Councillor Ruhemann

Dave Peasley Director and Council Manager

Civic Centre, Reading, RG1 7AE  0118 937 3737

Fax: 0118 937 2591

Councillor Ruhemann (Chair) Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Councillors Ballsdon, Duveen, Eastwood, Cttee\Agendas\130306.doc Gavin, Hopper, Hoskin, Livingston, Maskell, Your Ref: Page, Singh, Stanford-Beale, Williams and Willis Direct:  0118 937 2112 e-mail: [email protected]

26 February 2013

Your contact is: Nicky Simpson – Committee Services

NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 6 MARCH 2013

A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 6 March 2013 at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Reading. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below.

Please note that with regard to the planning applications, the order in which applications are considered will be at the Chair’s discretion, and applications on which members of the public have requested to speak are likely to be considered first.

AGENDA ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO 1. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING - 1 APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON 6 FEBRUARY 2013 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -

3. QUESTIONS - - -

4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 15 COMMITTEE ITEMS 5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 18

6. TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 31 APPLICATIONS 7. NEW TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 34

CIVIC CENTRE EMERGENCY EVACUATION: Please familiarise yourself with the emergency evacuation procedures, which are displayed inside the Council’s meeting rooms. If an alarm sounds, leave by the nearest fire exit quickly and calmly and assemble at the Hexagon sign, at the start of Queen’s Walk. You will be advised when it is safe to re-enter the building. www.reading.gov.uk SMS Text  81722 DX 40124 Reading (Castle Street) 8. OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION DECISION CAVERSHAM 39 ORDER AT LAND AT AND ADJACENT TO THE MILL POOL, MILL GREEN

Planning Applications to be determined

Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page

9 DECISION ABBEY 47

10 DECISION KATESGROVE 65

11 DECISION KENTWOOD 85

12 DECISION REDLANDS 109

13-14 DECISION WHITLEY 117

At this point, the following motion will be moved by the Chair:

“That, pursuant to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) members of the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following Item on the agenda, as it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act.”

ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO 15. PLANNING ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 147 QUARTERLY UPDATE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 6th March 2013

Abbey Ward

Application Number 12/01956/FUL Item 9 Page 47 Applicant SK-Tec Ltd Address Queens Arms Ph Great Knollys Street Reading RG1 7HL Proposal Demolition of existing public house and erection of a single block of 13 apartments with parking below Recommendation Application Refused

Katesgrove Ward

Application Number 12/01713/FUL Item 10 Page 65 Applicant Mr P Sancra Address The Claddagh Ring PH 2 Pell Street Reading RG1 2NZ Proposal Change of use to Retail (A1) on ground floor and a 5 bedroom HMO (C4) on the first and second floors. New timber vehicular entrance doors, new residential entrance door to the north elevation, partial conversion of hard standing area back to garden space and car and cycle parking provision. Retrospective approval for demolition of outbuilding/garage and addition of en-suite shower / WCs to the bedrooms on the upper floors of the building. Recommendation Permitted, subject to a Legal Agreement

Application Number 12/01714/LBC Item 10 Page 65 Applicant Mr P. Sancra Address The Claddagh Ring PH 2 Pell Street Reading RG1 2NZ Proposal Change of use to Retail (A1) on ground floor and a 5 bedroom HMO (C4) on the first and second floors. New timber vehicular entrance doors, new residential entrance door to the north elevation, partial conversion of hard standing area back to garden space and car and cycle parking provision. Retrospective approval for demolition of outbuilding/garage and addition of en-suite shower/WCs to the bedrooms on the upper floors of the building. Recommendation Application Permitted

Kentwood Ward

Application Number 12/01698/FUL Item 11 Page 85 Applicant Mr And Mrs A W And J E Davis And Hurst Grove Estates Limited Address Rear Of 59-67 Armour Hill Tilehurst Reading RG31 6JH Proposal Erection of three x 2-bed houses and four x 3-bed houses Recommendation Permitted, subject to a Legal Agreement

Redlands Ward

Application Number 13/00019/REG3 Item 12 Page 109 Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Newcastle Road Allotments Newcastle Road Reading RG2 7TN Proposal Removal of existing fencing and erection of a 2.4m high security fence Recommendation Application Permitted

Whitley Ward

Application Number 12/01430/FUL Item 13 Page 117 Applicant CEMEX UK Materials Limited Address Burghfield Landfill Island Road Reading RG2 0RP Proposal Development of a Leachate Treatment Plant Recommendation Application Permitted

Application Number 12/01522/FUL Item 14 Page 131 Applicant St James Group Address Units 6 And 7 62 Merrick House Whale Avenue Reading Proposal Change of use of ground floor Units 6 and 7 to a crèche/children's daycare centre (D1); resubmission of planning application 10/01207/FUL. Recommendation Permitted, subject to a Legal Agreement

KEY TO CODING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. Planning application reference numbers are made up of 4 parts.

1.1 The number begins with the year e.g. 11/

1.2 This is followed by a consecutive number, showing what number the application is in any year (e.g. 11/00128).

1.3 The next, up to six, letters show what type of application it is. The following is a key:

ADJ Consultation by adjacent authority ADV Advertisement CON Conservation Area Consent EXT Extension of time FUL Full Detailed FULTEL Full Telecommunications Approval LBC Listed Building Consent OUT Outline Application (Principle of development only) REG3/4 Regulation 3/4 (Council application) REM Reserved Matters (following an outline approval) TELE Installation of Telecommunications Equipment CLP Certificate of Lawful Development – Proposed Use CLE Certificate of Lawful Development – Existing Use HAZARD Hazardous Substance (Storage of Large Quantities) DEMCON Demolition Notice VARIAT Variation of Condition/Minor Material Amendment NMC Non Material Amendment SCO Environmental Assessment Scoping Opinion SCR Environmental Assessment Screening Opinion COND Appeal to DCLG against a condition ENFNOT Appeal to DCLG against an Enforcement Notice NONDET Appeal to DCLG against a failure to decide REF Appeal to the DCLG against a Refusal of permission

2. The following is a key to existing officers with their direct dial telephone numbers.

DB - David Breeze 9372410 AB - Alison Bell 9372604 KR - Kiaran Roughan 9374530 LB - Lynette Baker 9372413 JW - Julie Williams 9372461 RE - Richard Eatough 9373338 AC - Andrew Chugg 9372458 JT1 - Justin Turvey 9372993 AS1 - Andrew Somerville 9374593 SB1 - Susanna Bedford 9372023 BP - Ben Pratley 9372417 SDV - Steve Vigar 9372980 GPC - Gary Crawford 9372446 LJJ - Louisa Johnson 9372087 CR1 - Claire Ringwood 9374545 CJB1 - Christopher Beard 9372430 SGH1 - Stephen Hammond 9374424 MDW - Mark Worringham 9373337 AJA - Alison Amoah 9372286 JM1 - Julia Mountford 9374741 RS - Richard Stimpson 9372441 SH - Sarah Hanson 9372440 KR1 - Kate Rodway 9374294

Keytocoding Issue 01.02.2013

GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER and Permitted Changes of Use (England)

Use Classes Use Classes Description General Permitted (Amendment) Order 1972 Development Order 2005 (Amendment) Order 2005 A1 Class I  Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, Shops undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, dry cleaners, internet cafes, etc.  Pet shops, cat-meat shops, tripe shops, No permitted changes sandwich bars  Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors A2 Class II  Banks, building societies, estate and Permitted change to A1 Financial and employment agencies where a ground floor display Professional  Professional and financial services, betting window exists Services offices A3 Restaurants, snack bars, cafes Permitted change to A1 or A2 Restaurants and Cafes A4 Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or Drinking Establishments A3 A5 Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or Hot Food Take-Aways A3 Sui Generis Shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, laundrettes, taxi or No permitted change vehicle hire businesses, amusement centres, petrol filling stations B1 Class II (a) Offices, not within A2 Permitted change to B8 Business (b) Research and development, studios, where no more than 235m laboratories, high tech Class III (c) Light industry B2 Class IV-IX General industry Permitted change to B1 or B8 General industry B8 limited to no more than 235m B8 Class X Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, Permitted change to B1 Storage or Distribution repositories where no more than 235m Sui Generis Any work registrable under the Alkali, etc. Works No permitted change Regulation Act, 1906 C1 Class XI Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change Hotels C2 Class XII  Residential schools and colleges Residential Class XIV  Hospitals and convalescent/nursing homes No permitted change Institutions C2A Prisons, young offenders institutions, detention No permitted change Secure residential centres, secure training centres, custody centres, institutions short-term holding centres, secure hospitals, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks. C3  Single occupancy or single households (in the Dwelling houses family sense);  No more than six residents living as a single household where care is provided; Permitted to change to C4  No more than six residents living as a single household where the building is managed by a local housing authority, a registered social landlord, a police authority, a fire authority, or a health service body. C4 Use of a dwellinghouse by between three and six Houses in multiple residents, who do not form a single household (in Permitted to change to C3 occupation the family sense) and share basic facilities (toilet, bathroom or kitchen). Sui Generis  House in multiple occupation with more than six residents No permitted change  Hostel Keytocoding Issue 01.02.2013

D1 Class XIII  Places of worship, church halls Non- Class XV  Clinics, health centres, creches, day Residential nurseries, consulting rooms No permitted change Institutions Class XVI  Museums, public halls, libraries, art galleries, exhibition halls  Non-residential education and training centres D2 Class XVII  Cinemas, music and concert halls Assembly Class XVIII  Dance, sports halls, swimming baths, skating and Leisure rinks, gymnasiums No permitted change  Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, bingo halls, casinos Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change

Keytocoding Issue 01.02.2013

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

Present: Councillor Ruhemann (Chair);

Councillors Ballsdon, Duveen, Eastwood, Gavin, Hopper, Hoskin, Livingston, Maskell, Singh and Williams

Apologies: Councillors Page, Stanford-Beale and Willis.

RESOLVED ITEMS

82. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2013 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

83. QUESTION FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDING ORDER 36

The following question was asked by Dave Willcock in accordance with Standing Order 36:

Breach of planning on Tofrek Terrace Playing Field by Wilson School

“We would like to ask why the Council and school have chosen to restrict access to the field rather than implementing the approved maintenance regime as detailed in the planning documents.”

REPLY by the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee (Councillor Ruhemann):

“Your question follows the grant of planning permission to Wilson Primary School, under application 11/01936/REG3, for, amongst other things, redevelopment of part of the detached playing fields to erect fencing, construct a new Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and toilet/store block and a reconfigured car park and associated fencing.

The Tofrek Terrace Playing Field is designated as a school playing field, but there are three areas of land at the field to which the public have access and which are regulated by a Section 106 planning Unilateral Undertaking given by the Council as landowner under that planning permission. The three areas (in relation to the attached plan) are:

(a) The Land shaded Light Green – This is available for use by the general public for leisure/recreational purposes unless it is being used by the School for temporary educational purposes.

(b) The Land shaded Dark Green – This is to be used for education purposes but when it is free it shall, as far as practicable, be made available to the public for sport and/or recreational purposes.

(c) The MUGA (The Land shaded Orange) - This is to be used for education purposes but when it is free it shall, as far as practicable, be made available for use by local community organisations or groups for sport and/or recreational purposes.

1 1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

And the plan also shows the three gates by which the field can be accessed. Unfortunately, some members of the public have used a gate into the Dark Green area, designated primarily for education use, with their dogs and have allowed their dogs to foul the area without picking up the mess. This clearly has general health and wellbeing implications for the children, so the gate has been locked. Education, Planning and Legal Section officers are aware of this decision on the part of the school and it is not considered to be a problem as there are two other reasonable access points that can be used by all members of the public, one of which is suitable for vehicular access.

The School has the right to lock the Tofrek Terrace gate to provide a hygienic area for children’s play with the Council’s consent as the freehold owner. In giving its consent the Council has assessed the situation and considers that the school, which does have a duty of care towards the children, has struck a balance between the use of the area by the school and the public generally.

As one of the access points that remain open can provide vehicular access it is not considered that emergency vehicles and personnel would have any difficulty accessing the Playing Fields if required.”

84. SITE VISITS

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted, at the meeting, a draft schedule of applications to be considered at future meetings of the Committee to enable Councillors to decide which sites, if any, they wished to visit prior to determining the relevant applications.

Resolved -

That the under-mentioned application and site, together with any additional applications which the Head of Planning and Building Control might consider appropriate, be the subject of site visits:

12/01956/FUL – QUEENS ARMS PH, GREAT KNOLLYS STREET

Demolition of existing public house and erection of a single block of 13 apartments with parking below.

OAKLANDS, OFF BULMERSHE ROAD

No planning application, but the development of flats had just been listed. Opportunity to visit with the Conservation Officer.

85. PLANNING APPEALS

(i) New Appeals

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted a schedule giving details of notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate regarding planning appeals, and the method of determination for which he had already expressed a preference in accordance with delegated powers, which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

2 2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

(ii) Appeals Recently Determined

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted a list of decisions that had been made by the Secretary of State, or by an Inspector appointed for the purpose, which were attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

(iii) Reports on Appeal Decisions

There were no reports on appeal decisions to this meeting.

Resolved –

(1) That the new appeals, as set out in Appendix 1, be noted;

(2) That the outcome of the recently determined appeals, as set out in Appendix 2, be noted;

(3) That the fact that there were no reports on appeal decisions be noted.

86. TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted a report stating that, since 16 January 2013, no prior approval notifications had been decided, no applications had been received for planning permission and no planning applications had been decided.

The report stated that, since 16 January 2013, the following prior approval notification had been received:

13/00053/TELE – O/S 10 RIDGEBOROUGH COURT, CASTLE HILL

Prior approval for installation of one Openreach Broadband cabinet, height 1600mm x width 1200mm x depth 450mm.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

87. STREET NAMES – SUGGESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted a report on suggestions received following the Council’s recent publicity asking members of the public for suggestions for new street names to be added to the Street Names Proposals list.

The Council had recently published a request on its website and in the local media asking for suggestions from the public for new road names, asking that suggestions should reflect the culture or history of the town or honour a personality with a close link to Reading. 49 suggestions had been received, which had been reviewed by the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering Officer. The report contained a list of 27 names recommended for approval and a list of 22 not recommended for approval, most of which were not supported by information explaining their connection to the town. The report had appended the existing Street Name Proposals list.

3 3 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

It was suggested at the meeting that some of the more unusually spelled names could cause confusion or delays when contacting emergency services, and that a street name of “Steve Death” would be more suitable than simply “Death”.

Resolved –

(1) That, subject to consultation with the emergency services and use of the street name “Steve Death” rather than “Death”, the list of names recommended for approval be added to the Street Name Proposals list;

(2) That the list of names not recommended for approval not be added to the Street Name Proposals list.

88. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE – QUARTER 3 (OCTOBER–DECEMBER) 2012/13

The Director of Environment, Culture and Sport submitted a report which provided information on performance in development management (applications, appeals and enforcement) for Quarter 3 (October-December) 2012/13.

The report explained that performance in processing planning applications was measured against the former national indicator NI157 which addressed the speed with which the applications were determined, and against the Planning Guarantee. The Government had set targets of 60% of “major” applications to be determined in 13 weeks, 65% of “minor” applications to be determined in eight weeks, and 80% of “other” applications also to be determined in eight weeks. The Planning Guarantee was that, in principle, no application should spend more than 26 weeks with either the local planning authority or the Planning Inspectorate. Reading’s performance against these targets was set out in Table 1.

Performance in the time taken to determine applications for Minor and Other application types had been above the target for the Quarter and for the 12 months to the end of the Quarter. 93% of householder applications had been decided within eight weeks during Quarter 3.

The Major category of applications remained problematic in terms of meeting the 60% target on a quarterly and annual basis. Given the low numbers of applications and the size range of the Major category and the difficulty applicants on large schemes were experiencing in completing Section 106 agreements quickly, performance varied significantly from quarter to quarter and annually had achieved only 40%. This level of performance was considered acceptable because it supported applicants in the current difficult economic climate and avoided the refusal of permission simply in order to reach a decision to meet the statutory 60% target.

The Government wished to improve performance on Major applications and had published proposals whereby local planning authorities which decided 30% or fewer Major applications within 13 weeks over the previous two years where no Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) (including agreement to extend the time for determination of the application) was in place, would be designated as a poorly performing planning authority under the Localism Act 2011. Reading’s current

4 4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

performance on Major applications was above that threshold but it would be necessary to encourage pre-application discussions, the use of PPAs for large schemes and to secure agreements for extensions of time to minimise the risk of future designation.

The Government was also consulting on a proposal whereby the fee for an application would be returned where the application remained undetermined after 26 weeks and no PPA or extension of time had been agreed. To avoid a refusal of permission in those cases applicants would need to agree PPAs (including extensions of time for determination of the application).

