Redlands Liberal Democrats

46 Redlands Rd

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).

46 Redlands Rd flats: Council Officer recommendation

So people can find it easily, the Officers report recommending refusal, which was accepted in full by the Council's Planning Application Committee, is available for download from the RBC website here

At the meeting, it was noted that Reading Borough Local Plan Policy CUD7 should also be part of the reasons for refusal.

Developer appeals 46 Redlands Road flats plan

We learned yesterday the depressing news that Hicks Developments have launched an appeal following the refusal of permission by RBC's Planning Applications Committee earlier in the year of its plan to demolish 46 Redlands Road and replace it with 14 flats.

I led the campaign against this plan and supported the many local residents living nearby who felt that it would have a detrimental impact on the highly-attractive Redlands Road/Allcroft Road area.

The Council's planning officers agreed and recommended refusal for a whole list of reasons.

We have been instructed that the Written Representation proceedure will be used in this case. You can find out more about the process on the government's Planning Portal website. This useful website also has some helpful hints about how to structure your comments on the appeal.

Glenn and I will of course be writing in and we will be encouraging residents to do the same if they have concerns about this development.If you made comments on the original application the Council will forward these to the Planning Inspectorate and the appellant.

If you wish to change your comments or add to them, or express your views for the first time, 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.

Please be aware that all comments must be received before 10th June 2008.

The planning inspector will carry out a site visit as part of the assessment procedure, but the decision itself could take some months. I will post any further news on this issue when we have it.

HMOs: Action long overdue in Labour-run Reading

tThe government has today responded to growing pressure to do something about the problems sometimes caused by high concentrations of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), which has been highlighted as a particular problem in towns and cities, especially those with high numbers of university students.

Redlands is an area with some of the highest proportion of student let properties and it is very much a live issue for residents living in the ward.

HMO licensing was launched in Reading in 2006 and this aims to regulate the private rented sector and ensure environmental and safety standards are adhered to. RBC's licensing team does a sterling job but with very limited resources. Did you know there are as many private rented houses in Reading as there are in Manchester? This amounts to over 12,000 properties. Within this figure, there are an estimated 900 licensable HMOs.

The Council commissioned a survey of the private rented sector in Reading in 2006. It noted:

The proportion of HMOs at 6.9% is substantially above the national average of2% (an estimated 3,520 properties). Of these, it is estimated that potential 900are within the higher risk category and are subject to mandatory licensing. This does represent a very significant issue for the Council.

We are campaigning to ensure that the well-being of tenants and students in rented properties is protected. Recently I raised the issue of the demise of the Landlord Accreditation Scheme in Reading, which helped students find good places to rent and to reduce their exposure to rogue landlords.

Reading University Students Union contacted me about this as they are unhappy that RBC have scrapped the scheme due to lack of resources. I followed this up with a question to Council earlier this year.

Glenn, Kirsten and i will continue to campaign to get RBC to reinstate the scheme.

The other side of the coin is the impact that large numbers of HMOs can have on residential area. Fortnightly bin collections have been problematic for households with more than 4 adults, and pressure on parking in local roads is another obvious problem. These are all issues which regularly fill our post bag.

Kirsten has been in touch with Planning officers about the big rise in the number of planning applications to extend houses and add extra bedrooms. Buy to let continues to be a popular income stream in Reading, despite concerns nationally about the state of the housing market. 

With the popularity of Reading University and the reduction of the number of accomodation for students on campus, this issue is not likely to go away.

I think it's fair to say that the Labour-run Council in Reading is only very belatedly getting round to looking at these issues after years of focussing its attention on Council-owned housing. It is worth remembering, however, that the private-rented sector exhibits some of the poorest housing conditions, which is why it is a priority for the Lib Dem team across Reading.

Rest assured the Redlands Lib Dem team is well aware of the issues connected with HMOs in Redlands and we are working closely with students, residents and Council officers to resolve any problems.

"Garden-grabbing" in Redlands

Today's Evening Post has picked up on an issue I highlighted last year about 'garden grabbing' by developers.

I contacted the Post about this after one constituent told me they had received TEN letters in the last year from developers hoping to persuade local residents to part with their gardens for cash. Given the economic downturn it's not surprising that people are tempted by these offers.

This has become a real problem in roads with large gardens in Redlands and indeed other parts of Reading. Space for new developments is limited and infilling is the name of the game for developers.

You may remember residents of Allcroft Road & Morgan Road and I fought off plans last year by developers to cram large houses on three back-gardens in the area.

