 |
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, 22 May 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, N Jorgensen (from 8.30 pm), Mrs J Lissaman, Carol Mitchell, N Preston, P Willis and G Woods.
An apology for absence was received from Councillor A Bradley.
__________________________________________________________________________________
1. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Councillors’ attention was drawn to an omission on page 8 of the Minutes where the word budget had been omitted from the second sentence of the first item on that page.
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 17th April 2007, as amended, were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
2. VICE CHAIRMAN
On the proposition of Councillor J Armstrong, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen, it was
RESOLVED that Councillor G Woods be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee for the ensuing Municipal Year.
3. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES & WORKING PARTIES
3.1 Plans Working Party
RESOLVED that Councillors J Armstrong, Mrs P Jorgensen, Mrs J Lissaman, Carol Mitchell, N Preston and P Willis and G Woods be appointed as members of the Plans Working Party for the ensuing Municipal Year.
3.2 Street Furniture Working Party
It was
RESOLVED that the Street Furniture Working Party be suspended and be reconvened as needed.
3.3 Maiden Erlegh Drive Conservation Area Working Party
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to write to the Borough Council’s Conservation Architect asking whether the Borough had made funding available to investigate requests from Parish and Town Councils that consideration should be given to creating conservation areas at locations within their Parishes. 2. the appointment of Councillors to this Working Party be deferred until the requested information from the Borough Council was received.
4. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
4.1 Decision 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 Objection” 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.
Councillor Carol Mitchell declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused since the dormers being proposed would have the potential to overlook the neighbouring properties. Furthermore, it was felt impractical to suggest that the bedroom windows would be obscured glazed, since it was felt that this would be of detriment to these rooms once built.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site and would be unneighbourly to the occupants of 90 Erleigh Court Gardens due to the overlooking of their rear garden. It was considered that the design proposed was bulky, and this would result in the domination to an unneighbourly extent of adjoining properties, and would, it was felt , be incongruous in the street scene.
Furthermore, there was concern about access from the site at this very busy junction. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.
Councillors regretted the loss of open space which would result if this application was to proceed, since Councillors felt that this was against the original design concept for the estate.
Furthermore, there was concern about poor visibility, since the access to the new garage would be extremely close to the corner of the road. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal was of poor design, would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking to neighbouring properties, would have an unbalanced appearance, and would, therefore be incongruous in the street scene. It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors noted that this was the second application on this site in recent months, it was considered that the extension now proposed would still have an overbearing and massing effect which would be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, there was concern that the loft conversion would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. It was understood that this property was a four bedroomed house, and if the garage was not available for parking, it was considered that there would be insufficient appropriate on site parking
Councillors considered that to allow further development on this site would create an overdevelopment, and an unbalanced appearance in relation to the adjoining property. Furthermore, it was felt that the design was out of character in the road, was unneighbourly, and could have an element of overlooking. There was also considerable concern about the lack of adequate on site parking, and the access to the site at this very busy junction. For these reasons, it was requested that the application be refused.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since the proposed extension would encroach into the communal parking area which would lead to an unacceptable level of on street parking.
From the plans provided in support of this application, Councillors could not see how the original fence line had been decided upon.
Therefore the Committee concluded that it had no objection to this application provided that the Planning Officer was happy that there were no main services under the area to now be incorporated within the boundary.
In considering this application at a recent Planning Committee meeting, a number of local residents were present to express their concern about this latest proposal.
Whilst it was acknowledged that the number of dwellings proposed, in comparison to F/2006/9065, had been reduced from 14 to 13, it was noted that the total number of bedrooms remained the same.
Councillors considered that the design of the proposed development was out of keeping both in terms of the density of properties and their appearance. Furthermore, because of the three storey nature of the properties proposed, it was deemed that the development would be unneighbourly, and particularly to properties in Mill Lane.
The larger sized gardens in Meadow Road and Mill Lane currently provided a valuable wildlife habitat, and it was felt that to allow development of this sort would erode further the space for wildlife in this area.
Meadow Road was a very narrow road and was already subject to considerable on street parking. Furthermore, particularly during the morning and evening rush hours, access to Wokingham Road from Meadow Road was often extremely difficult and there was considerable congestion at the junction particularly with cars parked so that the drivers could access the nearby Co-operative Store. To introduce yet further traffic on this road was deemed to be unacceptable. Furthermore, because of the very narrow access to the proposed site, and the lack of adequate on site parking provision, it was felt that emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles would have difficulty accessing the site.
The Town Council remained opposed to all inappropriate backland infilling such as this, and it was particularly concerned to note that the proposal allowed for possible future development.
For these reasons, it was therefore requested that the application should be refused.