There had been an upward trend in the percentage of appeals allowed by the Planning Inspectorate since 2010/11. It now slightly exceeded the benchmark 33% percentage of appeals allowed which was one possible indicator of the quality of decision making by a local planning authority. On a quarterly basis, the increase in numbers of appeals allowed experienced earlier in the year had fallen back slightly. However, on a year by year basis, the trend was upward, which appeared in part at least to reflect a more permissive appeals climate, the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in March 2012 and the Government’s and the Planning Inspectorate’s emphasis on “Planning for Growth”.

The number of new enforcement complaint cases received had fallen dramatically in Quarter 3. However the number of complaints since the beginning of 2013 had increased and was anticipated to return to its former level of approximately 50 new cases per month. It was reported at the meeting that there was an error in the figures in Table 11, where the number of new enforcement prosecutions in Quarter 3 2012/13 should be 2 rather than 0.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

89. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered reports by the Director of Environment, Culture and Sport.

Resolved –

(1) That, subject to the conditions now approved, permission be granted under planning legislation and, where appropriate, under the Advertisement Regulations, as follows:

00/01215/OUT – READING SEWAGE TREATMENT WORKS, ISLAND ROAD (NOW SOUTHSIDE EAST INCORPORATING KENNET ISLAND)

Demolition of Manor Farm sewage works. High density mixed-use development comprising 850 dwellings including affordable units, offices, a hotel and ancillary facilities. Application accompanied by Environmental Impact Assessment.

That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to undertake and complete a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with 00/01215/OUT to add a mortgagee exclusion clause.

5 5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

(2) That consideration of the following application be deferred for the reasons indicated:

12/01698/FUL – LAND REAR OF 59-67 ARMOUR HILL TILEHURST

Erection of three two-bedroomed houses and four three-bedroomed houses.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which explained that discussions were on-going between officers and the applicant about the provision of affordable housing, and a further viability assessment was expected from the applicant, but it had not been received in time to be reported in the update and, even if it had, officers would not have had time to assess any case that the applicant was looking to present. It therefore recommended that the application be deferred to allow time for the new information to be considered fully. The update report also gave details of further representations received and comments thereon.

It was reported verbally at the meeting that the assessment had now been received, but the recommendation remained for deferral.

Deferred to enable officers to review the viability assessment and undertake further discussions with the applicant in respect of the provision of affordable housing.

(3) That the following application be refused for the reasons indicated:

12/01729/OUT – 928 OXFORD ROAD

Outline application for the demolition of 'The Restoration' public house and erection of 20 apartments with associated parking, cycle storage and refuge storage (access, layout and scale only) (re-submission of 11/01759/OUT).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of correspondence received from the Licensing Section and the Council’s Ecologist and further information received regarding the sale of the public house. The recommendation had been amended to remove one reason for refusal and amend two others.

Refused as recommended in the original report, subject to the following amendments set out in the update report:

 Removal of reason for refusal 4;

 Amendment of reason for refusal 5 to read:

“5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed amenity space would be of an acceptable standard. As such the proposal fails to demonstrate acceptable landscaping principles and is contrary to Policy DM10 of the SDPD and the provisions of Circular 01/2006 (as amended by DCLG 'Guidance on Information Requirements and Validation (March 2010)').”;

 Amendment of reason for refusal 7 to read:

“7. In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure contributions

6 6 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

towards local recreation/leisure and education infrastructure improvements and affordable housing the proposal fails to deal with its direct impact and is contrary to Policies CS9, CS16 and CS29 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document and Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Supplementary Planning Guidance).”

Comments and objections received and considered.

(4) That, subject to the requirements indicated, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to determine the following applications under planning legislation:

12/01577/FUL – 553 OXFORD ROAD

Demolition of existing church buildings, construction of a new three storey church building to accommodate worship/meeting rooms, offices, cafe, and two retail shop units. Attached residential accommodation, comprising one one-bedroomed flat, one two-bedroomed flat, and one Studio flat (resubmission of 11/01189/FUL).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which contained information on transport infrastructure calculations and car parking and had appended a table of proposed and existing use and a revised parking layout plan. An amendment to condition 9 was recommended.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 6 March 2013 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning and Building Control) to secure the Heads of Terms as set out in the report.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report.

Condition 9 to be amended as recommended in the update report to read:

“9. No dwelling or building shall be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been provided in both car parks in accordance with the approved layouts and thereafter these areas shall be kept available for parking and turning at all times.”

Comments and objections received and considered.

12/01008/OUT – WELLS HALL, UPPER REDLANDS ROAD

Outline application (access only) for the demolition of all existing buildings, halls of residence and associated buildings and the redevelopment of the site to provide 34 dwellings, open space, landscaping, accesses to Upper Redlands Road and all associated works.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which contained further information

7 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

on affordable housing, financial viability, housing need and residential amenity and had appended images of views from Cadugan Place. The update report also amended an error in the original report and the date for completion of the s106 agreement. The recommendation had been amended accordingly.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 25 February 2013 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning and Building Control) to secure the Heads of Terms ii) and iii) as set out in the original report, and i) as set out in the update report.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission as recommended in the original report subject to the following amendments:

 Additional condition to require the houses on plots 21-24 to be limited to a height of 8m and have no north-facing windows in the second storey/roof.

 Amendment to condition 5 to require a landscape management plan for the northern boundary, to include long-term maintenance.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objector Jeremy Hadaway, Ian Tant on behalf of the applicant and Councillor Benson attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

Councillors Duveen and Eastwood requested that their votes against the resolution be recorded.

12/01396/FUL – 72-74 BATH ROAD

Conversion of six existing rooms and loft into serviced accommodation comprising six self-contained serviced rooms, one serviced studio and three one-bedroomed serviced apartments within the Parkside International Hotel and additional eight parking spaces on site.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which contained officer responses to queries from Councillor Ruhemann regarding the application and proposed amended wording for condition 6. The recommendation had been amended accordingly.

 Monitoring of traffic on the Parkside Road exit for a seven day period before implementation of permission and at six and twelve months after the completion of the permission, to be funded and undertaken by the applicant. The timing of the survey should be agreed with the planning authority before commencement and the results to be submitted to the

8 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

planning authority within 14 days of completion of each survey.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, subject to the following:

Condition 6 to be amended as set out in the update report:

“6. NSTD - The serviced accommodation hereby permitted shall be used as a hotel within Class C1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification and the occupation of such serviced accommodation by a customer shall be limited to a maximum stay of three months.”

Additional conditions to require:

 Rear roof windows to be double-glazed;

 Signage to be installed on site, in consultation with officers, to direct traffic onto Bath Road not Parkside Road.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objector George Nowacki, Abdullah Naweed and Chris Strang on behalf of the applicant and Councillor Ennis attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

12/01623/OUT – FOUDRY PLACE, DRAKE WAY AND 22 COMMERCIAL ROAD, SOUTHSIDE

A hybrid planning application for:  construction and operation of a car dealership (14,197 sq m GEA) including workshop for repairs, servicing and MOT, parts store and valeting, car parking and storage with associated roads, public realm and landscaping (submitted in full with no matters reserved); and  construction of B1 offices (2,295 sq m GEA) and C1 serviced apartments (1,400 sq m GEA) (submitted in outline with Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale reserved).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which contained information on the S106 legal agreement financial contributions and other heads of terms, proposing amendments and additions, as well as an amendment to condition 11. The recommendation had been amended accordingly. The update report had appended annotated versions of the Southside Illustrative Masterplan and the extract showing Foudry Place.

It was reported verbally at the meeting that in paragraph 1.1 of the update report, the reference to vehicle trips should be to person trips.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section

9 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

106 legal agreement by 6 March 2013 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning and Building Control) to secure the following Heads of Terms:

i. In respect of the car dealership, a financial contribution of £90,426 towards transport infrastructure improvements brought forward through the Reading Urban Area Package (RUAP) towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS20: Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011). Payment to be index- linked from the date of grant of permission and to be made prior to commencement of development. ii. In respect of the offices, a financial contribution of £37,562 towards transport infrastructure improvements brought forward through the Reading Urban Area Package (RUAP) towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS20: Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011). Payment to be index- linked from the date of grant of permission and to be made prior to commencement of development. iii. In respect of the car dealership, a financial contribution of £11,129 towards transport infrastructure improvements brought forward through the Reading Urban Area Package (RUAP) towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS20: Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011). Payment to be index- linked from the date of grant of permission and to be made prior to commencement of development. iv. A Travel Plan for the car dealership in order to promote more sustainable modes of travel shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority no later than six months following first use of the car dealership hereby approved and shall be reviewed bi-annually in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities, CS20: Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011) and CS23: Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans. The travel plan shall include measures to: a. Minimise the impact of movements to and from the site on congestion and air quality; b. maximise the accessibility of the site to employees, c. assure safe travelling conditions for employees, and d. maximise walking, cycling and public transport modes of travel to and from the site. v. No later than six weeks prior to commencement of development of the car dealership, the applicant shall submit to the Council for approval (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed or withheld) - and if necessary re- submit until approved - an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) which identifies and promotes, in collaboration with the Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business campaign, employment opportunities generated by the proposed car dealership development. The ESP shall target Reading Borough based

10 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

workforces (although will not specifically exclude workforces from outside that area) for the construction phase(s) of the proposed development, the ESP shall be implemented as approved, be monitored and no development shall take place until the ESP is approved in accordance with Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM3: Infrastructure Planning and Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPG ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’. vi. No later than six months prior to first use of the car dealership, the applicant shall submit to the Council for approval (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed or withheld) - and if necessary re-submit until approved - an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) which identifies and promotes, in collaboration with the Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business campaign, employment opportunities generated by the end use of the proposed car dealership development. The ESP shall target Reading Borough based workforces (although will not specifically exclude workforces from outside that area) for the end use of the development; the ESP shall be implemented as approved, be monitored and the development shall not be brought into use until the ESP is approved in accordance with Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM3: Infrastructure Planning and Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPG ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’. vii. No development shall take place in respect of either the office building or serviced apartments until construction and end user Employment Skills Plans (ESP’s) for that part of the development, in the manner outlined in iii) and iv) above, have been submitted to and approved by the Council; or financial contributions using the formulas (as outlined within the Council’s Draft Employment, Skills and Training SPD - Nov 2012) have been paid to the Council in accordance with Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM3: Infrastructure Planning and Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPG ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. viii. In respect of v) to vii) above, where an ESP is produced by the developer, a financial contribution (monitoring fee) of £25.00 per each ESP training output shall be paid towards the costs of Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business Co-ordinator monitoring and co-ordinating the delivery of the ESP. Alternatively, where the developer chooses to pay a financial contribution to the Council, for Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business Co-ordinator to produce and implement an ESP, a financial contribution (monitoring fee) of 3% of the total financial contribution shall be also paid to the Council; in accordance with Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM3: Infrastructure Planning and Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPG ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Payment to be index linked from the date of grant of permission and to be made prior to commencement of development and as outlined within the Council’s Draft

11 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

Employment, Skills and Training SPD - Nov 2012. ix. An amended Lower Foudry Brook South Management Plan, based on the principles outlined within the Lower Foudry Brook South Management Plan (September 2012) as prepared by the Ecology Consultancy, shall be submitted to the LPA for approval no later than nine months from the date of implementation of any part of the development. Implementation of the approved Southern Foudry Brook Corridor Management Plan shall commence within one year of the commencement of development. The amended Southern Foudry Brook Corridor Management Plan shall be clear and concise and run for a period of five years and shall include the following elements:-  An amended landscaping schedule based on plans submitted during the application but to also include details of ground and water levels;  A management specification built on "naturalistic principles" whereby management inputs will be designed to protect and sustain the Ecology and landscape of the Foudry Brook Corridor;  Short and long term aims and objectives;  Details, description and maps of habitats and species found on the site;  Details of the extent and type of new planting (with all planting to consist of locally native plant species of UK genetic provenance);  Details of measures that will be taken to control the spread of invasive species (including floating pennywort);  Details of boundary treatments;  Clear prescriptions (shown in tables and plans) to achieve the aims and objectives of the plan to include details of vegetation management, management responsibilities and a named organisation responsible for implementing the prescriptions; and  Details of how the aims, objectives and prescriptions will be monitored, and what processes will be put in place to ensure that the plan is iterative (ensuring that its aims and objectives are met and adjustments are made to ensure this is the case). At the end of the five year period the developer shall submit for approval in writing by the Council a Long Term Foudry Brook Corridor Management Plan, to include details of all management responsibilities including adequate financial provision and a named organisation responsible for management and monitoring. The land shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved Long Term Foudry Brook Corridor Management Plan in accordance with Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM17: Green Network and Core Strategy Policies CS34: Pollution and Water Resources and CS36: Biodiversity and Geology. x. The serviced apartments shall be restricted to non-residential (ie short- term) accommodation: a) no more than 10% of the apartments shall be let for a continuous period of not more than 6 months; b) Save those units occupied not more than six months, no unit to be let for a continuous period of not more than three months (ie 10% can be let for up to six months and 90% up to three months); c) No minimum period of occupation for an apartment; and d) Apartments shall be used for a Class C1 use only xi. The car dealership shall only be operated with the provision of the car

12 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

parking and manoeuvring spaces provided at 22 Commercial Road as detailed in the approved plans. xii. No vehicle deliveries via transport to the car dealership shall be made through Kennet Island.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, subject to the following:

Condition 11 to be amended as recommended in the update report, to read:

“11. Piling or other foundations using penetrative methods shall not be permitted unless the written consent of the local planning authority is given where it has been demonstrated that there would be no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater.”

Comments received and considered.

(5) That, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the carrying out of the following developments be authorised, subject to the conditions now specified:

12/01772/REG3 – 158 THIRLMERE AVENUE, TILEHURST

New concrete external stairway and associated works.

Granted as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.

Comments received and considered.

(6) That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be consulted on the following application in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009:

12/01941/REG3 – MICKLANDS PRIMARY SCHOOL, MICKLANDS ROAD, CAVERSHAM

Provision of two double temporary classroom units and associated external works.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of objections received from Sport England and Micklands Pre-school, officer comments thereon and information received from the Council’s Ecologist and had appended a revised plan in response to Sport England’s objection. The report explained the procedural requirements following receipt of the Sport England objection and the recommendation had been amended accordingly.

That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to grant permission in the event that:

i) The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application for

13 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 6 FEBRUARY 2013

determination; or ii) the period in which the Secretary of State may respond under paragraph 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 expired; or iii) Sport England withdrew their objection.

In that event:

Conditional planning permission as recommended in the original report.

The Travel Plan to be approved in consultation with Ward Councillors.

Comments and objections received and considered.

(The meeting closed at 9.45pm).

14 14 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND SPORT

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Date: 6th March 2013 AGENDA ITEM: 4 TITLE: POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: BOROUGH WIDE

AUTHOR: David Breeze TEL: 0118 9372410

JOB TITLE: Planning Manager E-MAIL: [email protected] (Implementation)

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To identify those sites where, due to the sensitive or important nature of the proposals, a Committee Site Visit might be appropriate before the meeting of the next Committee or at a future date and confirm relevant site visit dates as shown in diary.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 That you resolve to visit the sites in the Appendix which will be provided with the update Agenda on day of forthcoming Planning Applications Committee and identify any further site visits. That you confirm the site visit date and time shown in your diary.

3. THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The potential list of agenda items submitted since the last meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be provided with the update Agenda on the day of forthcoming Planning Applications Committee. Where appropriate, I will identify those applications that I feel warrant a site visit by the Committee prior to formal consideration of the proposals.

3.2 Where a councillor has called in a normal delegated application for a Committee decision, they may also request a site visit if they consider it appropriate.

3.3 Officers may also recommend a site visit if they intend to report a normally delegated application to the Committee for a decision.

3.4 A site visit may also be proposed in connection with a planning enforcement issue which is before the Committee for consideration.

3.5 Site visits in the above circumstances should take place in advance of a Committee decision and should only be used where the expected benefit is substantial.

3.6 Site visits consist simply of an inspection by a viewing Committee, with officer assistance, as the most fair and equitable process between applicant and 15 objectors. Site visits are normally unaccompanied (ie without applicant and objectors). If accompanied, applicants and objectors will have no right to speak but may observe the process and answer questions when asked. Applicants will be informed of such visits as a matter of practice.

3.7 A site visit is only likely to be necessary if the impact of the proposed development is difficult to visualise from the plans and any supporting material including photographs taken by officers (although, if this is the case, additional illustrative material should have been requested); or, there is a good reason why the comments of the applicant and objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; or, the proposal is particularly contentious.

3.8 There may also be occasions where officers or councillors request a post completion site visit in order to review the quality or impact of a particular development.

3.9 Where for capacity reasons, it has not proved possible to accommodate all the agreed sites on the first available visit date, any outstanding sites will be added to a reserve list for inclusion on the next suitable visit date.

