 |
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 May 2006 which commenced at 7.30pm. PresentChairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, T Lowe, C Rowden and D Swindells Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham, (due to family commitments) and G Woods (due to family commitments). 1. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 11 April 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. 2. VICE CHAIRMAN On the proposition of Councillor N Jorgensen, seconded by Councillor J Armstrong, it was RESOLVED that Councillor A Bradley be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the ensuing Municipal Year. 3. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES AND WORKING PARTIES 3.1. Plans Working Party RESOLVED that Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, Mrs P Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, T Lowe and D Swindells be appointed members of the Plans Working Party for the ensuing Municipal Year. 3.2. Street Furniture Working Party RESOLVED that Councillors A Bradley, Mrs P Jorgensen and T Lowe be appointed as members of the Street Furniture Working Party for the ensuing Municipal Year. 3.4. Maiden Erlegh Drive Conservation Area Working Party RESOLVED that Councillors C Edmunds, N Jorgensen, Mrs P Jorgensen, T Lowe, Mrs F Rolls, Mrs E Spratling and D Swindells be appointed as members of the Maiden Erlegh Drive Conservation Area Working Party. 4. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 4.1Decision Notices RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted. 4.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications RESOLVED that the Town Council's Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate. 4.3. “No Objections” Recommendations RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
4.4 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:
Members of the Town Council were always concerned with retrospective planning applications of this sort. In this instance, it was felt that this single storey building was intrusive, and reduced the amount of amenity space available for the existing property. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this proposal it was requested that a condition was imposed requiring that this annexe could only be used ancillary to the main house and could not be sold off or rented out independently.
Councillors did not object to most of the signage proposed in this application. However, there was objection to sign A which was on the grass verge at the junction of Lower Earley Way and Mill Lane. On highways grounds, this sign obstructed the view of drivers approaching the Sindlesham Mill roundabout from Mill Lane and was, therefore, deemed to be dangerous. Secondly, from an aesthetic point of view, this area was the start of the less urban part of Earley, and the sign, because of its size, colour and illumination, was deemed to be unsightly and intrusive in the countryside. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors remained extremely concerned about the number of applications which were being put forward which promoted the use of existing back gardens for development. In this instance, Councillors considered that this proposal was extremely unneighbourly, and particularly because of the location of the front door in the right hand four bedroomed house. Furthermore, because the houses in this section of Wokingham Road were bungalows, it was felt that the scale and design of the proposed new dwellings would have an overbearing effect and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. The number of houses proposed to be crammed into the site was also considered to be an overdevelopment and the parking provision was deemed to be totally inadequate and, in the case of the provision proposed for the four bedroomed semi-detached properties was unneighbourly because of its close proximity to the boundary fence with the neighbouring bungalow. There were concerns about the further increase in traffic on the A329 which this proposal would create and also that, because of the lack of adequate parking provision, vehicles could well be reversed on to the Wokingham Road. The proposed new location for the pedestrian refuge in Wokingham Road would bring it immediately adjacent to the existing bus stop which would mean that it was impossible for traffic to pass buses stopping there. In conclusion, therefore, the Town Council was of the view that this application should be refused on the grounds detailed above and because it was in direct contravention of the Policy WOS3 of the current Wokingham District Plan.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. When the estate was originally designed, one of the aspects of the design was the wide open grass verges which gave the estate a more open and well designed appearance. The proposal to build a small house on part of this open space was, therefore, seen as a deviation from the original design concept. There were concerns that, if this proposal was to proceed, there would be a much reduced area for pedestrians and particularly as pedestrians would be required to walk over the vehicle access to the site. Additionally, it was felt that the proposed new dwelling would have a detrimental effect on the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this application may have the potential to overlook neighbouring back gardens and the Planning Officer was asked to check this out at a site visit.
Whilst Councillors were not opposed to this proposal, it was suggested that the first floor extension should be set back to reduce the possibility of the development having a terracing effect to the detriment of the street scene.
