 |
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 14th August 2007 which commenced at 7.40 pm.
Present
Chairman (until 8.52 pm) - Councillor G Woods (from 8.52 pm) – Councillor N Jorgensen
Councillors JArmstrong, A T Bradley, T Chambers and Mrs J A Lissaman.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs P Jorgensen, Ms C M Mitchell, N J Preston and P L Willis. _________________________________________________________________________________
45. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 24th July 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
46. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
46.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
46.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
46.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
46.4 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 latest proposal on this site did not represent an improvement on the previous proposals which, it was understood, were withdrawn.
The Planning Committee considered that to allow further development on this site would create an over development and an unbalanced appearance in relation to the adjoining property. Furthermore, it was felt that the design was out of character in the road, unneighbourly and could have an element of overlooking. There was also considerable concern about the lack of adequate on site parking and the access to the site at this very busy junction. For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.
It was noted that a one metre gap to the boundary had not been maintained and there was also concern that this proposal, if allowed, could create a loss of light to neighbouring properties. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would mean that the dwelling would be of a cramped appearance which would be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal was overbearing and would be unneighbourly. For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.
Members of the Planning Committee had no objection to this application provided that the new air conditioning units were not noisier than the ones they were to replace.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, and would create a building that would be out of character with other properties in the area, which, it was felt, would be incongruous in the street scene. Whilst it was appreciated that the building threatened by demolition as a result of this proposal does not, as far as the Town Council was aware, carry any statutory protection, Councillors did consider that it, with the adjoining buildings in this small terrace, were of a defined character and held significant historical interest for the Town. It was felt that the loss of the existing building would, therefore, be extremely regrettable, and contrary to Earley’s draft Town Plan, which declared the aspiration of trying to protect remaining buildings of character within the Town.
Because of its size and its position within the plot, Councillors considered that the proposal, if allowed would be overbearing to those using the adjoining pavement and would have a massing effect and particularly when looking at the side elevation from Church Road.
Parking in this area was already extremely difficult, with, on occasions, vehicles being parked on the A329 quite close to the Three Tuns junction. It was noted that, in this current proposal, there was no parking provision to the front. Whilst there was some parking to the rear, this was deemed to be inadequate and the access to this parking area, would, it was considered, only heighten congestion (and therefore further increase air pollution) and may result in vehicles ‘backing up’ across the Three Tuns junction. Furthermore, experience had shown that those wishing to use retail facilities such as that proposed were not always prepared to walk to them from a designated parking area, no matter how short the distances involved, and would park to the front. This proposal, could, therefore, lead to more on-street parking on the A329.
Members of the Planning Committee present when this application was discussed were unanimously in opposition to it.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused for the reasons stated above, and the fact that it was in breach of Policies WOS3, and WBE7 of the Wokingham District Plan and sections of the Earley Draft Town Plan.
Councillors considered that this proposal would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties, since it would create a terrace in the road of predominantly semi detached properties. There was also concern about access to the parking allocation shown on the plan accompanying the application, since it was felt that vehicles would be reversing out of the site at this very busy junction. Furthermore, it was deemed that the parking provision was inadequate which would result in off site parking. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors had no objection to this proposal, but in view of the recent flooding which was exacerbated by the amount of hard standing in this area, it was requested that the alterations made to accommodate the additional parking in the front garden should be of a porous material to allow the water to drain away.
Councillors considered that this application would create an overdevelopment of the site, would be out of character with neighbouring properties, would have an element of overlooking into neighbouring gardens, and therefore be, unneighbourly. In view of these concerns, members of the Planning Committee considered that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would create a dwelling which was over powering, and out of character with other properties in the Square. The view was expressed that Ebborn Square is a particularly well designed part of Lower Earley, and to allow the extensions now proposed would represent a major deviation from the original design concept, which it was felt would be of detriment to the street scene.
For these reasons, it is requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors remained concerned about proposals for this site and particularly the potential to create additional traffic on the already busy roads in the area and especially the A329, and the additional strain which would be put on the existing over stretched infra structure.
Councillors considered that this proposal was of a bad design, would be out of character with the other properties in the road and would, therefore, be incongruous in the street scene. Furthermore, it was noted that there would be no one metre gap to the boundary. Concern was also expressed about the proposed Juliet balcony on the rear elevation since it was considered that this would have an element of overlooking of neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site and would be unneighbourly to the occupants of 90 Erleigh Court Gardens due to the overlooking of their rear garden. It was considered that the design proposed was bulky, and this would result in the domination to an unneighbourly extent of adjoining properties, and would, it was felt, be incongruous in the street scene.
Furthermore, there was concern about access from the site at this very busy junction. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.
46.5 Appeals
46.5.1 New Appeals
46.5.1.1 F/2007/0026 – 1 Radstock Farm Cottages, Radstock Lane
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a single storey conservatory to the rear of the dwelling to form a play room.
46.5.1.2 F/2007/0648 – 2 Hutton Close
To note that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for the erection of a two-storey rear extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by an exchange of written statements.
46.5.1.3 F/2007/0862 – 34 Ratby Close
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for conversion of the existing garage to habitable accommodation. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
46.5.1.4 F/1007/1093 – 301 Wokingham Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for the erection of 4 flats with associated parking and demolition of the existing dwelling (re-submission of F/ 2006/9122). It was further noted that this Appeal had been linked to an Appeal on application F/2006/9122, on the same site and both Appeals would be heard together at an Informal Hearing.
46.5.1.5 F/20071120 – 14 Thistleton Way
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for the erection of a first floor extension to the garage to create a habitable room and the formation of 2 dormer windows to the front of the garage. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by an exchange of written statements.
