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, 15^th April 2008 which commenced at 7.35 pm.

Present

Chairman – Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, A T Bradley (until 9.35 pm), T Chambers (from 7.45 pm), Mrs J A Lissaman, Ms C M Mitchell, N J Preston and G B Woods.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N Jorgensen (due to work commitments) and P Willis.

__________________________________________________________________________________

158.     MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

In presenting the Minutes of the meeting of the 11^th March, the Committee Chairman drew attention to the correction at Minute 153 that the date of the April meeting should be shown as the 15^th and not the 12^th.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 11^th March 2008, as amended, were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

159.     APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

159.1    Decision Notices

            RESOLVED that

1.         with regard to Planning Application CLE/2008/0372 the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to ascertain from the Planning Officer why this particular development was not classed as Permitted Development 

2.         the Decision Notices as reported to the meeting be noted.           

159.2    Affected Neighbour Notifications

            RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.

159.3   “No Objection” Recommendations

            RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:

159.4    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 this application should be refused, since, it was unneighbourly and there did not appear to be a one metre gap to the boundary which would make the proposal have a terracing effect of detriment to the street scene.

Councillors considered that this proposal would be unneighbourly and overbearing to No. 91 Wilderness Road and may create an unacceptable loss of light  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

Whilst it was noted that the two storey extension proposed in this latest application was narrower and set further back to the proposals contained within Application F/2007/1845, there did not appear to be any alteration in the car parking provision.  It was felt that this aspect of the Borough Council’s refusal in respect of the previous application had not been addressed, and this application should, therefore, be refused.

In considering this application, Councillors noted that the proposals now under consideration were for a development of a larger scale than the previous application on this site (F/2007/2824).  The Town Council objected to the previous application for a single storey side extension, and in view of the increase in size of this latest application appeared to propose, Councillors were of the view that this application should be refused, because of the impact that it would have on the street scene.

            Whilst it was noted that the scale of the proposals for this site had been reduced in comparison to the previous application, Councillors still remained extremely concerned about development at this site.

Councillors considered that this latest proposal would have an extremely overbearing impact on the neighbouring property, No 51 which was a bungalow and which was already lower lying than the existing property.

It was noted that the proposed new dwellings appeared to be well in front of the building line, which it was considered would be of detriment to the street scene. 

It was considered that there was insufficient adequate on site parking, which would lead to parking on the road at this very busy narrow and dangerous junction.

It was considered that the design of the houses in question were out of character with the design of other properties in the road, and were of a cramped and contrived appearance which would be of detriment to the street scene.

Due to the closeness of the proposed properties to the road, there was concern about the size of the front gardens to the properties and the fact that, to accommodate the necessary access, there was a considerable amount of hard standing, which was deemed to be out of character, and would be of further detriment to the street scene.  Additionally, it was felt that the rear gardens, for four bedroomed detached properties, were too small and may well be a contravention of the Borough Council’s residential design guide.

            It was noted from the plans that an area which was currently part of the back garden of the bungalow at No 53 had been fenced off from the application site, it would suggest that this area was being kept to allow for future development along back gardens in this road which, it was deemed would be unacceptable.  However, Councillors also queried who would be responsible for the maintenance of this area if the current application was to proceed.

Finally, and whilst it was accepted that this was a building regulations matter, it was felt to be extremely pertinent to this application, local residents have persistently complained about problems of sewage spilling into front gardens in this area, which, it was understood, was attributed to the fact that the sewage pipes were of an insufficient capacity to meet current needs.  The proposal to build 3 further properties to be joined into this system was deemed to be inappropriate, and the Town Council was of the view that this could only further exacerbate  the existing problem.

For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that the application be refused.

            Councillors considered that this application should be refused.  It was considered that the gates and the surrounding hedges which had been planted to the front of this property were out of character with the open plan nature of this estate, and were, therefore, of detriment to the street scene.  Furthermore, the Town Council had been advised by a nearby resident, that, whilst it was accepted that this was a civil matter, the enclosing of the front garden was a breach of the deeds of properties in this road.

