 |
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, 24 July 2007 which commenced at 7.30 pm.
Present
Chairman – Councillor Mrs P Jorgensen
Councillors J Armstrong, A T Bradley, T Chambers, N Jorgensen, Mrs J A Lissaman, Ms C M Mitchell and N J Preston.
Also in attendance Councillor M Firmager.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P L Willis (due to holiday) and G B Woods (due to representation of ETC at a Borough meeting).
__________________________________________________________________________________
29. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 19th June 2007 were confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chairman.
30. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION
30.1 Decision Notices
RESOLVED that the decision notices as reported to the meeting be noted.
30.2 Affected Neighbour Notifications
RESOLVED that the Town Council’s Affected Neighbour Notifications be sent as appropriate.
30.3 “No Objection” Recommendations
RESOLVED that no objections be made to the Local Planning Authority in respect of the following applications:
30.4 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 about this application, if allowed, it would impact on the pedestrian access to the communal open space in front of this development.
It was, therefore, requested that the 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.
Whilst the reduction in the scale of the proposals now being considered for this site was acknowledged, Councillors remained concerned about the potential for the development to overlook neighbouring properties.
Councillors considered that this proposal, if allowed, would be out of character with other properties in the road, and would create a loss of light. It was, therefore, requested the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal represented an over development of the site, would be out of character with other properties in the road, and, particularly the single storey side extension would be visually prominent, which would be of detriment to the street scene.
It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors were concerned about the access to this site and the potential for it to create further traffic congestion on an already extremely busy road, and particularly as the road was a main route to Whiteknights School.
For these reasons it was requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors remained concerned about proposals for this site and particularly the potential for it to create additional traffic on the already busy roads in the area and particularly the A329, and the additional strain which would be put on the existing over stretched infra structure.
Whilst Councillors had no particular concern about this application, since its position to the neighbouring property meant that there would not be a terracing effect, it was noted that there would not be a 1 metre gap to the boundary.
Councillors were concerned that the proposed balcony could create a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Furthermore, there was also concern at the potential for the proposed extensions to cause a loss of light.
It was noted that, should this application proceed, it would completely fill the plot width ways and there would be no gap on either side of the property.
Whilst it was noted that the latest proposals on the site had reduced the bulk and scale of the proposed extension, it was also noted that there would be no 1 metre gap to the boundary which may create a terracing effect.
Councillors considered that the proposed design of the extension and particularly the creation of rooms in the roof space, would lead to a development which was out of character with other properties in the road, was aesthetically unpleasing and would, therefore, be of detriment to the street scene. Furthermore, it was considered that the dormers in the roof would have an element of overlooking into next door properties which would make them unneighbourly.
It was, therefore, requested that this application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this proposal had the potential to create a loss of light to neighbouring properties, and would be overbearing, and therefore unneighbourly. It was, therefore, requested that the application should be refused.
Councillors considered that this application should be refused, since it was felt that there was insufficient appropriate on site parking for the number of bedrooms in question.
Councillors were concerned the vehicular access to the car port would be impossible in view of the fact that there was a substantial oak tree at its entrance.
It was, therefore, requested that if a Tree Protection Order was not already in place on this tree, one should be granted.
Whilst Councillors had no objection to this application, it was requested that the additional windows should be obscured glazed.
Councillors had no objection to this application, provided that the proposal was within the Borough Council’s Guidelines for the preferred height of bungalows.
30.5 Appeals
30.5.1 New Appeals – F/2006/9175 – 1 Sutcliffe Avenue
It was noted that an Appeal had been lodged against the Borough Council's refusal to allow planning permission for a side roof extension, loft conversion and rear dormer extension. The Appeal would be heard by means of an exchange of written statements.
30.5.2 Appeal Decisions
30.5.2.1 F/2006/8669 – 53 Hilmanton
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the proposed erection of one dwelling, had been dismissed.
30.5.2.2 TL/2006/8768 – Land at the Junction of Meldreth Way and Lower Earley Way
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow permission for the installation of a 14.7 metre high monopole, had been dismissed.
30.6 Appeal Withdrawn – 0/2006/8335 – 249-251 Wokingham Road
It was noted that the above Appeal, which was in respect of the Borough Council's refusal to allow outline planning permission for the erection of eight flats, two semi-detached dwellings and conversion of the existing dwelling to two semi-detached dwellings, had been withdrawn.
31. CONSIDERATION OF RESERVE HOUSING SITES
It was noted that a communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that, at the meeting on 28th June, its Executive would be considering the release of the reserve housing sites in the Local Plan. The sites are:
· Land north of Hyde End Road, Spencers Wood · Land east of Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood · Land north of Grazeley Road, Three Mile Cross · Land off Poplar Lane, Winnersh · Land adjacent to Plough Farm, Plough Lane, Wokingham · Land at Plough Lane, Wokingham · Land at junction of Hatch Ride and Old Wokingham Road, Pinewood (Crowthorne) · Land at Sandford Farm, Woodley
Councillors noted that the Borough Council’s Executive had agreed the release of the land detailed above.
