EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30 th AUGUST 2006 AT THE CALCOT CENTRE, CALCOT

Committee: Peter Argyle (P), Pamela Bale (P), Keith Chopping (AP), Sheila Ellison (Vice-Chairman) (P), John Farrin (P), Keith Lock (SP), Royce Longton (P), Alan Macro (P), Joe Mooney (P), Irene Neill (Chairman) (P), Graham Pask (P), Terry Port (P), Paul Pritchard (AP), Quentin Webb (SP) Ward Members also in attendance: Tony Linden, Tim Metcalfe Also present: Sara Appleton, Terry Burns, Sarah Clarke, Arthur Cullen, Paul Goddard, Trina McFarlane, Dave Pearson, Linda Pye PART I 44. APOLOGIES. Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Keith Chopping and Paul Pritchard. Councillor Quentin Webb substituted for Councillor Keith Chopping and Councillor Keith Lock substituted for Councillor Paul Pritchard. 45. MINUTES. The Minutes of the meeting held on 9th August 2006 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. 46. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST. Councillors Pamela Bale, Joe Mooney and Peter Argyle declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(2), and reported that, as their interest was personal and prejudicial, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter. Councillor Pamela Bale declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(6), but reported that, as her interest was personal and not prejudicial, she was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. 47. APPLICATION NO. 05/02928/MINMAJ – WEIRSIDE, GREEN LANE, . The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 05/02928/MINMAJ in respect of a waste recycling and recovery centre. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. S. James, Parish Council representative, Deborah Edwards, objector, and Mr. A. James, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. S. James in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. James stated that the Parish Council had submitted comments but they had been lost and had therefore not been included in the report; • The Parish Council Planning Committee had voted 6-4 in favour of the development on the site; • The Parish Council did have concerns in respect of the number of vehicle movements which would be generated from the site and felt that they should be restricted; • Mr. James felt that s106 monies received should be used for cycleway implementation as set out in the Village Plan. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

The Highways Officer clarified that there were existing unauthorised uses being carried out on the site. A Traffic Survey had been undertaken in the area and on the busiest day it was noted that there were 25 skip lorries entering and leaving the site. It was therefore proposed that a condition would be placed on the planning permission restricting the number of vehicle movements to 25 entering the site and 25 leaving the site per day. Deborah Edwards in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Deborah Edwards confirmed that she was speaking on behalf of local residents and Reading Borough Council; • She raised concerns about the increased level of HGV traffic (30%) and the noise and pollution generated by those vehicles in the area; • Burghfield Road was a narrow country road with two bridges and concerns were raised that the fully loaded skip lorries travelling to and from the site would cause further damage to the surrounding roads and bridges; • The Traffic Survey had been undertaken at the wrong time during school holidays; • No mention had been made in respect of the upkeep of the road between the two bridges from the s106 contributions; • The area was largely residential and concerns were raised in respect of the road safety of young children and the elderly from the increased number of HGV movements in the area; • Traffic calming measures should be considered in order to reduce the speed of vehicles; • Concerns were raised as to whether the number of vehicle movements would be controlled or enforced given the history of the applicant and his use of the site; • The proposed facility would not be within a “Preferred Area” and was therefore not the right location for such a use; • Further large developments, such as Kennet Valley Park, were proposed and this application would set a precedent if approved; • Deborah Edwards was pleased to note that the application would be referred up to the Government Office for the South East should it be approved. The Highways Officer confirmed that two Traffic Surveys had been undertaken, one of which was during the school half term holiday and the other in October. The Traffic Survey carried out in October was the one being relied on in respect of this application. Traffic movements per day were as follows: 336 northwards (25 lorries northwards) 338 southwards (25 lorries southwards) Mr. A. James in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. James confirmed that the applicant had worked closely with Officers in respect of the proposed application. He stated that there had been issues in the past in respect of the unauthorised use of the site but the proposal sought to properly condition and regulate activity at Weirside; • All emptying of vehicles would take place within the building in order to reduce dust and noise pollution; • A condition would restrict the number of lorry movements to 25 in and 25 out of the site; • The facility would only deal with general building waste material and would not include biodegradable waste; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

