Planning Application No UPT/20226/1

Location – Hitherto, Church Street.

Application – The demolition of Hitherto and the erection of 2 – 2 storey dwellings.

Applicant – Mr & Mrs Dyer

Application Date Oct. 2008

Parish Council Reply – Object for the following reasons

• The appearance of the buildings is not in keeping with the location opposite the church and the old school buildings. We object to the use of blue slates and horizontal timber boarding, no other properties in that area of the village have those features.
• We strongly object to the glass gable ends which are an out of place, striking feature, not mentioned in the Design Statement, indeed they are contradictory to para 5 which claims no overlooking of neighbouring plots.
• We are very disappointed the Vale Planning officers are prepared to accept plans and a design statement so lacking in detail and dimensions.

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/832/5

Location – Highams Farm.

Application – Modification of Planning Obligation.

Applicant – Mr R. Napper

Application Date Sept 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objections This involves the swopping of 2 pieces of land such that the size of the farm land in use remains almost as it was when permission was given for the construction of the farm house.

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/18307/3

Location – No 1 Beeching Close.

Application – Erection of a 2 storey dwelling.

Applicant – Mr D Curran

Application Date Sept 2008

Parish Council Reply –

Upton Parish Council are very concerned about the return of this application and would like to be informed why the District Council have accepted it again still containing all the existing omissions and inaccuracies. The only changes we note have added to those inaccuracies since the entrance splay may now be 11m, 33m, 45m or 90m depending on which drawing or document you are reading.

As far as the re-submission goes, we repeat and resubmit all of our objections of our letter of the 2 July with minor changes and the correction of a typing error (it should be 8° not 8%).

We note 2 changes in the re-submission:

1. That the fence has been moved back. Do the Highways Department accept that the fence is now on the site boundary? If so will the Highways Department accept responsibility for the area outside the fence and arrange for the removal of the earth that the Arboricultural Report claims is killing the trees in that area.

2. The entrance splay has been made deeper by 0.4 metres. Such a change is irrelevant, it is not the depth of splay but the number of trees/bushes that have to be cut back and kept cut back that affects the visibility. These trees/bushes are outside the site boundary and are presumably the responsibility of the Highways Department, will they agree to cut them back when they have already stated that it would be detrimental to the area. We object to any removal of bushes or trees from this area.

We cannot comment on the length of the splay as we have no idea from the information pack which drawing or document you are working to. Last time we thought the splay length was meant to be 66 metres but it was shown as 33m or 11m on the drawings this time the confusion is even worse.

May we return to and re-emphasise our objection to the proposed access.

How will the contractors go about constructing the access ramp. We understand that the owner of Beeching Close will not allow it to be used by contractors vehicles, this means that all work in cutting down trees, bringing in materials and levelling with a bulldozer will have to be done direct off Station Road with all contractor vehicles also parked in the road. Since the trees cannot be felled across Beeching Close these will have to be felled down onto the road. Are you thinking of closing the road for a few days when that road is so vital to the community as explained in our letter of July 2^nd?

Even after construction an 8° slope is 1 in 7, a very steep slope for heavy contractor and delivery lorries negotiating a sharp bend on a recently laid ramp with a temporary surface trying to turn onto a well used road that is part of a national cycleway with poor visibility. To make it even more dangerous both the road and the ramp have fall-away banks on both sides. The alternative is off-loading in Station Road and using smaller vehicles to take the materials down to the site, for safety reasons this will mean temporary closure of the road.

Will you please ensure that you consult the Health and Safety Dept that will be responsible for the site and if you even consider saying yes to this application please can we have an on-site meeting with a representative of the Highway’s Dept and the Police to satisfy our very strong concerns regarding safety and what appears to be inevitable road closures.

In our 2 July* letter we made it very clear that in our opinion this application is totally unacceptable, this note only deals with the changes in the re-submission and re-emphasises our objection to the proposed access. We are however seriously concerned that you apparently accepted the building, which is totally out of character with the area and with this village and despite all the errors on the plans.

May we repeat our request for a letter from you explaining why you have accepted an application, not once but twice that contains so many inaccuracies, we are fortunate to have a member of our council who is able to fully understand all the drawings, other councils may be less fortunate. If you intend to take any notice at all of Parish Council comments please ensure you send out sensible information.

We are also concerned that these applications are incomplete and that you allow agreements on drainage etc to be secretly negotiated between yourselves and the applicant without any notification to Parish Councils as in the case of Ravello (Chilton Road) and to be repeated in this application.

We want to work with you to achieve better planning for this parish please do not continue to ignore our requests and our grave concerns.

District Council Decision – Permitted with conditions

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/8232/4

Location – Manor Lawns High Street.

Application – Erection of a Summer House/Store.

Applicant – Mr M Collins

Application Date Sept 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objections

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/3644/1

Location – Sign of the Crown, High Street.

Application – Demolition of existing garage. Erection of detached garage/studio with storage over.

Applicant – Mr and Mrs P. Hardy

Application Date June 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objection providing the storage area was only used for that purpose.

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/18307/2

Location – No 1 Beeching Close.

Application – Erection of a 2 storey dwelling.

Applicant – Mr D Curran

Application Date June 2008

Parish Council Reply – Object for the following reasons

Application Inconsistencies, Omissions and Errors

There are many inconsistencies, omissions and errors within the application package, it is therefore not possible for us to fully understand what the applicant intends. The Upton Parish Council are concerned that the Planning Dept. will be making a decision based on inaccurate plans and request a response to this point.

· The Design and Access Statement (section 3.2) refers to the proposed building’s frontage being aligned to Station House although the plans show it standing several meters back from the frontage of Station House.