The proposal was also deemed to be unacceptable, as it was considered that, particularly in view of the high hedges each side of the gate, the visibility for drivers was extremely limited, and could result in a collision between vehicles exiting the property and pedestrians on the pavement.  Furthermore, whilst vehicles were waiting for the gates to open so that they can enter the property, pedestrians would have to walk in the adjacent lay-by, which, could pose a threat if a bus was accessing the nearby bus stop.  Additionally, when the Town Council’s Planning Assistant visited the site, a vehicle was waiting for the gates to open so that he could gain access to the property, which hindered a bus pulling into the bus stop, resulting in the tail end of the bus protruding into the road.

For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors considered that this proposal should be refused, since it was considered that it was overbearing, and would be unneighbourly and would have the potential to create a loss of light.  Furthermore, from the plans, it appeared that the extension on the rear of 8 Bassett Close was over the boundary

            Councillors considered that, because of the location of this property in relation to No. 18, the proposed extension would have an overbearing and unneighbourly effect and would create a loss of light. 

For this reason it was requested that the application should be refused.

            Councillors noted that, if this application was to proceed, there would be no one metre gap to the boundary, and for this reason it was requested that the application should be refused.

            Councillors considered that this application would be unneighbourly to No. 14, and could create a terracing effect.  Furthermore, it was noted that the proposal was forward of the building line of other properties in Salcombe Drive, which, it was considered, would be of detriment to the street scene.

For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.

            This proposal was to encroach on an area of land known locally as Scotchman’s Knob.  This area provided a valuable wildlife habitat, and the Town Council was in possession of photographs of Badgers and Monk Jack deer which regularly frequented the area.  Approximately ten years ago, when the land was sold, a blanket Tree Preservation Order was imposed on the whole area of Scotchman’s Knob.  Unfortunately, a number of mature trees were cut down in breach of this Order, which have yet to be replanted.

It was understood that the current owners have sold off “chunks” of Scotchman’s Knob to the owners of neighbouring properties, and it was assumed, that this was what has happened in this instance.

Councillors were opposed to the proposal to change the nature of the land to residential garden, since it was felt that this would further erode the area available to wildlife.  There was little enough amenity land left in Earley, and it was considered to allow this proposal to proceed would set a precedent.

If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application it was requested that a condition was imposed that there should be no residential development on the land, and, that it be utilised for garden purposes only.

Councillors considered that this application, which appeared to encroach onto the amenity land discussed under application F/2008/616, should be refused.

Councillors were concerned about this application since, if allowed, it would impact on the pedestrian access to the communal open space in front of this development.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

            Whilst Councillors had no objection to this application, they did query the viability of the study in view of its narrowness.

Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since the proposal was forward of the building line

            Councillors considered that this development was unsightly and would represent an overdevelopment.  Furthermore, it was considered that it would be unneighbourly.

For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.

If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal it was requested that a condition was  imposed preventing the use of the store area for being used for commercial purposes.

            Councillors were concerned about this proposal.  It was considered that the access to the proposed flats was dangerous, as it immediately abutted the access road to the adjacent new development site.  Furthermore, it was considered that there was insufficient on site parking, and that this would result in vehicles being parked in the access road to the adjoining new development.

Since the application site was one half of a semi detached property, it was considered that there was a potential to create excessive noise disturbance, which would be unneighbourly.

Finally concern was expressed that there did not appear to be any on site provision for the storage of cycles, dustbins and recycling boxes etc.

For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.

            Councillors considered that unless a major part of the front garden was converted for vehicle parking, there would be insufficient on site parking, which would result in vehicles being parked on the road at this very busy junction.  To provide the necessary amount of on site parking would, it was considered, be of detriment to the street scene.

For these reasons, it was requested that the application should be refused.

159.5        ‘No Comments’ Recommendations

RESOLVED that no comments be made on the following planning applications.

159.6        Appeals

159.6.1 New Appeals

159.6.1.1A/2005/5971 – Island Site, London Road

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow retrospective planning permission for the erection of a non-illuminated sales board.