4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS

4.1 The planning development management process (including Committee site visits) considers planning applications and thereby contributes to the Council’s strategic aims in terms of :

 To Develop Reading as a Green City with a sustainable environment and economy at the heart of the Thames Valley  To promote equality, social inclusion and a safe and healthy environment for all

4.2 Determining planning applications can also support the aims of the Sustainable Community Strategy (Reading 2020).

 A Fairer Reading for All  Children and Young People  Cleaner and Greener Environments  Culture Leisure and Sport  Decent and affordable Housing  Healthy People and Lifestyles  Safer and Stronger Communities  Thriving Economy and Skills  Transport and Accessible Spaces

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION

5.1 Statutory neighbour consultation takes place on planning applications.

6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Officers when assessing an application and when making a recommendation to the Committee, will have regard to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to—

16  eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;  advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;  foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Non arising from this report.

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The cost of site visits is met through the normal planning service budget.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Reading Borough Council Planning Code of Conduct.

17 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: 6th March 2013 AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: ALL

AUTHOR: David Breeze TEL: 0118 939 0410

JOB TITLE: Planning Manager E-MAIL: [email protected] (Implementation)

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To report notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate concerning various planning appeals.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 That you note the appeals received and the method of determination as listed in Appendix 1 of this report.

2.2 That you note the appeals decided as listed in Appendix 2 of this report.

2.3 That you note the Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions in Appendix 3

3. THE PROPOSAL

3.1 Please see Appendix 1 of this report for new appeals lodged since the last committee.

3.2 Please see Appendix 2 of this report for new appeals decided since the last committee.

3.3 Please see Appendix 3 of this report for new Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions since the last committee.

4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS

4.1 The planning development management service defends planning decisions at appeal and thereby contributes to the Council’s strategic aims in terms of :

18 7.2 Defending planning appeals can also support the aims of the Sustainable Community Strategy (Reading 2020).

8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION

8.1 Statutory consultation takes place on planning applications and appeals and this can have bearing on the decision reached by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors. Copies of appeal decisions are held on the public Planning Register.

9. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

9.1 Where appropriate the Council will refer in its appeal case to matters connected to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to—  eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;  advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;  foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

10. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

11.1 Only Public Inquiries involve the use of legal representation. There is no third party right of appeal, only applicants have this right against refusal or non-determination.

12. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

12.1 Public Inquiries are Informal Hearings are more expensive in terms of officer and appellant time than the Written Representations method. Either party can be liable to awards of costs. Guidance is provided in Circular 03/2009 “Cost Awards in Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”.

13. BACKGROUND PAPERS

13.1 Planning Appeal Forms and letters from the Planning Inspectorate.

19 APPENDIX 1

Appeals Lodged:

WARD: KATESGROVE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/12/2189523 CASE NO: 12/00946/FUL ADDRESS: Land To Rear Of 112 - 126 Southampton Street PROPOSAL: Erection of two 1-bed dwellings and two 2-bed dwellings (resubmission of 11/01952/FUL) CASE OFFICER: Ben Pratley METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 22.01.2013

WARD: CAVERSHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/12/2188811 CASE NO: 12/01197/FUL ADDRESS: 44 St Annes Road PROPOSAL: Loft conversion with rear flat roof dormer. CASE OFFICER: Richard Eatough METHOD: Householder – written representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 06.02.2013

WARD: PARK APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/13/2191303/NWF CASE NO: 11/01340/FUL ADDRESS: 42 Bulmershe Road PROPOSAL: Erection of 5 Self -Contained Flats to land adjacent to property CASE OFFICER: Justin Turvey METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 01.02.2013

WARD: NORCOT APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/13/2191837/NWF CASE NO: 12/01081/FUL ADDRESS: 330 Tilehurst Road PROPOSAL: Erection of 1x two bedroom house, 5x three bedroom houses, 1x four bedroom house and 2x two bedroom flats (resubmission of 12/00364/FUL) CASE OFFICER: Ben Pratley METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 05.02.2013

20 WARD: SOUTHCOTE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/13/2192373/NWF CASE NO: 12/01599/FUL ADDRESS: 44 Winser Drive PROPOSAL: Extensions to 44 Winser Drive and creation of a new dwelling CASE OFFICER: Louisa Johnson METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 13.02.2013

APPENDIX 2

Appeals Decided:

WARD: BATTLE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/12/2182699/WF CASE NO: 12/00211/FUL ADDRESS: 365-367 Oxford Road PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of ground floor of 365 Oxford Road and whole of ground floor of 367 Oxford Road, to an adult gaming centre CASE OFFICER: Andrew Chugg METHOD: Informal Hearing DECISION: ALLOWED DATE DETERMINED: 25.01.2013

APPEAL FOR COSTS AGAINST COUNCIL ALLOWED

WARD: PARK APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/12/2188754 CASE NO: 12/01295/FUL ADDRESS: 165A Wokingham Road PROPOSAL: Front, side and rear extensions and roof extension including raising the roof, front gable and two front dormer windows (resubmission of 11/01018/FUL) CASE OFFICER: Louisa Johnson METHOD: Written Representation – householder appeal DECISION: ALLOWED DATE DETERMINED: 04.02.2013

WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/12/2182055/NWF CASE NO: 12/00499/FUL ADDRESS: Garages At Land To The Rear Of 52 Russell Street PROPOSAL: The erection of four maisonettes following demolition of garages on land to the rear of 52 Russell Street CASE OFFICER: Richard Eatough METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED 21 DATE DETERMINED: 08.02.2013

PARTIAL AWARDING OF COSTS AGAINST THE COUNCIL

WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/12/2176917/NWF CASE NO: 11/01579/FUL ADDRESS: 113 Oxford Road PROPOSAL: Change of use of basement (currently ancillary to ground floor shop) to an independent unit (either A2 or B1 use) with external alterations to front access CASE OFFICER: Andrew Somerville METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 14.02.2013

WARD: MAPLEDURHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/12/2182225/NWF CASE NO: 12/00927/FUL ADDRESS: Land To Rear Of 29 Woodcote Road PROPOSAL: Erection of a 4 bed detached house CASE OFFICER: Andrew Somerville METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: ALLOWED DATE DETERMINED: 15.02.2013

APPENDIX 3

Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions.

12/00211/FUL 365-367 Oxford Road Appeal allowed Costs awarded against the Council 12/00575/FUL 511 Oxford Road Appeal allowed Application for costs refused

Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions attached.

22 Ward: Battle Appeal Ref: APP/E0345/A/12/2182699 Planning Ref: 12/00211/FUL Site: 365 – 367 Oxford Road, Reading Proposal: Change of use of part of the ground floor of 365 Oxford Road and the whole of the ground floor of 367 Oxford Road to an adult gaming centre Decision level: Committee Method: Informal Hearing Inspector: EC Grace DipTP FRTPI FBEng PPIAAS Decisions: Appeal Allowed, Costs Award Allowed Date Determined: 25/01/2013

Site Description:

The appeal site is a two storey end of terrace property located at the Oxford Road and Connaught Road junction. The site lies within the Oxford Road West District Centre, but has a wide frontage onto Connaught Road, which is a largely residential street containing two-storey terraced properties.

Description of Development:

The application which was the subject of the appeal relates to change of use of part of the ground floor of 365 Oxford Road and the whole of the ground floor of 367 Oxford Road to an adult gaming centre.

Reasons for Refusal:

The application was refused for the following reasons:

The proposed use by reason of its size and location, at the junction of a residential street where family housing is the main use and a frontage of small businesses with residential accommodation above, would result in fear of 23 crime and disorder which would undermine the quality of life and community cohesion in the area and would not be mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions. As such it would significantly detract from the amenities of local residents and businesses which would be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS7 - Design and the Public Realm and emerging SDPD policy DM4 - Safeguarding Amenity and would be at odds with the NPPF (para. 69), which requires that planning policies and decisions promote "safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion".

The proposed adult gaming centre, by reason of its size and significant frontage on to Connaught Road, would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the residential character and amenities of Connaught Road. It would also be out of keeping with the role of this part of the Oxford Road West which consists of commercial properties fronting the Oxford Road with residential properties on streets behind this frontage and some residential properties at first floor level. The identified harm to residential amenity would not be mitigated by the imposition of planning conditions. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS7 - Design and the Public Realm and emerging SDPD policy DM4 - Safeguarding Amenity and is considered in this case to outweigh the policies (Core Strategy S26 - Network and Hierarchy of Centres and emerging DM13 - Vitality and Viability of Smaller Centres) which would otherwise support the introduction of a new centre use.

Main Issues:

The Inspector considered the main issues to be whether the proposed change of use would result in harm to: a) the residential and commercial character of the area, or b) the amenities of residential and commercial occupants in the locality.

The residential and commercial character of the area

The Inspector considered that the development was appropriate in a retail centre considered against Policies CS26 and CS27 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM13 of the SDPD and would not harm the retail character of the Oxford Road.

The Inspector noted that the main objections were focused on the impact of the development on the character of Connaught Road. He found that the majority of windows on the ground floor of the building fronting Connaught Road were obscured in both their current and previous use and that the development would result in a shop frontage that was not materially different to the current and previous situation. He therefore found that the proposal would not harm the character of the commercial area.

Turning to the impact on the residential character of Connaught Road, the Inspector considered that the juxtaposition of housing and commercial uses was no different to other District Centres across the country, and that the use would actually be separated from the terraced housing by offices and an access drive, unlike the furniture store opposite. The Inspector considered that no substantive evidence of any definitive harm being caused to the character of the area by the proposed use had been provided, and that the use would add to the diversity of uses already present.

The amenities of residential and commercial occupants

The Inspector stated that it is apparent that the locality is recognised as a deprived area, with an unenviable record of criminal activity related to issues such as prostitution, drugs and alcohol, robbery, criminal damage and antisocial behaviour. He noted that there has been considerable effort by the police, local councillors and other groups to address these issues, resulting in a noticeable reduction in such activities. He also noted the fears that the proposed use would undo the good work that has been done, by attracting criminals and encouraging vulnerable members of society to 24 become addicted to gambling.

The concerns of the police in relation to the application as submitted, including the proposal to open the premises 24 hours a day were noted by the Inspector in his report, as was the police’s removal of their objection when the appellant amended the suggested opening times to 09.00–23.00 and confirmed there would be no alcohol served on the premises, that two members of staff would be on duty and that CCTV would provide surveillance of public areas.

The Inspector considered that the proposal would not lead to an increase in street drinking given the prohibition of alcohol upon the premises, and that it would not lead to an increase in prostitution or drug crime given the proposed staffing and CCTV, as well as location of a community police office opposite.

In relation to encouraging gambling, the Inspector found that the proposed use was no different a temptation than betting shops, premises selling lottery tickets or online gambling sites. He also considered that the fear young people would become addicted to gambling is unfounded as under 18’s were prevented from entering the premises.

Summarising, the Inspector considered that the fear of crime was a genuine concern in light of the record of criminal activities in the area, but that “not a single shred of substantive evidence has been submitted to conclusively demonstrate that the proposed use would result in an increased incidence of the types of criminal activities mentioned”.

Conditions

In relation to noise and disturbance, the Inspector considered that conditions relating to hours of opening (08.30-22.00 Mondays to Saturdays and 11.00-20.30 Sundays), details of ventilation/air conditioning, measures to restrict noise and restrictions on the use of the access onto Connaught Road would satisfactorily address concerns In relation to noise and disturbance. The Inspector also considered it necessary to impose a condition requiring approval of the proposed treatment of the ground floor shop windows in the interests of safeguarding the character of the area.

The Inspector did, however, consider that the conditions suggested by the police relating to site management, staffing and CCTV were matters covered under licensing and therefore inappropriate and unnecessary to impose as a planning condition.

Costs Decision:

The Inspector also considered a claim for an award of costs against the Council submitted by the applicant.

The Inspector considered that the reasons for refusal were somewhat garbled and repetitive and did not accord with Circular 03/2009 advice that reasons should be carefully framed, precise, specific and relevant to the application.

In relation to character of the area, the Inspector considered that the external appearance of the building would not be materially different to how it is now and that no substantive evidence was produced to demonstrate otherwise. Similarly, in relation to the impact of the development upon amenity, the Inspector considered that the development would not be of detriment to the area and no substantive evidence was produced to demonstrate otherwise.

In relation to comments made by the Council and third parties in respect of crime, the Inspector noted that whilst the NPPF does seek to promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion, it also requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Inspector considered that the comments made by the Council and third 25 parties regarding crime were based on perceptions of the possible impacts, with no detailed technical or objective evidence to demonstrate why permission could not be granted subject to conditions. The Inspector went on to state that he understood that the area’s unenviable record of crime and unsociable behaviour caused local residents to have concerns regarding the application, but the subsequent negotiations and clarifications submitted by the applicant suitably addressed concerns that had been originally raised by the Police. He considered that the Council had failed to produce substantive evidence to support their grounds of refusal and that the use could be satisfactorily controlled by planning and licensing conditions.

The Inspector therefore found that unreasonable behaviour had occurred and that a full award of costs against the Council was justified.

HPBC COMMENTS ON THE DECISION:

Unfortunately, due to an oversight by officers, residents were not notified in writing of the change in method of determination of the appeal from the written representations procedure to an Informal Hearing until shortly before the date of the Hearing. However, the Inspector was satisfied that with the large number of members of public at the Hearing and with the representations received from interested parties, he was able to conduct a “full and fair Hearing” despite the late notification.

At the Hearing, the Inspector heard the concerns of Ward Members and local residents, and refers to them in his decision; however, in making a full award of costs against the Council, the Inspector explains the importance of having reasons fully supported by evidence when refusing planning applications. If such evidence is not presented there is a risk of an award of costs on the basis of unreasonable behaviour.

27 APPEAL DECISION REPORT:

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6th March 2013

Ward: Battle Appeal No. APP/E0345/A/12/2179686/NWF Planning Ref: 12/00575/FUL Site: 511 Oxford Road, Reading Proposal: Retrospective change of use from residential to B1 offices Decision level: Delegated Method: Hearing Decision: Appeal ALLOWED Date Determined: 21st January 2013 Inspector: D G T Isaac LLB

1.0 Site Description:

1.1 The application site is 511 Oxford Road a two-storey building, situated within a terrace of properties, some of which are in commercial uses. The property was changed to B1 office use after the refusal of planning permission (ref. 12/00575/FUL). The site falls within the policy boundary of the Oxford Road West District Centre.

2.0 Description of Development:

2.1 The application was for a retrospective change of use from residential (C3) to B1 offices for a Travel Agency.

28 2.2 The application was refused for the following reason:

The development results in the loss of a residential unit and the introduction of office development outside of the identified centres and no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify this. This would be detrimental to the vitality and viability of existing centres and to the adequate provision of housing within the borough contrary to policies CS17 and CS26 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

3.0 The Appeal Decision:

3.1 The Inspector identified the main issues as: the effect of the proposed development: (i) on housing provision in the area; and (ii) on the vitality and viability of the Oxford Road West District Centre and other centres in the Borough.

3.2 The Inspector identified that:

a) Notwithstanding that a previous application for change of use of the ground floor from residential to office use of the appeal building was refused in 2005, he considered that whilst it had been “extremely unwise” of the appellant company to proceed to invest substantial sums of money in installing equipment at the building, the sums invested had enabled the business to grow to employ 12 members of staff.

b) there is other office accommodation available in the area (as demonstrated by the Council). However, the appellant would have to invest broadly similar sums (to those already invested in the appeal site) in installing similar IT and phone systems in any new building and that the substantial sums already spent at the appeal site could not be recovered.

c) the company would be unable to afford the cost of installing similar computer equipment in a new building and that a move from the appeal building would be likely to result in the closure of the business and the loss of the jobs that it currently provides.

d) the site does fall within the Oxford Road West District Centre although it does not form part of the key frontages and that as such the proposal would not result in the introduction of an office use outside an existing centre.

3.3 In summary the Inspector concluded that:

 the office would not have a detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of the centre; and  the closure of the business would be likely to result in the loss of the jobs that it currently provides; the continuation of the business from the appeal building should result in the jobs that the company provides being retained. The proposed development would therefore provide both economic and social benefits and in the context of the current economic climate those benefits would be significant. He also concluded that in this particular case notwithstanding the actions taken by the appellant without the benefit of planning permission, the economic and social benefits of the proposed development would be sufficient to outweigh the loss of the residential accommodation at the appeal building and thereby constitute exceptional circumstances to depart from policy which would justify granting planning permission for the change of use of the building.

5.0 HPBC COMMENTS ON THE DECISION:

5.1 It is surprising and disappointing that the Inspector concluded that the cessation of the use, the closure of the business and the subsequent job losses would outweighed the loss of residential accommodation, given that the use has been carried out without planning permission. 29

5.2 Officers have sought Counsel’s advice as to whether the decision is challengeable on the grounds that the circumstances of the case (i.e. the setting up of the business without planning permission) could not reasonably be considered as exceptional circumstances for the purposes of applying the test in policy CS17 for preventing the loss residential accommodation.

5.3 Counsel’s advice is that the Inspector acted correctly in procedural terms in applying the exception test in policy CS17. Therefore any challenge would be about his judgement as a decision maker, for which the threshold is very high. As such it is Counsel’s opinion that it would not be possible to say that the decision was perverse even though it was surprising.

