 |
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, 17 April 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, A Bradley, N Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, and D Swindells (until 9.05 pm.).
Also in attendance Councillor Mrs E Spratling.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss T Bauckham (due to family commitments), Mrs F Lumbar (due to ill health) and C Rowden,
__________________________________________________________________________________
149. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13th March 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
150. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
150.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
150.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
150.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
150.4 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 size of the proposed two storey side extension would mean that there would not be a 1 metre gap between the new development and the boundary. Furthermore, the proposed parking provision on the site was considered to be unsightly and detrimental to the street scene. For these reasons, therefore, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties, since it would create a terrace in the road of predominantly semi detached properties. There was also concern about access to the parking allocation shown on the plan accompanying the application, since it was felt that vehicles would be reversing out of the site at this very busy junction. Furthermore, it was deemed that the parking provision was inadequate which would result in off site parking. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was overbearing, unneighbourly, too close to the boundary, and may cause a possible loss of light to neighbouring properties. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
In view of the fact that this was a semi detached property, and because of the large size of the extension proposed, it was felt that, if allowed, this application would create a dwelling which would have an unbalanced appearance in comparison to its neighbour which would be of detriment to the street scene.
In considering the proposals for the Loddon School site, Councillors welcomed the improvement to the entrance on Hillside Road. However, Councillors were concerned about the additional traffic which would be attracted to the site in view of the provision of the new facilities. Furthermore, whilst it was noted there was additional parking, it was felt that the parking provision should be adequate to meet the peak time usage.
Councillors were concerned about the potential noise from the proposed workshop, and requested that consideration should be given to limiting the hours during which the workshop was used and also a condition to ensure that it could not be used for commercial purposes.
Councillors considered that this proposal would have a massing effect, was overbearing, and had the potential to create a loss of light to properties in Regent Close. For these reasons, it was therefore requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors had no objection to this application but requested that the enlarged window at the first floor level should be obscured glazed.
Councillors considered that this proposal had the potential to create a loss of light to neighbouring properties. Furthermore, it would appear that the two storey side extension would leave insufficient space to the boundary to comply with the District Council’s Draft Planning Guideline. For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were extremely concerned about this application. The plan submitted in support of it did not appear to give true representation of the back to back distances between the application site and neighbouring properties, and it was understood that some of the neighbouring properties had already been extended, the details of which were not shown on the application plan.
Councillors therefore felt that this proposal would reduce, to an unacceptable level, the back to back distances between the development site and neighbouring properties, and, as a result of the window at the first floor level, would be unneighbourly as this would overlook into the rear conservatory of the neighbouring property.
For these reasons, Councillors felt that this application should be refused.
Councillor J Armstrong declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.
Whilst Councillors noted that this latest proposal differed from previous applications on this site, as semi detached properties were now being proposed, 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. Furthermore, there was concern that because of the size of the properties proposed, there would be an increase in traffic movement in the road, which would have a detrimental impact on existing residents.
Members of the Planning Committee remained concerned about the unneighbourly aspect of the 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 an unacceptable level of on street parking in this very narrow road.
Councillors were also extremely concerned about the design, overbearing nature, and size of the proposed car ports and also there was concern about the possible future use of the games rooms.
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 Wokingham Borough Plan, Policy WOS3 and Policy WOS1 (part d).
Councillors had no objection to this proposal provided that there was an assurance that no obstruction would be created to roads in the vicinity during the construction work.
Councillors considered that the two storey element of this proposal was unneighbourly and would create a loss of light to No 601. It was therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
No comment
Whilst it was noted that this was the second application on this site in recent months, Councillors felt that this latest application still proposed a two storey side extension which, in the view of the Town Council, would be too close to the boundary with the neighbouring property which, it was felt, would be out of character with the area and have a detrimental effect on the street scene.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
It was noted that the previous application on this site (F/2006/7832) had been refused by the Borough Council and was now the subject of an Appeal.
Councillors could see little improvement in this latest application to alleviate the concerns expressed by the Borough Council about the previous application on this site, and it was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned about this application since the lack of detail supplied by the applicant meant that the future proposed use was not clear.
