A plan to replace eight garages with homes in Reading being refused is among the latest planning decisions made in the borough.

Developers were hoping to knock down a row of garages and replace them with two homes contained in one new building, but the plan was refused.

Also, a building in the town centre that hosts a popular streetwear brand has received extra protection.

These are among the decisions made by Reading Borough Council’s planning committee on Wednesday, March 29.

You can view the decided applications by typing the references in brackets into the council’s planning portal.

Plan for homes to replace garages refused (221563)

Reading Chronicle: The elevations for the two new three bedroom homes at 1 Epping Close, Reading. Credit: Andrew Neil AssociatesThe elevations for the two new three bedroom homes at 1 Epping Close, Reading. Credit: Andrew Neil Associates

A row of garages at 1 Epping Close near the town centre will remain in place after a plan to replace them with two homes was refused.

Developer Metrus was hoping to build two three-bedroom homes contained within one building.

But the plan was opposed by Carl Thomas and Titus Halliwell, with Mr Thomas quoting planning officer Ethne Humphreys, who said the homes would be “cramped on the plot” and “harmful to existing and future residents of Epping Close.”

Reading Chronicle: The row of eight garages at 1 Epping Close in Reading. Credit: Google MapsThe row of eight garages at 1 Epping Close in Reading. Credit: Google Maps

Meanwhile, Mr Halliwell argued that 11 parking spaces would be lost, which would cause ‘spill over’ parking in Russel Street.

Councillor Tony Page (Labour, Abbey) said both speakers made a good case against the plan, which was unanimously refused.

Building hosting Footasylum listed

Reading Chronicle: 84 Broad Street Reading, which has been added to the local list. Credit: Reading Borough Council84 Broad Street Reading, which has been added to the local list. Credit: Reading Borough Council

The building that hosts the Footasylum street fashion brand, 84 Broad Street, has been locally listed.

An application to list the building, therefore giving it a layer of protection from change, was submitted in April 2021.

The application states that it dates back to 1868, noting the brick facade and windows have been retained.

The listing bid was welcomed by cllr Karen Rowland (Labour, Abbey) said the building had “group value” with others along Broad Street, adding that it is an example of deliberate town planning.

The application was approved unanimously.

Solar panels for Reading Buses headquarters (220957)

Solar panels will be added to the headquarters of Reading Buses in Great Knollys Street.

The panels will allow electricity to be generated for the use of Reading Buses.

The installation of the panels was unanimously agreed by the committee.

Replacement of garden with driveway for council home in Whitley  (221844)

Reading Chronicle: 124 Whitley Wood Road in Reading. Credit: Google Maps124 Whitley Wood Road in Reading. Credit: Google Maps (Image: Google Maps)

The committee also unanimously approved the council’s housing department’s plan to replace a garden with a driveway at 124 Whitley Wood Road.

The department submitted the plan to provide vehicle access for the existing tenant.

Approval means part of the front garden of the home and the public grass verge will be concreted over.

Recognition of basement flats at former Indian restaurant refused again (230070)

Reading Chronicle: 149 London Road, Reading, the old Sardar Palace. Credit: Google Maps149 London Road, Reading, the old Sardar Palace. Credit: Google Maps (Image: Google Maps)

The council’s planning department has refused to recognise basement flats at a former Indian restaurant again.

The old Sardar Palace at 149 London Road closed down in 2012.

The building’s owner has tried to obtain a legal certificate for the basement to be used as a six person home of multiple occupation (HMO).

A bid for recognition was refused last year, with a fresh application being refused this March, with the council arguing that the owner has not provided sufficient information.