5.4 However, this decision should not be seen as a green light for the carrying out of development without planning permission and the Inspector comments that it was an extremely unwise course of action for the appellant to have taken. Furthermore, as each appeal has to be treated on its own merits, a different decision could have been made by a different Inspector on a different day.

5.5 Finally, with regard to the impact on the district centre, the policy deals with smaller centres (not the town centre) and provides a boundary to the centre which is designed to allow expansion within the centre and key frontages within centres which are designed to protect existing uses. The policy states that B1 offices are considered to be a non-centre use and was written in accordance with PPS4 (in force at the time the policy was written) which differentiated between town centres and other centres. However the NPPF treats all centres as equal and states that office uses are appropriate in centres. Therefore the Inspector was entitled to attach what weight he felt was appropriate to the NPPF in this respect.

30 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: 6th March 2013 AGENDA ITEM: 6

TITLE: TELECOMMUNICATIONS APPLICATIONS SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: ALL

AUTHOR: David Breeze TEL: 0118 9390410

JOB TITLE: Planning Manager E-MAIL: [email protected] (Implementation)

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To update the Committee on new applications and decisions on the following types of applications for telecommunications development, since the last meeting of the Committee.

(i) Prior approval notifications received

(ii) Prior approval notifications decided

(iii) Planning applications received for planning permission

(iv) Planning Applications decided

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 That you note the report.

3. PROPOSAL

3.1 Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 24 May 2001 asked for a regular report to be brought to this Committee to inform the Committee of new “prior approval notifications” since the last meeting. For the sake of the completeness it is also proposed to include details of planning applications relating to telecommunications development.

3.2 Details of Appeals on Telecommunications developments are set out in Report on Planning Appeals.

(i) Prior approval notification received:

NONE

(ii) Prior approval notification decided:

NONE 31

(iii) Planning applications received for planning permission:

NONE

(iv) Planning Applications decided:

NONE

4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS

4.1 The review of telecommunications development proposals is in line with the Council’s strategic aim to promote a safe and healthy environment for all and to develop Reading as a Green City with a sustainable environment and economy.

4.2 This supports the aims of the Sustainable Community Strategy (Reading 2020) in respect of :  Cleaner and Greener Environments  Thriving Economy and Skills

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION

5.1 Neighbour consultation takes place on planning applications and applications for prior approval.

6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 In assessing applications, officers will have regard to Equality Act 2010, Section 149, a public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—  eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;  advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;  foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 None arising directly from this report.

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 None arising directly from this report.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Planning Applications Committee 24 May 2000, Item 6: Telecommunications development - amendments to existing delegation. Circular 4/99 Planning for Telecommunications. Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (PPG 8) Telecommunications 1992. 32 Code of Best Practice: Telecommunications Prior Approval Procedures, DOE 1996.

33 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 MARCH 2013 NEW TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

Ward: All

RECOMMENDATION

That you note the contents of this report

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To advise the Committee of the location of new Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) that have been served or confirmed since the last report dated 17 October 2012.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Local Planning Authorities have the powers to protect trees and woodlands in the interest of amenity by making Tree Preservation Orders.

2.2 Most TPOs are prepared as a response to Planning Applications to develop land.

2.3 Within the Borough we have in the region of 1000 TPOs, each with trees ranging from one to hundreds.

3. ADMINISTERING TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

3.1 A comprehensive street index is maintained and can be viewed on the Reading Borough Council website, to provide an accurate picture of preserved trees in the Borough. There are plans to make TPO plans publicly available via the website and ultimately the whole TPO document.

3.2 A formal register is also maintained; a statutory requirement for public access.

3.3 TPO information can be given to members of the public by contacting either Richard Stimpson Tel: 9372441 (72441), Sarah Hanson Tel: 9372440 (72440) or Kate Rodway Tel: 9374294 (74294) in Planning’s Natural Environment Team.

3.4 TPOs are served by the Council on owners and interested parties of the land on which the tree(s) grows. In addition, owners and interested parties of land adjacent to that on which the tree(s) stand are also served where applicable.

34 3.5 TPOs are in effect from the day that they are served. TPOs are valid for a six-month period from the date served and are normally confirmed within this time.

3.6 If no objections to a TPO are received within 28 days of being served, Planning Support confirms in writing to the Council’s Legal Services whether they have received any objections. If no objections are received Legal Services confirm the TPO.

3.7 If objections are received, these are referred to Planning Applications Committee to decide whether or not the order should be confirmed.

3.8 In line with Government recommendations, the Council has completed a review of its existing Tree Preservation Orders made prior to 2000. In circumstances where there are no additions to the TPO, i.e. no new trees are being added; a Variation Order can be issued. This is intended to update the older Orders with current legislation and is used to modify details within the Order, i.e. plans and developmental changes since the original order was made. The Natural Environment Team will actively review TPOs, when appropriate, along with their normal day-to-day duties.

3.9 TPOs can also be revoked if the tree(s) the Order originally protected no longer remains, if the tree(s) are no longer worthy of preservation or if a new replacement TPO has been made and confirmed.

4. NEW TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS

4.1 Since 17 October 2012, 5 TPOs have been served: - Warren Court Riverside Plot, The Warren (47/12) - 31 Elsley Road (52/12) - The Mill Pool, Mill Green (55/12) - 12-20 Green Road (24/13) - 38-44 Green Road (25/13)

4.2 All TPOs served, as detailed above, are indicated on the map in appendix 1.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Preparing, serving, confirmation and contravention of TPOs are services dealt with by the Council’s Legal section.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 In the preparation and service of TPOs.

7. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the making of the TPOs listed.

8. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The aim of TPO’s is to secure trees of high amenity value for present and future generations to enjoy. Trees also have high environmental benefits through their absorption of polluted air, creation of wildlife habitats, reduction of surface water runoff and flooding caused by heavy rain, provision of shelter and shading and reduction of noise. The Council’s Tree Strategy highlights the importance of the use of TPOs in the retention and protection of important trees in the Borough. Policy CS38 of the Council’s Core Strategy relating to Trees, Hedges and Woodlands also reinforces the need to continue making new and retaining existing Tree Preservation Orders.

9. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

9.1 Planning Sections Tree Preservation Order Directory

9.2 Register of Tree Preservation Orders

Officer: Kate Rodway

36 Appendix 1

38 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 MARCH 2013 TITLE: OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT LAND AT AND ADJACENT TO THE MILL POOL, MILL GREEN, READING

Ward: Caversham

RECOMMENDATION

That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed with the inclusion of all trees specified

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To report to Committee objections to Tree Preservation Order No. 55/12 relating to Land at and adjacent to the Mill Pool, Mill Green, Reading (copy of TPO plan attached – Appendix 1).

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 Following receipt of concern from a local resident that trees on the site were due to be felled, Officers undertook a site visit to assess whether the trees were worthy of a Tree Preservation Order.

2.2 The site visit confirmed that two Willow trees at the ‘Mill Pool’ and two trees, identified at the time as a Spruce and a Walnut (now know to be an Ash), on the adjacent land were worthy of inclusion within a Tree Preservation Order. A TPO was served on 20 December 2012.

3. RESULT OF CONSULTATION

3.1 An objection to the inclusion of the one of the Willows (eastern most of G1) at the Mill Pool and the Spruce (T2) on the adjacent land has been made by the owners of 28A Mill Green (owners of the ‘adjacent land’), based on the following:

 Since 1985 the Spruce has grown considerably high and wide blocking the view of the river Thames.  The Spruce is causing a considerable area of lawn beneath it to die.  The Spruce is not a fine specimen as a section of it has died making the area beneath it unsightly.  There was an intention to fell the Spruce and replace it with a smaller tree which is more aesthetically pleasing, in character with a riverside setting and would continue to provide high amenity value to the area.  The branches of the nearest Willow overhang the garden by approximately 2m denying the adjacent flower border and part of the lawn sunlight and rain. The branches then have to be cut back several times a year. The flower border provides high amenity value to the area which can’t continue if the branches cannot be cut back on a regular basis.

3.2 In response to the objections, officers have the following comments:

Policy CS38: Trees, Hedges and Woodlands of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy states that ‘Individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodlands will be protected from damage or removal, and the Borough’s vegetation cover will be extended’. In particular, paragraph 11.43 states that ‘The current practice of protecting trees through Tree Preservation Orders (TPO’s) and safeguarding existing TPO’s will be continued’.

Section 11.44 of the Council’s Core Strategy states the ‘The Council will seek to retain and improve the quality of waterside vegetation, recognising its contributions to ecology and landscape character’. Objective 2 of the Council’s Tree Strategy seeks to ‘enhance the appearance of important transport routes and corridors’. The river Thames running thorough Reading is an important green corridor along which the aim is to retain trees for public amenity.

The Spruce tree appears to be in good condition and has a good shape and form. The dead branches in the lower part of the crown are considered to be a natural occurrence as a result of shading from the upper crown. Dead wood can be removed at any time without formal consent being required, however, 5- days prior written notification is required for this. The removal of these lower dead branches could form part of a crown lift (removing lower branches to a specified height), which would improve the appearance of the tree, may allow views under the canopy and also provide more light to the ground; the branches currently touching the ground.

The owners are of course free to apply to fell the Spruce at any time.

In relation to the Willow, the presence of a TPO does not stop branches from being removed, but does require permission for this work, which is likely to be approved. The new TPO Regulations that came into effect in April 2012 enable applications to be made for tree works that can be repeated at specified intervals. A new application would therefore not be required each time there was a need to trim the overhanging branches back. Branches could only be pruned back to the boundary line without the owner’s permission; a situation not altered by the presence of the TPO.

Officers have suggested that it would be prudent to engage with the tree owners, who are understood not to be local, in order to discuss the concerns. It may be that the owners would be happy to carry out or authorise more extensive work, e.g. re-pollarding. An application seeking formal approval for this is likely to be approved and can come from any person.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 The removal of the Spruce, its evergreen nature providing contrast to adjacent deciduous trees, would be a loss of tree coverage to the river corridor, highlighted as an important green corridor in the Council’s Tree Strategy, and is therefore not considered acceptable. This tree should be retained within the TPO.

40 4.2 Given that there is tree work that can alleviate the concerns relating to the Willow and that the presence of a TPO does not prevent tree works from being undertaken (with approval), the objection to the inclusion of this tree is not considered to be valid. The Willow also contributes to the green corridor along the river and is wholly appropriate to the riverside setting so should be included within the TPO.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 Preparing, serving confirmation and contravention of TPO’s are services dealt with by the Council’s Legal Section.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Administrative.

7. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS

7.1 None.

8. SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS

9. BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

9.1 Planning Sections street index and at a glance map of TPO’s

9.2 Register of Tree Preservation Orders

9.3 Plan of TPO 55/12, relating to Land at and adjacent to the Mill Pool, Mill Green, Reading (Appendix 1)

Officer: Sarah Hanson

41 T2 Spruce

G1 Willow

42 43

44 ABBEY

45 46 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO.9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 March 2013

Ward: Abbey App No.: 12/01956/FUL Address: Queens Arms PH, Great Knollys Street, Reading Proposal: Erection of 13 flats Applicant: Mr. S. Kendrick – SK-Tec Ltd Date received: January 2013 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 16 April 2013

RECOMMENDATION

To REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The demolition of the existing pub, without justification, would lead to the loss of a leisure and community facility. This would reduce the number and range of leisure, community and cultural facilities available to local residents to the detriment of maintaining a high quality of life in Reading. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy CS31 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008) and Policy DM15 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012)

2. In the failure to demonstrate in a Sequential Test that there are no other reasonably available sites for the development with a lower risk of flooding, and in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment to provide information on whether or not the development would be safe in a flood event and not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, the development would put residents and neighbouring properties at unacceptable risk of flooding. The development is contrary to the National Planning Framework (2012) and Policy CS35 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008).

3. With regard to the location of the site adjacent to existing noise generating uses (including a bus depot, ambulance station and industrial units), and in the absence of a noise assessment to provide information to assess the surrounding noise environment, the development would provide an unacceptable standard of amenities for the occupants of the residential flats. As such, the development is contrary to Policy CS34 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008), Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012), and Policy RC9 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan (Adopted January 2009).

4. In the absence of adequate space on the site for tree planting and other soft landscaping, the proposed development fails to enhance the appearance of the street and take the opportunity to contribute to local biodiversity and help adapt to climate change. As such, the development is contrary to Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008), Policies DM1 and DM8 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012), and Policy RC5 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan (Adopted January 2009).

5. In the absence of adequate outdoor space for the residents of the flats, and with an outlook from the flats onto the Bus Depot at very close distances, the proposed

47 development, with inadequate levels of space and setting, would fail to provide suitable levels of residential amenity for the residents of the flats. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy CS29 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008) and Policies DM4 and DM10 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012).

6. The width of the access through the undercroft between the ground floor flats is too narrow to be able to accommodate two-way traffic and pedestrians as a shared surface. The access is unsafe and the development is contrary to Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008), and Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012).

7. The bin store is located a distance (30m) that is too far from the closest point that refuse collection vehicles could reach (adjacent to the undercroft access) to be collected by refuse operatives ; and convenient access to the bin store could be blocked by parked cars. As such, inadequate refuse storage and collection facilities are provided which could lead to bins being stationed on the access and highway to the detriment of highway safety and convenience. The development is contrary to Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008) and Policies DM10 and DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012).

8. In the absence of an appropriate legal agreement to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing, the development would fail to provide an appropriate mix of tenures to provide greater opportunity for more people to afford adequate housing. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008), and Policy DM6 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012).

9. In the absence of an appropriate legal agreement to secure a contribution towards leisure and education infrastructure to mitigate the impacts of the new flats, the development would place unacceptable pressure on existing local services. Accordingly, the development is contrary to Policies CS9 and CS29 of the Core Strategy (adopted January 2008), and Policy DM3 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (adopted October 2012).

Informatives to include: - Plans - Positive and proactive

48 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application site comprises a two storey pub fronting onto the northern side of Great Knollys Street, with extensions to the rear, a beer garden on the western side of the building, and a driveway along the eastern side of the site.

1.2 The site is rectilinear in shape, measuring some 24m wide by 27m deep.

1.3 Surrounding the site to the north and west is Reading Bus Depot, adjacent to the east is a car park and then an area of open industrial storage relating to the Cattle Market. Beyond the Bus Deport to the rear is the railway. Opposite the site are Reading Ambulance Station and other industrial buildings including a tyre fitter and tool hire premises.

1.4 The site is located with flood zone 2, an area at medium probability of flooding.

1.5 The location of the site in relation to the surrounding area is at figure 1.1; and an aerial photo of the site looking north towards the railway is at figure 1.2.

Figure 1.1 – Location plan

Figure 1.2 – Aerial view of application from the south

2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of 13 flats within a single four-storey building. The building would have a width of 21.5m, spanning most of the width of the site, and a depth of some 14.8m which would allow for a small open area for parking, cycle and bin storage at the rear.

2.2 The building would rise to a three storey parapet height of 10m; and then the forth storey would be set in from the side and front elevations with a curved roof to a maximum height of 12.3m.

2.3 The mix of units would be five 1-bed flats and eight 2-bed flats.

2.4 Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be via an undercroft access from Great Knollys Street. A total of 13 car parking spaces are proposed.

2.5 The layout of the proposed site and front elevation of the building are respectively shown at figure 2.1 and 2.2.

2.6 Submitted plans and documents: - Location plan - Site plan - Proposed site plan - Proposed floor plans - Proposed elevations - Design and Access Statement

Figure 2.1 – Site layout

Figure 2.2 – Front elevation

3. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 98/00628/FUL Rear extension to increase the size of ladies toilet. Permitted (24/08/98).

3.2 00/01220/FUL Re-build of ladies toilets. Permitted (30/11/00).

3.3 07/01343/FUL Installation of two retractable awnings to south elevation. Permitted (10/01/08).

51 4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Non statutory consultation - Transport Strategy: The access is too narrow (at 3.35m wide) to accommodate two-way vehicular movement and pedestrians. The 2.8m height of the access is sufficient to allow entry to a car. Gates, set back 9m from the kerb edge, are acceptable. 13 parking spaces for 13 flats meet the SPD standard, although an additional visitor space is sought. There should be an assumption that any future occupants of the flats will not be issued with resident parking permits. The cycle store is adequate in size. Refuse storage is located too far from the carriageway to be collected. The existing dropped crossing should be removed and the footway reinstated.

- Environment Agency: The site lies within Flood Zone 2 – an area at moderate risk of flooding. Object in the absence of the Sequential Test having been applied.

- Tree and Landscape Officer Objection – there is inadequate space for any tree planting or soft landscaping on the site.

