 |
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, 19th June 2007 which commenced at 7.40 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, N Jorgensen, Ms C M Mitchell, N J Preston, and G B Woods.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A T Bradley, Mrs J A Lissaman and P. Willis. __________________________________________________________________________________
17. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 22 May 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
18. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
18.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
18.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
18.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
18.4. 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.
Whilst Councillors noted that this latest proposal on this site had been scaled down in comparison to previous proposals, there was still concern about this application.
The Town Council opposed any encroachment onto the verge and felt that this would set a precedent which would be unacceptable as it may lead to further applications in other areas of Lower Earley.
Whilst it was noted that a car port was proposed in this latest application, it was considered that this had the potential to generate more noise and would, therefore, be unneighbourly. Furthermore, it was considered that the proposal, which resulted in a four bedroomed house on a plot that was originally designed for a two bedroomed property, represented an overdevelopment.
For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned that although this was a single storey extension, it appeared that there would be less than 1 metre to the boundary.
Councillors considered that this proposal would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties since it would create a terrace in the road of predominately 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.
Whilst Councillors noted the Borough Council’s objections to the previous application on this site, members of the Town Council’s Planning Committee felt that the previous application was of better appearance than the proposals contained within the latest application
Councillors considered that this application would create an overdevelopment of the site, would be out of character with neighbouring properties, would have an element of overlooking into neighbouring gardens, and therefore be, unneighbourly. In view of these concerns, members of the Planning Committee considered that this application should be refused.
Councillors regretted the loss of open space which would result if this application was to proceed, since Councillors felt that it was against the original design concept of the estate.
Furthermore, there was concern about poor visibility, since the extended access to the site would be extremely close to the corner of the road. For these reasons, it was requested that this application should be refused.
Councillor J Armstrong declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereon or the decision thereof.
Whilst Councillors noted that this latest proposal differed from previous applications on this site, they remained concerned that it was still very much out of character with other properties in the road.
Reeds Avenue is 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 and overlook neighbouring bungalows. Furthermore, it was considered that there was insufficient on site parking which would create an unacceptable level on street parking in this very narrow road.
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 WOF3,and Policy WOF1O (part D)
Councillors considered that, due to the height of the new fence proposed, it would be out of keeping with other properties in the road, and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors did not have any objection to this proposal, but did request that conditions should be imposed on any planning approval which meant that there could be no sub letting of the facilities to outside organisations, no amplified music should be played, and no activities should take place in the grounds surrounding the Gospel Hall.
18.5. Pre-application advice
Councillors noted that pre-application advice information had been supplied by the Borough Council, for information only, on the following application, PA/2007/1472.
18.6 Appeals
18.6.1 New Appeals
18.6.1.1 F/2006/9122 – 301 Wokingham Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of four flats with associated parking and demolition of the existing dwelling. The Appeal would be heard by means of an Informal Hearing at a date to be advised.
18.6.1.2 F/2007/0494 – 84 Mill Lane
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a two storey side and rear extension plus single storey front extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
18.6.2. Appeal Decisions
18.6.2.1 F/2006/8167 – 172 Silverdale Road
It was noted that this Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow a two-storey side extension and rear conservatory, had been dismissed.
18.6.3 Notice of Informal Hearing – F/2006/9065 – Land to the Rear of 37-53 Meadow Road
Councillors noted that the Informal Hearing into the Borough Council's refusal to allow the erection of 14 dwellings and the demolition of 43 Meadow Road would be held on 26th June at Maiden Place Community Centre commencing at 10 am. It was
RESOLVED that the Town Council should not be represented at the Informal Hearing.
19. PLANS WORKING PARTY
Councillors noted details of the report of the meeting of the Plans Working Party held on 11th June, which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration, and which is attached to these Minutes.
20. CONSULTATION ON DRAFT SCREENING REPORT TO ASSESS IF AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE WOKINGHAM BOROUGH CORE STRATEGY IS NEEDED
Councillors were advised that the Borough Council had produced a screening report to assess whether the Core Strategy's likely approach to development could have a significant effect upon internationally important wildlife sites within 15 km of Wokingham Borough. The Council needed to make this assessment as the Core Strategy should avoid or mitigate impacts upon internationally important wildlife sites. The Core Strategy would set the broad approach to development in the Borough for the period 2006 to 2026.