The application site was next door to a 17 th century thatched cottage. It was understood that this cottage had a large landing window in the east elevation, adjacent to the application site, which was the only source of natural light for a corridor that ran the length of the building and the stairs. It was, therefore, considered that this proposal was unneighbourly, because of the potential to create a loss of light and it was requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of keeping with the design of other properties in the area. Furthermore, whilst it was noted that this latest proposal had reduced the design of the proposed dwelling, it was felt that there would still be insufficient amenity land remaining at 136 Church Road, which would of detriment to future occupiers of this dwelling. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors could find no strong reason to object to this proposal. However, the Planning Officer was asked to ensure that the additional plant unit now proposed would not generate an unacceptable level of noise in the area which would be particularly noticeable at night when other surrounding noises, such as traffic, were reduced.
In viewing this application, Councillors were concerned about the design of the proposed two storey front extension, as it was felt that it was intrusive and would be of detriment to the street scene.
Members of the Planning Committee were pleased to note that the Lower Earley Baptist Church were now in a position to pursue further the possible building of a church on land adjacent to Maiden Place Community Centre. However, there were some concerns about the design and the layout of the site of the building now proposed. In particular, there was concern about the close proximity of the smaller meeting room to the back gardens of Knossington Close and it was considered that because of this close proximity and the height of the building, it would be obtrusive to these properties and would be unneighbourly. The applicants were, therefore, requested to reconsider the design of the building to ensure that there was sufficient room between the end of the proposed building and the boundary with gardens in Knossington Close or, at least, enough room to plant trees or a hedge. The Town Council remained concerned about the amount of car parking allocated to the church, and considered that this would result in parking in the nearby car park to Maiden Place Community Centre. The proposed method of construction of the building was deemed to be out of keeping with both the Community Centre and the new properties recently built in Maiden Place which were of a brick and tiled construction. It was noted that the church was proposed to be rendered with a slate roof and would have an intrusive appearance. It was understood that some main drains for Maiden Place Community Centre ran under the lower part of the site and this was being checked out by the Town Council. However, if our assertions were correct, some provision would need to be made for access to these drains in the future. In conclusion, therefore, whilst the Town Council did not object to the concept of a church being built at this location, it was felt that the use of the site, layout and design of the current proposal was inappropriate and would ask the applicants to consider a redrafting to alleviate the concerns which have been expressed both by the Town Council and by neighbours. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that conditions be imposed requiring noise limiters to be installed in the main meeting rooms to avoid noise intrusion to neighbours, and that the site should not be overly lit.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. It was felt that the proposal was out of character with other properties in the area, and would mean a loss of amenity space to the existing property. Furthermore, the creation of a further access on to Whitegates Lane was deemed to be inappropriate and dangerous. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused on the grounds of its contravention of Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused since it would mean an erosion of open space which would set a precedent in the area.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed to proceed, would be out of keeping with other buildings and the side dormer was deemed to be unneighbourly. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character with the area, unneighbourly and particularly because of the close proximity to No. 84, and of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused. 4.5 Applications Withdrawn by the Applicants It was noted that the following application had been withdrawn by the applicants: F/2006/7176 – 18 Sibson 4.6 Appeals– F/2005/6421 – Land to the rear of 28 & 30 Church Road and 1-11 Mays Close It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of five 2-bedroom dwellings, twelve 3-bedroom dwellings, eight 2-bedroom flats and four 1-bedroom flats. It was further note that the Appeal would be heard by the exchange of written statements. 5. PLANS WORKING PARTY MEETING – 25 TH APRIL Councillors were reminded that the resolutions recorded at Minute 158.4 and 161 of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 11 th April, requested that a meeting of the Plans Working Party should be convened to discuss these two items. Item 3 of the resolution recorded at Minute 3 of the report of that meeting, dealt with seeking volunteers to undertake mapping of proposed Public Rights of Way within the various Wards of the Town. Councillor D Swindells offered to carryout this task in St Nicolas Ward. It was RESOLVED that 1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to other Councillors asking for a volunteer to carryout a survey of potential Rights of Way in Maiden Erlegh and Hawkedon Wards 2. item 6 of the resolution recorded at Minute 3 of the Working Party report be deferred until further information had been received from the District Council and 3. the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 25 th April, as appended to these Minute be approved. 