 |
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, 13th November 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor G Wood (Vice-Chairman in the Chair)
Councillors J Armstrong, T Chambers, Mrs J A Lissaman, N J Preston and P L Willis.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A T Bradley (due to attendance at WBC meeting), N Jorgensen, Mrs P Jorgensen and Ms C M Mitchell. __________________________________________________________________________________
89. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 9 October 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
90. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
90.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that
1. in respect of the approval of application F/2007/2293, the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the Highways Inspector asking for his comments on the access from this site to Chatteris Way.
2. the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
90.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
90.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
90.4 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 had no objection to this proposal on planning grounds, but were concerned that the proposal to extend forward the garage, which is linked detached, would have Building Regulations implications.
Councillors considered that this proposal was excessive would cause a loss of light, would be unneighbourly and would lead to a dwelling which was bulky and would represent an unacceptable increase on the original footprint of the building.
For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors noted the reduction in the size of the proposed two storey side and single storey rear extensions compared to the previous application on this site, members of the Planning Committee remained of the view that, because of the close proximity of the property to the boundary, and the compact nature of the design of this estate, this latest proposal was still unacceptable. It was considered that due to its scale and design it would have an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on No. 20 Harrington Close and would, therefore, be in contravention of Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was unneighbourly and would have an overbearing effect on No. 5. Furthermore, there was concern about the parking provision and the likely use of the garage as a workshop.
If, therefore, the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application it was requested that a condition be imposed restricting the use of the workshop to minimise noise, etc. to neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that the scale of this proposed extension represented an over development of the site, was out of balance with and therefore not subservient to the host property and would mean that there was a significant and unacceptable loss of garden on the site.
For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.
Whilst Councillors could find no strong reasons to object to this proposal, members of the Planning Committee felt that the design of the dormers on the side and rear elevations to be poor and unsightly. Furthermore, there was concern that the side dormer might create an element of overlooking of the neighbouring rear garden.
Whilst Councillors recognised that the latest proposals for this site had tried to alleviate the concerns of the occupiers of 203, and the points raised in the Planning Inspector’s report which was produced in support of the dismissal of the Appeal for the previous application, members of the Planning Committee remained concerned that there may be potential for the rear extension to cause some loss of light to the large side window in 203, which was the subject of much discussion previously.
Furthermore, because of the age of the neighbouring property, they remained concerned about any development taking place on that side of 205 Beech Lane, which may have a detrimental effect on 203.
Whilst members of the Planning Committee normally object to back land infilling, there was no strong objection to this proposal.
Councillors considered that this proposal would have a massing effect which would be of detriment to the street scene in what was a very prominent corner position. Furthermore, it was felt that, because of the size of the proposed extensions, and the fact that this was a semi detached property, the proposal would have an unbalancing effect which would be incongruous in the street scene. For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was of poor design, and the scale and size of the blank wall which would be facing the neighbouring property would be oppressive, overbearing, and unneighbourly. For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.
The Council had no objection to the proposals on this site but would not wish to see a two storey side extension being planned in the future, due to lack of space between the proposed single storey extension and the boundary.
90.5 Applications Withdrawn – F/2007/2290 – New Dwelling Adjacent to 21 Merrifield Close
It was noted that the above application had been withdrawn.
90.6 Appeal – F/2007/1087 – Land to the Rear of 37-53 and 43 Meadow Road
Councillors noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of 43 Meadow Road and the erection of 13 dwellings with associated parking and access. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of exchange of written statements.
90.7 Whiteknights Campus Development Plan
The Committee was advised that further to the leaflet already distributed to Councillors, notification had been received from the University that an exhibition outlining the Whiteknights Development Plan would be open from 2nd November until 14th December, 8.30 am to 9.30 pm, Monday to Friday, in the foyer of the Palmer Building.
A Member present advised that he had visited the Exhibition, and that several residents had spoken to him about the proposal to close the footpath from Wilderness Road near to the Beech Lane junction into the Whiteknights Campus, which would require pedestrians and cyclists to use either the Pepper Lane or Whiteknights entrances. In view of the fact that there may be further comments coming forward from residents concerning the proposal for the Whiteknights Campus, it was
RESOLVED that
1. the local residents be asked to forward any comments on the proposals to the Town Council by the next meeting of this Committee and
2. the item be added to the on-going matters list, for consideration at the meeting of this Committee on the 11th December.
91. HIGHWAYS
91.1 A4 Bath Road, London Road, Shepherds Hill – Essential Repairs to the Shepherds House East Railway Bridge
Councillors noted the information received from the Borough Council on the extensive work proposed to the bridge, details of which had been circulated with the agenda.
91.2 Results of Speed Surveys
Councillors were advised that at the request of the Neighbourhood Action Group, speed surveys were carried out in Silverdale Road on the 26th October and in Redhatch Drive on the 29th October.
The conclusions of the survey were that very few vehicles seemed to be travelling in excess of the speed limit of 30 mph in Silverdale Road. However, with regard to Redhatch Drive, the report suggested that this road did appear to have a large volume of traffic using it around the rush hour/school hours, possibly as a "rat run"/cut through. A number of the vehicles using the road were travelling in excess of the speed limit, and some well in excess. It was suggested that further action was needed to resolve this issue. It was
RESOLVED that the results of the survey in Redhatch Drive should be brought to the attention of Wokingham Borough Council’s Highways Department with a request that they should suggest possible solution to resolve the speeding in Redhatch Drive.
91.3 M4 Junctions 10 to 12 Communications Upgrade
Councillors noted further information received on the progress with the above project, details of which were circulated with the agenda.