I am not against new housing development: it is clearly desperately needed, but building on back gardens robs places like Reading of much needed 'green lungs' in our urban areas'. These developments can also place a strain on local resources such as highways and drainage.

Every new development must be judged on its merits but it must be difficult for residents to resist when developers offer them large amounts of cash for their gardens.

This issue is a growing concern across the UK. Lib Dem MP for Solihull Lorely Burt has campaigned on this issue at a national level, introducing a private members bill calling for back gardens to be redesignated as green-field land (instead of brown-field land which is what they are called currently).

The Labour government has not budged on this issue, yet. Please sign our national petition if you want to get the law changed.

46 Redlands Rd

The plan to put 14 flats at the 46 Redlands Rd site was refused this evening at Planning Applications. Many thanks to everyone who wrote in and who met the Committee during the site visit. It was good to meet everyone, and I know it helped the Committee form a view.

It was very clear during the site visit, that this was a completely unsuitable development, in terms of development density and overlooking.

The application was turned down very quickly, with little debate: everyone agreed it was very cut and dried.

There was a moment of comedy when the comments from the Reading East MP were considered: they read as if he himself had brought this terrible scheme to the Committee's attention, when in fact we'd put it on the committee's agenda within a week of the paperwork being fully submitted (just before Christmas).

Even the Conservatives on the Committee admitted he was jumping on a bandwagon, much as the Reading West MP has a habit of doing. There must be something in the water in Westminster.

In the news: Peeps Kebabs and 46 Redlands Road Planning Application

Today's Evening Post details Kirsten's comments to the Licensing Committee on behalf of local residents and bus users requesting that Peeps' kebabs move to a more appropriate location .

My campaign to stop Hicks' developments plans to demolish 46 Redlands Road and replace it with 14 luxury flats is also featured.

46 Redlands Road: Officers recommend refusal

This morning I received an email to say that RBC planning officers have recommended the plan by Hicks Developments to redevelop 46 Redlands Road and build 14 flats, for refusal, on the following grounds:

(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).

I am very pleased to see that planning officers have heavily criticised this application in their report. The plan had very little to recommend it and local residents (particularly those living nearby) were justifably anxious about the impact it could have on the local area.

The report points out that 30 letters of objection were received from local residents in relation to this application. I would like to thank all residents who took time out to raise their concerns with planning officers.

The Planning Applications Committee will determine the final decision on this application on 5 March. I hope they will support the officers' overwhelming and detailed case against this plan.

Station Hill

Yesterday, I discussed the proposed development at Station Hill, with the developer and architechts. There is an exhibition near the station, and they have had a steady stream of visitors, who have come along to give their views. It's potentially the most important development in Reading that there has been in the last ten years or so, covering as it does the area between the station and Friar Street (currently the site of the abandoned British Rail building and the old bus station, among others)

I would encourage everyone to let the developers know what they think: there is a real opportunity to reshape the most important part of the town, but they have to get it right. If you can't make it to the physical exhibition, there is a virtual one here.

Floods, crime and planning enforcement...

The run up to Christmas is supposed to be a time of reflection, as everyone winds down for the year.
Well, that's not quite how it works in Redlands!

Much of Saturday was spent in Whitley, at a meeting with victims of the floods in July. So many people are still homeless, or living in a few rooms in flood-damaged properties: their stories were ever so moving. There are a number of residents on the Hexham estate who were affected and remain very worried. I spoke at the meeting and called on the Council and Thames Water to do everything they could to help residents back into their homes, to do what they can now to repair as many drains as they could, and then to make the strategic investments needed to deal with the likely effects of climate change.

Last Thursday and Friday evenings were spent with the Neighbourhood Action Group, where we were joined by Chief Constable Thornton of Thames Valley Police. Her presence reflected both the success of the NAG, as well as the importance the Police are giving to neighbourhood policing. It really is delivering improvements in crime and antisocial behaviour in our area, though there is still a lot to do and Daisy and I remain worried that our best officers get poached by the Met.

On Wednesday, at Planning Applications Committee, the Council revealed its planning enforcement performance has dropped sharply, in terms of time taken to investigate cases, and the number of enforcement notices served. This was an issue I highlighted back in September, and I am sorry to say that the numbers were worse than expected. I will be meeting with Reading's head of planning to see what can be done to address this issue, especially for those areas with a high demand for enforcement activity (such as the streets off Erleigh Rd).