6. DEVELOPING A LAND USE PLANNING STRATEGY FOR WOKINGHAM DISTRICT - WOKINGHAM DISTRICT DRAFT STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Councillors noted that responses received by the District Council to its Consultation on the Statement of Community Involvement had now been released and were available on the District Council's website at www.wokingham.gov.uk/planning/policy/plan-review/community/submission-sci/sci-representations . 7. SOUTH EAST PLAN CONSULTATION – THE NEXT STEP Councillors were advised that the Draft South East Plan had reached the stage where it was now important for Parish and Town Councils to make their views known. The Panel overseeing the production of the South East Plan would make recommendations to the Secretary of State who, in coming to a decision, would give considerable weight to the Panel's report. Once the Plan had Central Government approval, it would become a legal document that local authorities such as Wokingham District and other Government Agencies in the region would have to follow. Brief details had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration, and it was confirmed that the deadline for comments was 5.00 pm. on the 23 rd June. It was RESOLVED that a meeting of the Plans Working Party be convened to discuss the South East Plan and forward comments on behalf of the Town Council 8. HIGHWAY MATTERS 8.1 Car Parking in Finch Road Councillors were asked to consider the contents of a letter received from a resident of Finch Road, which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration, highlighting concerns about parking in that road. It was RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be asked to arrange for a letter to be sent to all residents of Finch Road asking for their views on the level of commuter parking in the road, and requesting whether they wished to pursue possible parking restrictions. 8.2 Third Thames Crossing It was reported to the meeting that, unfortunately, a meeting of the Group had not taken place. 8.3. Thames Valley Park Drive With the permission of the Chairman, an additional item was introduced on the agenda concerning parking on Thames Valley Park Drive. It was suggested that this was an increasing problem, and the Deputy Town Clerk was asked to follow this up with the Thames Valley Park Drive Management Company. 9. MAIDEN ERLEGH DRIVE CONSERVATION AREA 9.1Meeting of the Working Party It was RESOLVED that the report of the meeting of the Maiden Erlegh Drive Conservation Area Working Party, which took place on the 24 th April, as appended to these Minutes, be approved. 9.2 District Council Study of Potential Conservation Areas Councillors' attention was drawn to Minute 3 of the report of the Maiden Erlegh Drive Conservation Area Working Party, which made reference to a study that the District Council may be proposing to carry out into four potential conservation areas within the District. The report further detailed the opportunity for the Town Council to move the study forward quicker than the District Council's finances might allow, by paying for the study itself. A letter had subsequently been received from the District Council indicating that the cost would be in the region of £2,500 to £3,000 but that the Town Council might like to consider the study being carried out in two stages. It was RESOLVED that 1. the District Council be asked to confirm whether they had a definite timetable for the carryout of the study which it was proposing and 2. whether any of the other Town and Parish Councils which had requested an area to be considered for conservation area status were looking to fund the study from their own resources. 10. RATS & LITTER AROUND THE DISTRICT CENTRE & CHALFONT PARK The Deputy Town Clerk gave a brief report of the latest information which had been received from the District Council in respect of its efforts to reduce the litter and vermin problems around the District Centre and Chalfont Park. Some concern was expressed that this matter did not seem to be moving forward as fast as had hoped, and RESOLVED that a representative of the District Council's Property Services Department and the Manager of the Asda store be invited to attend a future meeting of the Planning Committee to discuss this matter further. 11. TREES 11.1 Wokingham Veteran Tree Project Councillors were asked to consider a letter from the District Council's Countryside Service which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration, which highlighted the Service's current work with the Wokingham Society to carryout a survey of veteran trees within that Town. The letter continued by indicating that the fixed costs of such a project, it was hoped, would be met by external sources but that local Town and Parish Councils would be asked for a contribution of £590 for the survey to be carried out within their boundaries. It was RESOLVED that an approach be made to the Earley Environmental Group to see if that Group would be in a position to carryout a survey of veteran trees within the Town. 11.2 Trees & Subsidence Issues Councillors were reminded that the resolution recorded at Minute 152.2.2 of the meeting of this Committee held on the 7 th March 2006 had requested that a letter be sent to the District Council's Arboriculture Department seeking its views on the issue of trees being felled to avoid subsidence to nearby properties and also details of the guidelines in place to ensure that new properties were not built too close to established trees. A response had now been received from the District Council and had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration. It was RESOLVED that 1. the seeming inconsistencies in the letter be pointed out to the District Council, and the District Council be asked to comment further 2. a suitable advisory body be contacted and asked to give guidance on the appropriate distance from established trees up to which new development should be allowed. 