Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 7 December 2011.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 December 2011 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendments that reflected the decision made:

11/00985/FUL – Whitchurch Bridge – Page 13, Condition 15:

No development shall commence until a traffic management scheme based on a more full and comprehensive origin and destination survey, (and in co-operation with Oxfordshire County Council and Reading Borough Council) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

11/00984/LBC and 11/00985/FUL – Whitchurch Bridge – Page 7, eighth bullet point raised by Councillor Pamela Bale:

The development would likely have an impact on the business of the Dolphin Centre, this was a particular concern following the disruption already experienced as part of its substantial rebuild.

Councillor Bale referred to two points within the minutes that required additional or enhanced conditions. These related to the inclusion of a condition on diverted bus routes (referenced on page 6, paragraph 2) and an enhancement to condition eight to mitigate against the noise impact in relation to piling works (referenced on page 8, paragraph 7).

To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

Councillor Geoff Mayes declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 11/01345/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 14 residential dwellings.

In introducing the report, David Pearson referred to the recommendation summary and pointed out that this should have an alternative recommendation for refusal in the event that the S106 Agreement was not completed on time.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr S James, Parish Council representative, Mrs Mandy Wimbush, Mr Martyn Henderson and Mrs Jackie Lewis, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr James in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish objected to the application in its current form. Development of the site was welcomed, however this needed to be reasonable and this was not the case as the site would be overdeveloped.

·                    The design of the development was not of a high standard and this would have a negative impact on the neighbouring amenity. This was contrary to Council Policy.

·                    The proposed dwellings would have a higher density than the existing properties in Bunces Lane. Again this was contrary to Council Policy.

·                    There was no sustainable travel associated with the development and the level of open/green space was lacking.

·                    Highway safety was a concern due to the existing blind spot on Reading Road. This would be exacerbated by the additional access point. In addition, access to Reading Road was often blocked by commercial traffic. Construction traffic was a concern and this needed to be conditioned.

·                    The proposed rumble strip would generate noise and this should be avoided.

·                    The existing footpath was well used as commented by the Rights of Way Officer. The fencing needed to be replaced, however careful consideration was needed to ensure this did not create a tunnelling effect. Street lighting also needed consideration alongside the points made in relation to crime prevention and a need to consider light pollution.

·                    He was pleased to note that a condition had been added that would mitigate against the risk of flooding.

In response to Member questions, Mr James advised that:

·                    The Parish Council was of the view that a slightly smaller development for 12 dwellings would be more suitable. In particular, a reduced density of the plot adjacent to Three Trees would help resolve some issues.

·                    The number of traffic movements generated by the engineering works was minimal.

·                    No approach had been made to the parish regarding how developer contributions should be used. This should be followed up if Members were minded to approve the application.

·                    The footpath would benefit from some maintenance and needed to be resurfaced with tarmac.

Mrs Wimbush in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The existing screening would be removed as part of the development. This would lead to the Three Trees property, which would be in close proximity to plots 13 and 14, overlooking a brick wall. Landscaping therefore needed more consideration should approval be granted, but the development would dominate the garden of Three Trees as it stretched  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.(1)

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of English Heritage, he had a registered interest as a member of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and he was a water engineer although he had no connections with H20 Urban. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 11/01564/FULMAJ in respect of the erection of 11 no. 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 5 x 4 bedroom dwellings, together with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works (including demolition of attached garages and garden walls, and the relocation of existing Visitor Centre car parking and pumping station).

In introducing the report, Emma Fuller referred to the recommendation summary and advised that the deadline for the Legal Agreement had been extended to 1 February 2012. If the Agreement was not completed by this date then an alternative recommendation for refusal was detailed within the update report.

Emma Fuller also pointed out that Mr Rob Ebrey, who was due to address the Committee as an objector, was in fact unable to attend. As a result the update report contained correspondence from Mr Ebrey. The points raised in this correspondence were addressed within the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Clark, Parish Council representative, Mr Mike Rodd, supporter, and Mr Dominic Eaton, Mr Aiden Johnson-Hugill and Mr Steven Smallman, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Clark in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    More objectors would have been present had the Committee meeting not coincided with the annual parish carol concert.