- Environmental Protection: The application site is likely to be significantly affected by noise from: - Bus depot next door and behind - Ambulance station opposite - Storage depot next door - Railway line - Industrial unit opposite No noise assessment has been submitted with the application to demonstrate whether or not suitable living conditions can be provided to the new occupants. It is recommended that the application be refused in the absence of this. There is significant doubt as to whether sufficient protection from noise can be provided to ensure a suitable level of amenity for the new occupants at this location. There are noise sources affecting all of the facades of the property. There is limited space to provide a buffer zone between the property and the surrounding land uses. Due to the application being for flats, an acoustic fence would not be effective as it would not protect the upper floors. The nature of the noise sources likely to be experienced includes high maximum noise levels (Lmax) from ambulance sirens and reverse beepers from the storage depot and bus depot which are difficult to mitigate against. The times of the noise are likely to occur 24 hours every day - the bus depot and ambulance station are likely to operate throughout the night, 7 days per week. Conditions to address possible land contamination are required. Construction impact of noise and dust can be controlled by condition. Air quality could be an issue depending on the amount of time buses sit idling in the Bus Depot.

- Environmental Health:

52 Being a new build, the dwellings would likely comply with building regulations and be satisfactory under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

- Housing: 30% of the flats should be affordable.

- Education: A contribution of £19,008 is required towards primary schools in the central west area and secondary schools in the north area of Reading.

- Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service: No objection.

- Building Control: Building Regulations approval required. Bedroom as an inner room on flat 11 is not acceptable.

- Thames Water: No objections.

- Leisure: A contribution of £19,500 is sought for the new flats towards either Victoria Recreation Ground or the implementation of the Thames Park Plan.

- Ecology: In the absence of information to establish whether or not bats are present, objection is raised.

4.2 Public/local consultation and comments received Eight neighbouring properties have been consulted by neighbour notification letter and a site notice has been displayed.

4.3 Two letters of objection have been received, one from Reading Transport Ltd (Reading Buses) and one from the Chair of the Board of Reading Buses, which raise the following comments: 1. A residential use is completely inappropriate for the site. 2. There is high potential for noise disturbance to residents of the proposed development. 3. The depot houses up to 150 buses with movements from 04.30 to 02.30 the following morning. 4. There are also noisy maintenance and repair activities. 5. RCAAP Policy RC9 requires noise sensitive development to be located away from existing noise generating uses. 6. A noise assessment has not been submitted. 7. Vibration and fumes would also cause a nuisance. 8. Reading Buses are concerned that complaints from any residential development could lead to the depot having to close for environmental health reasons. 9. The bus depot is vital for the functioning of Reading’s economy. 10. The development threatens the viability of the bus company. 11. The surrounding area is almost wholly industrial in character. 12. The development would be out of keeping with the street scene and local context. 13. There would be the loss of a community facility contrary to the Core Strategy and NPPF.

53 14. The site is within an area at risk of flooding. A flood risk assessment has not been submitted. 15. There is a restrictive covenant which would prevent the development.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

Legal and Planning Policy Context 5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. However the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making (NPPF paragraph 12).

5.2 In this regard the NPPF allows full weight to be given to the adopted policies of the Local Development Framework (Core Strategy, Reading Central Area Action Plan, and Sites and Detailed Policies Document) until March 2013. The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are also material planning considerations.

5.3 Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework and the following development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance are relevant:

5.4 Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy (Adopted January 2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS24 Car/Cycle Parking CS29 Provision of Open Space CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.5 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD) – (Adopted October 2012) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM6 Affordable Housing DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters DM15 Protection of Leisure Facilities and Public Houses DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.6 Reading Central Area Action Plan (Adopted January 2009) RC5 Design in the Centre RC9 Living in the Centre

5.7 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents SPG - Planning Obligations under s.106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (adopted July 2004, amendments adopted September 2004) SPD - Sustainable Design and Construction (adopted 2011) SPD - Parking Standards and Design (adopted 2011)

6. APPRAISAL

Loss of Public House 6.1 The existing public house is in operation and is considered to be a local community facility. Core Strategy Policy CS31 and SDPD Policy DM15 state that the loss of a public house will not be permitted unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no need for the pub; or that function can be fulfilled by an existing facility; or that negative impacts of retaining the pub, which could not be dealt with through other measures, are so severe as to outweigh any benefits of it remaining.

6.2 The applicant has provided no information to seek to justify the loss of a community facility. Accordingly, the application is contrary to Policies CS31 and DM15 and objection is raised.

Flooding 6.3 The site lies within Flood Zone 2 (as confirmed by the Environment Agency). This is land which has a medium probability of flooding: The Technical Guidance to the NPPF states that land within Zone 2 has between a 1% and 0.1% annual probability of flooding. Such flooding would be fluvial flooding from the River Thames.

6.4 Para.100 of the NPPF states that development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development to areas at lowest risk (i.e. to Flood Zone 1). In this regard, development should be subject to a Sequential Test. Para.101 sets out that development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding.

6.5 The PPS25 Practice Guide identifies that Flooding from rivers is a natural process that plays an important role in shaping the natural environment. But flooding can cause substantial damage to property and threaten human life. Such damage is a consequence of previous decisions about the location and nature of settlement and land use. As such, to prevent or minimise such risks to property and human life, it is essential that new residential development be located in areas at least risk of flooding (Zone 1).

6.6 The PPS25 Practice Guide explains how to apply the Sequential Test for an individual site. It is considered that the Sequential Test should be applied to the whole local planning authority area of Reading Borough. For individual planning applications, the Practice Guide states that the area to apply the Sequential Test to will be defined by local circumstances relating to the catchment area for the development. Given that Reading Borough is a relatively small area (it measures some 8km east-west by 9km north-south) and has good transport links (road, bus and rail) throughout, it is considered that all

55 suitable areas within the whole of borough can be considered in the Sequential Test. Most built-up urban land within the borough is outside of Flood Zone 2 or 3.

6.7 The PPS25 Practice Guide states that it is the responsibility of the developer to assemble the evidence in order to allow the Sequential Test to be carried out. For the Sequential Test to be passed, the appellant will need to demonstrate that there are not any reasonably available sites for the type and scale of proposed development, within Reading, with a lower flood risk. In this regard, no information has been received from the applicant.

6.8 However, given that the development comprises a single flatted building, it is considered that there are many other sites available for such residential development within the borough. This is supported by projected housing completions in the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report. Recent appeal decisions in Reading support this approach: One Inspector concludes that the first principle should be to avoid placing development on land which is at risk of flooding and it is on this principle that the appeal fails.

6.9 As such, it is considered that the residential development fails the Sequential Test and is contrary to the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy CS35.

6.10 Other issues concerning flooding – including whether or not the development would be safe in a flood event and whether or not it would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere – would normally be set out in a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The applicant has not submitted a FRA; however, given the failure to satisfy the Sequential Test, this matter has not been progressed.

Noise 6.11 The Environmental Protection Officer identifies that the application site is likely to be significantly affected by noise from the large bus depot that surrounds two sides of the site, the railway further to the rear, the ambulance station and industrial units opposite, and the car park and area of open storage to the east.

6.12 Core Strategy Policy CS34 and RCAAP Policy RC9 state that proposals for residential development, which are sensitive to effects of noise pollution, will only be permitted in appropriate areas (away from the source of noise pollution) unless adequate mitigation measures are provided. It is considered that noise impacts can affect both internal living and external amenity areas. Where it is not demonstrated that adequate mitigation can be provided, planning permission should be refused.

6.13 A noise assessment has not been submitted with the application. This would need to provide information on the existing noise environment in order to be able to establish whether or not suitable living conditions could be provided for future occupants.

6.14 However, the Environmental Protection Officer advises that there is significant doubt whether sufficient protection from noise is achievable in this location.

6.15 There are noise sources affecting all of the facades of the property; there is limited space to provide any buffer zone between the property and the surrounding land uses; and an acoustic fence would not be effective for upper floors. Further, the nature of the noise sources are likely to includes high maximum noise levels (Lmax) from ambulance sirens and reverse beepers from the storage depot and bus depot which are difficult to mitigate against; and the times of the noise from the bus depot and ambulance station are likely to occur 24 hours every day.

6.16 As such, it is considered that the proposed development, with its location in proximity to significant existing noise sources, would not provide suitable amenities for any occupants. The development is contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS34, RCAAP Policy RC9 and SDPD Policy DM4.

Design and character of the area 6.17 The application site, because it is surrounded by large areas of open storage and industrial buildings, does not have a strongly defined context against which the design can be considered; the site is an island in a spread of industrial uses. What other buildings there are do not provide a desirable design-cue for residential development: The adjacent bus depot is a very large warehouse type building, and the industrial estate opposite and the Cattle Market comprise a number of low-grade metal and brick-built sheds.

6.18 Against this background, it is considered that the four storey height and massing of the building would not be harmful to the appearance of the area. The building has sought to copy the design of the flatted building at the eastern end of Great Knollys Street; and one could consider that the curved metal roof picks-up on the form of some of the neighbouring industrial units.

6.19 With regard to the layout of the site, the building does not provide space or opportunity for the level of landscaping, including tree planting, which is required to improve the appearance of the street, contribute to biodiversity and help adapt to climate change. There is little landscaping at the front and no landscaping to the rear. Core Strategy Policy CS7 and RCAAP Policy RC5 require that new development provides appropriate soft landscaping; and SDPD Policy DM8 requires that such development makes provision for tree planting. As such, objection is raised.

Residential amenities 6.20 SDPD Policy DM10 states that flats should be provided with communal outdoor space, balconies and/or roof gardens. The three top floor flats would be provided with outdoor terrace areas, and the first and second floor flats would have French windows onto Juliet balconies. Whilst the terraces are ample in size, it is considered that the areas would not provide suitable amenity given that they would overlook noisy industrial areas; likewise, the French doors would open out onto the same environment and do not provide outdoor space. The ground floor flats would have no outdoor amenity whatsoever.

6.21 Accordingly, it is considered that the development fails to provide adequate outdoor amenity provision and proposal is contrary to Policy DM10. The inadequacy of the amenity provision that has been proposed is considered to clearly indicate that the site development is inappropriate in an industrial area and, notwithstanding, the site is too small for the number of units.

6.22 SDPD Policy DM4 addresses residential amenities of new dwellings. It requires that residential properties have suitable outlook and privacy, and do not suffer an overbearing effect from other development. Issues relating to noise have been addressed above.

6.23 There are four flats on the upper floors of the proposed building with a sole principal outlook directly over the bus depot at a distance of just 10m. Another two flats have a dual aspect partly over the depot, including one with a principal west aspect a distance of some 5m to the main depot access.

57 6.24 With regard to this relationship and proximity between the two lands uses, it is considered that operational activities at the depot would have a dominating and overbearing impact on the residential flats. This would provide an unacceptable outlook and residential environment to the flats and is contrary is Policy DM4.

6.25 SDPD Policy DM19 specifically relates to air quality; it states that where a development would introduce a sensitive residential use to an area of poor air quality (an Air Quality Management Area) mitigation should be provided. The Environmental Protection officer considers that air quality could be an issue depending on the amount of time buses sit idling in the Bus Depot. Further information from Reading Buses has been sought but is awaited. Therefore, the issue of air quality will be considered further in an update report.

Transport 6.26 Access to the site would be via an undercroft between the two ground floor flats. This would be a shared surface for both vehicles and pedestrians. Transport advises that a shared surface is, in principle, acceptable. However the width of the access at 3.35m is too narrow and should be increased to a minimum width of 4.1m. Such an increase in width is not possible due to the layout of the building; therefore objection is raised that the access is too narrow and unsafe.

6.27 With regard to the Parking Standards SPD and level of car ownership in the area, it is considered that 13 parking spaces for 13 flats are acceptable. The cycle store is of an acceptable size for the development.

6.28 Refuse vehicles would not be able to enter and turn within the site. The bin store is located at the rear of the site and is too far (a distance of some 30m) from the access onto Great Knollys Street to be collected by refuse operatives. Convenient access to the store would also be blocked by parked cars. Given that there is nowhere else on the site where the store could be relocated to within an acceptable collection distance, objection is raised that the development does not provide adequate refuse facilities which would lead to the stationing of bins on the access and highway.

Affordable housing 6.29 SDPD Policy DM6 requires that for such a size of residential development (13 flats) a provision of 30% affordable housing shall be provided unless the applicant can demonstrate that such a level would make the development financially unviable. This test of viability is also required by the NPPF which states that the costs of affordable housing to a development should still allow for competitive returns to a landowner and developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

6.30 The application has not addressed this policy requirement in the application submission; and given the unsuitability of the site for residential development (detailed above) this matter has not been progressed. In the failure to secure an appropriate level of affordable housing the development is contrary to Policy DM6.

Contributions 6.31 Contributions towards education and leisure infrastructure to offset the impacts of the development are required if all other matters were acceptable.

6.32 An education contribution of £19,008 would go towards primary schools in the central west area and secondary schools in the north area of Reading; and a leisure contribution

58 of £19,500 would be used towards either Victoria Recreation Ground or the implementation of the Thames Park Plan.

6.33 These obligations are calculated in accordance with the Council’s SPG and are considered to meet the relevant tests of the NPPF and CIL regulation 122.

6.34 Transport advises that a RUAP contribution is not required given existing trips that are generated by the pub.

Other matters 6.35 Thames Water raises no objection to the development with regard to sewerage infrastructure. Surface water drainage can be controlled by condition.

6.36 Core Strategy Policy CS1 requires that for major residential development 50% of units should meet code level 3 and 50% level 4. In a single building, it is usual to require the development to meet a high code level 3. Given current Building Regulations requirements on insulation and energy efficiency, it is considered reasonable to secure an appropriate code level by condition.

6.37 It is possible that the site is contaminated and remedial work would need to be undertaken to make that land suitable for residential development. Such matters could be addressed by condition if all other issues were acceptable.

6.38 Representations from Reading Buses identify that there is a legal covenant on part of the application site that would prevent the proposed development. Any such covenant would be a private matter which is not relevant to the consideration of this application on its planning merits.

Equality impact 6.39 In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, and sexual orientation.

6.40 Given the topography of the site, the ground floor flats would either have a level or ramped threshold to comply with building regulations. As such, it is considered that the development would not result in a significant adverse impact on the key equalities protected characteristic of age or disability.

6.41 Otherwise, there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that other protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities as a result of the development.

Discussions with applicant 6.42 Where planning permission is either approved or refused, the Council’s decision notice must include a statement in explaining how the LPA has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application.

6.43 In this instance, officers have discussed with the applicant’s agent the issues of concern. However, given the nature of the objections, it is considered that they could not be addressed for the development proposed within the course of this application.

59 6.44 The applicant has been advised to engage with the Council’s pre-application service in order so that officers can work positively and proactively in the future to seek to find a more appropriate development on the site. The applicant did not carry out any pre- application work with officers before the submission of this application.

6.45 The application has been referred to the Planning Applications Committee for decision within the prescribed application timetable.

Conclusion 6.46 In conclusion, it is considered that:  The loss of the pub would be harmful to local community and leisure facilities.  The site is within an area at risk of flooding and there are other reasonably available sites with a lower flood risk on which such development could be located.  The development, in proximity to existing noise generating uses, would not provide suitable amenities for occupants.  The appearance of the building could assimilate with the surrounding industrial context.  The development does not provide adequate tree planting and landscaping.  The lack of useable amenity space and outlook provides an unacceptable level of amenity.  The access is too narrow and dangerous.  The bin store is inaccessible.  On-site affordable housing and contributions towards education and leisure are required.

6.47 Plans - GKS-01 Site & local plan; bin & cycle details - GKS-02 Ground and first floor plans - GKS-03 Second and third floor plans - GKS-01 Elevations

Case Officer: Andrew Somerville

62 KATESGROVE

63 64 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 06 March 2013

Ward: Katesgrove App No.: 12/01713/FUL & 12/01714/LBC Address: 2 Pell Street, Reading. Proposal: Change of use to Retail (A1) on ground floor and a 5 bedroom HMO (C4) on the first and second floors. New timber vehicular entrance doors, new residential entrance door to the north elevation, partial conversion of hard standing area back to garden space and car and cycle parking provision. Retrospective approval for demolition of outbuilding/garage and addition of en-suite shower/WC’s to the bedrooms on the upper floors of the building. Applicant: Mr P Sancra Date valid: 06 November 2012 Minor Applications: 8 week target decision date: 01 January 2013 26 week target decision date: 07th May 2013

RECOMMENDATIONS:

12/01713/FUL - Delegate to the Head of Planning and Building Control to (i) GRANT planning permission subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement by 08th April 2013, or (ii) REFUSE permission should the s106 legal agreement not be completed by 08th April 2013 (unless the Head of Planning and Building Control agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement would secure the following:

1. A financial contribution of £3,500 towards transport infrastructure improvements brought forward through the Reading Urban Area Package (RUAP) towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS20: Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006- 2011) and SDPD Policy DM3: Infrastructure Planning. Payment to be index linked from the date of grant of permission and to be made prior to commencement of development.