Councillors felt, therefore, as there was no way to judge the potential for negative impact on residents because of this lack of supporting information, this application should be refused.
Members of the Planning Committee remained of the view that it was ill conceived to consider an application of this size with what it was considered to be a serious under provision of available on site parking. This area was already troubled with student parking from the nearby University Campus and further development on this scale with insufficient parking could only exacerbate the problem further. The Town Council was also extremely concerned about the further increase in traffic which would be generated in the area as a result of this development. With the number of residential units proposed, there was bound to be a further increase in through traffic along Wokingham Road and through other parts of Earley, as those living in these new properties access places of work, shops, etc. With traffic pollution in this area already one of the highest within Wokingham Borough, it was suggested to allow additional development in this area would only increase the problem still further.
For these reasons it was requested that this application should be refused.
150.5. Appeals
150.5.1. New Appeals
150.5.1.1 F/2006/7832 – 1 Swepstone Close
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a single storey front, side and rear extension to the dwelling and conversion of garage to dining room. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
150.5.1.2 F/2006/9065 – 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 erection of 14 dwellings and demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an Informal Hearing.
150.5.1.3 F/2006/9093 – 76 Erleigh Court Gardens
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 and rear extension plus garage conversion. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by an exchange of written statements.
150.5.1.4 F/2006/9184 – 53 The Drive and 36, 38 and Land to the Rear of 34, 40 and 42 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the demolition of 53 The Drive and 36 and 38 Chiltern Crescent and the erection of 14 dwellings with garages and associated parking. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an Informal Hearing.
150.5.1.5 O/2006/9435 – 29 Erleigh Court Drive
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of two dwellings and demolition of the existing dwelling. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
150.5.2 Notice of Withdrawal of Planning Appeal
150.5.2.1 F/2006/7830 – 36 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of one replacement dwelling and demolition of existing dwelling had been withdrawn.
150.5.2.2.F/2006/7831 – 53 The Drive and Rear of 36 and 38 Chiltern Crescent
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of 9 new dwellings and the demolition of 38 Chiltern Crescent and 53 The Drive had been withdrawn.
150.6 Asda
Councillors noted that a complaint had been received that Asda had allegedly, on several occasions, breached the Planning Condition in respect of the hours during which deliveries were allowed at the Lower Earley store.
The resident who made the complaint was present at the meeting and gave further details to Councillors.
Members of the Planning Committee felt that, whilst they understood the need for the store to try to ensure customers’ requirements in respect of the supply of goods was met, the reported frequency and extent of the breaches in recent months were deemed to be excessive. It was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the Head Office of Asda expressing concern about these breaches and asking for their comments.
150.7 Plans Working Party Meeting – 11th April
Councillors noted the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on 11th April, as appended to these Minutes.
151. HIGHWAYS
151.1 Highways Consultative Board Meeting – 29th January 2007
Councillors noted details of the above meeting which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.
151.2 Highways Consultative Board Meeting – 5th March 2007
Councillors noted details of the above meeting which had been circulated with the agenda for their information.
151.3 Wokingham Borough Council Fact Sheets
Councillors noted receipt of Fact Sheets issued by the Borough Council, on Variable Speed Limits and Quiet Lanes which had been circulated with the agenda for their information.
151.4. Reading IDR One-Way Scheme
Councillors noted that, since compilation of the main agenda, a communication had been received from Reading Borough Council indicating that it had made the Inner Distribution Road Movement Control Traffic Regulation Order on 28th March 2007.
The Deputy Town Clerk gave brief details of the implications of this latest move by Reading Borough Council. It was
RESOLVED that a letter be forwarded to Wokingham Borough Council offering the Town Council’s support to the Borough Council in its opposition to this scheme.
152. ROADSIDE SEATS
152.1 Kenton Road
Councillors were asked to consider a request from a local resident that a small memorial plaque to be paid for by the resident, be mounted on the seat on the junction of Kenton Road. Councillors were advised that the request was being made in memory of the resident's husband who used the seat frequently and particularly in his older years. The resident concerned had also offered a contribution of £50 towards the cost of a replacement seat. It was
RESOLVED that the request be approved. 152.2 Request for a New Seat
Councillors were asked to consider a request, detailed in a letter which had been circulated with the agenda, for a new seat at the junction of Mays Lane and Church Road.