92. BUS SHELTER UPGRADE
Councillors were asked to consider a communication received from the Borough Council, concerning the upgrade of the stop at the junction of London Road and The Drive, a full copy of which had been appended to the agenda for their information.
In line with the negotiations currently taking place between Wokingham Borough Council and Woodley Town Council, it was suggested that the purpose of the letter was to seek Councillor’s permission to remove the Town Council’s existing cantilever shelter in this location and to also request that the Town Council should take on the future insurance and maintenance of the new shelter which would be provided by the Borough Council. It was
RESOLVED that the Town Council would undertake to insure and maintain the new shelter proposed by the Borough Council subject to the following:
that the upper sections should be in anti graffiti vandal Perspex that the lower sections of the shelter should be in punched metal that the shelter should be in the Town Council’s standard colour that the Borough Council’s contractor should undertake the uplifting and removal to storage of the Town Council’s existing shelter at this location.
93. ALTERATIONS TO THE NO. 20/12 BUS SERVICE
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council's Senior Planner for Public Transport indicating that Reading Buses would be extending the Service 20 from the current Cutbush Lane/Bradmore Way terminus, through to ASDA from next February, during off-peak shopping hours at least, in response to requests received. It was hoped that the new buses on the 20 and 12 (which will be renumbered 21) routes would be introduced at the same time. The communication indicated that this was originally planned for November in line with Reading Buses usual annual autumn package of changes, but had had to be postponed as the new buses had been delayed at the manufacturers. However, a few minor changes would still go ahead in November, including re-routing of the 20 via the University grounds. It was
RESOLVED that the alterations to the service should be monitored, and that any concerns should be discussed with the Managing Director of Reading Buses, during his proposed visit to the Planning Committee in January.
94. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Councillors noted details of the financial transactions for the period to 30th September, as appended to these Minutes.
95. 2008/09 BUDGET
Councillors were asked to consider whether there were any major projects which the Committee would wish to undertake in the 2008/09 financial year, so that the Town Council could ensure that adequate provision was made in the Estimates for that period.
Councillors were reminded of the policies already in place in respect of the provision of two new bus shelters per year, and the establishment of a reserve to update the four town maps.
Furthermore, attention was drawn to an item on the main agenda in respect of a request from the CResCent Community Association concerning a possible addition of steps to the footpath installed by the Town Council to the site. Attention was also drawn to an item on the supplementary agenda which had been requested by the Town Mayor concerning a possible upgrade to the street lighting in Instow Road, following an escalation of anti-social behaviour in that area. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the CresCent Community Association be asked to supply details of the organisation’s financial position, and that the matter be considered again at the meeting of this Committee in December.
2. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to investigate further the request for an upgrade of street lighting in Instow Road, and that this matter be considered at the meeting of this Committee in December.
3. the Planning Committee’s Revenue Budgets be increased in line with the rate of inflation, and that provision be made in the 2008/09 Capital Budget for:
two new bus shelters (£7,800) town map replacement reserve (£1,000) environmental enhancements (£1, 000)
96. STREET NAMING & NUMBERING
It was noted that the block of flats built on the corner of Saffron Close and Wokingham Road would be known at Flats 1-5 Saffron Court.
97. TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
96.1 New Order – 1207/2007 – Land to the Rear of Properties in Silverdale Road
It was noted that as a result of the work already undertaken by the Veteran Tree Project in this area, the Borough Council had made a blanket Tree Preservation Order to cover trees in the rear gardens of properties in Silverdale Road, including a number of trees adjacent to the Green Way.
96.2 Consent for Work to be Carried Out – TPO 197/1980 – Land to the Rear of 66 Moorhen Drive
It was noted that the Borough Council had consented to works being carried out to the Field Maple and Oak covered by this Order.
97. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
98. ONGOING MATTERS
With regard to the item in respect of public transport, Councillors noted that Mr James Freeman, the Chief Executive Officer of Reading Buses had accepted the Committee’s invitation and would be attending the meeting on Tuesday 15th January.
It was further noted, that in his letter of acceptance, Mr Freeman had asked that the Council’s attention was drawn to a consultation being undertaken by Reading Buses which was due to start on the 7th November in respect of the introduction of premier services to Lower Earley in February 2008. Details of the proposals had been posted on the buses and on the Reading Buses web site (www.reading-buses.co.uk) from the 7th November.
99. HIGHWAYS CONSULTATIVE BOARD
Councillors were advised that, since compilation of the main agenda, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, an invitation had been accepted for Councillor Keith Baker, the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways and Transport, to attend the December meeting of this Committee to outline the recent changes to the Highways Consultative Board.
Councillors were asked to let the Deputy Town Clerk have details of any technical questions which Councillors would like to ask of Mr Baker, by the 30th November.
100. UNIVERSITY OF READING, SIBLY HALL
Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main agenda, correspondence had been received from the University of Reading concerning clearance of low level undergrowth, saplings and brambles in the area to the east of Redhatch Copse. The work was due to start on the 5th November. The purpose of the work was to preserve the much larger trees which were of higher value to the environment and was part of the long term management plan for the area.
It was further noted that in view of the type of equipment being used by the contractors, it would not be possible for the public to access the area during the duration of the work.
101. PRESS RELEASES
It was
RESOLVED that the following items should receive special press attention:
a request for residents’ feedback on the proposed redevelopment of the Whiteknights Campus and the results of the speed surveys requested by the Neighbourhood Action Group, as a result of feedback received by that Group at the Green Fair.
102. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.35 pm.
|