 |
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, 16 January 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, T Lowe (from 7.45 pm.), and G B Woods.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health), and D Swindells (due to ill health).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
111. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 12th December 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the chairman.
112. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
112.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
112.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
112.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
112.4 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 amendments to the original proposals for this site did nothing to alleviate the concerns previously expressed by the Committee, and Councillors remained of the view that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors noted the details in the revised drawing recently supplied, Members of the Planning Committee felt that this did not alter the observations previously made on this application
Councillors considered that this proposal would create a dwelling which was out of character with other properties in the road, and would, therefore, have a detrimental effect on the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, and that the new dwelling would have only very limited garden space, which was out of keeping with other properties in this area. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal was unneighbourly to the host dwelling.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors N and Mrs P Jorgensen declared a personal interested in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would represent an overdevelopment of the site, and would create a terracing effect which would be detrimental to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were extremely concerned about this proposal, and requested that it should be refused. It was felt that the design, and particularly the proposed car port, was unsightly and would be incongruous in the street scene. Furthermore, it was felt that the car port could obscure the sight lines, and would be out of keeping with other properties in the road.
There was also concern about access to the site and the amount of available on site parking.
Whilst it was accepted that the size of the plot was reasonably large, it was felt that the massing effect of the proposed extension would be of detriment to the character of the area, and to the street scene. Furthermore, it was felt that there was a potential for loss of light.
Additionally, in view of the number of bathrooms proposed, it was felt that the property could be subject to multi occupancy, and, therefore, if the Planning Officer was mindful to allow this proposal, it was requested that a condition was imposed prohibiting multi occupancy of the site.
Councillors had no objection to this application, but did request that, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal, a condition was imposed requiring that a car was parked in the garage space provided, to reduce the potential for on street parking.
Councillors were concerned at the potential for light intrusion created by the flood lights of the new area, and also possibly a potential for noise disturbance.
If the District Council was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that conditions were imposed limiting the use of the area to reduce the potential for disturbance to nearby residential properties.
Councillors considered that this would create a terracing effect, particularly to the rear of the property, and would have a detrimental effect on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.
Whilst Councillors noted the steps taken by the applicant to alleviate the concerns raised about the previous applications on this site, Members of the Planning Committee still had considerable concerns about this proposal. It was felt that the scale and extent of the new section of boundary fence and wall considerably reduced the sight lines for traffic exiting the adjoining garage. It was also felt the scale and extent of the wall had a detrimental effect on the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors felt that this application should be refused since the dormers being proposed would have the potential to overlook the neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. It was felt that the proposal would have a cramped appearance which would be of detriment to the street scene, and the design of the dwellings proposed was out of keeping with other properties in the area. Furthermore, there was concern about access to the site on this very busy junction.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. Whilst on first inspection the replacement of the proposed rear conservatory with a single storey brick built construction seemed relatively minor, Councillors did consider that this latest proposal would have the potential for loss of light to the neighbouring property, and would look intrusive.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character with other properties in the road which would be incongruous in the street scene. Furthermore, it was felt the proposal was overbearing and would be unneighbouring particularly to No. 58 Hilltop Road.
Councillors considered that the proposed location for this mast was intrusive in a residential area, and would add further street clutter to a small area of grass and trees which currently had a positive visual impact on the area.
Councillors remained of the view that proposals such as this should not be built in residential areas, and the applicant was asked to look again at possible sites along the motorway and Lower Earley Way.
Members of the Planning Committee had no opinion on this application
Councillors considered that this proposal was unneighbourly, and that there would be an element of overlooking into neighbouring properties.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition be imposed requiring that the extension could only be used ancillary to the main dwelling.
Councillors could not find any strong objections to this application, but it was noted that the extension would be built right up to the boundary
The Town Council’s Planning Committee had no objection to this proposal provided that the Planning Officer was happy that the two storey side extension did not impinge on the District Council’s new planning guidelines in respect of the gap required between properties.
Councillors felt that that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site, was unneighbourly and overbearing, and would have an unbalanced appearance which would be of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
No opinion.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed to proceed, would represent an overdevelopment on the site, would be unneighbourly, and would create a terracing effect. Furthermore, Councillors did feel that there was a potential for loss of light to the neighbouring property.
For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors had no objection to this proposal when it was discussed at a recent Planning Committee meeting.
Note: Subsequent to the meeting following discussions with the Planning Committee Chairman, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition was imposed requiring staff from the Earley Retreat to be responsible for clearing litter and broken glass from the site and within a ten metre radius on a daily basis.
112.5 Appeals
112.5.1 New Appeals
112.5.1.1F/2006/8200 – 35 Squirrels Way
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a first floor side extension with front dormer window.
112.5.1.2 F/2006/8167 – 172 Silverdale Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension to form a conservatory.
112.5.1.3 F/2006/8669 – 53 Hilmanton
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of one dwelling.
112.5.2 Appeal Decision – F/2006/7672 – 31 Milton Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a new two-storey detached dwelling adjacent to the existing house had been dismissed.
113. ESTIMATES
Draft Estimates of Income and Expenditure for 2007/08 and the Revised Estimates for 2006/07 had been circulated prior to the meeting for Councillors’ consideration. Councillors reiterated the wish that the capital expenditure figures for the Committee for 2007/08 should be as follows:
Code 4154 Veteran tree project £295 Code 4381 Bus shelters £7,500 Code 4457 Environmental improvements £1,000 Code 4458 Tree Planting – Chiltern Crescent £2,000
which represented an amendment to the Draft Budget circulated with the agenda.