Councillors were reminded that the 2007/08 did not contain any funds for the provision of new seats. It was
RESOLVED that the enquirer be advised that the Town Council did not have sufficient funds to meet the cost of the new seat in the current budget, and that she be asked to supply more information on the potential use of the seat.
152.3 Cutbush Lane
Councillors were advised that there had been a request from a resident of Redhouse Close that the seat in Cutbush Lane should be removed. It had been reported that the seat encouraged the congregation of groups of young people who created noise and litter, and it was reported that they had caused considerable disturbance to local residents.
Councillors were advised that the Deputy Town Clerk had requested that the area Youth Workers and PCSO should visit the site to try and engage with the young people concerned to express the residents’ concern to them and to suggest a more appropriate location for their described activities. The PCSO and the representative from the Outreach Youth Workers had reported that they had visited the site, and on all occasions had not seen any young people at this location.
During discussions, reference was made to the design of the concrete bins in Cutbush Lane/Gipsy Lane footpath and the fact that because of their open top design, on occasions, foxes had been witnessed scavenging in the bins, which had resulted in the contents of the bins being strewn along the verge. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the request that the seat be moved be refused but the resident be advised that the situation would be considered again by the Committee at a future meeting should evidence be supplied that the situation described had returned
2. the item be added to the ongoing matters list and
3. an approach be made to the Borough Council that more suitably designed bins should be installed in the location detailed in the preamble to this resolution.
153. GREEN WASTE RECYCLING
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 143 when the Deputy Town Clerk was actioned to write to the Borough Council asking when the Green Waste Recyling Scheme would be extended to the rest of the Town. A letter had been received from the Borough Council indicating that, by the time of this meeting, the Scheme should have been extended to all residents of Earley. However, a Member present indicated that no green bags had been received in Cutbush Lane and requested that this fact should be communicated to the Borough Council.
154. PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded under Minute 142 when it was requested that a press release should be issued asking local residents for their suggestions about improvements to the bus routes/bus services in the Town. Furthermore, Councillors were advised that some concern had been expressed about the future of the No. 20 route. It was confirmed that a letter had been received from the Borough Council’s Senior Transport Planner indicated that the No. 20 service was secure and that there were no plans to reduce or withdraw it at this time.
Councillors were advised that a number of communications had been received from local residents in response to the press release which had been released. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the responses received should be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party, on a date to be set after the local Elections
2. this item be added to the ongoing matters list.
155. STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE CHARGES 2007/08
Councillors noted details of the Street Light Maintenance Charges which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.
156. TREE PRESERVATION ORDER
156.1 TPO222/1983 – Trees on Land at 48, 49 and 52 Larkes Meade
It was noted that the Borough Council had given permission for an Oak Tree covered by this Order to be felled to ground level. This permission had been granted as evidence had been provided to the Borough Council confirming that the tree had been shown to be contributing to causing soil related subsidence damage to these properties.
156.2 TPO860/1997 – Land in the Rear Garden of 36 Clevedon Drive
It was noted that permission had been granted for works to be carried out to two Oak Trees covered by this Order.
157. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
158. ONGOING MATTERS
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 146 when the Deputy Town Clerk had been asked to ascertain the latest position with regard to the future of the Third Thames Crossing Council Group.
It was noted that a response had been received from the Borough Council indicating that sums had been allocated in the 08/09 and 09/10 budget for the production of an advanced feasibility study with a view to submitting a detailed bid at some time in the future for a Third Thames Crossing.
159. PRESS RELEASES
It was
RESOLVED that the following items should receive special press attention:
The assurance that the No.20 bus service will not be reduced.
Thank you to residents who submitted their comments on possible improvements to the public transport service.
The Town Council’s support to the Borough Council in its opposition to Reading Borough Council’s proposals for the Inner Distribution Road.
160. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting closed at 9.54 pm.
|