11.3 Tree Preservation Orders 11.3.1 TPO/1113/2006 – Land to the Rear of 14 Palmerstone Road It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of an Oak Tree situated in the rear garden of 14 Palmerstone Road. 11.3.2 TPO/1109/2006 – Land to the Rear of 31, 37 and 53 Loxwood, 42 Squirrels Way and to the Front of 9 Sibson It was noted that a new Preservation Order had been made in respect of six trees in the areas detailed in the heading to this item. 11.4 Notification of Arboricultural Safety Works It was noted that, because of the poor condition of the tree in question, the District Council would be removing an Oak Tree on the footpath at the rear of Fairlawn Green and Cinnamon Close. 12. ADDITIONAL ITEM: STATION HILL (SOUTH), READING, CONSULTATION ON DRAFT PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN BRIEF Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main agenda, a letter had been received from Reading Borough Council concerning the above. The letter indicated that the Borough Council had prepared a consultation draft planning and urban design brief and sustainability appraisal for the area of land between Station Hill and Friar Street. Once adopted, the brief would offer guidance to anyone wishing to develop the area in question. A copy of the letter received from the Borough Council had been circulated with the supplementary agenda for Councillors' consideration. It was noted that comments were required by the Thursday, 25 th May. It was RESOLVED that, if possible, the matter be considered by a meeting of the Plans Working Party. 13. WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL SHEDULE OF MEETINGS 2006/07 Councillors noted details of the Schedule of the District Council Meetings of 2006/07, which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration. It was further noted that the meeting of the Highways Consultative Board had been changed from the 5 th to the 12 th June. 14. PUBLICATIONS It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
15. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
It was RESOLVED that the item in respect of the highway restrictions in Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive be removed from the ongoing matters list. 16. PRESS RELEASES No press releases were requested. 17. TERMINATION OF MEETING The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.04 pm. Minutes of Meeting from 18th April 2006 157. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 7 th March 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. 158. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 158.1Decision Notices RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted. 158.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications RESOLVED that the Town Council's Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate. 158.3. “No Objections” Recommendations RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
158.4 Applications Requiring a Committee Decision RESOLVED that 1. the observations and comments as listed below be sent to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications 2. in respect of planning application F/2006/7079, the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the Inspector in charge of Loddon Valley Police Station expressing the Town Council's concerns about reports from nearby neighbours of the noise being generated from the Police Station. 3. consideration of application SO/2006/7259 – Scoping opinion for the redevelopment of Winnersh Triangle - be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party.
Councillors considered that the ‘Juliet' balcony which formed part of this proposal had the potential to be un-neighbourly.
Councillors considered that this proposal would create an unbalanced appearance, which was out of character with the area and of detriment to the street scene.
Councillors were concerned that this application was for another food takeaway facility and regretted the loss of diversity of shops in this area, and particularly the loss of the Post Office. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition was imposed requiring regular litterpicks to be undertaken by those running the takeaway facility. Consideration should also be given to the applicants ‘sponsoring' the installation of additional litterbins in the area.
Whilst Councillors noted that these latest proposals for the provision of a hard surface had reduced the scale of this facility from the previous application, there remained concern about the potential for the proposal to exacerbate the risk of flooding to the rear gardens of Laniver Close. Furthermore, if the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application it was requested that a condition be imposed limiting the use of the area outside the normal school hours, to reduce the potential for noise disturbance to neighbours. Additionally, it was considered that the area should not be lit.
Councillors were concerned about this proposal, since it was felt that the design was out of character with other properties in Erleigh Court Gardens and The Drive which were, in the main, 1930's semi-detached properties with fairly large gardens. Furthermore, there was concern that a number of mature trees on the site would be lost or would be damaged during construction, which it was felt would be of detriment to the general character of the area. When viewing the plans accompanying this application, it appeared that the size of the garden which the new dwelling would have had been overstated. It was felt that this would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling due to the lack of amenity space. The Town Council was, therefore, of the view that this application should be refused as it was in breach of Policies WOS3 and WBE1 of the Wokingham District Plan.
