As previously mentioned, the developer proposing to build 14 flats at 46 Redlands Rd, has now appealed to the Planning Inspector, after his plans were turned down by the Council.
A number of residents have raised queries about the appeals process.
For this reason, there will be a short meeting at 61 Allcroft Rd this Friday 23rd May, starting at 7pm. Please come along if you would like to discuss the matter. I will be chairing the meeting, since I am a member of the Committee that turned the plans down in the first place!
We look forward to seeing you then. If you are not able to make the meeting, or have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on 0118 9264780.
Note that in any event, we will be writing to the Planning Inspector on your behalf opposing the development, and will advise you of the outcome.
While the Inspector will see all written comments previously made on the application, you may still submit your views. Please write, in triplicate, directly to the Planning Inspectorate at 3/20, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay Bristol, BS1 6PN and quote the Inspectorate reference: APP/EO345/A/08/2071089/NWF. The deadline for comments is 10 June, but to have the most impact, it will be helpful if your views are received by the inspector no later than May 26th.
For reference the grounds for appealing the decision are given by the developer as:
1. The principle of redevelopment of the site accords with national and local policies promoting effective use of land
2. The appellant has thoroughly considered the site and environs when producing the submitted scheme
3. The scheme would fit comfortably within the street and make a positive contribution to the area
4. The scheme would have no impact on the Conservation Area
5. The occupants of the proposed building would enjoy sufficient residential amenity (* this refers to space around the buildings)
6. The scheme has been designed to avoid overlooking
7. There would be no harm to the protected tree from the development
8. Adequate visibility splays are provided and there would be no harm to highway safety from the development (* a splay is the space around an exit road to enable people to see well enough to join a bigger road safely)
9. Cycle parking can be dealt with through condition (* a condition is a rule placed on a developer to make them do something during or after building)
10. The development would accord with the Council supplementary guidance on relation to sustainability but beyond this such matters are dealt with through legislation
11. The Council has not advised the appellant as to the level of S.106 financial contributions required but the appellant would be willing to enter an agreement (* there are standard "section 106" contributions asked of developers to pay for transport, leisure and education in the area of a new development)
The original reasons for turning down the application were given by the Council as:
(From the Officers' Report: Planning Application No 07/01533/FUL)
1. By virtue of its cumulative scale and massing, contrived design
and close proximity to the plot boundaries, the proposed buildings
would represent a disjointed, incongruous and cramped form of
development that would be out of keeping with the Allcroft Road and
Redlands Road streetscene, and detract from the character and
appearance of the area including the nearby conservation areas. This is
harmful to visual amenity and symptomatic of overdevelopment, which
conflicts with Planning Policy Statements PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable
Development) and PPS3 (Housing), Policies HSG5 (Residential Design
Standards), HSG9 (Location of Residential Development) and CUD14
(Standards of Design in Development) of the Reading Borough Local Plan
(1998), and Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) of the LDF Core
Strategy (2008).
2. The design and layout of the proposed development would be
detrimental to the residential amenity of the potential occupants by
virtue of its form and relationship between the three blocks that would
result in an overshadowing structure and limited outlook to bedroom 2
to the north of the Allcroft Road block on all floors, and bedroom 2 to
the east of the internal block on all floors. Furthermore, the
relationship of a pedestrian entrance to the window to bedroom 1 and 2
of the ground floor flat to the north of the Allcroft Road block would
result in a potential lack of privacy and noise and disturbance to
these habitable rooms. This would be contrary to Planning Policy
Statements PPS1 and PPS 3, Manual for Streets, Policies HSG 5, HSG9 and
CUD 14 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and Policy CS15:
Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix of the Local
Development Framework Core Strategy Submission Draft (2008).
3.
The proposal would materially harm the residential amenities of no. 58
Allcroft Road by reason of the number, size and location of windows in
the western elevation, which would result in the perception of
overlooking into the private garden of no. 58 Allcroft Road, and the
bulk and massing of the internal block, which would appear dominant and
overbearing when seen from the rear garden of 58 Allcroft Road. The
proposal is therefore contrary with Policies HSG5 (Residential Design
Standards), HSG9 (Location of Residential Development) and CUD14
(Standards of Design in Development) of the Reading Borough Local Plan
(1998), and Policies CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) and CS15
(Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) of the LDF Core
Strategy (2008).
4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development
would protect and maintain a protected tree on the site contrary to
PPS3 (Housing), PPS9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation),
Policies HSG9 (Location of Residential Development), and NE6
(Protecting Wildlife Habitats and Natural Features on or Adjoining
Development Sites) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998), and
Polices CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) of the LDF Core Strategy
(2008).
5. Contrary with the Local Planning Authority’s Design Guidance for
Residential Accesses on to Classified Roads, the retention of the two
southern accesses onto Redlands Road would not reduce the number of
accesses onto Redlands Road and the proposal fails to demonstrate that
any of the proposed accesses incorporate adequate sightlines. This
would have an adverse effect on road safety and the flow of traffic, in
conflict with policy HSG5 (Residential Design Standards) and TRN11B
(Development and Traffic) of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998).
6. The proposal fails to demonstrate that the development can
accommodate secure cycle storage provision in the interest of
sustainable transport facilities, contrary with Policies HSG5
(Residential Design Standards) f the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998)
and Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) of the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
7. It has not been demonstrated that the development has been
designed to fully take account of the sustainability requirements
contained in the 'Sustainable Design and Construction' SPD, including,
including on-site renewable energy generation to reduced carbon
emissions. As such, the development is contrary to Policies HSG5
(Residential Design Standards) and CUD14 (Standards of Design in
Development), and Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) of
the LDF Core Strategy (2008).
8. In the absence of a completed S.106 agreement to secure
contributions towards education, leisure and transport infrastructure
improvements to offset the impact of the development, the proposal is
contrary to policy TRN11B (Development in Traffic) of the Reading Local
Plan (1998) and policies CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and
Amenities) and CS32 (Impacts on Community Facilities) of the LDF Core
Strategy (2008).
The proposal for the securing of Cintra Park involves fencing the perimeter of the site using wooden posts, approximately 60cm above the ground, with a 50mm steel bar running through it. I have attached a photo that shows a similar section of fencing (left). This option is bespoke and would require the posts to be made to our requirements. 
A similar 'off the peg option' is shown in the other photo (left), the posts would be shorter than those in the photo. In addition to this they have a curved top and slightly smaller bar at 41mm. 
A metal gate will be supplied on one entrance to the private road and two 'bell' style bollards will be positioned at the other entrance to restrict access by larger vehicles. The bell bollards will be similar to those near the Tylers Rest on the Norcot Road. 