• Mr. James addressed concerns raised by local residents and Reading Borough Council as follows: - (a) Detrimental effect on – Mr. James stated that no objections had been received from the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust; - (b) and (c) Environmental impact – these issues had been dealt with; - (d) Adverse effect on transport network – there would only be a 1% increase in traffic on the local highways and a developer contribution had been sought towards highway and footway improvements; - (e) Noise and dust generation – all working would be undertaken within a building and conditions would be put in place to control noise and dust pollution; - (g) Facility not within a “Preferred Area” – The Waste Local Plan identified the need for up to 15 Recycling and Transfer sites throughout based on population centres. Reading had some 45% of the Berkshire population which would equate to a need for 7 such facilities to serve that area. None of the Preferred Areas identified in the Berkshire Waste Local Plan were within the search area of 16kms. Members asked for clarification on whether the proposed application would regularise the skip operation which was currently taking place illegally on the site. Mr. James confirmed that the proposal was for a new facility but the applicant did run a skip hire business at present. An Inquiry date had been set to deal with the unauthorised use of the site but it was hoped that this could be resolved through the approval of the planning permission. The Legal Officer advised that questions to the agent should be limited to the current application rather than what the site was being used for at present. Members raised concerns about the number of vehicle movements and the enforcement of that condition. They also asked for clarification in respect of the source of the materials which would be taken to the facility. Mr. James stated that the source of the waste to be processed would be within a 10 mile radius of the site and would come from local residents, building sites etc. but would not contain any biodegradable or hazardous waste material. Skip lorries would enter the site full of waste materials and then leave the site with a full load of waste that had been sorted. Mr. James clarified that although the waste would be processed and sorted there would not be a concrete crusher on site. A condition would also be imposed limiting the amount of waste processed on the site to 20,000 tonnes per annum maximum. Members enquired as to the carrying capacity of each skip. Mr. James responded that that would be dependent on what materials were being carried in the skip but he was unsure about an average figure. The Highways Officer stated that the Traffic Study which had been undertaken identified 25 lorry movements in and out of the site as the worse case scenario on many days the number of lorry movements was less than that figure. The Planning Officer also reiterated that there would be peaks and troughs in demand and that the operator would be required to maintain a log of vehicle movements which the authority could ask to check at any time. The Ward Members felt that this proposal would have an effect on the amenity of the local residents and they were concerned about any increase in the number of HGV movements. They also asked that the financial contribution of £58,000 should be ringfenced for the highway safety improvements listed on page 27 of the report. However, the footway should be continued “southwards” along Burghfield Road and not “northwards” as stated in the report. In considering the above application Members felt that a Structure Plan was in place to ensure that facilities such as that proposed met with certain criteria. The site was not in a Preferred Area and Members asked Officers to justify why they had recommended the application for approval. Officers stated that the Policy considerations had been set out in the report. The Structure Plan did not set out the exceptions which could be made subject to certain criteria being met. PPS10 which was published in July 2005 was the most up-to-date policy advice to waste planning authorities to allow them to deal EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