(Councillor J Armstrong declared an interest in this application and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.) Whilst Councillors noted that this latest proposal reduced the scale of the proposed development on this site from the previous application, they remained concerned that it was still very much out of character with other properties in the road. Reeds Avenue was a very quiet road made up of a high percentage of bungalows, mostly occupied by retired people. To introduce two properties of the type now proposed would entirely change the character and nature of the area. Members of the Planning Committee remained concerned about the un-neighbourly aspect of this proposal, and the potential for it to create a loss of light. Furthermore, it was considered that there was insufficient on site parking which would create unacceptable on street parking and particularly as no. 40 would lose its garage. The Town Council was therefore, of the view that this application should be refused on the grounds that it contravened the following policies in the current Wokingham District Plan: Policy WOS3 Policy WOS1 (part D)
A number of local residents were present at the Planning Committee meeting at which this application was discussed and reported that they were already suffering considerable noise disturbance from the Police Station. It was reported to the Committee that this disturbance was not only caused by prisoners being held at the Station, but also by other activities at the Station such as the coming and going of officers, police vehicles. It was considered that the proposal to increase the number of cells at the Station would only exacerbate this problem further. Furthermore, the proposed location of the new cells was deemed to be un-neighbourly and would have an overbearing effect on neighbouring residential properties, and those in Fleetham Gardens in particular. From the reports received from nearby residents, Thames Valley Police had already proved to be less than good neighbours and it was felt, therefore, that this proposal to further increase the size of the Station, and therefore the potential for greater noise disturbance, should be refused. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that a condition was imposed requiring that the new cells were completely sound-proofed.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since it was felt that insufficient on-site parking would be available. The lack of available parking may lead to vehicles being parked in the ‘hammer head' at the end of this small cul-de-sac, which was designed to be a communal turning area to avoid vehicles having to reverse out on to the main carriageway.
Councillors were concerned that the District Council had not carried out the necessary consultation on this application. At the time this proposal was discussed (11 th April), the Town Council had not received official notification, and the matter was brought to our attention by a neighbour who had viewed the site notice and notified us of the proposal. In view of the lack of any information in support of the application, members of the Town Council could see no justification for this proposal. Councillors have always expressed concerns about any proposals of this sort, not only because of the potential to further erode small areas of open space, but also because of the precedent which they set. It was, therefore, requested that this application be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was out of character with other properties in Robindale Avenue, and represented an overdevelopment of the site. Furthermore there was considerable concern about the access to the site which was positioned on what was essentially a blind corner. Additionally, it was felt that there was insufficient on-site parking, which may lead to parking in the road. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused for the reasons stated above, which, in the view of the Town Council, meant that the application constituted a breach of Policy WOS3 of the current Wokingham District Plan.
Councillors did not have any strong objection to this proposal, but did request that the landing window should be obscure glazed to reduce the potential for over looking into neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. It was felt that the proposal was out of keeping, would result in a loss of open space, would set a precedent, and represented a deviation from the original design concept of this estate.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. Members of the Planning Committee were of the view that the Planning Inspector's reasons for imposing this condition should not be undermined. If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, it was requested that any re-wording of the condition 14c should ensure that trees on the site had adequate protection.
Councillors were concerned about this proposal, and particularly the detrimental and overbearing effect it would have on No. 44 Redhatch Drive.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment and would have a detrimental effect on the street scene. Furthermore, there was concern that there would be insufficient and inappropriate off road parking. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned about this proposal. From the information available to the Planning Committee when it considered this application, there were no details about the potential use of this temporary building. In letters received from nearby neighbours, concern had been expressed about the noise disturbance emanating from the existing buildings. Reference was also made to the fact that there was sometimes a breach of existing planning conditions relating to the hours which the building could be used. In view of the foregoing, and the potential for the temporary building to exacerbate the reported noise nuisance, Councillors were of the view that this application should be refused.