32. CONSULTATION ON DRAFT SCREENING REPORT TO ASSESS IF AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT OF THE WOKINGHAM BOROUGH CORE STRATEGY IS NEEDED
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 20 of the meeting of 19th June. Details of the comments forwarded to the Borough Council in respect of the above, as appended to these Minutes, were noted.
33. SEAT – CUTBUSH LANE
Councillors were reminded of the discussions which had taken place at previous meetings of the Planning Committee in respect of the future of the seat in this location.
Further representations had been received from local residents expressing concern at the level of anti social behaviour in this area, and the written representations received were circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration. Councillors were advised of the recommendations received from the local Community Police Officer.
Concern was expressed that, despite the best efforts of the Police, the PCSO and the Out Reach Youth Workers, the problem in Cutbush Lane had not been satisfactorily resolved. During the discussions on this item, it was felt that it would be useful to have some direct discussions with the Police about the level of anti social behaviour in the Town. In particular, Councillors felt that it would be useful to discuss:
§ What level of service Earley should expect from Thames Valley Police? § What contingency plans were in place to ensure adequate Police cover when there were unavoidable operational shortages? § What can the Town Council do to assist the Police? § What alternatives the Police may have to responding to incidents other than in marked vehicles?
After further considerable discussion, it was
RESOLVED that the future of the Cutbush Lane seat should be considered again at the next meeting of this Committee on the 14th August.
RECOMMENDED that a Senior representative from Thames Valley Police be invited to the next available meeting of the Town Council.
34. BARRIERS – STOCKBURY CLOSE AND ELDERBERY WAY
Councillors were reminded of the discussions recorded at Minute 8 of the meeting of this Committee held on 22nd May concerning the possible provision of barriers in the Stockbury Close/Radstock Lane footpath and the footpath between Elderberry Way and Gabriel’s Square. Those discussions recorded the request that the District Council should be asked to supply details of possible suitable barriers for these locations.
Councillors were now asked to consider a letter and accompanying photographs sent by the Borough Council detailing this information which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.
Councillors were reminded of the reasons why these requests had been submitted in the first instance, which was, in the main, to reduce the speed of cyclists in these areas. With regard to the footpath between Elderberry Way and Gabriels Square, it was noted that the areas each side of the path were quite open and, therefore, for any barriers to act as intended, it would be necessary to install them at the narrowest point. After further discussion it was
RESOLVED that
1. the Town Council supported the installation of barriers in the two locations detailed above and
2. the Borough Council be asked to install the barriers with the cost possibly being met from Section 106 funding.
35. PARKING – ALDBOURNE AVENUE.
Councillors were advised that for several months there had been an exchange of correspondence between the Deputy Town Clerk and a resident of Aldbourne Avenue concerning parking in that road which restricted access to local residents and would also prevent access by emergency vehicles. Photographs were available for Councillors to peruse.
Councillors were advised that approaches had been made to the local Police Community Support Officer and the local Police Beat Officer, and, it was understood, that they had attended on site when the parking was at its worst which was normally on a Saturday and Sunday mornings. It was considered that, in the main, the vehicles parked belonged to either those attending the nearby Lady of Peace Church, or involved in activities at Sol Joel Park.
It was understood that the PCSO had made an approach to the Catholic Church highlighting the concerns of residents and Councillors were advised that, through a Church publication, churchgoers had been asked to park on one side of the road only.
The resident who had made the initial complaint was present at the meeting and said that it would be her preferred option to achieve an amicable arrangement with users of Sol Joel Park and those attending Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church, rather than to introduce formal parking restrictions in the road which would impact on residents on a day-to-day basis.
There then followed discussion on the possible alternative parking arrangements which may be available. Furthermore, it was felt that a direct communication from the Town Council to the Church and to users of Sol Joel Park, highlighting the difficulties the parking caused, would be appropriate.
Concern was also raised about the continuing use of Aldbourne Avenue/Ramsbury Drive as a“rat run” between Wilderness Road and Wokingham Road. Both the increase in the volume of traffic and speed at which some vehicles travelled was of concern. It was
RESOLVED that
1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to investigate possible alternative parking arrangements in the area
2. letters be sent to Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church, and users of Sol Joel Park, highlighting the difficulties caused by parking, requesting that vehicles should only park on one side of the road and asking that alternative parking arrangements should be investigated.
3. this item be added to the on-going matters list.
4. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to arrange for a traffic volume and speed survey to be carried out in Aldbourne Avenue after the school summer holidays.
36. BUS SHELTER – CHURCH ROAD
Councillors were advised that, unbeknown to the Town Council, its bus shelter in Church Road was removed and replaced by an alternative shelter supplied by the Borough Council.