159.6.1.2F/2007/1479 – 20 Pitts Lane

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of the existing residential bungalow and the erection of a single storey gospel hall with associated car parking.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.3F/2007/1754 – 242 London Road

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the change of use from one dwelling to five one-bedroom flats plus extension to the first floor and two-storey side extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.4F/2007/1894 – 3 Whitegates 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 four-bedroomed detached dwelling. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.5F/2007/2325 – 37-53 Meadow Road

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road and the erection of twelve dwellings with vehicular access and associated parking.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.6F/2007/2350 – 48A Shepherds House

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.7F/2007/2794 – Land Adjacent to 1 Robindale Avenue

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a new detached dwelling.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

159.6.1.8F/2007/2798 – Land Adjacent to 1 Robindale Avenue

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a new end of terrace dwelling. The Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements. 

159.6.2 Appeal Decisions

159.6.2.1F/2006/9122 and F/2007/1093 – 301 Wokingham Road

It was noted that the above Appeals, which were in respect of the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of four flats, had been dismissed.

159.6.2.2F/2007/0926 and F/2007/2221 – 132 Church Road

It was noted that the above Appeals were in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a building containing residential apartments, with associated car parking access and amenity space. It was further noted that the Appeal in respect of F/2007/0926 had been dismissed and the Appeal in respect of F/2007/2221 had been allowed.

159.6.2.3F/2007/1007 – 103 Mays Lane

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council’s refusal to allow planning permission for a loft conversion and rear extension, had been allowed.

159.6.2.4F/2007/2045 – 466 Wokingham Road

It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the demolition of an existing bungalow and garage and the construction of four flats with amenity space and parking had been dismissed.

160.     READING BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK –           PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF CENTRAL READING

In considering the Draft Reading Central Area Action Plan, Councillors were concerned at the amount of redevelopment proposed, and particularly on Earley boundaries with Reading.  It was

RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to Reading Borough Council:-

1.         indicating the Town Council’s concern at the likely generation of additional traffic which the proposed developments would create.

2.         reiterating the Town Council’s opposition to any proposals to make the Inner Distribution Road one way

3.         reiterating the Town Council’s support for an additional Thames crossing.

161.     UNIVERSITY OF READING – WHITEKNIGHTS CAMPUS RE-DEVELOPMENT       PROPOSALS

A Member present gave a brief presentation on items which had been discussed at the open evening run by the University to discuss the various proposals for the redevelopment of Whiteknights Campus.

A number of issues were raised, including parking fees on the Campus, traffic and parking in and around the Campus generally, the possible closure of the footpaths from Wilderness Road, the impact of the hotel proposed on the campus, and the cycling on pavements in Church Road and Pepper Lane.  It was

RESOLVED that the University’s Vice Chancellor be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to discuss Councillors’ concerns.

162.     UNIVERSITY OF READING – PROPOSED WIND FARM, RUSHYMEAD

Councillors were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 147 of the meeting of this Committee held on 11^th March, when it had been confirmed by Shinfield Parish Council that the Clerk was currently trying to set up a meeting with the University to discuss the proposals for a wind farm at Rushymead. Councillors were advised that confirmation had been received from the Shinfield Clerk advising that a meeting was to be arranged, but that no date had currently been set.  Councillors were asked to consider whether they wished to appoint representatives to attend a meeting, in case it was called at short notice.  It was

RESOLVED that subject to availability, Councillors J Armstrong, Mrs P Jorgensen, Ms C Mitchell and N Preston should represent the Town Council.