If the Planning Officer was mindful to approve this application, Councillors requested that special note should be taken of the potential for loss of light to No. 37
Councillors considered that this latest proposal did nothing to alleviate the concerns expressed by the Town Council in respect of application F/2005/6586. These concerns were that the development was overbearing and would create a massing effect, which would be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, it was felt that because of the small plots which remained, this proposal would represent an overdevelopment. Additionally, in view of the reduced size of plots which would remain if this proposal was to proceed, there would be very little amenity space remaining, which would have a detrimental impact on future occupiers of the properties. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused. 158.5 Applications Withdrawn by the Applicants It was noted that the following applications had been withdrawn: RM/2006/6859 – 2 Stanton Close F/2006/6680 – 84 Mill Lane 158.6 Appeals 158.6.1 New Appeal – F/2005/6379 – 56 Hilltop Road It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the raising of the roof of the dwelling with front and rear dormer extensions to form rooms in the roof space. 158.6.2 New Appeal – F/2005/6043 – 40 & 42 Culver Lane It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of eight flats with associated parking and the demolition of two dwellings. 158.6.3 New Appeal – F/2005/6479 – 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 a detached dwelling and new access from Erleigh Court Gardens. 159. PLANS WORKING PARTY 159.1. Councillors were advised that a meeting of the Plans Working Party had been convened by the Chairman of the Planning Committee and the Chairman of Council using their urgency powers to consider the implications on the Town of the Borough Council's proposal to make the IDR one-way. A meeting of the Working Party had taken place on the 23 rd March, and details of the meeting, together with a copy of the letter sent to the Borough Council expressing the Town Council's concern about these proposals had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration. It was RESOLVED that 1.the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on the 23 rd March 2005, as appended, be approved. 2.the receipt of acknowledgements to the letter from the Town Council, Borough Council and from the Rt. Hon John Redwood, MP be noted 3.the receipt of a copy of an e-mail from a resident to the Borough Council expressing concern about it's proposals be noted. 160.HIGHWAY MATTERS 160.1Loddon Bridge Junction Councillor J Armstrong gave a report on the site meeting which had taken place with representatives of the District Council's Highway Department on the 9 th March. The meeting had resulted in an agreement from the District Council's consultants that the phasing of the lights at Loddon Bridge would be further investigated. With regard to the relocation of the pedestrian crossing, it was explained that it had been necessary to upgrade the crossing and that because of the number of services in the pavements adjacent to the previous location of the crossing, the crossing had been moved further down Wokingham Road. 160.2 Third Thames Crossing Councils' Group Consideration of this item was referred to the next meeting of this Committee. 161.RIGHTS OF WAY Councillors were advised that since compilation of the main agenda, an invitation had been received from the District Council for the Town Council to send two representatives to a meeting to be held on the 26 th April to discuss various right of way related issues, and to allow Town and Parish Councils the opportunity to indicate any desired routes which should be designated Public Rights of Way. It was RESOLVED that the appointment of representatives and consideration of the invitation from the District Council, together with consideration of the Definitive Rights of Way Map should be deferred to a meeting of the Plans Working Party. 162.STREET LIGHTING 162.1Street Lighting Column – Kennedy Gardens Councillors were reminded of discussions which were recorded at Minute 150 of the meeting of this Committee held on 7 th March. Councillors were further advised that, subsequent to that discussion, further information had been received from Southern Electric Contracting indicating that, whilst the cost of a replacement column would be in the region of £350, there would be additional costs in respect of reconnecting the supply to the new column, bringing the total cost to approximately £650. A number of residents were present to discuss the future of this street lighting column and, during the discussions, residents did agree to make a contribution towards the cost of a like for like replacement lantern for the existing column. After further discussion it was RESOLVED that 1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to investigate possible alternative sources for a replacement top for the column 2. the contribution of £150 from residents of Kennedy Gardens towards the cost of like for like replacement be gratefully received and 3. the balance of the cost of repairing the light be met with a virement from the Environmental Enhancement Budget. 162.2 Footpath Adjacent to Brookside Surgery Councillors were reminded that Minute 104 of the meeting of this Committee, held on 6 th December, recorded the discussions which had taken place in respect of a request that the Town Council should consider meeting the cost of installing street lighting on the footpath which runs from the green way into Gipsy Lane and parallel to the Brookside Surgery car park. At the time this matter was discussed at the December meeting, the Town Council had been informed that it was the Surgery's intention to re-open access through the car park and, therefore, the need for the additional lighting along the normal footpath was not required. However, recently, a letter had been received from the Surgery indicating that it was the intention that the access through the car park would be closed off and, therefore, the need for adequate lighting on the existing footway remained. The letter, therefore, requested that the Town Council should reconsider providing street lighting along this path at a cost of £1,249.63 excluding VAT. It was RESOLVED that the request be refused and it be suggested to the Surgery that they should contact Wokingham District Council. 