with all waste management applications, particularly those which had not been identified in the Development Plan. The criteria in respect of the location had been met for this site and the Planning Officer advised that it would be difficult to defend the above application at appeal if the Committee went against recent Government guidance. The Planning Officer advised that the applicant would be likely to continue the unauthorised use on the site but that the operation would be without the benefit of the new building to contain dust and noise or any of the other proposed conditions and would therefore be difficult to control. Members felt that any such threat was irrelevant to the application. This was a new application for a waste transfer plant and should be considered on its own merits and should not be tainted by the past history of the site. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to refuse the application for the following reasons: (1) The proposed building and associated development and use of the open areas of the site would have an unacceptable impact on the surrounding landscape; (2) The increased traffic movements associated with the proposed use would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of occupiers of dwellings in the locality of the site; (3) The applicant had failed to enter into a s106 Planning Obligation to secure the following: (a) A programme of site clearance taking place within 3 months; (b) The provision of a financial contribution of £14,000 towards improvements to footpaths 1, 12 and 30 Burghfield; (c) A financial contribution of £58,000 for one or more of the following items: - Improvements to the Pingewood Road North/Burghfield Road junction; - To continue the footway alongside the Cunning Man Public House with a crossing point to the south of the canal bridge to link with footpath number 1 Burghfield and to the canal tow path footpath and cycleway; - To continue the footway northwards along Burghfield Road; - Further highway safety improvements along Burghfield Road; - Further pedestrian and cycle route improvements within the vicinity of the site. (d) The long term maintenance of the landscaping. Accordingly the application fails to accommodate the impact of the development on local infrastructure and amenities in the vicinity of the application site and is therefore contrary to Policy DP4 of the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016, Policy OVS.3 of the District Local Plan, the Council’s SPG4/04 “Delivering Investments from Sustainable Development” and the advice contained within Circular 05/2005 “Planning Obligations”. 48. APPLICATION NO. 06/01121/FULMAJ – 12 BREEDONS HILL, , READING. RG8 7AT. (Councillors Pamela Bale, Joe Mooney and Peter Argyle declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(2)) by virtue of the fact that they were acquainted with the objector. As their interest was personal and prejudicial they left the meeting and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 06/01121/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of Breedons Court and outbuildings and erection of 12 age restricted cottages and apartments with garages and parking. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. T. Knott, Parish Council representative, Angela Knight, objector, and Mr. John Escott, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. Knott in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The proposed development of apartment blocks with no gardens was out of keeping with other properties in the area; • The site was in a Conservation Area and the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the Conservation Area; • The proposal was contrary to the Village Design Statement and West Berkshire Council policies; • Mr. Knott raised concerns in respect of the proposed density of dwellings on the site; • The reduction to 12 units did not change the requirement for car parking – only one space per dwelling was being proposed with no provision for visitors parking which would mean that there would be further on-street parking which would cause congestion in the village; • The narrow footpath was not suitable for invalid scooters, pushchairs or pedestrians and the Parish Council felt that s106 contributions should be used to widen the footpath into the village; • Mr. Knott stated that the Parish Council did not object to the site being developed but that it should be appropriate for the surrounding area. Angela Knight in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Ms. Knight stated that she was also speaking on behalf of other residents in the area; • She felt that this proposal was not in keeping with the character of the area and would double the number of properties on Breedons Hill; • The proposed development was intrusive and would increase the mass of the current dwelling considerably; • In respect of the age restriction for over 55’s she stated that only one person in the household needed to be over 55 and these apartments had 3 or 4 bedrooms. She therefore felt that they were family accommodation; • The surrounding roads and pavements were poor with no pedestrian crossing and Ms. Knight felt that the proposed development would only exacerbate the situation; • She raised concerns in respect of the provision of one parking space only as she felt that this was not sufficient for the size of the proposed dwellings; • Local residents were concerned about the demolition of the existing property. They would not be adverse to the current property being extended and perhaps the erection of two further single storey dwellings on the site; • Ms. Knight stated that no consultation had taken place with local residents in respect of the siting, roads, traffic access etc. and she therefore asked the Committee to refuse planning permission. Mr. Escott in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. Escott stated that concerns were raised in respect of the previous application in April over the number of dwellings on the site; • The Planning Inspector who considered a previous appeal felt that the site was cramped and overdeveloped due to the positioning of certain plots; • The applicants had therefore come back with a scheme which reduced the number of units to 12 which equated to a 14% reduction; • The scheme was mixed with apartments and houses; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