·                    He questioned whether the objections raised as part of the previous invalid application (approximately 20) remained valid.

·                    The Parish Council was not against the principle of the development, but was opposed to the negative impact this proposal would have on the quality of the environment as it would be out of keeping with the surrounding street scene. They were also totally opposed to the materials proposed to be used as their appearance would differ considerably from existing dwellings. These issues had not been sufficiently addressed from the previous invalid application.

·                    An insufficient number of public car parking spaces were proposed for the visitor centre and there were no barriers between these spaces and resident spaces. This could create conflict particularly during the busy summer months. Overspill from school parking would also contribute to this issue.

In response to the question in relation to the objections raised as part of the previous invalid application, Emma Fuller advised that these were considered as separate to this application and were not carried forward. However, the objections raised for this application were summarised within the report. Mr Clark raised a concern in relation to this practice as some residents did not feel they needed to repeat their concerns.

Councillor Brian  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.(2)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 11/02234/FULD in respect of a courtyard development of 5 no. detached houses with garages and home offices similar to the refused application 11/01060/FULD on the site of the previously approved layout for 3 no. detached houses with detached garages and home offices 06/02377/FULD, 07/02497/FULD and 09/00932/FULD.

In introducing the report, Emma Fuller informed Members that the Development Control Manager had taken the view that should the Committee be minded to grant planning permission, then the application would be referenced up to the District Planning Committee

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Mark Norgate and Mr Stuart Goodwill, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Norgate in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The application was very similar to that recently refused under delegated powers with the only change being the proposed installation of velux windows in the garages serving plots 3 and 4.

·                    It was hoped that the application would be called-in to Committee to enable a debate. This was the intention of the recently refused application, but the deadline date was missed for doing so. The application had been amended slightly in order that it might be called in by the Ward Member.

·                    The site was well screened on all sides and no trees would be removed.

·                    Permission was already in place for three large dwellings and garages on the site. The industrial unit had been removed as approved and the site had been decontaminated.

·                    It was felt that the proposed development better suited the current market conditions. It was considered to be more attractive and would create a farmstead type layout.

·                    The courtyard concept was given particular weight by the Planning Inspector when allowing an appeal for houses on a nearby farm. This was similar to the application before the Committee and approval was given for a higher number of dwellings.

·                    An extension to the existing footpath on Thornford Road was an element of the scheme. This would make the nearest bus stop, local shops and employment area accessible on foot. Buses ran every hour from before and after standard working hours.

·                    He did not feel that the density was overly extensive. Approval would allow for an enhanced use of this brownfield site and would provide sustainable benefits for the wider area.

·                    No objections had been raised by the Parish Council and letters of support had been received by local residents.

·                    The reason why only plot 1 had a chimney stack, whereas the other plots were proposed to have wood burners, was due to a need to maximise space.

Councillor Quentin Webb understood why the developer would wish to maximise the use of this site, but was of the view that the already approved application for three detached houses was more appropriate. The proposal for five dwellings would create a poorer view of the site. He was therefore in support of Officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Alan Law commented that the merits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.(3)

Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

Councillor Brian Bedwell commented that the appeals record evidenced the good work undertaken and advice provided by Officers.

A date of 11 January 2012 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary.

Councillor Royce Longton referred to a point made as part of Agenda item 4(2) which related to letters of objection for a previous application and asked whether it would be reasonable to take these forward to subsequent applications or advice objectors that they would need to again make contact. David Pearson explained that people were expected to comment on each application and there was not the available resource to enable follow up in the way described. Applications were publicised via orange notices and direct neighbours were notified. If in any doubt residents were encouraged to make contact. Councillor Quentin Webb made a suggestion that a statement could be added to orange notices to make it clear that any previous objections etc would need to be resubmitted.

Councillor Alan Law commented that this was the first example he had experienced of this issue.