The communication received from the Borough Council indicated that that Council also had regard to plans of other authorities within 15 km of the Borough boundary to see if these may have a significant effect upon internationally important wildlife sites when considered alongside proposals within the Borough. Councillors were further advised that the Borough Council was consulting on the findings of the Screening Report from 6th June to 11th July and a copy had been appended with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.
Reference was made to discussions which had taken place at the recent Plans Working Party meeting, when Councillors present at that meeting had expressed the view that it would be extremely helpful if Officers from the Borough Council could be invited to meet with Councillors to explain and advise on reports of this nature. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Senior Park Ranger in consultation with the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to consider the Borough Council’s Screening Report and forward comments on behalf of the Town Council by the deadline of the 11th July.
2. members of the Planning Committee should advise the Deputy Town Clerk of any topics which they would like to discuss further with Wokingham Borough Council Officers.
21. CONVERSION OF FOOTWAY TO SHARED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN FACILITY ON CHURCH ROAD
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from Wokingham Borough Council advising that it was proposing to convert the footway on the east side of Church Road and part of the footway on the south side of Woodlands Avenue to a shared pedestrian/cyclist facility. The proposed new shared facility would link the existing shared facility on Mays Close to just south of the A3290, with the entrance for the Faculty of Education for Reading University on Woodlands Avenue.
Councillors reiterated concerns previously expressed about the danger posed by cyclists and pedestrians on shared footway facilities.
Furthermore, it was considered that the information supplied by the Borough Council in support of these proposals did not give sufficient detail on the width of the cycleway and how much pavement would be left for pedestrians, and it was, therefore, extremely difficult for Councillors to make an informed decision on the proposals.
Concern was also expressed that this particular footpath was the main thoroughfare for parents and children walking to Earley St Peter’s School, and it was reported to the meeting that there had already been some incidents where pedestrians had been in near collision with cyclists using the footway. It was
RESOLVED that the Town Council objected to the proposals to convert the footway as described in the preamble to this resolution on the basis of lack of information supplied by the Borough Council to enable an informed decision and on the concern that cyclists using this footway may pose a danger to pedestrians to Earley St Peter’s School.
22. ELDERBERRY WAY/GABRIEL SQUARE
Members of the Planning Committee were advised that a communication has been received from a Councillor requesting that consideration should be given to erecting a barrier between Elderberry Way and Gabriel Square. The Member reported that there had been antisocial behaviour into Gabriel Square and it was considered that the provision of a barrier at this point may reduce the problems currently being experienced there. It was
RESOLVED that the request be forwarded to the Borough Council for comment.
23. ROADSIDE SEAT - CUTBUSH LANE
Councillors were reminded of the discussions which had already taken place at previous meetings of this Committee concerning the future of the seat in Cutbush Lane, and which, most recently, were recorded under Minute No. 7.
It was confirmed that the Deputy Town Clerk had escalated the matter with the new Community Police Sergeant for the area, and it was understood that the Officer in question had made contact with local residents and had visited the site on several occasions since the last meeting of this Committee. Councillors were also advised that a further communication had been received from one of the local residents indicating that there was still evidence of considerable anti social behaviour in this area, but the communication did not specifically link this anti social behaviour to the seat in question.
Councillors were further advised that the matter was due to be discussed at the next meeting of the Neighbourhood Action Group.
RESOLVED that the matter be considered again at the next meeting of this Committee on the 24th July.
24. TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
24.1 New Order – TPO/1161/2006 – Land to the Front of 251 Wokingham Road
It was noted that the above Order had been confirmed without modification.
24.2. Application to Carry Out Work to Protected Tree – TPO/197/1980 – 17 Laniver Close
It was noted that the Borough Council had consented to works being carried out to a group of Ash Trees covered by this Order.
25. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
26. ONGOING MATTERS
27. PRESS RELEASES
No press releases were requested.
28. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 9.35 pm.
|