PLANNING COMMITTEE

Present

Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen

Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, C Rowden, D Swindells and G Woods.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham, (due to family commitments), T Lowe (due to holiday) and Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health).

43.       MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 18 July 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.

44.       APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

44.1.     Decision Notices

RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.

44.2      Affected Neighbour Notifications

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

44.3.     “No Objections” Recommendations

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

44.4      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 concerned that this proposal, if allowed, did have the potential to cause a partial loss of light to neighbouring properties and, particularly, to number 512.  The Planning Officer was requested to check this when considering this application.

Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would be out of character with other properties in the road, and would create a loss of light.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors were concerned that, if this application was allowed to proceed, the new dwellings might be subject to multi-occupancy. 

There was concern that the scale of the two new dwellings was out of character with other buildings in Whitegates Lane and, because of the slope of the land, would be very “obvious” and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene.

There was also concern expressed about the amount of parking available, and it was felt that there was inadequate onsite parking which would result in parking on Whitegates Lane near to its junction.

In view of the foregoing, Councillors considered that this application should be refused since it was felt it contravened Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham District Plan.

Councillors considered that, if any development was proposed on the site, any new dwellings should be of the same size, character and style of existing buildings in Whitegates Lane.

Councillors were concerned that, if this application was allowed to proceed, the new dwelling might be subject to multi-occupancy. 

There was concern that the scale of the new dwelling was out of character with other buildings in Whitegates Lane and, because of the slope of the land, would be very “obvious” and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene.

There was also concern expressed about the amount of parking available, and it was felt that there was inadequate on site parking which would result in parking on Whitegates Lane near to its junction.

In view of the foregoing, Councillors considered that this application should be refused since it was felt it contravened Policy WOS 3 of the Wokingham District Plan.

Councillors considered that, if any development was proposed on the site, any new dwellings should be of the same size, character and style of existing buildings in Whitegates Lane.

Councillors considered that the proposed front elevation was of poor design, and aesthetically unpleasing on the street scene.

Councillors were concerned about this application and, in particular, the potential for loss of light which the proposed single storey rear extension would have on the neighbouring conservatory.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors considered that this application should be refused.  It was considered that to allow any further extension of the two new dwellings would represent an overdevelopment of the site would be considerably unneighbourly, and particularly to No. 1 Salcombe Drive and would create a massing effect which would be out of character with other properties in the area and would be of detriment to the street scene. 

It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused, since it was considered that it was in contravention of Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan.

It was considered that this proposal, if allowed, would represent an overdevelopment of the site, would create a terracing effect which would be of detriment to the street scene and would create a property which was out of character with other properties in the road.  It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.

Councillors considered that the parking provision which would remain on the site was inadequate and unsightly and, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

Councillors considered that the height restrictions which were imposed by condition 29 of the previous application were appropriate.  It was noted that concern had been expressed by the applicant, in support of this latest application, that this condition would mean that the proposed building would be out of proportion because of the height restriction imposed.

Councillors considered, therefore, that the building should be redesigned in such a way as to accommodate the height restrictions given in condition 29 but reducing the concerns of the overall proportionality of the building

Councillors also questioned the use of the proposed minaret on the dome and requested that consideration should be given to restricting the level of noise which could be emitted from this part of the building.

Councillors considered, therefore, that this application should be refused.

Councillors considered that the proposed front elevation was of poor design, and aesthetically unpleasing on the street scene. 

Councillors were extremely concerned about this application.

It was considered that there was inadequate parking provision, and that parking provision which was shown on the outline planning application was deemed to be unneighbourly to existing properties.

There was concern that the block of flats nearest to Wokingham Road appeared to breach the building line, and it was considered that the potential size and scale would be out of character with other properties in Wokingham Road and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene.

It was also felt that the number of dwellings proposed on the site represented an overdevelopment, and there was particular concern about the amount of rear garden which would remain on the two semi detached dwellings to the rear of the site.

In conclusion, therefore, Councillors were extremely unhappy with this proposal and requested that it should be refused.

Whilst members of the Town Council accepted that there was a need for such facilities, it was considered that the proposed parking on site was woefully inadequate and would result in on street parking at this very busy junction.

Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal was unneighbourly and may create an unacceptable disturbance to nearby residents.  From the information sent in support of the application, it has been assumed that the Centre was to be a secure unit and it was considered that such a facility in such a close residential area was inappropriate.  Furthermore, Councillors could see no benefit to the potential occupiers of the secure unit for the unit being in this location.

Councillors, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.

Whilst Councillors had no objection to this application, the Planning Officer was asked to note that the plans appeared to be inaccurate.

44.5.     Application Withdrawn by the Applicant

It was noted that application No. F/2006/7709 in respect of development at 512 Wokingham Road had been withdrawn by the applicant.

1.Appeals

44.6.1   New Appeal – F/2006/7059 – 40 The Drive

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of one three-bedroom detached dwelling, with parking, at 40 The Drive.  It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.