· There are errors between the various plans regarding the line of the existing Beeching Close and the Western side of the site boundary

· The Arboricultural Report suggests Tree Belt 2 may be outside the site boundary although drawing P01 shows a wooden fence apparently including these trees within the site boundary.

· Trees T9 and T10 are included in drawings PO2 and PO5 when they are scheduled for removal in the Arboricultural Report (in this case they are shown to give screening) but they are correctly not included in PO1 (where there is a wish to favourably display the dwelling with more space around it).

· There is no detail included regarding the sewerage connection and drainage considerations.

· The plans do not include mention of the detail that the foundations of the proposed dwelling at the rear of the building will be in the old railway track that has been in-filled.

Access

There is no adequate explanation of the access arrangements during the construction phase of the project although the information given leads to the assumption that the proposed access poses safety concerns for use by construction lorries and other heavy commercial vehicles particularly as it is likely that the larger vehicles will either have to reverse into or out of the site. The level section of the drive prior to entry onto the road is 6m long, not as long as some of the larger vehicles so their rear wheels will still be coming up an 8° slope as well as round a sharp bend as they try to pull out onto the road. The turning onto the road will be very tight as the road is fairly narrow with a steep slope on the other side of the road as well as steep slopes on both sides of the drive. Manoeuvring onto or off the site could be difficult and dangerous as well as cause delays on the main road into the village that is also used by the service and school buses, most domestic traffic. Station Road is also on of Sustrans Route 44 which is heavily used by commuting cycle traffic from the Harwell/Chilton Campus and also recreational cycle traffic.

The documentation provided with the application also includes an appeal against the decision from the County Council regarding the proposed access and includes information on what is considered to be three similar sites where an appeal against refusal has been considered by the Building Inspector. All three are for multi-unit sites exiting onto much busier roads and do not appear relevant to this application.

Proposed dwelling

The dwelling is very large for the site, this is of concern to the Parish Council for various reasons:

· The proposed new dwelling will be the most prominent in Beeching Close as it will stand adjacent to the main entrance into the village and will not be well screened as you approach from the North/West along the A417 or as you approach from the West down Chilton Road. Its sheer size will overwhelm the existing historic Station House.

· A main material used (timber cladding) is not in keeping with neighbouring properties or with the village. Whatever materials are used they must blend sympathetically with the historic Station House and other existing buildings, there is virtually no timber cladding anywhere in the village. .

· With a previous application in this parish we have seen the effect of over-cramming making it very difficult to sell either property at market price.

Tree screening

The Arboricultural Report is found to be inconsistent and incorrect with the following points of concern:

· The report does not mention any new trees/shrubs that are to be used as screening or where they are to be planted.

· The report does not mention the mature and healthy ash in Tree Group 1, a group scheduled for removal.

· Regarding Tree Belt 2, although marked for retention, the report omits to say that several of these trees are badly damaged due to a road traffic accident and subsequent fire, it does, however, say that the soil heaped around the trees will cause further damage and goes on to say replacement should be considered. Thus, marking Tree Belt 2 for retention is misleading as it is not likely that the existing trees will survive.

· The report suggests that Tree Belt 2 may be outside the development area, so there is concern as to why the site owner has been allowed to dump soil around the trees.

· The new access is not only less safe but also requires the felling of a healthy mature ash tree at least one mature Sycamore and two Hawthorn bushes.

· The over large size of the proposed property takes the foundations very close to the trees that are being retained as cover. About three years ago on that same site there was a serious problem of root heave under Station House. Several tress were removed that were much further away from the existing building than the proposed new building will be from the cover trees that will remain on the site. Whilst it is accepted that the new foundations will be deeper and more substantial, the proposed building is too close to the retained trees and shortly after it is built there is a risk of the cover trees interfering with the new building and the occupant requiring them to be felled.

Change of Use of Land

It should be noted that much of the land on which this development will be built was sold to the applicant a few years ago by the County Council with a change of use agreed from roadside verge to use as a garden. We would have expected some constraint imposed by the County Council on any further change of use and we ask for clarification on this point. If it is now to be allowed as building land, the County Council would appear to be guilty of seriously under-selling a publicly owned piece of land.

District Council Decision – Refused The proposed access drive to serve the new dwelling fails to provide adequate visibility splays at its junction with Station Road to the detriment of highway safety. In addition, the provision of adequate visibility splays in this location is likely to result in the loss of further trees along Station Road which would have a harmful impact on the visual appearance and rural character of the area.

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/20551

Location – Land at rear of Scotlands Ash.

Application – Change of use from agricultural to the creation of a wildlife area, orchard, play area and vegetable garden for use by Little Acorns Nursery.

Applicant – Mr P. Mansbridge

Application Date June 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objection

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/2065/13

Location – Upton Lodge Reading Road.

Application – Work to an existing (redundant) parking area to provide a tennis court.

Applicant – Mr and Mrs Slater

Application Date June 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objection

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/19332/1

Location – Corderoys, Pound Lane

Application – For the erection of a double garage with studio above.

Applicant – Mr & Mrs Granger,

Application Date – May 08

Parish Council Reply – No objection

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.

Planning Application No UPT/20480

Location – Blue Cottage Pound Lane

Application – Demolition of existing garages and extension. Proposed construction of new garage and extension to house.

Applicant – Mr N Wadley

Application Date March 2008

Parish Council Reply – No Objection

District Council Decision – Permitted

Note

All drawings and other hard copy documents connected with the above application will be destroyed after 3 years.

For further information on this application visit www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk and click on Planning and Planning Applications using the above Ref.No.