The Town Council’s concern that this had been done without its knowledge had been communicated to the Borough Council with a request for clarification concerning the future maintenance of the shelter. Subsequently, the Borough Council had requested that the Town Council should undertake the ongoing maintenance of the shelter.
Councillors were advised that the shelter now installed by the Borough Council was not to the specification used by the Town Council and would, therefore, be more susceptible to the continued application of graffiti.
Councillors were further advised that the company normally used by the Town Council had been asked to supply a quotation for the replacement of the back panels in the new shelter with punched metal panels which were less likely to be graffitied.
A Member present expressed concern at the use of punched metal back shelters, since he had received a complaint from a resident that shelters of such construction were more draughty.
Members of the Planning Committee were extremely concerned about the fact that the Town Council’s bus shelter had been removed and scrapped without any consultation and that the shelter installed by the Borough Council was now of a lesser design. After further considerable discussion, it was
RESOLVED that a letter be sent to the Borough Council’s Head of Environmental Services expressing Councillors’ concern about this matter and the letter should suggest a compromise solution that if the Borough Council met the cost of supplying punch metal back panels and seats to the shelter, the Town Council would then consider taking over the future maintenance of the shelter.
37. BUS STOP UPGRADING
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council's Transport Planning & School Travel Plan Advisor advising that he was currently researching priority places to improve bus infrastructure around the Borough, i.e. new shelters, Kassel kerbing, clearway markings, etc. The communication continued by asking whether there were any stops in Earley, and particularly on the 12 or 20 routes, which the Town Council thought needed improving.
Councillors were reminded that the whole issue of public transport in the area was to be considered at a meeting of the Plans Working Party on the 8th August and it was, therefore,
RESOLVED that the Plans Working Party be requested to consider the communication received from the Borough Council and respond appropriately.
38. TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRE-ROLL OUT INFORMATION
Councillors were advised that a communication had been received from the Borough Council concerning the Telecommunications Roll Out Information which detailed the status of proposed and existing mobile phone masts in the Borough, including in Earley.
Copies of the information had been circulated with the agenda for Councillors’ consideration.
It was noted that the mast proposed in Meldreth Way was listed as having received planning permission, however earlier in the meeting, Councillors had been advised that such permission had been refused on Appeal. It was
RESOLVED that 1. the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to contact the Borough Council concerning the seeming inconsistency in respect of the Meldreth Way mast.
2. the Borough Council be requested to ask Telecommunications Operators to supply the information in the same format as that supplied by O2 which was much clearer, and gave the exact locations of the proposed masts and
3. the details be noted.
39. RISK ASSESSMENTS
Councillors were reminded that at the Annual Meeting of the Town Council, it was resolved that matters relating to risk assessments be referred to the appropriate Committees for further consideration. In particular, Members highlighted the need to be more precise with reference to specifying frequency of inspections in appropriate areas.
In view of the lateness of the hour, it was
RESOLVED that this matter be considered by a meeting of the Plans Working Party.
40. TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
40.1 TPO Enquiry
Councillors were reminded that at the May meeting of this Committee, the Deputy Town Clerk was requested to obtain information from the Borough Council on the criteria used for determining whether trees should be included in a Protection Order.
Councillors now noted details received from the Borough Council which had been circulated with the agenda for their consideration.
40.2 Trees in "The Greenway"
Councillors were reminded that Minute 12 of the meeting of this Committee resolved that the Borough Council be requested to reconsider including trees in The Greenway in a Preservation Order.
A communication had been received from the Borough Council indicating that it maintained the footpath in this area, and it may be that the trees were Council maintained. The communication continued by requesting that if the trees were not in an area owned by the Council, there location should be indicated and returned to the Borough Council’s Arborticultural Department so that possible protection could be investigated further. It was
RESOLVED that the Earley Environmental Group/Veteran Tree Project be requested to investigate further the status of the trees in the Greenway and advise the Town Council accordingly in due course.
40.3 Applications to Carry Out Works to Protected Trees
40.3.1 TPO1109/2006 – 31 Loxwood
It was noted that the Borough Council had consented to works being carried out to selectively reduce the three highest branches of an English Oak covered by this Order.
40.3.2 TPO1109/2006 – 37 Loxwood
It was noted that the Borough Council had refused consent for works to be carried out to trees covered by this Order.
41. PUBLICATIONS
It was noted that the following publications had been received and were held in the Council Offices:
42. ONGOING MATTERS
With regard to the speed humps in Elm Lane, it was
RESOLVED that the Deputy Town Clerk be requested to send a letter to the Borough Council’s Executive Member for Highways asking for an update on the situation with regard to speed humps in Elm Lane.
43. PRESS RELEASES
No press releases were requested.
44. TERMINATION OF MEETING
The meeting was declared closed by the Chairman at 10.15 pm.
|