 |
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, 14 November 2006 which commenced at 7.30 pm. PresentChairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, C Rowden, and G Woods. Also in attendance Councillor Mrs E Spratling. Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), N Jorgensen, (due to family commitments), Mrs J Lissaman, T Lowe, (due to work commitments), Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health) and D Swindells (due to ill health). 86. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 10 October 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the chairman. 87. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 87.1 Decision Notices RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted. 87.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate. 87.3 “No Objection” Recommendations RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
87.4 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 were extremely concerned about this proposal, and felt that the siting would adversely affect the open plan nature of this development and would be an unacceptable deviation from the original design concept for this estate. Furthermore, there was considerable concern about the parking provision and, whilst it was noted that the parking space was provided to the rear of the site, it was felt that any occupier would wish to park in the near vicinity which would lead to on street parking on a corner which was deemed to be unacceptable. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
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 aesthetically unpleasing and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, it was considered that the dormers 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.
When this application was considered at this meeting, a number of local residents were present, including representatives of the Earley Environmental Group and the Maiden Erlegh Residents’ Association to express their opposition to the proposals. The Town Council was extremely concerned about the proposal for a number of reasons. Firstly, the corner of the development site abuts the Maiden Erlegh Local Nature Reserve and it was considered that development so close to what was a very valuable wildlife habitat and a Wildlife Heritage Site was unacceptable. It was deemed that the proposals would be a contravention of Policy WNC2 of the Wokingham District Plan. Furthermore, the Green Lane which adjoined the development site, together with the spacious back gardens in Silverdale Road acted as a wildlife corridor between the Nature Reserve and the Meadows of the River Loddon. To allow development on these back gardens was, it was considered, totally inappropriate and would have a detrimental affect on the identified wildlife population in this area, and would be a contravention of Policy WNC7 of the Wokingham District Plan. Turning now to the design of the proposed development, it was noted that no turning circle was available within the road to the estate, which, it was felt, was likely to compromise the movement of large vehicles entering the site, which might result in them reversing back onto Silverdale Road, which, it was deemed, would be unsafe. Furthermore, the three storey design of the houses proposed within this development were deemed to be out of keeping with other properties in Silverdale Road, and were extremely unneighbourly because of the element of overlooking. It was, therefore, considered that this was a contravention of Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan. Members of the Planning Committee also had serious concerns about the extra strain this development, if allowed, would place on the infrastructure of the area, not least in the fact that Silverdale Road was a relatively narrow and winding road and which, according to an unofficial traffic survey, already experienced in excess of 600 cars per hour in the peak period. With the close proximity of Loddon and Aldryngton Primary Schools and Maiden Erlegh School, it was felt that any development which would result in an increase in traffic on this road would be detrimental both to the existing residents, and to the safety of children walking or cycling to the schools. Furthermore, it was understood that the area at the bottom of this site near to the stream was prone to flooding and, indeed, at the meeting, a local resident advised that the garden of No. 88 Egremont Drive was already subject to flooding. It was considered that the removal of trees proposed by this development, and the increase in the area of concrete and hard standing, thus reducing possible soak ways, would further exacerbate this problem. The Town Council remained opposed to all inappropriate back land infilling such as this, and was particularly concerned to note that the proposal allowed for possible further future development. As could be seen from the foregoing comments, the Town Council was extremely concerned about this proposal, and requested that the application should be refused. However, if the Planning Committee was mindful to accept this proposal, it was requested that at least two conditions were imposed as follows:
2. that a condition was imposed preventing the creation of entrances in the rear fences of the proposed properties or any access to or across the stream.
Councillors considered that the design of the new dwelling proposed in this application was out of keeping with other properties in the area and was likely to create a partial terracing affect. For this reason, it was requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that the designs of the new dwellings proposed were out of keeping with existing properties in the road, and would create a terracing affect, and, for this reason, it was requested that the application should be refused.