162.3 Annual Maintenance Charges Councillors noted details of the street maintenance charges for 2006/07 which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration. 163. AMENITY SKIP PROGRAMME Councillors noted details of the amenity skip schedule for 2006/07 which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration. It was further noted that the skip would be charged at £87 + VAT and amenity vehicles at £134 + VAT. 164. LITTER PICK It was noted that the Lower Earley Baptist Church were proposing to undertake a "litter pick" on Easter Saturday, and that they have been offered the loan of Town Council litter pickers, for this event. 165. TREES 165.1New Tree Preservation Order It was noted that a new Order had been made in respect of trees in the rear gardens of Loxwood and Sibson. 165.2TPO No. 860/1997 – 36 Clevedon Drive It was noted that the District Council had refused to allow permission for the removal of approximately 50% of the branches on Oak Trees at this site, but had allowed for the removal of Epicormic shoots and deadwood from the trees in question. 165.3TPO No. 197/1980 – Rear of 68 Moorhen Drive It was noted that consent had been given for the removal of the two lowest branches on two Oak Trees covered by this Order. 166. PUBLICATIONS It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
167. ONGOING MATTERS LIST
168. PRESS RELEASES It was RESOLVED that the amenity skips/refuse vehicles provided by the Town Council should receive special press attention. 169. TERMINATION OF MEETING The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.32 pm. Minutes of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber at the Council offices, Radstock Lane, Earley, on Tuesday 7th March which commenced at 7.30pm 146. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 7 th February 2006 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman. 147. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION 147.1 Decision Notices RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted. 147.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications RESOLVED that the Town Council's Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate. 147.3. “No Objections” Recommendations RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
147.4 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 if this amendment was allowed to proceed, the size of plot remaining at No. 16 Palmerstone Road would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling, due to the lack of amenity space. As such, it was felt that the proposal conflicted with Policies WOS3 and WBE1 of the Wokingham District Plan
Whilst Councillors had no objections to the minor alterations shown on the new plans, these did not alleviate the concerns previously expressed about this application and it was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Members of the Planning Committee did not comment on these additional plans, as it was understood that this application had now been refused by the Development Control Committee
Councillors remained concerned about the potential loss of light to neighbouring properties, and requested that this should be taken into consideration by the Planning Officer in deciding this application.
Councillors were concerned that if the proposal was allowed to proceed, as the application site was a semi-detached dwelling it was felt that it would have an unbalanced appearance with its neighbours which would be of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that the design of the residential units proposed in this application were out of keeping with the existing area and were also opposed to the design because of the extensive use of flat roofs. Furthermore, this section of the A4 is very busy and it was felt that to have further traffic entering and leaving the site at this point would be dangerous. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned that the area left for the garaging of cars was smaller in dimensions than that recommended by the District Council and, it would, therefore, be extremely difficult to use this area for vehicular parking. Furthermore, the parking spaces shown to the front of the property would be extremely difficult to access, and it was felt that this would result in on street parking, which would not be acceptable. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors had no objection to this proposal, they did request that the design should be amended such that the property matched the design of other houses in the road.
Councillors considered that this proposal had potential to create loss of light to neighbouring properties, and that the design was out of character with other properties in the road. It was, therefore, felt that the proposal was contrary to Policy WOS3 of the Wokingham District Plan and it should be refused.
Councillors remained extremely concerned about this proposal. It was felt that there was insufficient on site parking which would result in parking on the corner of Stanton Close and Wokingham Road. Furthermore, there was concern about the positioning of the cycle store which was shown as being immediately adjacent to the neighbouring property. It was felt that this was unacceptable, since it would be of detriment to the amenity of the neighbouring property, and might well create safety and security issues since it would mean easy access to that property. For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst members of the Planning Committee had no objection to this proposal, the Planning Officer was asked to query with the applicants whether the apostrophe shown on the sign was actually in the correct place.