Whilst members of the Planning Committee acknowledged that there had been changes to the parking provision and the overall design of this development in comparison with F/2006/9122, Councillors remained of the view that there was still insufficient on site parking. Whilst the close proximity of the development site to Earley Station was noted, it was considered that most of the potential occupants of the flats proposed would also be in ownership of a private vehicle. There was also concern about access to the site, which was across a slip road into Station Road, which it was considered was dangerous.
Councillors felt that this latest design still had a cramped appearance within the plot, and would have an element of overlooking, and would, therefore, be unneighbouring to adjoining properties.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Whilst Councillors had no objection to the proposed brick infill under the front bay window, there was concern that the single storey side and rear extension appeared to be built right up to the boundary, which would limit access to the rear of the property.
Councillors considered that this proposal would have an overbearing and an unneighbourly effect on the neighbouring property, and requested that it should therefore be refused.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused. The property appeared to have already been extended, and the rear extension and conservatory now proposed, because of the position of the property in relation to number 97, would create an unacceptable shadow for much of the day onto the rear garden and patio area of the neighbouring property.
Councillors N and Mrs P Jorgensen declared a personal interest in this item and took no part in the discussion thereof or the decision thereon.
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 considered that the design of the new dwelling proposed was out of keeping with existing properties in the road. Furthermore, there was considerable concern about the access from the site at this very busy junction.
For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.
4.5. Appeals
4.5.1 Appeal Decision – F/2006/8200 – 35 Squirrels Way
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 a first floor side extension with a front dormer window, had been dismissed.
4.5.2 New Appeals
4.5.2.1 O/2006/8335 – 249-251 Wokingham Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow outline planning permission for the proposed erection of 8 flats, 2 semi-detached dwellings and conversion of the existing building to 2 semi-detached dwellings. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of a Local Inquiry at a date to be advised.
4.5.2.2 F/2006/8519 – 35 Egremont Drive
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 single storey rear extension. The Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
4.5.2.3 F/2006/8900 – Land to the rear of 64-86 Silverdale Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of 11 dwellings with associated parking, plus construction of an access road and the demolition of 80 Silverdale Road. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by an exchange of written statements.
4.5.2.4 F/2006/9116 – 31 Meadow Road
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow retrospective planning permission for a first floor side extension and a single storey rear extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
4.5.2.5 F/2007/0005 – 5 Fringford Close
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension plus first floor side and rear extension. It was further noted that the Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
4.5.3 Date for Informal Hearings
4.5.3.1 F/2006/9065 – 37 to 53 Meadow Road
Councillors were reminded that Minute 150.5.1.2 of the meeting of this Committee held on 17th April had recorded the fact that notification had been received by the Town Council that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for the erection of 14 dwellings and the demolition of No. 43 Meadow Road. The minute also recorded the fact that the Appeal would be heard by means of a Local Inquiry.
Councillors now noted that the Local Inquiry would be held on the 26th June.
4.5.3.2 F/2006/9184 – 53 The Drive & 36, 38 and Land Rear of 34, 40 & 42 Chiltern Crescent, Earley
Councillors were advised that Minute 150.5.1.4 of the meeting of this Committee held on 17th April had recorded the fact that notification had been received by the Town Council 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.
The Minute also recorded the fact that the Appeal would be heard by means of an Informal Hearing.
Councillors noted that the Informal Hearing would be held on 6th June.
4.6 Planning Committee (formerly Development Control) Meeting 23rd May
Councillors were advised that notification had been received that the following applications were due to be considered at the Borough Council's Planning Committee Meeting on 23rd May:
F/2006/9238 - proposed erection of Church on land adjacent to Maiden Place Community Centre.
F/2007/0580 - amalgamation of existing infant and junior schools and provision of Children's Centre and neighbourhood team office plus erection of new class room and entrance to the school at Loddon County Infants School, Silverdale Road.
It was noted that, normally, an intention to speak at a Development Control meeting had to be notified to the Borough Council by 5.00 pm. on the day prior to the meeting. In view of the fact that this was the first meeting of the Planning Committee following the Elections, it had not been possible to advise the Town Council’s representation by that time. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be asked to request a special dispensation from the Borough Council to enable the Town Council’s proposed speaker at this Planning Committee meeting to be notified and
2. should the Town Council’s representation be possible, Councillor N Jorgensen be requested to attend.
5. CONSULTATION UNDER REGULATION 17 OF THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (LOCAL DEVELOPMENT) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2004 ON THE DRAFT BARKHAM VILLAGE DESIGN STATEMENT AND DRAFT WOKINGHAM BOROUGH DESIGN GUIDE
Councillors were advised that the Barkham Village Design Group had produced a Draft Village Design Statement in which the Borough Council had had an advisory role. It was the Council's intention to formally adopt the Village Design Statement as a supplementary planning document to enhance policies on the design in the Local Plan.