If such an agreement is entered into, planning permission shall include the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions to include: 2. TL1 – Full 3 years. 3. AP1 – Development as per approved plans. 4. M4 – Material samples to be submitted. 5. Use of upper floors restricted to C4 HMO only. 6. No internal shelving to the retail unit shall obscure, or part-obscure, any external ground floor windows to the property. 7. Within one month of grant of this permission details of the proposed vehicular access and dropped kerb shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority. Following approval, the vehicular access and dropped kerb shall be

65 implemented within one month. 8. Within one month of grant of this permission the vehicle parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans. 9. Within one month of grant of this permission, details of secure, lockable and covered cycle parking facilities shall be submitted and approved. Following approval, the cycle parking facilities shall be implemented within one month. 10. Prior to any agreement being entered into for a new occupation of, or transfer of any interest in, the residential units hereby approved the prospective occupier/transferee shall be informed of the prohibition on entitlement to a car parking permit. All material utilised for advertising or marketing the residential units for letting or sale shall make it clear to prospective tenants and occupiers that no parking permit will be issued by the Council to occupiers of the residential units. 11. Within one month of grant of this permission a Construction Method Statement (CMS) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include details of: - Vehicle parking; - Loading and unloading of plant and materials; - Storage of plant and materials; - Erection and maintenance of security hoarding; - Measures to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads; - Details of Footpath/Road closures needed during construction; - Traffic management needed during construction, and - Times, routes and means of access for construction traffic. 12. Within one month of grant of this permission, the ‘grassed area’ and planting border shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans and made available for use by the occupants of the proposed HMO. 13. No construction/demolition outside the hours of 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Mons – Fri and 09:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Sats. No work at all on Suns or Bank Holidays. 14. Any signage for the proposed retail use shall be located within the confines of the existing ground floor fascia area and shall be of an appropriate size, design and utilise appropriate materials for this listed building.

Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach by LPA. 2. Development plan compliance. 3. Occupiers of HMO not entitled to parking permit. 4. Access – highways licence. 5. Damage to the highway. 6. No parking permits. 7. Works affecting the highway. 8. Separate advertisement consent will be required for any adverts. 9. Building Regulations approval required. 10. Construction and demolition nuisance law. 11. Terms and conditions.

12/01714/LBC - GRANT listed building consent subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions to include: 1. LBC1 - Listed building - time limit for works 2. Suitable precautions shall be taken to secure and protect the interior elements of the building against loss or damage during the building work and no such elements shall be disturbed or removed temporarily or permanently without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority except as indicated on the approved

66 drawings. 3. A schedule of regular site inspections shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development hereby approved. Reason: to ensure that regular monitoring of construction work takes place to protect the character and historical integrity of the building.

Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Approach by LPA. 2. Development plan compliance. 3. Building Regulations approval required. 4. Terms and conditions. 5. Pre-commencement conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is located at the junction of Pell Street, Elgar Road, Berkeley Avenue and Katesgrove Lane and is 0.4 ha in size. The site is an ‘L’ shaped piece of land that comprise the former Claddagh Ring public house, a Grade II Listed Building, and land within the curtilage of this property that lies adjacent to the rear property boundaries of houses on Pell Street and Francis Street. This Victorian 3-storey property has two main frontages with 2 gables to Pell Street, stucco to Elgar Road, painted brickwork and traditional wooden sash windows.

1.2 The submission of the application follows enforcement investigations into unauthorised works to the Listed Building including the demolition of a dilapidated garage/outbuilding to the rear of the site (refer to Photographs 2 and 3), the construction of new metal gates across (refer to Photograph 1), and the construction of hardstanding over the previous pub garden area.

1.3 The application site is not designated within the development plan.

67 Site Location Plan:

Francis Street

PHOTOGRAPH 1: JUNCTION OF PELL STREET AND ELGAR ROAD

68 PHOTOGRAPH 2: ELGAR ROAD FRONTAGE

PHOTOGRAPH 3: GARAGE/OUTBUILDING (NOW DEMOLISHED)

69 2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal intends a change of use to Retail (A1) on ground floor and a 5 bedroom HMO (C4) on the first and second floors. This would allow the 5 bedrooms on the upper floors of this building to be occupied by between 3 and 6 unrelated individuals.

2.2 The property, previously being an A4 public house, benefits from permitted development rights in respect of the proposed change of use on the ground floor to a retail unit. However, the proposed change to a HMO on the upper floors, from ancillary bedrooms associated with the public house (as permitted under planning permission 16808), requires permission. It is believed that the internal alterations (i.e. the addition of en-suite shower/WC’s to the bedrooms) on the upper floors of this building was carried out at least ten years ago and these rooms are now in occupation as a licenced HMO; albeit currently unauthorised in planning terms.

2.3 The proposal seeks alterations to the listed building including new timber vehicular entrance doors, a new residential entrance door to the north elevation, partial conversion of hard standing area back to garden space and car and cycle parking provision. Retrospective approval for the demolition of the outbuilding/garage (refer to Photographs 2 and 3) and the addition of en-suite shower/WC’s to the bedrooms on the upper floors is also sought as part of these applications.

2.4 The following supporting information has been supplied with the application:

Drawings:  Site Location and Block Plan (Drawing no. A-1000 Rev A)  Existing Floor Plans (Drawing no. A-1010 Rev A)  Existing Elevations (Drawing no. A-1011 Rev A)  Existing Landscaping (Drawing no. A-1012 Rev A)  Proposed Floor Plans (Drawing no. A-1020 Rev B)  Proposed Elevations (Drawing no. A-1021 Rev B)  Proposed Landscaping (Drawing no. A-1022 Rev B)

Documents:  Design & Access Statement (including Heritage Asset Appraisal)

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 16808 Conversion of first floor club room associated GRANTED with the public house into bedrooms for family 04/09/69 visitors and letting – commercial travelers.

4. CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Consultees

4.1 None.

70 Non-statutory Consultees

RBC Transport Development Control 4.2 Transport DC raises no objection to this application subject to conditions to secure access and parking arrangements, a Construction Method Statement (CMS) and to ensure no parking permits are granted to the HMO; a financial contribution of £3,500 to mitigate the developments impact on transport infrastructure.

RBC Environmental Protection 4.3 Raise no objection to this proposal subject to a condition to restrict the hours of any construction or demolition activity and to secure details of noise attenuation measures between the proposed shop and HMO.

RBC Environmental Health (HMO team) 4.4 Advise that the upper floors of this property are currently occupied and licenced as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for occupation by up to 5 people. The HMO team also confirm that the proposed layout would be the same as when the most recent HMO licence application was made with the exception of the entrance to the residential accommodation, which is currently via the rear external staircase up to the first floor. The proposal to form a new residential entrance onto Pell Street would be considered an improved layout to that which presently exists.

RBC Building Control 4.5 Raise no objection and advise that Building Regulations would be required.

RBC Leisure Services 4.6 Raise no objection to this application and seek no financial contributions towards leisure and open space improvements.

4.7 The Council’s Conservation Officer The Council’s Conservation Officer raises no objection to this application as the applicant has amended their proposals to no longer install internal security shutters or a suspended ceiling, which would have obscured the original cornice to the ground floor, to the building. The Conservation Officer also advises that the outbuilding/garage that has already been demolished held little significance in conservation terms and that the historic addition of shower/WC’s to the bedrooms on the upper floors also has little implication for the character of the listed building. Therefore, these two retrospective elements are not objected to in the context of the wider scheme. Conditions are recommended to be added to any LBC granted in order to secure regular site inspections during construction works.

Public consultation 4.8 A site notices were displayed and consultation letters were sent to 10 properties in the following streets:  Pell Street;  River Road;  Francis Street, and  Elgar Road.

4.9 One letter of objection has been received on the following grounds:  Unauthorised works have been undertaken to this listed building, and  Road safety and parking concerns.

4.10 Ward Councillor Rye has objected to this proposal on the following grounds:  Inadequate parking provision;  An increase in highway obstructions would occur as a result of people stopping outside the proposed shop to the detriment of highway safety;  The proposal would change the character of the area;  Residents advise that another convenience store next to the existing one (at the junction of Elgar Road and Francis Street) is not wanted;  Residents advise that they do not want the external character of the building changed and are concerned about the unauthorised works that have been done to the site, and  By granting permission it would be aiding in putting the existing store out of business.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) CS4 Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS18 Residential Conversions CS20 Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan) CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment

Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (adopted October 2012) - SDPD SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM8 Residential Conversions DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents The Council’s following adopted supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are also material planning considerations:

 Planning Obligations Under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (2004)  Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)  House Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation (2003)

72 National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

 Chapter 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)  Chapter 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)  Chapter 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes)  Chapter 7 (Requiring good design)  Chapter 12 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment)

6. APPRAISAL

(i) Main Issues

6.1 The main issues in determination of these applications are: a) Principle of development b) Works to the listed building c) Transport and parking issues d) Quality of living space and residential amenities proposed e) Planning obligations

Other issues  Impact on other nearby retail units  Equality  Positive and Proactive Approach Assessment

a) Principle of development 6.2 SDPD Policy SD1 states that “a positive approach to considering development proposals will be taken that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Core Strategy Policy CS4 states that “the scale and density of development within the Borough will be related to its level of accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport to a range of services and facilities”. Core Strategy Policy CS15 requires that developments provided an appropriate density and mix of residential development.

6.3 The site currently falls under a public house (A4) use and has 5 bedrooms (with en-suites) on the upper floors that were originally ancillary to the pub. However, a licence is now in place for use of the upper floors as a 5 person HMO but is currently unauthorised in planning terms. The proposal would not result in the loss of a residential property and the property benefits from permitted development rights to change the ground floor to a retail (A1) unit which means that the loss of the public house could not be resisted in this instance.

6.4 The site is in a sustainable location within close proximity to the town centre and therefore has good public transport links and access to town centre services and employment areas. The proposed HMO would also suitably add to the wider mix of dwellings in the area that are predominantly made up of single dwellings or flats. Subject to the assessment of the proposed alterations in detail, the principle of the proposed change of use from the upper floors of a pub to that of a HMO is considered to be acceptable in principle as it broadly accords with Core Strategy CS4 and SDPD Policy SA1 for the reasons mentioned above.

b) Works to the Listed Building 6.5 Core Strategy Policy CS33 states that planning permission will only be granted where development has no adverse impact on historic assets and their settings. Core Strategy Policy CS7 requires that all development must be of a high design

6.6 As mentioned, these applications seek approval for both proposed works and those that have already been undertaken and are now being applied for retrospectively. Each is dealt with in turn as follows.

6.7 The main addition to the building would be the proposed timber entrance double-doors that would front onto Pell Street and provide access to the residential accommodation on the upper floors. The new doors would mirror the existing double entrance doors on the north elevation and would add a degree of symmetry that would be in keeping with the general appearance and character of the listed building.

6.8 The proposed timber gates to the vehicular access would replace the unauthorised metal security gates currently at the property and would significantly enhance the appearance of the site when viewed from Elgar Road whilst providing privacy and security for the proposed uses.

6.9 As mentioned, the previous pub garden area has been concreted over and the proposal would ensure that this space would be put back to a grassed garden area that would be for the enjoyment of the proposed HMO. In conservation terms, this has little implication for the listed building, other than creating a more attractive sitting-out area.

6.10 The submitted Heritage Asset Appraisal stresses that all important internal features of the listed building; i.e. skirting, cornices, beam detailing, windows and doors, architraves, fireplace surrounds and plastering are proposed to be retained as part of the proposals which would protect its character appearance and integrity. Officers agree with this conclusion; especially following the removal of previous proposals to add a suspended ceiling and security grilles to the windows of this listed building.

6.11 The submitted Heritage Asset Appraisal states that the outbuilding/garage was built after the original building, remained unattached, and was of a poor design quality that had no valuable features in heritage terms. Following consultation with the Council’s Conservation Officer, it is agreed that the outbuilding/garage provided little in the way of historic or conservation merit and therefore it is acceptable to grant retrospective approval for its removal.

6.12 The submitted Heritage Asset Appraisal also indicates that the upper floors of the building had been used as bedrooms since 1952. In respect of the later additions of en-suite facilities to the upper floors of the building, it is clear that these additions have been provided without adversely impacting on the original walls or historic features of the building. Therefore, it is also considered suitable to grant retrospective approval for these changes in the light of the merits of the wider proposal.

6.13 The proposed works are considered to strike an acceptable balance between maintaining those elements of the building that are considered to contribute to its historic significance, whilst enabling it to be bought back into an active use,

c) Transport and parking issues 6.14 SDPD Policy DM12 states that development proposals will be assessed against their effect on highway safety, congestion and the environment. Core Strategy Policy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD outlines the Council’s requirements for parking provision on developments.

6.15 A dropped crossing already exists for the site and this is to be retained as part of proposals which also include the provision of a driveway with 2 parking spaces. The two spaces illustrated side-by-side on the proposed plan would enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in an acceptable manner. The dropped crossing would need to be extended so that vehicles are not required to drive over a full face kerb. A condition is recommended to secure this detail.

6.16 In respect of the proposed HMO, the provision of 1 car parking space is in accordance with the Council’s parking standards. The Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD requires a maximum provision of 1 space per 40m² of retail space which equates 2 spaces in this instance. Given the existing parking restrictions surrounding the application site and the fact that none of the future occupants of the residential element will be issued with resident parking permits, it is considered that the provision of 2 spaces (one space allocated to each of the proposed uses) is acceptable in this instance.

6.17 Cycle storage has been illustrated for the proposed HMO and this is in accordance with the Borough’s Parking Standards and Design SPD which requires a minimum provision of 0.5 spaces per unit, a total of 3 spaces or 2 Sheffield type stands. Conditions are recommended to ensure that the proposed cycle storage facility is to lockable and covered, car parking spaces to be provided within one month of implementation and no parking permits to be granted.

6.18 Subject to adherence to the above conditions, the proposal accords with SDPD Policy DM12, Core Strategy Policy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD in respect of transport and parking issues.

d) Quality of living space and residential amenities proposed SDPD Policy DM8 states that HMO proposals will only be acceptable where the property to be converted measures more than 120 sq m and that there is an appropriate balance between communal and private areas. Core Strategy Policy CS18 and the Council’s ‘House Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation’ SPD state that proposals to convert properties into HMO’s will be assessed against the impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area particularly in respect of intensification of activity, loss of privacy, amenity space, car parking and bin storage areas. SDPD Policy DM10 requires that dwellings will be provided with functional private or communal open space. SDPD Policy DM4 states that development will not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties.

6.19 The upper floors of the building are 176sq m in area. The proposal intends to utilise the existing HMO layout on the upper floors of the building which incorporates 5 bedrooms (all with en-suite WC/shower), a kitchen, a communal dining room/lounge (2.5m x 2.8m) and a separate bathroom. All of the bedrooms are of an adequate size (between 3.5-4.4m wide x 3.5-4.3m deep) and have pleasant outlooks over Pell Street and/or Elgar Road. The proposal intends the introduction of a dedicated residential access onto Pell Street by segregating the

6.20 The proposal would reintroduce a grassed amenity area (140sq m) for use by the occupants of the proposed HMO. This would provide a suitable sitting-out area and drying space that would enhance the amenities of the existing HMO. The proposal intends adequate parking provision, as referred to above, and appropriate space for cycle parking and bin storage areas would be provided.

6.21 The proposed HMO would not introduce any additional significant overlooking to neighbouring properties and noise levels associated with the proposed HMO (C4) would potentially be similar to that resulting from ancillary accommodation associated with a public house. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties and therefore accords with SDPD Policies DM4, 8 and 10 and with Core Strategy Policy CS18; and the Council’s ‘House Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation’ SPD.

e) Planning obligations 6.22 SDPD Policy DM3 states that proposals for development will make appropriate provision for, amongst other things, transport infrastructure. Core Strategy Policy CS9 states that proposals for development will not be permitted unless the local planning authority is satisfied that infrastructure, services, resources amenities and other assets will be provided to ensure that the development is sustainable and contributes to the proper planning of the area. Core Strategy Policy CS20 states that planning permission will not be granted unless the proposed development contributes appropriately to the provision of a balanced transport network.

6.23 The proposed HMO would have an impact on existing transport infrastructure in that it would result in more person trips than the current authorised planning use as ancillary accommodation associated with a public house. A net contribution of £3,500 has been sought in accordance with the Council’s S106 SPG, the above development plan policies and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations, in order to offset these impacts and make the development acceptable in planning terms. Proposed planning obligations associated with this application would satisfy the CIL Regulations in that it would be a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, b) directly related to the development and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Other matters:

Impact on other nearby retail units

6.24 In respect of the objection raised by Councillor Rye, regarding potential business competition between the proposed retail unit and the existing nearby corner shop, Officers advise that this is not a material planning consideration and has not been assessed as part of this application.

Equality

6.25 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage

Discussions with Applicant

6.26 If permission is granted, the Council’s decision notice will need to explain in an informative how the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. These proposals have been the subject of discussions with the applicant at pre-application and application stage in respect of the issues set out in the table below. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Planning Issue Issue resolved Issue resolved Comments requiring at pre- at application resolution application stage ? stage ? Applicant provided sufficient justification to support the retrospective elements of this proposal and has removed Heritage issues N/A Yes √ unacceptable elements of the proposal such as security grills and a suspended ceiling.