• Ms. Knight had stated that the new block of apartments on the site would be higher than the existing dwelling but it was in fact the same height; • The number of car parking spaces had been reduced which meant that there was less hard standing on the site and additional landscaping provided; • The Planning Inspector had found no sustainable objection in respect of car parking and no objections had been received from Highways Officers; • The scheme had been designed for people aged 55 and over and covenants would be in place which would restrict occupancy; • The density of dwellings on the site was lower than that set out in Government guidance but this could be justified. Members asked Mr. Escott if he would be prepared to increase the number of parking spaces on the site as they were concerned about the lack of visitors parking. Mr. Escott responded that he would have to take guidance from the developer on that issue but he felt that the developer would not rule it out. There was a degree of visitor parking on other Beechcroft sites but the owners of the properties were still limited to one space per dwelling. He felt sure that visitor parking had been included on this site. Councillor Tim Metcalfe, as Ward Member, stated that at the last Planning Committee meeting in April when the previous application had been considered, the then Chairman, Councillor Brian Bedwell, had stressed the importance of consultation. He had suggested that the developers should meet with the Parish Council and local residents to try and resolve their issues and concerns. However, it appeared that no consultation had taken place. Councillor Metcalfe felt that Breedons Court did have architectural value and should not therefore be demolished. He also confirmed that Ms. Knight had not said that the apartment building would be higher than the existing dwelling but had stated that the mass would be larger. Councillor Metcalfe felt that additional parking would be required on the site. In considering the above application Members felt that this was not the right site for the proposed development. Although the current proposal was an improvement on the previous application it was felt that the developer had still not done enough to alleviate concerns. The Pangbourne Parish Plan had been accepted by the Council and Members felt that more credence should be taken of it when considering this application. The Planning Officer responded that Officers always took documents such as Parish Plans into consideration. The previous application had not been refused on highway grounds and therefore the Planning Officer felt that this should not be included as a reason should Members be minded to refuse the current application. The Planning Officer had also stated on a previous application which had gone to appeal that the parking could be limited on this site. The Planning Officer also clarified that the plan only showed provision of 12 parking spaces so visitor parking had not been included on the site. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: (1) Cramped form of development/unacceptable impact on Conservation Area; (2) Failure to complete s106 Agreement. 49. APPLICATION NO. 05/02370/OUTD – THE HOMESTEAD, HOLLYBUSH LANE, BURGHFIELD COMMON, READING. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 05/02370/OUTD in respect of the construction of five residential properties following the demolition of the existing dwelling. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. S. James, Parish Council representative, Mr. Steeds and Mr. P. Foran, objectors, and Mr. E. Jones, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr. James in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. James stated that paragraph 6.3.5 of the Officer’s report stated that some of the plots in the village were ideal for development. However, this was contrary to the Parish Plan; • The Parish Council had concerns in respect of transport issues and felt that a Traffic Study should have been undertaken in the area; • There was insufficient transport provision in the area and the lack of public transport drove people to use their cars; • The maximum density of the site was 13 dwellings per hectare but it was not stated in the Officer’s report whether this was for an urban or rural area; • Damage would be caused to roots of trees from the proposed development; • Hollybush Lane was already a dangerous road and the Parish Council had a duty of care to ensure that the roads in the area were as safe as they could be; • The proposal was not in accordance with the Parish Plan. Mr. Steeds and Mr. Foran in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mr. Steeds felt strongly about the proposed development and he had lived in the village since his childhood; • The proposal would only add to the overdevelopment of the road and village; • The proposed development would impact on the amenity of other properties in the surrounding area; • Hollybush Lane already had two new estates along it which added to road congestion and road safety (six accidents in the last four years); • Mr. Steeds felt that the Homestead had some architectural merit and the village had already lost a number of attractive properties which were in good condition; • Mr. Steeds felt that Burghfield did not need any more new houses; • Mr. Foran referred to the daylight and sunlight report and felt that there were a number of irregularities in respect of the report; • Mr. Foran alleged that vital information had been withheld from the Planning Inspector by Officers; • Mr. Foran also alleged that misleading statements had been made by the developer to the Planning Inspector; • A number of trees on the site had been cut down after the last Planning Committee meeting. Members asked Mr. Foran to clarify allegations made in respect of the irregularities with the daylight and sunlight report and in relation to the withholding of information to the Inspector. Mr. Foran stated that he felt the daylight and sunlight report was not an independent report as it had been carried out by the developer and the Council had been unable to find an independent consultant to confirm the findings of the report or otherwise. Crucial information had also not been provided to the Inspector e.g. information on trees, copies of Tree Preservation Orders or correct information on the newts as the survey had been undertaken out of season. Mr. Jones in addressing the Committee raised the following points: EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