A number of local residents were present to express their concern about this proposal. Councillors considered that the design of the proposed development was out of keeping both in terms of the density of properties and their appearance. Furthermore, because of the three-storey nature of the properties proposed, it was deemed that the development would be unneighbourly, and particularly to properties in Mill Lane. The larger size gardens in Meadow Road and Mill Lane provided a valuable wildlife area, and, it was felt that to allow development of this sort would erode further the area available to wildlife in this area. Meadow Road was a very narrow road and was already subject to considerable on street parking. Furthermore, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours access to Wokingham Road from Meadow Road was often extremely difficult, and there was considerable congestion at the junction particularly with cars parked so that the drivers could access the nearby Co-Operative store. To introduce yet further traffic on this road was deemed to be unacceptable. The Town Council remained opposed to all inappropriate back land infilling such as this, and was particularly concerned to note that the proposal allowed for possible further future development. For these reasons it was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
At a previous meeting of the Planning Committee, Councillors were asked to consider a proposal to introduce waiting restrictions in Thames Valley Park Drive. This was because of the amount of traffic from Thames Valley Park which was parking in the access road. The Town Council asked for these proposals to be rejected, since it was considered that it would push the parking problem into nearby residential roads. Councillors therefore considered that this application should be refused, since it would reduce the amount of on site parking.
Whilst Councillors could find no strong reason to object to this proposal, the Planning Officer was asked to ensure that there would be no loss of light to neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused since there would be insufficient on site parking remaining if the garage was no longer available for this purpose.
The Town Council was unable to judge this application, since no plans had been sent with the application and none were available on the District Council’s web site. 87.5 Application Withdrawn – F/2006/8779 – 48 Delamare Road It was noted that the above application, which was for the conversion of a garage to a habitable room (retrospective) had been cancelled, as the applicant has been advised by the District Council that planning permission was not required. 87.6 Appeals 87.1 F/2006/7397 – 205 Beech Lane It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two-storey rear extension. 87.2 F/2006/7672 – 31 Milton Road It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of one detached dwelling and demolition of a single storey side extension and detached garage. 87.3 F/2006/8255 – Land to Rear of 384 and 386 Wokingham Road, Earley It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow an amendment to Consent F/2005/3874 to allow the addition of first floor side extensions to the two new dwellings built on this site. 87.4 Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal – F/2005/4827 – University of Reading - Shinfield Relief Road It was noted that the University of Reading had withdrawn this Appeal. 88. PLANS WORKING PARTY It was RESOLVED that Councillor G Woods should be appointed to the Plans Working Party. 89. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Councillors noted details of the financial transactions for the period to the 30th September 2006 as appended to these Minutes. 90. 2007/08 BUDGET The Committee was asked to consider whether there were any major projects which It would wish to undertake in the 2007/08 financial year, so that the Town Clerk could ensure that adequate provision was made in the draft estimates for that period. It was RESOLVED that provision be made as follows: 1. New bus shelters £7,500 2. that the Committee should consider further projects at its December meeting. 91. DISABLED PARKING PROVISION – ASDA, LOWER EARLEY Councillors were advised that a complaint had been received from a local resident at recent changes in the parking provision at the Asda Store in Lower Earley which had resulted in a reduced parking allocation for disabled drivers. The Deputy Town Clerk reported to the meeting that, following a conversation with the Manager of the Asda store, she had received a reassurance that this was only a temporary measure whilst building works were being carried out, and the prescribed number of spaces required to be provided by the store would be reinstated shortly. 92. THIRD THAMES CROSSING COUNCIL'S GROUP Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded under Minute 69 when the Deputy Town Clerk had been asked to try to ascertain the current status of the Group. Councillors now noted the information received which indicated that at the present time there were no details as to whether the Group was likely to meet again. 93. STREET NAMING & NUMBERING It was noted that the eight dwellings built on land to the rear of 16 Palmerstone Road would be known as 1-8 Gardner Place. 94. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - TPO/1113/2006 – 14 PALMERSTONE ROAD It was noted that the above Order had been confirmed without modification. 95. PUBLICATIONS It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
96. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
97. PRESS RELEASES It was RESOLVED that the Town Council’s continuing opposition to inappropriate back land infilling and a request for residents to advise of any trees worthy of future protection should be the subject of special press attention. 98. TERMINATION OF MEETING The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.50 pm. |