Applicant has agreed to amend the proposal to a C4 HMO Use and rather than Sui Generis to make N/A Yes √ intensification the intensification of the scheme acceptable.

Applicant has agreed to amend plans to demonstrate acceptable parking spaces and Transport N/A Yes √ help facilitate suitable access and egress from the site for vehicles.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal represents a sustainable form of development and is recommended for approval, subject to suitable conditions, and subject to the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement as set out in the recommendation section above.

Case Officer: Andrew Chugg

77 Existing Floorplans

78 Proposed Floorplans

79 Existing Elevations

80 Proposed Elevations

81 Proposed external area

82 KENTWOOD

83 84 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO.11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 March 2013

Ward: Kentwood App No.: 12/01698/FUL Address: Land rear of 59-67 Armour Hill, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal: Erection of seven houses Applicant: A W & J E Davis and Hurst Grove Estates Ltd Date received: November 2012 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 14 January 2013

RECOMMENDATION

Subject to receipt of satisfactory proposals for the provision of and/or contribution towards affordable housing, delegate to Head of Planning and Building Control to (i) GRANT permission subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement but (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 12 April 2013 (unless the Head of Planning and Building Control agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure the following:

 A financial contribution of £75,000 towards the provision of Affordable Housing in the borough. Payment to be index linked from the date of planning permission and to be made prior to occupation of development.

 A financial contribution of £18,000 towards the Reading Urban Area Package (RUAP) – for use in the western and central area action plan areas of the Local Transport Plan. Payment to be index linked from the date of planning permission and to be made prior to commencement of development.

 A financial contribution of £57,324 towards Education facilities in the west area of the borough. Payment to be index linked from the date of planning permission and to be made prior to occupation of development.

 A financial contribution of £14,000 towards the open space/leisure improvements at Arthur Newbery Park. Payment to be index linked from the date of planning permission and to be made prior to occupation of development.

Conditions to include: 1 - Time limit – three years 2 - Plans 3 - Materials, to include samples - to be approved 4 - Code for Sustainable Homes – Level 3 to be achieved 5 - Landscaping scheme – to be approved 6 - Landscaping scheme to be carried out before occupation 7 - Replacement of failed landscaping 8 - Landscaping maintenance 9 - No vegetation clearance in bird nesting season (March to August inclusive)

85 10 - Site clearance to be supervised by ecologist to check for reptiles 11 - Bird and bat boxes 12 - Means of enclosure – to include mammal gaps 13 - Tree protection measures for existing trees - to be approved and carried out. 14 - A plan showing RPA and underground services – to be approved. 15 - Construction method statement 16 - Hours of working 17 - Construction noise and dust control measures 18 - Parking spaces to be provided before occupation 19 - Archaeology – programme of investigation works to be carried out 20 - Bin storage – a communal bin store in accordance with plans to be approved 21 - Surface water drainage – details to be approved 22 - Levels – to be approved 23 - Obscure glazing in first floor side elevation windows 24 - No additional windows in first floor side elevations 25 - Boundary treatments – to be approved

Informatives to include: - Reasons for approval and Development Plan policies - Compliance with approved plans & details - Building Regulations - s106 Agreement - s38 Agreement - Damage to highway - Works affecting the highway

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was deferred at the PAC meeting on 6 February 2013 in order to allow time to consider the financial viability assessment that was submitted on the afternoon of that meeting.

1.2 The previous PAC report and update are enclosed at Appendix A.

2. REPRESENTATIONS

2.1 Additional representations have been received. These raise the following issues with officer comments in italics:

1. A slow worm has been found in one of the gardens.

The Ecology Officer advises that slow worms are of principle importance to biodiversity and are protected from deliberate or reckless killing or injury. However, it is reasonable to attach a condition to any planning permission that requires that the site is cleared under the supervision of a suitably qualified ecologist. If further reptiles are found, a mitigation strategy shall be submitted and approved where the species are removed to a

86 safe place away from the development works. Similar mitigation strategies have been carried out on other sites in the borough including the former Cow Lane allotments.

2. The backland houses should be very similar in design and subservient in scale (lower with plainer elevations) to the frontage houses (those on Armour Hill) to avoid appearing out of keeping and balance.

It is considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed houses are similar and would relate well to the existing properties along Larissa Close; the development would successfully continue this street scene. The houses on Armour Hill have a variety of height and scale with bungalows, two-storey semis and a larger detached property. It is considered that any difference in scale and appearance between the existing and proposed houses would not be detrimental to either the varied residential character of the area or neighbours’ amenities.

3. The western boundary of the site should be made more secure given that the adjacent gardens suffer from break-ins.

Issues of crime and security were addressed in the previous PAC report (February 2013); it is considered that the continuation of Larissa Close, with its improved natural surveillance, would not pose a materially greater risk than the existing situation - properties with long, secluded gardens that back onto the park. However, with regard to further comments from neighbouring residents, it is considered that there is scope to improve the security of the western and southern boundaries of the site through appropriate planting. A condition to achieve this is recommended.

2.2 A letter from Cllr. Singh has been received which expresses the following comments: 1. The area is special with many trees next to a valued park; the impact on Arthur Newbery Park should be considered. 2. Neighbours have concerns about landscaping and boundaries including the loss of trees and hedgerows and their replacement with fencing, overlooking and loss of privacy. 3. The previous part of Larissa Close was before SDPD DM11 was adopted. 4. To what extent are the compromises on biodiversity. 5. Not convinced Larissa Close offers good enough access to the site.

It is considered that the issues raised in the comments of Cllr. Singh have been addressed in the main report to the February PAC. The officers’ recommendation is maintained that the development would have an acceptable impact on the residential environment taking into account matters of landscaping, biodiversity, neighbouring amenities and access.

3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING

3.1 SDPD Policy DM6 requires that for such a size of housing development (seven houses) a provision of 20% affordable housing shall be provided unless the applicant can demonstrate that such a level would make the development financially unviable. This test of viability is also required by the NPPF (para.173) which states that the costs of affordable housing to a development, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, should still allow for competitive returns to a landowner and developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

87 3.2 What influences the viability of the development in planning terms is the sales value of the houses balanced against the cost of constructing the houses (including professional fees, finance costs etc.) and the cost (or value) of the land (which will also take into account any reduction in value of the retained houses from the reduced size of their rear gardens, and householder expectations). The NPPF is clear that a competitive return to the landowner must be provided; and the developer must also make a reasonable return. This places the unusual burden on the planning system of needing to assess the value of people’s expectations and what might be considered to be a ‘competitive return’ for a particular development proposal.

3.3 The applicant has offered an affordable housing contribution of £75,000. Whilst this is less than the maximum amount that could be provided under SDPD Policy DM6 (equivalent to 10% of gross development value), the applicant has provided a detailed development appraisal which shows that the development cannot support the maximum level of contribution. This appraisal has been considered by the Council’s valuer; and his advice is that the sum of £75,000 represents a reasonable amount. As such, it is considered that SDPD DM6 is satisfied.

4. DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLICANT

4.1 Where planning permission is either approved or refused, the Council’s decision notice must include a statement in explaining how the LPA has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application. In this instance officers have worked with the applicant to address the following:

Planning issue at Resolved Comments application state requiring resolution

Design of building Yes Amendments were sought to provide a greater sense of vertical separation between each of the three terraced houses. Transport Yes The width of the access road was increased to accommodate two-way traffic. Landscaping Yes Planting and landscaping at the front of the site was increased to enhance the appearance of the development and the surrounding area. Affordable Housing Yes An appropriate level of contribution (£75,000) has contribution been secured following detailed consideration of a number of development viability appraisals.

4.2 The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 In conclusion, with regard also to the previous committee report, it is considered that:

88  The principle of new housing on garden land is acceptable and the proposed density would assimilate into the wider area.  The development would follow the pattern of existing neighbouring development and make a positive enhancement through landscaping to the character of the area in accordance with SDPD Policy DM11.  Adequate amenities would be provided for the houses; and the development would not significantly harm neighbouring amenities.  Larissa Close is capable of providing access to the development.  Adequate car and cycle parking would be provided.  A joint refuse collection store would provide suitable refuse facilities.  With sensitive clearance of the site and mitigation measures, the development would not have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity.  An appropriate affordable housing contribution would be provided.  Contributions are secured to mitigate the impacts of the development on transport, education and leisure infrastructure.

Case Officer: Andrew Somerville

89 Appendix A

COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 February 2013

RECOMMENDATION

Subject to receipt of satisfactory proposals for the provision of and/or contribution towards affordable housing, delegate to Head of Planning and Building Control to (i) GRANT permission subject to completion of a s106 legal agreement but (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 6 March 2013 (unless the Head of Planning and Building Control agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure the following:

90 8 - Landscaping maintenance 9 - No vegetation clearance in bird nesting season (March to August inclusive) 10 - Site clearance to be supervised by ecologist to check for reptiles 11 - Bird and bat boxes 12 - Means of enclosure – to include mammal gaps 13 - Tree protection measures for existing trees - to be approved and carried out. 14 - A plan showing RPA and underground services – to be approved. 15 - Construction method statement 16 - Hours of working 17 - Construction noise and dust control measures 18 - Parking spaces to be provided before occupation 19 - Archaeology – programme of investigation works to be carried out 20 - Bin storage – a communal bin store in accordance with plans to be approved 21 - Surface water drainage – details to be approved 22 - Levels – to be approved 23 - Obscure glazing in first floor side elevation windows 24 - No additional windows in first floor side elevations

91 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application site comprises the rear parts of the residential gardens of Nos.59-67 (odd) Amour Hill and measures some 45m wide (east-west) by some 50m deep (north- south). The average garden length of the existing houses is approximately 70m.

1.2 The site adjoins the existing residential cul-de-sac development of Larissa Close to the east, backs onto the Arthur Newbery Park to the north, and abuts the residential garden of No.57 Amour Hill to the west.

1.3 Within, the site is generally well vegetated with line of significant trees (sycamores and limes) along the rear boundary.

1.4 The location site in relation to the wider urban area is at figure 1.1; and a photo from the site looking east towards Larissa Close is at figure 1.2.

Figure 1.1 – Location plan

Figure 1.2 – View of Larissa Close from the application site

92 2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of seven houses – a terrace of three, and four semi-detached units.

2.2 The houses would be arranged to front onto a new section of road running along the southern part of the site, with parking at the front and rear gardens (with an average length of some 16m) backing onto the open space to the rear. To the south of the access road would be a landscape buffer strip. The layout would continue the line of existing properties at the western end of Larissa Close.

2.3 The houses would be two storey in height and scale, brick built, with gabled side elevations and features on the fronts. Each house would have a single storey addition on the rear elevation.

2.4 Each house would have two car parking spaces.

2.5 The layout of the proposed site is shown at figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 – Site layout

2.6 Submitted plans and documents: - Site location plan - Survey plan - Proposed site plan - Proposed floor plans - Proposed elevations - Proposed street scene - 3D views - Design and Access Statement - Code for Sustainable Homes – Pre-assessment report - Arboricultural Report - Ecological Assessment Report

3. PLANNING HISTORY

69-75 Armour Hill (adjacent site) 3.1 05/00286/OUT Outline application (means of access and siting) for demolition of 1 house, erection of 8 new houses with garages and access. Permitted (02/06/05) and implemented.

3.2 05/00755/REM Erection of three new dwellings on land to the rear of 69-75 Armour Hill with access road off Larissa Close - pursuant to planning application 05/00286/OUT. Permitted (19/12/05) and implemented

3.3 05/00792/FUL Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings following demolition of existing dwelling. Permitted (19/12/05) and implemented.

3.4 05/00804/FUL Erection of three houses. Permitted (19/12/05) and implemented.

3.5 05/00805/FUL Erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Permitted (19/12/05) and implemented.

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Non statutory consultation - Transport Strategy: The carriageway and footway outside properties Nos.8-14 Larissa Close is currently unadopted highway. Because the granting of planning consent does not confer any rights of access, the applicant should establish such rights to ensure the proposed development is accessible across third party land. However, in accordance with Manual for Streets, Larissa Close (private section) does conform to adoptable standards with a 4.8m wide carriageway and 1.8m wide footway. The proposed layout is generally acceptable. There is further opportunity for the development to be extended to the west of the application site. Therefore, the carriageway should be increased to 4.8m wide. A turning place has also been provided for residents and commercial deliveries. A swept path or tracking drawings should demonstrate that the Council’s refuse vehicle can enter and leave the site in forward gear. Two parking spaces per dwelling is proposed which is adequate. The proposed parking layout is also acceptable. Any disruption that could occur during the construction of the development can be minimised and managed through appropriate conditions. A RUAP contribution of £18,000 is required.

- Education: a contribution of £57,324 is required towards schools in the west area of Reading.

- Tree and Landscape: There are no trees within the boundary of the site that are subject to or worthy of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). But there are a number of trees in Arthur Newbery Park to the rear and one Weeping Willow tree in the garden of 63 Armour Hill that have been given an A category rating in the Arb Report. These trees must be given adequate protection during construction to ensure that they are safely retained.

94 There are a number of small trees within the site that will need to be removed to allow for development, but their loss is acceptable with a new landscaping scheme. Landscaping principles should be agreed prior to a decision to ensure that trees can be incorporated into the frontages. A full landscaping scheme and maintenance can be secured by condition.

- Building Control – Building Regulations approval required.

- Berkshire Archaeology: A condition required to secure a programme of archaeological investigation.

- Thames Water: No objections.

- Leisure: A contribution of £14,000 is sought.

- Ecology: The applicant’s ecological report by states that the garden has some potential to host slow worms and nesting birds. If permitted, conditions will need to be set to ensure that the site is cleared sensitively. The proposed development would result in the fragmentation of blocks of gardens, which make an important contribution to biodiversity and contribute to the green network.

- Environmental Health: Being a new build, the dwellings would comply with building regulations and be satisfactory under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System.

4.2 Public/local consultation and comments received 18 neighbouring properties have been consulted by neighbour notification letter.

4.3 19 letters of objection have been received which raise the following comments: Highway safety/parking 1. Additional traffic along Larissa Close would cause noise. 2. Additional traffic would be dangerous and harm safety of children playing in the road. 3. There would be more parking congestion. 4. The corner within Larissa Close is dangerous. 5. Larissa Close is a private road, consent would be needed from the residents for the new access. 6. The roadway is narrow and would not comfortably take two cars. 7. There would be more wear and tear on the road. 8. The private section of Larissa Close does not benefit from street lighting. 9. More pressure would be placed on on-street parking. 10. The existing landscaped verge (for the existing Larissa Close development) should be removed to create more parking. 11. Alternative access from Armour Hill should be provided. 12. The new road should be adopted.

Construction impacts 13. Concern about noise, congestion and safety issues from construction traffic. 14. Concern about construction traffic damage to the private road.

95 Character and amenities 15. The development would harm the character and setting of the area – an urbanising impact on the residential environment and park. 16. The houses would be at variance to those on Armour Hill. 17. The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the character of the area contrary to Core Strategy Policy DM11. 18. Loss of privacy, views and sunlight to properties in Armour Hill. 19. The houses would be overbearing. 20. An overdevelopment in terms of massing, number of units, hard landscaping and proximity to boundaries. 21. The loss of greenfield garden land. 22. The development is unacceptable in principle.

Trees and wildlife 23. There would be a loss of trees and wildlife including ash saplings. 24. There might be bats. 25. The development might lead to pressure for future tree felling.

Other matters 26. Drains, water pressure and other services would not cope. Sewerage is disposed of via a privately owned pumping station. 27. Trees and undergrowth provide better security than a fence. 28. Concern about impact on property value.

4.4 A petition signed by 46 local residents has been received. This objects to the proposal on the basis that: The development would be detrimental to the character, setting and enjoyment of the local area resulting from overdevelopment, increased traffic, loss of visual amenity and loss of wildlife habitat.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.3 Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework and the following development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance are relevant:

5.4 Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy (Adopted January 2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS7 Design and the Public Realm

96 CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS24 Car/Cycle Parking CS29 Provision of Open Space CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.5 Sites and Detailed Policies Document – (Adopted October 2012) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM6 Affordable Housing DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM11 Development of Private Residential Gardens DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters DM18 Tree Planting

5.6 Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents SPG - Planning Obligations under s.106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (adopted July 2004, amendments adopted September 2004) SPD - Sustainable Design and Construction (adopted 2011) SPD - Parking Standards and Design (adopted 2011

6. APPRAISAL

Principle 6.1 Core Strategy Policy CS14 (Provision of Housing) sets out the housing requirements for Reading Borough, and how these will be achieved. The policy allows for residential development on “small previously developed windfall sites”.

6.2 The NPPF (2012), published after the adoption of the Core Strategy, states (para.48) that whilst windfall sites may be taken into account in the supply of land for housing development, housing development on residential gardens should not count against meeting targets of housing supply. However, the NPPF does not preclude housing development on garden land.

6.3 Indeed, the Council has a policy (SDPD Policy DM11 – adopted after the publication of the NPPF) that relates to residential development on private residential gardens; and it is against this that the development is considered below.