• Mr. Foran’s contentious allegations were not based on fact and Mr. Jones asked the Committee to view the application in respect of the amount of work that had been put in by Officers to resolve the issues; • Mr. Jones gave a brief recap of the history of the site for the new Members of the Planning Committee; • He stated that none of the protected trees had been removed from the site and those that had been removed had been done so in consultation with the Tree Officer; • Mr. Jones reported that the daylight and sunlight report had been undertaken by a leading expert in the field and he felt that there would be more than enough sunlight and daylight during the summer and winter months; • The report had also been forwarded to an independent consultant for their comments and they had also visited the site; • The application site was a brownfield site and complied with PPG3; • The existing building on the site was not listed and was not in a Conservation Area; • The building could not be seen from the highway and was not of architectural merit; • The proposed development on the site would not have any window to window views and the site would be well screened from the surrounding area; • There would be no harm to trees which were of merit and the proposal had the backing of the Tree Officer; • No highway objections had been raised and all issues and concerns had been addressed. In considering the above application Members still had concerns about the proposed development. Some Members felt that the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting on 25 th January were incorrect in that their recollection was that the item had been deferred subject to confirmation by Legal Services that the amended Tree Preservation Order had been served correctly. However, the minutes stated that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to grant planning permission subject to that clarification. The Planning Officer stated that the minutes from that meeting had been checked and subsequently signed off as being a true and correct record at the Committee meeting on 15 th February 2006. Members also raised concerns about the number of bats and newts in the area. There had been a significant decrease in the bat population over a number of years which was largely due to the amount of development that had taken place in the area. The site did at one stage have a blanket Tree Preservation Order and the Planning Inspector had acknowledged that in his Decision Letter. A subsequent Tree Preservation Order had been issued in respect of individual trees and groups of trees but there had not been any consultation or resident notification. The remaining trees on the site would cause daylight issues and trees would continue to grow so the situation would only get worse. It was felt that the trees and the rural nature of the area needed to be protected. At the site visit the Chairman had asked Officers to circulate to all Members of the Planning Committee a coloured drawing indicating the trees which were to be retained and those which could be removed. Some Members could not recall having seen such a plan and nor was it displayed at the meeting. The Planning Officer stated that the plan had been supplied to all Members of the Planning Committee and a copy was also sent to Mr. Foran. The Planning Officer did not feel that members of the public should dictate what information was displayed at Planning Committee meetings. Members were concerned about the loss of amenity and felt that the retention of The Homestead was important. Although the Planning Inspector had not considered that the property was valued and even though it was not a Listed Building, Supplementary Planning Guidance stated that a building did not EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

have to be listed in order to be a landmark building. Members considered that The Homestead was a landmark building. Some Members felt that several allegations had been made against Officers which should be addressed and they considered that it would not be in the interest of the authority or the applicant to continue with determination of the application and other Members felt that the application should be determined that evening. The Planning Officer stated that the authority had a statutory duty to determine the application. Officers could demonstrate that they had followed through on all requests for information and that all other issues could be dealt with through an alternative channel. In respect of the opinion that The Homestead was a landmark building this could be included as a reason for refusal. However, the Planning Officer urged caution and felt that success at appeal would be limited as it would be stating that the previous Inspector’s comments were wrong. It was stressed that at present the building had no protection against demolition under a General Development Order and the Planning Officer felt that the Committee had a duty to determine the application. An Article 4 Direction Order would be required to prevent demolition and this would not prevent the application being decided on appeal. The Tree Officer stated that the daylight and sunlight report had been undertaken and found to be acceptable and the Tree Preservation Order had been issued correctly. The Legal Officer clarified the position in respect of the Tree Preservation Order and stated that once a Tree Preservation Order had been issued it would still be relevant even though it was out for consultation. Once the consultation period had expired the Order would either be confirmed as it was or would be subject to modification following any comments received. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: (1) The existing house on the site was considered to be a landmark building in line with design guidance. Demolition of the house would have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area; (2) Standard failure to complete s106 Agreement. 50. APPLICATION NO. 06/01257/FUL – MALPAS FARM, NORTH STREET, . (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 06/01257/FUL in respect of the retrospective change of use of building 2 to storage of photocopiers, and buildings 4 and 5 to storage of tiles, was not considered under Standing Orders due to lack of time to complete determination of all items on the agenda. 51. APPLICATION NO. 06/01532/FULD – 162 SAGECROFT ROAD, , BERKSHIRE, RG18 3BQ. (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 06/01532/FULD in respect of the proposed conversion of double garage, 2 bedrooms and bathroom to a single dwelling (resubmission of 05/02708), was not considered under Standing Orders due to lack of time to complete determination of all items on the agenda. 52. APPLICATION NO. 06/01579/FULD – 197 LONG LANE, , READING. (Agenda Item 4(6)) concerning Planning Application 06/01579/FULD in respect of amendments to new dwelling plot 1 granted planning consent Ref: APP/W0340/A/04/1156508 17 th February 2005, was not considered under Standing Orders due to lack of time to complete determination of all items on the agenda. EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