46.5.2 Appeal Decisions
46.5.2.1F/2006/7832 – 1 Swepstone Close
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for single storey front, side and rear extensions and conversion of existing garage, had been allowed.
46.5.2.2 F/2006/8900 – Land to the rear of 64-86 Silverdale Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow the demolition of 80 Silverdale Road and the construction of an access road and the erection of 11 dwellings had been dismissed.
46.5.2.3 F/2006/9065 – 37-53 Meadow Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow the demolition of 43 Meadow Road and the erection of 14 dwellings comprising 7 x 2 beds + 7 x 3 beds, vehicular access and associated parking, had been dismissed.
46.5.2.4 F/2006/9093 – 76 Erleigh Court Gardens
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow conversion of the existing garage and a two storey side and back extension had been allowed.
46.5.2.5 F/2006/9116 – 31 Meadow Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Planning Permission for top storey and rear extension, had been dismissed.
46.5.2.6 O/2006/9435 – 29 Erleigh Court Drive
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council’s refusal to allow Outline Planning Permission for the erection of two detached dwellings to replace an existing dwelling had been dismissed.
47. TOWN & PARISH COUNCILS' LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK BRIEFING
Councillor were advised that Councillor Gary Woods had attended the above briefing, which was held on 24th July. A copy of his report had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration, and copies of the slides mentioned in the report were made available at the meeting. It was
RESOLVED that this item be considered at the next meeting of the Planning Committee on the 11th September.
48. BUS SHELTERS
Councillors were advised that it was Town Council policy that two bus shelters were replaced each year and there was £7,000 in this year's budget for this purpose.
The Street Furniture Janitor had suggested that the two shelters in the worst state of repair were the one in Pepper Lane and the one in Kilnsea Drive near to the Events Field. With regard to the shelter in Kilnsea Drive, it was suggested that particularly in the morning rush hour, the existing shelter was not large enough to accommodate all those waiting at the stop. Attention was also drawn to the very poor condition of the bus shelter in the Beech Lane dip which had been subject to vigorous graffiti removal by an external source which had caused considerable damage to the Perspex. Councillors were advised that a quotation had been received from the bus shelter Company to refurbish the shelter in the Beech Lane dip and to replace the existing Perspex back panels with powder coated punch metal panels. It was
RESOLVED that
1. a four metre shelter, with anti-graffiti Perspex panels and perch seating be purchased for installation at the Kilnsea Drive site at a cost of £3,990.89.
2. that the proposed refurbishment of the bus shelter in the Beech Lane dip should be carried out at a cost of £2,050 to be financed by a virement from the new bus shelter budget.
49. CONSULTATION ON SCOPING REPORTS FOR THE HIGHWAY DESIGN GUIDE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD) & THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD)
It was
RESOLVED that these two documents be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party, and the Working Party be authorised to submit comments on behalf of the Town Council.
50. HIGHWAYS & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council's Executive Member for Highways and Transport requesting Town and Parish Councils to provide their top three requests for improvement in the highways and transport infrastructure in the Town. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Town Council’s top three requests should be:
roundabout at the junction of Rushey Way/Gipsy Lane resurfacing of Meadow Road, and particularly at the junctions with Gipsy Lane and Wokingham Road continuation of the Safer Routes to School programme.
2. the Borough Council be asked to continue its investigations into the possible construction of a junction 10A on to the M4 for access only London bound, and the provision of a Third Thames crossing
51. INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN GUARD RAILS
It was noted that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that pedestrian guard rails would be installed along the top of retaining walls to the rear of properties 34 -110 Anderson Avenue and 19 - 63 Mays Lane and the Church Yard. The purpose of the guard rail was to provide a safe environment for future inspection/maintenance of the area, including existing boundary fences. It was further noted that the works to the Anderson Avenue section were due to commence on 23rd July and that the works to the Mays Lane section were due to follow on, with completion expected by 17th August.
52. RE3 JOINT WASTE STRATEGY
It was
RESOLVED that this item be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party and the Working Party be authorised to submit any comments on behalf of the Town Council.
53. PROVISION OF CARAVAN SITES FOR GYPSIES & TRAVELLERS: BERKSHIRE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
It was
RESOLVED that this item be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party and the Working Party be authorised to submit any comments on behalf of the Town Council.
54. SEAT – CUTBUSH LANE
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 33 of this Committee held on the 24th July, which contained a resolution that this matter should further be considered by the Planning Committee. Councillors’ attention was also drawn to a letter received from a resident, which had been circulated with the Supplementary Agenda, which logged details of the disturbances being experienced by residents in the area.
A motion proposing the bench should be removed was not carried and it was
RESOLVED that
1. the matter be considered again at the next meeting of the Neighbourhood Action Group
2. local residents be asked to continue to monitor the situation in the area, including being requested to report any incidents to the Police
3. the letter received from the resident giving details of incidents in the area be copied to PC Stuart Loudwell, the local Community Policeman
4. this matter be considered again at the next meeting of this Committee on the 11th September
55. TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
55.1.New Order - TPO 1168/2007 – Land to the front of 2 & 14 Cutbush Lane & Coach House Cottage, Shinfield Road, Shinfield
It was noted that the above Order, in respect of trees on land to the front of 2 and 14 Cutbush Lane and Coach House Cottage had been confirmed without modification.
55.2. Applications to Carry Out Works to Protected Trees – TPO 860/1997 – 36 Clevedon Drive
It was noted that the Borough Council had consented to the English Oak covered by this Order to be selectively pruned by undertaking a 15% crown thin.
56. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
57. ONGOING MATTERS
58. PRESS RELEASES
No press releases were requested.
59. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.41 pm.
|