, to be removed. 26. ROADSIDE SEAT – WOKINGHAM ROAD/TOP OF MILL LANE Councillors were reminded that, on the Ongoing Matters List for this Committee, the subject of the seat at junction of Wokingham Road and Mill Lane was due to be discussed again at this meeting of the Committee. A letter had been sent to the resident who made the initial complaint, advising that the matter was due to be discussed again at this meeting and requesting that, should she be experiencing difficulties as a result of the location of the seat, she should notify the Deputy Town Clerk. The letter suggested, that if no communication was received, it would be assumed that the position of the seat was no longer causing problems. The Deputy Town Clerk reported that no communication had been received from the resident concerned. It was, therefore RESOLVED that no further action be taken on this matter and the item be removed from the ongoing matters list. 27. PUBLICATIONS It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
28 ONGOING MATTERS LIST
29. PRESS RELEASES RESOLVED that a press release be issued indicating that the litter problem in and around the District Centre and Chalfont Square/Chalfont Park had shown considerable improvement over the last few months due to the co-operation of the District Council, the operators of the Leisure Centre and Asda. 30. TERMINATION OF MEETING The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.02 pm. |