163.     HIGHWAYS

163.1    Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive

Councillors were asked to consider further complaints received from the residents of Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive concerning the speed and volume of traffic using these two roads as a rat-run to avoid queuing at the Three Tuns crossroads. A number of members of the public were present, and, at the invitation of the Chairman, addressed the meeting.  From the discussions, it was clear that a number of actions would be available to try to alleviate residents’ concerns, and it was

RESOLVED that

1.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to research the work undertaken by the Highways Board prior to the erection of the Access Only signs at the road

2.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to residents of Aldbourne Avenue and Ramsbury Drive seeking their views

3.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to arrange for the PCSOs/Police to visit the area with a view to reinforce the Access Only signs

4.         the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to arrange speed and traffic surveys in the road both before and after the requested police presence

5.         the matter be considered at a future meeting of this Committee when the information detailed above had been received

6.                   the item be added to the On-going Matters list

163.2        Highways ‘Wish List’

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 149.3 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 11^th March when the Town Council was asked to detail any further projects under the heading of Safer Routes to School.  The conclusion of the resolution recorded at Minute 149.3 was communicated to the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways and Transport.  Councillors were advised that a response had now been received from Councillor Baker requesting that the three items put forward should be placed in priority order.

A Member present requested that consideration should be given to the provision of an additional pedestrian crossing in Beech Lane, as near as possible to the junction with Rushey Way.

After further consideration of the three previous items forwarded to the Borough Council, it was

RESOLVED that

1.         the Borough Council be requested to concentrate on investigating improved safety for pedestrians crossing Pepper Lane

2.         the Beech Lane crossing be added to the “Wish List” and

3.         the “Wish List” as a whole be included on the On going Matters list.

163.3.   Parking on A4 Verge

Councillors were reminded that approximately three years ago the Town Council paid for the installation of dragon’s teeth and the planting of a hedge along the section of the A4 between that road and the London Road service road to prevent traffic short cutting across the grass verge to attempt to avoid the queues at the roundabout.  Councillors were advised of a recent site visit which had indicated that some of the hedge planting had not taken, and that a thorough tidy up of the area with mulching and replanting was required.  The Town Council’s main contractor had been asked to supply a quotation for this work, and this was in the sum of £905.

Councillors were further advised that there were currently insufficient funds in the Committee’s budget to meet this cost in the current financial year and their permission was, therefore, sought for the proposals to be put to the Borough Council seeking Section 106 funding for this work.  It was

RESOLVED that the suggestion contained in the preamble to this resolution be approved. 

164.     SEAT – CUTBUSH LANE

Councillors' attention was drawn to the Minutes of the Youth & Community Sub-Committee Meeting held on 22^nd January 2008, where the Sub-Committee considered a report of the neighbourhood Police Officer relating to ongoing issues in and around the Cutbush Lane area. The recommendation of the Sub-Committee was that the Planning Committee should consider the removal of the seat in Cutbush Lane near to the junction with Gipsy Lane. Councillors were advised that this recommendation was adopted by the Policy & Resources Committee at Minute 53.1.1 of the meeting held on 19^th March.

A number of members of the public were present and, with the permission of the Chairman, addressed the meeting.

After further discussion it was

RESOLVED that

1.                   the bench be removed

2.         the Police be asked to continue to have an enhanced presence in this area and the area of the Maiden Place shops

165.     WOKINGHAM HOUSING STRATEGY STAKEHOLDER CONFERENCE – 19^TH         MARCH

Councillors were reminded of the resolution recorded at Minute 148 of the meeting of this Committee held on 11^th March 2008, when Councillor J Armstrong had been appointed as the Town Council’s representative to the above Conference.  Councillors now noted details of the Report prepared by Councillor Armstrong which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.

166.     STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE CHARGES 2008/09

Councillors noted details of the Street Lighting Maintenance Charges for 2088/09, details of which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.

167.     TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

167.1.   Permitted Works Under Existing Orders – TPO162/1979 – 10 Chive Road

It was noted that permission had been given for the felling of an Ash Tree covered by this Order.

167.2    New Order – TPO1213/2007 – Land to the Rear of 108 Elm Road

It was noted that this Order had been confirmed without modification.

168.     PUBLICATIONS

            It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:

169.     ONGOING MATTERS

170.     PRESS RELEASES

            It was

            RESOLVED that the Committee’s proposed actions in respect of concerns raised by residents in Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive should receive special press attention.

171.     TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.00 pm.

Back to previous page