It was
RESOLVED – that
1. the Draft Revised Estimates for 2006/07 be approved
2. the Draft Estimates for 2007/08, as amended, be approved
3. the Policy & Resources Committee be recommended to approve the Revised Estimates for 2006/07 and the amended Draft Estimates for 2007/08 as appended hereto.
4. the transactions for the period to the 30th November be noted.
114. HIGHWAYS
114.1 Highways Policy
Councillors received details of an informal discussion which was due to take place following the Highways Board Meeting on the 29th January. Details of which had been circulated with the agenda. It was noted that the Planning Committee Chairman had agreed to attend the meeting.
114.2 Reading Borough Council – Plans for the Inner Distribution Road
It was noted that a letter had been received from the Borough Council's Transport Strategy Manager concerning its plans to make the Inner Distribution Road one-way. The letter indicated that since the Council, at its meeting on the 25th September, recommended to implement the one-way Traffic Regulation Order as advertised, the detailed design of the scheme had continued. As a result, some new pedestrian and cycling facilities had been identified as appropriate.
Members of the Planning Committee felt that, whilst the Town Council always welcomed initiatives which would encourage safe walking or cycling, these amendments to the design did not alleviate the Town Council’s concerns about the proposal as a whole and it was
RESOLVED that the Borough Council be advised of the Town Council’s continuing concern about its proposal to make the Inner Distribution Road one-way.
114.3 Elm Road Re-alignment and Puffin Crossing
Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main agenda for this meeting, notification had been received from Wokingham District Council concerning the above. The letter indicated that the works were to realign the carriageway of Elm Road to the east of its junction with Langdale Gardens and provide a puffin crossing as part of the Safer Routes to School scheme for Whiteknights Primary School. It was further noted that the work was due to commence on 5th February and would take approximately 7 weeks.
Councillors were reminded that the Town Council, through its walk to school campaign, had identified the need for a safe crossing in this road for pupils attending Whiteknights School several years ago. It was, therefore,
RESOLVED that the District Council be advised of the Town Council’s support for this project.
115. SOUTH EAST PLAN EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
Councillors were reminded that the Planning Committee had previously been advised that the Town Council would be invited to give evidence on the Housing Section of the Proposed South East Plan at the examination in public in March. Councillors were further reminded that there was a need for the Town Council to submit a written statement by the 22nd January. Councillors were advised that the Chairman of the Committee, together with the Deputy Town Clerk were due to meet with Officers at the District Council on the 19th January to finalise details of the Town Council’s submission and to ensure that it did not overlap with evidence being given by the District Council.
A draft of the Town Council's possible statement had been circulated to Councillors prior to the meeting.
RESOLVED that the draft statement, be noted, but the Chairman be requested to make any necessary amendments following the meeting with representatives of the District Council and prior to submission of the statement to the South East Regional Assembly.
116. LITTER AT THE DISTRICT CENTRE
Councillors were advised that a complaint had again been received about litter and rats at the District Centre.
The Deputy Town Clerk advised that she had visited the site on Monday, and could confirm that, whilst some of the litter in the vicinity of Rushey Way and the front of the Leisure Centre had been cleared by the Town Council’s litter picker on one of his routine visits, some areas of the District Centre particularly the area between Asda and Chalfont Way were particularly bad. She advised that she had tried to speak to the Site Manager at Asda, but he had been unavailable and she was currently awaiting a call from him.
The Deputy Town Clerk further advised the meeting that she felt that although there had been some success in resolving some of the litter issues back in the summer, it would seem that, in many instances, these had been “one-off” clear ups by various Departments of the District Council and Asda and that the mechanism did not appear to be in place to allow a continual and regular litter clearance operation either by the District Council or by Asda.
It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk should make arrangements for a meeting with the representative of Property Services of the District Council and
2. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to continue her discussions with Asda and, if necessary, make a direct complaint to the Head Office.
117. TREES
117.1 New Orders
117.1.1 TPO/1027/2006
It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees in the rear garden of 251 Wokingham Road.
117.1.2 TPO/1129/2006 – 393 Wokingham Road
It was noted that the above Order had been confirmed without modification.
117.2 Requests for Works to be Carried Out to Trees Covered by TPO's
117.2.1 TPO/1109/2006 – 37 Lockwood
It was noted that the District Council had refused permission for a reduction of the crown of the Oak Tree covered by this Order.
117.3 Notice of Arboricultural Works
It was noted that work had been undertaken to coppice crack Willow Trees on public open space at the rear of 11-25 Durand Road.
118. GOOD PRACTICE SEMINAR – “INFLUENCING TOWN PLANNING: COLLABORATIVE WORKING BETWEEN PRINCIPAL, PARISH AND TOWN COUNCILS”
Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main agenda, information had been received about the above seminar, which was due to take place on Thursday the 8th February, from 11.00 am – 15.30 at the Local Government Information Unit Offices, 22 Upper Woburn Place, London.
The invitation to attend the Seminar suggested that greater public involvement and more integrated working between local and principal councils was built into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and had been re-emphasised in the White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities (2006). This seminar would launch the Local Government Information Booklet ‘Planning Simplified for Parish Councils’ offering a simplified introduction to town planning for parish/principal councils and local councils.
The cost would be £100 + VAT per delegate.
It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to attend the Seminar
2. in view of the fact that this item did not receive statutory notice before discussion at this meeting, her attendance be subject to confirmation by the Mayor under the terms of the urgency powers given in the Town Council’s Standing Orders.
119. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
120. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
Members of the Committee welcomed the fact that the contribution had been received from residents of Kennedy Gardens, in respect of the replacement street light column and it was
RESOLVED that this item be removed from the on-going matters list.
121. PRESS RELEASES
It was
RESOLVED that the new puffin crossing in Elm Road should receive special press attention.
122. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.08 pm. |