44.6.2   New Appeal – 0/2006/7341 – 329-333 Wokingham Road

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow outline planning permission for the erection of 9 dwellings and the demolition of 3 dwellings at the above site.

44.6.3   New Appeal - F/2005/6574 – 7 Woodmere Close

It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a first floor side extension.

45.       PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 33 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 18th July, and in particular, that a letter should be sent to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expressing the Town Council's concern at the scale of development allowed under Permitted Development Rights.  It was noted that a letter had been received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister indicating that the Town Council’s concerns were being considered.

46.       WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL CORE STRATEGY & SITE ALLOCATIONS INITIAL OPTIONS

Councillors had been advised that an e-mail had been received from the District Council indicating that these two documents were due to be considered by its Executive on the 27th July.

Since publication of the main agenda, a further update had been received from the District Council indicating that some changes had been made to both documents by the Executive.  Councillors were, therefore, advised that the Site Allocations Document would be available from the 30th August, with consultation from the 30th August to 11th October, but that the Core Strategy would be subject to a delay, and would probably be available at the end of October.  It was

RESOLVED that the Site Allocations document, once available, should be considered by a meeting of the Plans Working Party and the Working Party should submit comments on behalf of the Town Council.

47.       READING BOROUGH COUNCIL CONSULTATION ON DRAFT SUSTAINABLE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT & ACCOMPANING SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

Councillors were advised that a letter had been received from the Borough Council indicating that it had produced the above document.

The Draft Supplementary Planning Documents sets out the Borough’s commitments to achieving sustainable development through the planning process.  It provides detail on how to interpret the development and policies contained within the Berkshire Structure Plan (2005), the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998) and the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (1998).

It was further noted that the documents could be viewed on the Borough Council’s website and comments should be received by the 11th September.  It was

RESOLVED that the Town Council should not comment on these documents.

48.       HIGHWAY MATTERS

48.1      Highway Design Guide – First Revision

Councillors were advised that a letter had been received from the District Council indicating that the Highway Design Guide which was first published in November 2004 had proved invaluable in helping to guide development proposals in Wokingham District.

The letter further advised that the District Council was currently reviewing the document and intended to publish a First Revision towards the end of the year.

A list of the proposed amendments was circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration, and Councillors were advised that comments were required by 25th September.  It was

RESOLVED that the proposed amendments to the Highway Design Guide be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party and the Working Party should submit comments on behalf of the Town Council.

48.2      Reading Borough Council's Proposals to Make the IDR One Way

Councillors were advised that a letter had been received from Reading Borough Council indicating that the Town Council's objections to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order to make the inner distribution road one way, together with other objections received during the advertisement period, would be considered by the Full Council at its meeting on the 7th September 2006.  In the interim, the Borough Council had written to inform of the publication of an Environmental Statement for the proposed scheme, which may, it considered, address some of the concerns raised in the Town Council’s objection.

A copy of the full Environmental Statement had been downloaded from the Borough Council's website, and Councillors were informed that the document ran to in excess of 300 pages. However, the Borough Council had produced a non-technical summary document and this had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.

Councillors were advised that comments on the Environmental Strategy were required by 28th August.

Councillors were further advised that, since compilation of the main agenda, notification had been received that a meeting had been arranged for Thursday, 31 August commencing at 7.00 pm. in Committee Rooms 1 and 2 at the District Council Offices at Shute End at which Officers from Reading Borough Council would be in attendance to present their plans for the proposed changes to the IDR.  Councillors were asked to consider whether the Town Council should be represented.  It was

RESOLVED that

1.         the Town Council’s previous objections to the proposals for the IDR should again be communicated to the Borough Council in response to its request for comments on the Environmental Statement and

2.         Councillors N or Mrs P Jorgensen, D Swindells and the Deputy Town Clerk should attend the meeting arranged for the 31st August at Shute End.

48.3      (Station Road and Compton Close) - (Restriction of Waiting and Residents' Permit Parking) Order 2006

            Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 36.3, and in particular, the request that the District Council should be asked whether any charge was being made for the residents’ parking permits in Station Road.

            It was noted that a response had been received from the District Council that a standard charge of £10 per permit, per year, was being made for the three properties who qualified for a permit.

48.4      Phasing of Signals at Loddon Bridge

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 36.6 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18th July, and in particular, the fact that the District Council did not appear to have made any alterations to the phasing of the lights at the Loddon Bridge junction.

Councillors now noted the content of a letter received from the District Council which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration which indicated that the Highways Department was currently reviewing other issues with the Loddon Bridge lights and on completion of this review, the necessary changes would be made.

48.5      Parking – Finch Road

Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 36.5 of the meeting of this Committee on the 18th July.  An analysis of the responses received from residents of Finch Road had now been carried out and the details were presented in full to Councillors on the agenda.

The view was expressed that since there had only been 23 responses in favour of any form of parking restrictions, there appeared to be insufficient support from the majority of residents for any restrictions to be put in place.  Following considerable discussion of this item, the Chairman suggested that there were three possible options which were:

            Not to introduce any parking restrictions, but advise residents that they should contact the Police in cases where private drives were being blocked.
            Parking restrictions introduced in the whole road.
            Parking restrictions introduced just at the junction.