Councillors noted the change in design of this proposal from the previous application on this site, but were of the view that this latest design did nothing to alleviate the concerns expressed by the Planning Officer in refusing the previous proposal. Additionally, it would appear from the plans that only three on site parking spaces were being proposed and it was felt that this was totally unacceptable and would result in parking on nearby residential roads, and on Wokingham Road itself. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would have the effect of terracing, which would be of detriment to the street scene and the character of the area as a whole. Furthermore, in viewing the plans for the extension at No. 29, it appeared that there was a bedroom window in the flank wall of that extension. To allow the proposal at No. 31 would result in a severe loss of light to that room which would render the proposal unneighbourly, and, in the view of the Town Council, unacceptable. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.147.5 Appeals 147.5.1New Appeal – F/2005/4827 – Shinfield Relief Road It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the District Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the proposed construction of an eastern relief road for Shinfield, including a new bridge over the M4 motorway and under Cutbush Lane. To further note that the Appeal would be heard by means of a Local Inquiry, at a date yet to be advised. It was suggested that the Town Council should be represented at the Inquiry. 147.5.2 Appeal Decision – F/2003/0339 – 4 Thorney Close It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the District Council's refusal to allow retrospective planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension, had been allowed. 147.5.3 Application CON/2005/6577 – Construction of an Air Dome for 3 Tennis Courts Councillors noted receipt of a copy of a letter from the District Council to Reading Borough Council expressing concern about this proposal. 148. PLANS WORKING PARTY MEETING – 20 th FEBRUARY Councillors were reminded that Minutes 135.1 of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 7 th February, and Minute 72.1.3 of the meeting of the Town Council held on 15 th February, had recorded the resolution that a meeting of the Plans Working Party be convened. The purpose of the meeting was to consider the District Council's Scoping Report for the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document and submit comments on behalf of the Town Council. The Working Party was also asked to consider two Consultation Papers received from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: New Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing, and Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk. A copy of the report of the meeting had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration. One amendment was made to the report on page 3, under the heading paragraph 18 where, in the third line, the words “queried whether” were replaced with “were of the view” such that the end of the sentence now read “Councillors were of the view that the housing allocation of the District should be reduced”. RESOLVED that the report of the Plans Working Party meeting held on the 20 th February 2006, as amended, and as appended to these Minutes be approved. 149. HIGHWAY MATTERS 149.1 Highways Consultative Board Meeting – March 2006 Councillors noted that the date of the above meeting had now been changed to the 13 th March. A copy of a letter giving details of the items to be discussed at that meeting had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration. In particular, Councillors were asked to consider whether the Town Council should be represented at the meeting and, as requested under item 7 of the letter from the District Council, to suggest any subjects which Parishes would like to see discussed in the new Municipal Year. It was RESOLVED that 1. Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen should represent the Town Council at this meeting and 2. the following suggestions as possible topics for discussion in the next Municipal Year be forwarded to the District Council:
149.2 Reading Borough Council's Proposals for the Inner Distributor Road Councillors were reminded that Minute 137.4 of the meeting of this Committee held on 7 th February had recorded the resolution that Reading Borough Council and Wokingham District Council be requested to invite Parishes within the District to a specially convened meeting to discuss the full proposals for the Inner Distributor Road and the implications those proposals were likely to have. A response had now been received from the District Council's Corporate Head of Environment and this had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors' consideration. It was RESOLVED that the Town Council should invite representatives from Reading Borough and Wokingham District Council and Shinfield Parish Council to discuss the proposals for the Inner Distributor Road. (ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Since this Planning Committee meeting, an invitation has been received from Wokingham District Council for representatives of the Town Council to attend a meeting at Shute End on 20 th March. The meeting is to enable representatives from Woodley, Shinfield, Sonning and Earley Councils to receive further information on the Borough Council's proposals for the Inner Distributor Road. In view of this, the meeting requested in the resolution above was not convened). 149.3 ( A329 Wokingham Road, Pond Head Lane, Meadow Road and Mill Lane, Earley) (Prohibition of Waiting) Order 2006 Councillors were advised that a letter had been received from the District Council indicating that, at its meeting on 27 th September 2005, members of the Highways Consultative Board resolved to recommend to the Executive to advertise and consult on the proposal to extend the waiting restrictions in Meadow Road and Mill Lane, Earley. Councillors were further advised that the proposed scheme had been designed after a local Member had expressed concern about the parking problems in Meadow Road and Mill Lane, especially near the junctions with the A329 Wokingham Road. A copy of the proposals | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||