Councillors were further advised that the Draft Wokingham Borough Design Guide had been produced for the Borough Council. The Draft Guide, once adopted as a supplementary planning document, would replace the existing Residential Design Supplementary Planning Guidance. The Design Guide provided updated guidance to ensure residential proposals were in harmony with the surrounding environment.
Under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Borough Council had to formally consult on these documents and representations were invited by the14th June. It was
RESOLVED that the documents be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party and the Working Party be requested to forward comments on behalf of the Town Council.
6. HIGHWAY MATTERS
6.1 Parking Outside Earley St Peter's School
Councillors were reminded that there was an item on the Committee’s ongoing matters list concerning parking outside Earley St Peter’s School. The Borough Council had been asked to supply an up date on the latest situation and this had now been received. Councillors noted that the communication indicated that the Borough Council had been working with Reading Borough Council, the Police and the Road Safety Officer and leaflets had been distributed to parents, notices posted on cars and the Police have been instrumental in moving people away from dangerous areas outside the school and/or, as necessary, issuing summonses.
The communication continued by suggesting that in view of the constraints in the area, no more permanent solutions had been considered by the Borough Council but if Members of the Town Council had details of any specific problems remaining outside the school these would be investigated further by the Borough Council. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the content of the communication from the Borough Council be noted and
2. the item should continue to be monitored and should remain on the ongoing matters list
6.2 Variable Speed Limits
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 138.1 of the meeting of this Committee held on 13th March, concerning discussions which had taken place at a Highways Consultative Board meeting concerning variable speed limits.
Councillors now noted details of a communication received from the Borough Council which had been circulated with the agenda for their information.
6.3 Thames Valley Park Drive – Prohibition of Waiting Order 2007
Councillors noted that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that members of the Highways Consultative Board considered the objections raised to this scheme at their meeting on the 5th March and resolved to take no further action on the proposals.
7. CUTBUSH LANE SEAT
Councillors were advised that further to the discussions recorded at Minute 152.3 of the meeting of this Committee held on 17th April, further information had now been received in respect of the Town Council's seat located in Cutbush Lane.
Councillors were advised that three further telephone complaints had been received from local residents concerning antisocial behaviour which was occurring in and around the seat and, particularly, in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings.
Furthermore, a letter and petition, which had been appended to the agenda had been received concerning the seat and particularly an incident which had occurred on the 5th May.
Councillors were reminded that when this matter was discussed at the April meeting it had been resolved that the bench should not be removed for the time being, but that the matter should be reviewed again at the August meeting of this Committee. However in view of the new information received, Councillors were asked again to consider the future of this seat.
The Town Council’s representative on the Neighbourhood Action Group agreed to arrange for the matter to be discussed at the next meeting of the Group.
Whilst Councillors had considerable sympathy for the problems which the residents were currently experiencing, Councillors were again advised that there was evidence that the seat was legitimately used during the day time. After considerable further discussion, it was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to escalate the matter with the new Community Police Sergeant
2. the resident who had written into the Town Council be requested to monitor the situation over the next couple of weeks
3. the matter be considered again at the June meeting of this Committee.
8. ALLEYWAY BETWEEN RADSTOCK LANE FOOTPATH & STOCKBURY CLOSE
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 141 of the meeting of this Committee held on 13th March concerning a request received from a resident that consideration should be given to erecting barriers at the alleyway between Radstock Lane footpath and Stockbury Close in an effort to slow down cyclists who rode through this alleyway and, on occasions, caused damage to nearby properties.
This matter had been referred to the Borough Council, together with a suggestion that consideration should be given to the installation of a barrier similar to the design of one which had been viewed in Wokingham Without Parish. This communication indicated that the design of barrier as seen in Wokingham Without Parish was only suitable for country areas but had suggested that the footway could have pedestrian guard rails erected, ideally at the Stockbury Close end. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Borough Council be asked to confirm why the barrier in Wokingham Without Parish would not be suitable in this location and
2. what alternatives were available to restrict cyclists movement in the area under discussion.
9. LITTER
9.1.1. Asda and the District Centre
Councillors were reminded that during the discussions which took place at the meeting of this Committee on 13th March, and which are recorded under Minute 139 an offer from McDonalds to be involved in a litter pick was discussed. At the time, it was suggested that the date for this litter pick should be considered after the May elections. It was
RESOLVED that the organisation of the litter pick be delegated to the Town Council’s Campaign Against Waste, Councillor Mrs L Chambers.
9.1.2 Litter Bins – Cutbush L |