            Members of the Committee were then asked to vote on these three separate options and the first option received the majority vote, with no one in favour of parking restrictions in the whole road. 
            Councillor D Swindells requested that his vote in favour of option 3 should be recorded.

48.6      Thames Valley Journey Time – Reliability & Quality

Councillors were advised that notification had been received from the Department of Transport of a public exhibition seeking the views of members of the public on ways to improve the journey times along the M4 from Reading to Chiswick (Junction 12 to Junction 1) and also along the M3 and M25 between Basingstoke and Heathrow Airport. A copy of a flyer received had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.

Contained within the flyer was a summary of route proposals and Councillors considered these individually. 

1.         Variable Speed Limits

            Councillors considered that the variable speed limit system did work but felt that it should be established that the density of traffic actually warranted them.  Furthermore, it was requested that consideration should be given to the introduction of variable speed limits on the M4 from the Slough junction eastbound.

1. Continuous Hard Shoulder

Councillors were in agreement with this item.

1. Higher Central Barriers

Councillors were in agreement with this also.

1. Motorway Access Management

With regard to junction 11, the congestion on the A33 often meant that traffic could not leave the M4.  It was considered that this junction required considerable further investigation, to try to resolve this problem.  It was felt that the problem could, in part, be alleviated by clear lane markings at junctions, the improved education of drivers and lane usage signing coming up to junction 11/A33 roundabout.

5.         Priority Lanes

            In general, Councillors were against bus lanes, since it was felt that these created further congestion for other motorway users.  It was felt that consideration should be given to introducing new lanes which would be available for the use of traffic travelling eastwards into London along the M4 in the morning and westwards out of London in the evening.

6.         Motorway Management

            Councillors were generally in agreement with this but felt also that some greater driver education was required.

7.         Junction Improvements

            In agreement.
8.         Information before the Journey

            In agreement.

9.         Better Information during the Journey

            Councillors were in agreement with this, although some concern was expressed that, on occasions, the information contained on road information boards was sometimes inaccurate and, therefore, misleading.  It was felt that consideration should be given to including timings to accompany information about possible hold ups so that drivers took more notice of the on road information.

10.        Environmental Improvements

            Councillors were in agreement with this.

            Additional Comments

            In general, Councillors were in favour of extra lanes to improve traffic flow.

            Furthermore, Councillors reiterated the request that consideration should be given to the creation of a junction 10A for access only onto the M4 London bound, an idea which had been muted by the Town Council in the past.  It was felt that this suggestion was now even more important with the potential increase in traffic on Lower Earley Way as a result of the proposed Winnersh By Pass.

49.       DRAFT TOWN PLAN

RESOLVED that discussion of this item be deferred to the September meeting of this Committee.

50.       FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Councillors noted details of the financial transactions for the period to the 30th June, as appended to these Minutes.

51.       STREET NAMING & NUMBERING

It was noted that the developers of the new development on land to the rear of Henley Wood Road had chosen a name from the Town Council's approved Street Names List for this development, and it would, therefore, be known as 1-17 (no number 13) and 12-22 Heather Hill Close.

52.       SANE PLANNING IN THE SOUTH EAST SEMINAR & WORKSHOP – PLAYING THE PLANNING GAME

Details of a Seminar being run by Sane Planning in the South East had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration, and the Committee was asked to consider whether the Town Council should be represented.  It was

RESOLVED that the Town Council should not be represented.

53        TREES

53.1      Veteran Tree Project

Further to the discussions recorded at Minute 38.1 of the meeting of this Committee held on 18th July, Councillors were asked to note that an e-mail had now been received from the District Council's Countryside Officer, requesting that his thanks were passed on to Councillors for the support for the Veteran Tree Project.

It was further noted that the e-mail continued by advising that the current Veteran Tree Project (Wokingham Town) ends in September and the District-wide project was due to start on 1st October 2006 and run until 31st September 2007. 

53.2      Tree Preservation Order - TPO/1129/2006

It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of an Oak tree in the rear of 393 Wokingham Road.

54.       PUBLICATIONS

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

It was further noted that since compilation of the main agenda, the agenda for the meeting of the District Council’s Planning Committee on the 16th August had been received and the planning application in respect of the erection of a temporary building by the Brookside Church was for consideration at that meeting.  It was RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to contact Councillors due to attend that meeting, to request that the Town Council’s objections to this proposal should be made known to the Planning Committee.

55.       ONGOING MATTERS LIST

            It was RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to ascertain what progress was being made by the Third Thames Crossing Group.

56.       PRESS RELEASES

            It was  RESOLVED that the Town Council’s continuing opposition to the proposals to make the IDR one way and the request that further consideration should be given to the creation of junction 10A on to the M4 motorway should receive special press attention.

57.       TERMINATION OF MEETING

            The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.58 pm.