53. APPLICATION NO. 06/01596/HOUSE – APPLEDENE, ROTTEN ROW, BRADFIELD, READING, BERKSHIRE, RG7 6LL. (Agenda Item 4(7)) concerning Planning Application 06/01596/HOUSE in respect of new roof to existing triple garage and new entrance porch, was not considered under Standing Orders due to lack of time to complete determination of all items on the agenda. 54. APPLICATION NO. 06/01606/FULD – 6 KING STREET, MORTIMER COMMON, READING. (Agenda Item 4(8)) concerning Planning Application 06/01606/FULD in respect of part retrospective demolition of house and workshop and erection of one pair of semis and two No. detached dwellings – amendment to northern boundary, was not considered under Standing Orders due to lack of time to complete determination of all items on the agenda. 55. APPLICATION NO. 06/01759/OUTD – LAND ADJACENT TO LINNET CLOSE, LINNET CLOSE, TILEHURST. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(9)) concerning Planning Application 06/01759/OUTD in respect of the erection of 4 semi-detached houses with garages (2 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed). Councillor Tony Linden, Ward Member, reported that an application for Village Green status had been submitted and Councillor Linden therefore proposed that the application should be deferred for a site visit. However, Councillor Joe Mooney, also a Ward Member for that area, felt that the proposal was unacceptable as this small play area was crucial to the local community and he felt that the application should be determined as it stood. Following a vote the Committee agreed that the application would not be deferred and would be determined that evening. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs. J. Gardner, Parish Council representative, and Zoe Levey, objector, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs. Gardner in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mrs. Gardner confirmed that the play area had been leased and maintained by the Parish Council until June 2006; • Mrs. Gardner referred to a Land Registry Title Deed document which designated the site as a “playground”; • The play area was the only one on an estate of 500 homes and the Parish Council felt that it was unacceptable to take it away; • The area was well used by local children. Zoe Levey in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Ms. Levey was speaking on behalf of all the objectors; • She had used the play area herself as a child and her children were now using it; • The majority of children using the play area were under 12 and it was not acceptable for them to use an alternative playground in Little Heath Road which would mean crossing busy roads and which was used by older children; • The play area had always been well maintained by the Parish Council over the years; • The area was well used by small children to play football; • Other applications on the site had been refused in the past; EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

• There had been a need for a play area 35 years ago when it was first leased to the Parish Council and it was still required now; • Ms. Levey felt that there was a lack of open space in the Tilehurst area; • The appeal of the site by parents and children was that it was a safe enclosed area; • The Land Registry had clearly marked the area as a playground; • Ms. Levey felt that the proposed development on the site would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties which backed onto the play area; • Birds and wildlife would lose their habitat if the hedgerows were removed; • Ms. Levey stated that a condition had been included on the planning permission granted in 1966 that an area of open space should be kept and maintained for play; • An application for Village Green status had been submitted last week to West Berkshire Council. Councillor Tony Linden, as Ward Member, stated that there had been a condition on the planning permission granted in 1966 that an area should be set aside for a playground on the estate. Nothing had changed since 1966 – a play area was required then and it was still required now. This was a valuable safe area which had been established for that use for a long period of time. In considering the above application Members felt that the original planning permission had not been buttoned down tightly enough e.g. by not setting a time limit on the use of the area as a playground. They felt that in some respects the play area was more important now than in the 1960’s. The Planning Officer stated that paragraph 6.1.2 of the report set out the details of application 13882 approved in November 1966. Condition 5 of that application required the provision of a play area which should be maintained by an Estate Association or the Parish Council. No Estate Association had been set up and the area was therefore maintained by the Parish Council. That condition could no longer be enforced as the area was privately owned land. The application for Village Green status which had been lodged was not a planning consideration. Members considered that as this piece of land had been used as a play area for the past 40 years then that use had been established. The Parish Council had confirmed that they were happy to continue to maintain the area. Members asked how much credence could be placed on the Land Registry Title document which had designated the area as a “playground”. The Legal Officer advised that the Planning Committee could not suggest that it was designated as a playground as that was beyond the remit of the Committee. The local authority should hold the register of common land and open spaces etc. and the designation of “playground” was simply a description on a Land Registry plan. Members felt that it was clear that the authorised use of the site was for amenity space and that that had been established over a number of years. The need for a play area had increased and not decreased over time. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Transport Strategy be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons: (1) The proposal would result in loss of a well used and highly valued amenity space used as an informal play area to the detriment of the amenity of the local community. (2) Standard failure to complete s106 Agreement.

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE – 30.08.06 – MINUTES

(The meeting commenced at 6.30pm and closed at 10.10pm)

CHAIRMAN ……………………………………………

Date of Signature: ……………………………………………