Swimming pool plan sunk and four other planning applications APPROVED or DENIED this week.

They range from chopping down trees to building extensions, new houses and changes to shops and businesses.

READ MORE: Matchbox could lose licence after Thames Valley Police call in review

HERE’s our roundup of the most important planning applications decided this week.

Swimming pool plan sunk by council

The council this week agreed a contract with Greenwich Leisure to build two new swimming pools in Palmer Park and Rivermead, set to open in 2022.

But one person in Caversham was not so lucky with their dream pool plans.

Sian Green’s application for prior approval for a swimming pool in her back garden at 242 Gosbrook Road was refused by council planning officers this week.

READ MORE: Reading Borough Council agrees £43m contract with Greenwich Leisure

In the application, she said she wanted to use the swimming pool for her family and friends but also to hold 1:1 swimming lessons and said she would expect to have 2-3 people attending a few times per week.

Planning Officer Hames Schofield said: “The size and scale of the swimming pool in relation to the main dwelling house and the applicant’s indication that the pool will be used for business purposes, would mean the building does not constitute a use incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling.

“As such, the proposed operation would require planning permission on the basis of the information received.”

Attempt to turn house into two flats rejected

An application to turn a two-storey house into two different homes was refused by the council.

The landlord wanted to turn the two-storey semi-detached property at 178 Northumberland Avenue into two separate flats, with a studio flat on the ground floor.

READ MORE: Station Hill development phase two proposals revealed

A neighbour, living at 163 Northumberland Avenue, raised concern about traffic congestion due to the close proximity of the location to Reading Girls School.

The neighbour also said they believe the property has already been in use as two separate dwellings.

The planning officer concluded the proposal was “unacceptable “ as the property is not of a size suitable for conversion and the proposed layout “would cause privacy and safety issues to the detriment of future occupants”.

Orangery in Caversham

An orangery has been approved oat 16 Wrenfield Drive in Caversham.

Similar to a conservatory, an orangery is a home extension with a glass roof typically covering less than 75 per cent of the overall roof area, and glass walls covering less than 50 per cent of the total wall area.

Planning officer Tom French said: “The development is not harmful to the character or appearance of the site or its surroundings and does not have a detrimental impact on the original building or neighbouring properties.”

READ MORE: Yates will have its licence reviewed by Reading Borough Council next week

An orangery or orangerie was originally a room or a dedicated building on the grounds of fashionable residences from the 17th to the 19th centuries where orange and other fruit trees were protected during the winter, as a very large form of greenhouse or conservatory.

No mention of whether any oranges will actually be protected here.

Outbuilding gets certificate of lawfulness but unlikely to get licence

An application for a certificate of lawfulness to turn a property into a six-person HMO and use an outbuilding as one of the bedrooms has been approved by the council’s planning team.

But the landlord of the property, 27 Brunswick Hill, is likely to fall foul of licensing law on HMOs if he rents out the outbuilding as the tenant would have to go outside to access the kitchen.

This is not considered acceptable because of the increased risk of food contamination, particularly in adverse weather.

READ MORE: Plan to re-open late night kebab hut could be thwarted by police and council

Neighbour Christina Kilbee hit out at the plan for the outbuilding to be used as a HMO.

She said: “I object to this building because as it stands it overlooks my property, my master bedroom and garden.

“At the moment we have no rear overlooking houses our neighbour to the rear is the railway,

“It also has no access other than through the house of number 27. What happens in the event of a fire or if the occupant cannot gain access to number 27 either to or from the outbuilding? “

“Greedy” landlord has two “completely unacceptable” planning applications refused

Finally, officers signed and sealed the Planning Applications committee’s decision last week to reject two retrospective planning applications at one house.

The landlord built extensions to the house at 8 St Johns Road, in Caversham, including a separate single-storey building in the garden, without applying for planning permission.

An extra tenant was also added without seeking permission, taking the number of tenants to seven.

With the original building too small for seven tenants, the landlord used the unauthorised garden building as a separate bedroom for the seventh tenant “without adequate access to shared facilities”.

The agent for the landlord called the site “the best HMO development in Reading”.

But councillors rejected the retrospective applications, calling the landlord “greedy”