Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Householder application for the proposed erection of a two storey side extension, new driveway and dropped kerb.

Applicant: Mr and Mrs J Kalsi

The Committee received and reviewed a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 153 to 168.

The Committee were advised that the Members’ Update included:

·           Comments from Woodley Town Council, recommending that the application be refused;

·           Additional condition 9.

Carol Jewell, Woodley Town Council, spoke in objection to the application. Carol stated that Woodley Town Council had previously submitted objections to this application, however they did not come through. Carol added that there were poor sight lines at the application site, with a children’s play area opposite the proposed driveway. Carol stated that any vehicle exiting the proposed driveway would have to come forward significantly due to a blind spot, which could cause accidents. Carol added that the estate was designed to have an open frontage with rear access to each property. Carol stated that none of the other corner properties had this type of access, with house number three not setting a precedent as it had a path which only served 4 houses. Carol raised a number of safety concerns that these proposals could cause, and was of the opinion that this application would be out of keeping with the character of the area in addition to setting a precedent. Carol stated that the dropped kerb had not met any of the four criteria within Wokingham Borough Council’s (WBC’s) guidance, and asked that the application be refused.

Katrina Hearne, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Katrina stated that a front facing driveway was not in keeping with the character of the street scene, and the property was situated on a blind spot opposite a children’s play area. Katrina added that this driveway would pose a hazard to Council staff who came to maintain the park, in addition to the park being used as a general cut through for train commuters. Katrina stated that a vehicle in the proposed driveway could have to reverse into oncoming traffic, and the proposal would reduce on-street parking for residents. Katrina added that the proposals would create access issues for emergency vehicles. Katrina stated that there were two local primary schools, a secondary and an SEN in the area which resulted in the footpaths being heavily used by children and parents. Katrina was of the opinion that the proposals would be a danger to all road users, pedestrians and cyclists. Katrina stated that the existing six foot fence hides the vehicle exiting the property, and the property had sufficient parking already.

Jenny Cheng, Ward Member, spoke in objection to the application. Jenny stated that she objected to the driveway proposals, as they did not accord to the original design of Kingfisher Drive which had service roads and garages. Jenny added that each house had rear access, and drivers would not be expecting a driveway when using this stretch of the road. Jenny stated that the development was designed to be open, and the proposals were not in keeping with the character of the street scene.

Carl Doran queried whether the height of the fence had been considered. Judy Kelly, Highways Development Manager, stated that the Members’ Update included a condition to ensure that the fence was lowered to allow for a suitable pedestrian visibility splay.

Andrew Mickleburgh asked for specific details on highways considerations. Judy Kelly stated that cars were parked on the road at the moment, and the driveway would only remove one on street parking space whilst creating two off street parking spaces. The visibility splays were secured by condition, and the proposals met all highways safety standards.

Pauline Jorgensen queried whether the dropped kerb required planning permission. Justin Turvey, Team Manager (Development and Regeneration), stated that a means of access came under permitted development rights, which would require highways approval but not planning permission.

Stephen Conway asked for clarification as to whether reversing out of the driveway was considered safe. Judy Kelly stated that both reversing and driving forwards from the proposed driveway had been assessed as adequately complying the conditioned visibility splays.

RESOLVED That application number 200191 be approved, subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda pages 153 to 155, and additional condition 9 as set out in the Members’ Update.