6.4 At a proposed density of 32dph, the development complies with Core Strategy Policy CS15 in being suitable for a less accessible suburban residential area. As such, if all other matters are acceptable, it is considered that the density of the development could be assimilated into the wider area without harm to its overall character.

Character of the area 6.5 SDPD Policy DM11 requires that residential development should make a positive contribution to the character of the area in respect of the layout and spacing of the

97 development; the form, height and massing of buildings; materials and appearance; and landscaping and boundary treatments.

6.6 The pattern of development in the surrounding area comprises a row of houses fronting onto Armour Hill and a well-defined and established row of houses to the rear with access via Larissa Close.

6.7 This proposal would continue the Larissa Close development, following the established pattern of development with houses only to the north of the road with gardens backing onto the Arthur Newbery Park boundary.

6.8 The development would be two storeys in height with pitched roofs and gabled elevations that would follow the scale and traditional form of other properties in the area. With brick elevations based on a traditional vernacular, it is also considered that the appearance of the houses would appear in keeping with the character of the vicinity.

6.9 At the front of the properties, the layout has been designed to allow for both car parking and landscaping. Whilst, to the north of the access road, car parking would be prominent (although some tree planting here is possible), to the south of the road there would be a generous 6m deep landscape strip that would provide a more verdant setting for the development and would help preserve the existing green character of the site. As such, it is considered that there would be adequate landscaping in keeping with the character of the area.

6.10 As a result of the comments of the tree and landscape officer, the landscaping drawing submitted with the application has been revised to increase tree planting at the front of the houses.

6.11 With regard to the above, it is considered that development would make a positive contribution to the character of the area which satisfies SDPD DM11 in this respect and Core Strategy Policy CS7

Open space 6.12 SDPD Policy DM10 requires that dwellings have suitable open space to provide for the amenity needs of the occupants including sitting-out, playing, gardening, and storage. Such spaces should also respect the size and character of other gardens in the vicinity. Each house would have a rear garden depth that exceeds 15m. This is considered adequate for the amenity of each house and is in keeping with (if not more generous than) the other houses in Larissa Close.

6.13 The houses on Armour Hill whose rearmost part of their gardens would be taken up by the development would retain a garden depth of some 20m. Again this is considered adequate for amenity purposes and in keeping the gardens of other houses which back onto Larissa Close.

Impact on amenities 6.14 SDPD Policy DM4 requires that development should not cause a significant detrimental impact to the amenities of existing residents.

6.15 A distance of some 40m would be retained between the fronts of the proposed houses and the backs of the houses in Armour Hill. This distance is twice the minimum back to back (or back to front in this case) distance of 20m set out by Policy DM4 and is

98 considered acceptable to ensure that the development would neither appear unduly overbearing nor significantly overlook the houses in Armour Hill.

6.16 With further regard to the northern orientation of the proposed houses from those in Armour Hill, it is considered that the development would not significantly affect sunlight or daylight to these surrounding properties.

6.17 It is acknowledged, due to the length of the retained gardens of Nos.55 & 57, that there would be a greater degree of aspect from the proposed houses into the rearmost part of the gardens of these neighbouring properties. However, given that their garden length is some 70m, it is considered that such aspect would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupants. Indeed, this relationship is similar to that considered acceptable when the recent development that extended Larissa Close to the west was approved in 2005. As such, Policy DM4 is satisfied in this regard.

6.18 Some concern is raised by neighbouring residents in relation to construction impacts of noise, construction vehicle congestion and dust. Such matters can be addressed and minimised through conditions that can restrict hours of working and require best working practices.

6.19 Issues of crime and security were raised by neighbours, but it is considered that the continuation of Larissa Close with its improved natural surveillance would not pose a materially greater risk than the existing situation - properties with long, secluded gardens that back onto the park.

Transport 6.20 Transport advises that the proposed houses (as an extension of Larissa Close) would be served by a road off the extended western end of Larissa Close which is an unadopted, private road. The applicant would need to establish rights over that road in order to be able to lawfully access the development. The applicant claims he has such rights; although the Larissa Close Management Company state that there may be some dispute over this. However, the granting of planning permission would not confer rights of access of the private road; and therefore it is considered that this matter is not material in this application.

6.21 With regards to the physical merits of the road access, transport advises that both the existing and proposed private sections are of sufficient carriageway width, with a footway on the northern side, to serve the development. A turning area would be provided for residents and small commercial deliveries at the end of the cul-de-sac.

6.22 With regard to car parking, two spaces per house would be provided. Cycle parking is available in the rear garden of each property. This would meet the standards set out in the Car Parking Standards and Design SPD.

6.23 For refuse collection, there is not space for a refuse lorry to turn at the western end of the development. However, bins are currently collected from the current westernmost house on Larissa Close. Therefore, providing a communal bin store is provided for all the new houses at the eastern end of the proposed development (on land to the rear of No.67 Armour Hill), it is considered that this arrangement would be accepted in respect of carrying distances for bin men/women and reversing distances for vehicles.

6.24 On the Committee site visit, it was observed that a number of vehicles were parked on the roadside at the western end of Larissa Close (on the private part) making access

99 tight. The Council cannot not prevent residents parking in such a manner; but if a right of access was established for the proposed new houses along Larissa Close existing residents would need to ensure that this access was maintained. Otherwise the issue would become a civil matter between private parties. However, the important point in respect of this planning application is that each proposed house has adequate parking provision (two spaces per house) to comply with the Council’s adopted standards and is therefore acceptable in planning terms.

Trees and Ecology 6.25 The Tree and Landscape Officer advises that there are no trees within the site worthy of preservation. The trees along the rear boundary (bordering Arthur Newbery Park) and a Willow tree overhanging the southern boundary however are worthy of protection. These can be given adequate protection during the construction of the houses.

6.26 The applicant has submitted an ecological assessment of the site which identifies dense areas of overgrown shrub cover which could be capable of supporting birds, reptiles and small manuals. The presence of bats has not been identified.

6.27 Regard is given to SDPD Policy DM11 which states that development on should not have an adverse impact on biodiversity of gardens or blocks of gardens which make an important contribution to the biodiversity of the area. The view of the ecology officer is that the development would be detrimental to the biodiversity of the area and is in conflict with Policy DM11.

6.28 This impact on biodiversity needs to be balanced against the benefits of the provision of needed family housing on the site. In weighing this balance, it is noted that the ecology officer advises that it is possible to clear the site sensitively in order to allow animals to naturally relocate to the adjacent park and garden land. Then, mitigation measures such as appropriate landscaping, new bird and bat boxes, and mammal gaps in the fencing can be provided. As such, with these clearance and enhancement measures, it is considered that the impact of the loss of the existing habitat is reduced to an acceptable extent. (It is also recognised that the site could be cleared in preparation for development (subject to relevant wildlife legislation) without any form of planning consent.) Accordingly, with appropriate mitigation measures, it is considered, on balance, that SDPD Policy DM11 is satisfied.

Affordable housing 6.29 SDPD Policy DM6 requires that for such a size of housing development (seven houses) a provision of 20% affordable housing shall be provided unless the applicant can demonstrate that such a level would make the development financially unviable. This test of viability is also required by the NPPF which states that the costs of affordable housing to a development should still allow for competitive returns to a landowner and developer to enable the development to be deliverable.

6.30 Discussions are on-going with the applicant in respect of the viability of the development. An update will be provided in this regard at your meeting.

Contributions 6.31 Contributions towards transport, education and leisure infrastructure to offset the impacts of the development are agreed and would be secured by s.106 agreement.

6.32 The transport contribution of £18,000 would be used toward projects set out in the Local Transport Plan 3 in the western and central action plan areas; the education contribution

100 of £57,324 would go towards education facilities in the west area of the borough; and a leisure contribution of £14,000 would be used in the Arthur Newbery Park.

6.33 These obligations are calculated in accordance with the Council’s SPG and are considered to meet the relevant tests of the NPPF and CIL regulation 122.

Other matters 6.34 Berkshire Archaeology advises that the site is located within an area of archaeological potential for the prehistoric period. To explore this potential, a condition to secure a programme of archaeological investigation is recommended.

6.35 Thames Water raises no objection to the development with regard to sewerage infrastructure. Surface water drainage can be controlled by condition. A number of residents have raised concerns that the development may wish to connect to a private sewer; this however, if required, is a private matter for the developer and neighbouring landowners to resolve.

6.36 The applicant has submitted a Code for Sustainable Homes pre-assessment that shows that each house would meet a Code Level 3 in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS1.

Equality impact 6.37 In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, and sexual orientation.

6.38 Given the topography of the site, the houses would either have a level of ramped threshold to comply with building regulations. As such, it is considered that the development would not result in a significant adverse impact on the key equalities protected characteristic of age or disability.

6.39 Otherwise, there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that other protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities as a result of the development.

Discussions with applicant 6.40 Where planning permission is either approved or refused, the Council’s decision notice must include a statement in explaining how the LPA has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to the planning application. In this instance officers have worked with the applicant to address the following:

Planning issue at Resolved Comments application stage requiring resolution

101 Landscaping Yes Planting and landscaping at the front of the site was increased to enhance the appearance of the development and the surrounding area. Affordable Housing TBA There is on-going discussion to seek to find an contribution acceptable level of affordable housing provision.

6.41 The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Conclusion 6.42 In conclusion, it is considered that:  The principle of new housing on garden land is acceptable and the proposed density would assimilate into the wider area.  The development would follow the pattern of existing neighbouring development and make a positive enhancement through landscaping to the character of the area in accordance with SDPD Policy DM11.  Adequate amenities would be provided for the houses; and the development would not significantly harm neighbouring amenities.  Larissa Close is capable of providing access to the development.  Adequate car and cycle parking would be provided.  A joint refuse collection store would provide suitable refuse facilities.  On balance, with sensitive clearance of the site and mitigation measures, the development would not have an unacceptable impact on biodiversity.  Contributions are secured to mitigate the impacts of the development on transport, education and leisure infrastructure.

6.40 Plans 8353-PL-01 Location Plan 8353-PL-02A Survey 8353-PL-03A Block Plan & Survey 8353-PL-04A Proposed Block Plan 8353-PL-05A Ground Floor Plan – plots 1, 2, 3 8353-PL-06A Ground Floor Plan – plots 4, 5, 6, 7 8353-PL-07A First Floor and Roof Plan 8353-PL-08A Elevations – Front and Rear 8353-PL-09 Side Elevations 8353-PL-10A Street scene 8353-PL-11A Front view 8353-PL-12A Front/Side view 8353-PL-13 Rear view 8353-PL-14 Rear view

Case Officer: Andrew Somerville

102

103 UPDATE REPORT:

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO.9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6 February 2013

Ward: Kentwood App No.: 12/01698/FUL Address: Land rear of 59-67 Armour Hill, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal: Erection of seven houses Applicant: A W & J E Davis and Hurst Grove Estates Ltd

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION

Defer consideration to enable officers to undertake further discussions with the applicant in respect of the provision of affordable housing.

1. Affordable housing 1.1 Discussions are on-going between officers and the applicant in respect of the provision of affordable housing as required by Policy DM6 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.

1.2 A further viability assessment from the applicant is expected. However, it has not been received in time to be reported in this update; and even if it had been received this morning, officers would not have had time to be able to assess any case that the applicant is looking to present.

1.3 As such, it is recommended that the application be deferred to allow time for the new information to be fully considered.

2. Representations 2.1 Representations have been received from the secretary of the Larissa Close Management Company in respect of the private section of Larissa Close. (The western end of Larissa Close is a private road whilst the eastern and southern parts are adopted – see figure 2.1 below.) Queries are raised by the secretary in respect of (i) how the proposed development (including the construction phase) would contribute to the management and upkeep of the road, landscaping and other private infrastructure, and (ii) how the owners of the proposed homes could use the road without consent.

2.2 The applicant’s solicitor has responded to these queries and makes the following comments: 1. The management company does not own Larissa Close. Ownership is with Heronsbrook Homes Ltd [evidence on Land Registry documents is supplied]. 2. In the transfer of the land to Heronsbrook Homes Ltd, it was contemplated that Larissa Close might be extended in the future. 3. Rights were secured in order to ensure that such future development could happen (subject to planning) with access over the existing private section of Larissa Close. 4. These rights are also referred to in the Land Registry documents for each individual property on the existing private section of Larissa Close.

104 2.3 Notwithstanding the above, officers’ advice is maintained that the right of access over the private section of Larissa Close, and then whatever agreement is required to ensure that the road, landscaping and other infrastructure is maintained by all the residents, is a private matter between the respective parties and is not a material planning consideration. On the physical merits of the road access, transport officers advise that the proposal is acceptable.

Figure 2.1

Case Officer: Andrew Somerville

105

106 REDLANDS

107 108 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 6th March 2013

Ward: Redlands App No.: 13/00019/REG3 Address: Newcastle Road Allotments, Newcastle Road, RG2 7TN Proposal: Removal of existing fencing and erection of a 2.4m high security fence Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date valid: 17th January 2013 Minor Application 8 week target decision date: 14th March 2013 26 week target decision date: 18th July 2013

RECOMMENDATION : Grant

Conditions to include:

1. Standard three year time limit 2. Plans approved 3. Submission of materials

Informatives

 Reasons for granting permission  Statement regarding pro-active discussion with developer  Bird nesting season  Terms and conditions  Pre-commencement conditions

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application site is situated on the northern side of Newcastle Road, separated from Cintra Park to the north by a mature tree screen, and bounded to the east and west by residential development. The site contains allotment gardens accessed from Newcastle Road (on the southern side of the site). The current 1.8m high wire mesh fence and access gates allow views into the site and of the tree screen beyond. A public footpath runs along the eastern edge of the site providing access to Cintra Park.

109

1.3 The application is being reported to the Committee as the applicant is Reading Borough Council Leisure Services.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is to erect a replacement 2.4m high green anti-climb weld mesh fence (with a new gate for vehicle access) along the road frontage and replacement fence adjacent to the public footpath that runs parallel to the eastern side of the site. The western side of the site has a shared boundary with the residential dwelling at No 29 Newcastle Road; this is not proposed to be altered. The Design and Access Statement sets out that the upgraded fencing is required due to theft and anti-social behaviour at the site.

2.2 Supporting information supplied with the application consists of: Design and Access Statement

110 Plans: Received: Site Plan 8th January 2013 Block Plan 17th January 2013 Fence Details Drg 2 of 3 8th January 2013 Photograph of 358 Security Fencing 13th February 2013

3. PLANNING HISTORY Non relevant

4. CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Statutory: None.

4.2 Non-statutory:

RBC Transport Strategy: No objection.

RBC Environmental Protection: (Landscape and Ecology) In order to replace the existing fence vegetation growing up/adjacent to it will require removal. Therefore suggest an informative recommending that the works be done outside the bird nesting season (March to August), unless works are supervised by an ecologist.

4.3 Neighbour consultation:

Letters were sent to the following addresses; 20A, 22 and 29, 34-46 (even), 103-121 (odd) Newcastle Road and 35 Corbridge Road

No comments received.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.2 On 23 October 2012, at the meeting of the Full Council, the ‘saved’ policies of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1998) were superseded and the policies of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD) were adopted.

5.3 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application.

5.4 National National Planning Policy Framework

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008)

CS1 (Sustainable Design and Construction) CS7 (Design & the Public Realm) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities)

111 CS36 (Biodiversity and Ecology)

Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (October 2012)

DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)

The Council’s adopted supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are not a material planning consideration in this instance.

6. APPRAISAL

6.1 The main issues are:  Visual impact  Ecology and Landscape  Safeguarding Amenity / Traffic generation

Visual Impact 6.2 The allotments are an existing community facility; Core Strategy Policy CS31 states that proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable. This policy seeks to improve the quality of facilities as long as there would not be significant adverse impacts on the amenity or character of surrounding areas. It is noted as there are some views into and over the site at present the allotment gardens provide a visual break in the built up frontage of domestic properties on Newcastle Road. The design and appearance of the fence is considered to maintain the open nature of this section of the streetscape due to the colour, spacing within the mesh pattern and thickness of the fence. (See photograph at end of report). The proposed increase in height of the fencing and gated access is considered necessary to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour at the site and is considered to be acceptable in visual terms. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policy CS31 and Policy CS7.

Ecology / Landscape 6.3 The proposal should not impact on wildlife habitats within the site and the mature tree screen to the north. It is noted that there is an existing informal hedgerow along the front and side boundary of the site that is required to be removed. There is no objection to its removal subject to an informative recommending that the works be done outside the bird nesting season (occurring between March-August). The vegetation can be removed in this period if it is first checked by appropriately qualified person and no nesting birds are found. The removal of the bramble hedge will give further views into the site. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with Policy CS36 Biodiversity and Geology.

Safeguarding Amenity and Traffic generation 6.4 In relation to the residential properties directly adjacent to the site, the boundary with No 29 Newcastle Road to the west is not altered. The flatted units to east, which contain side facing windows, are set 10m from the site boundary separated by an existing metal fence on the residential side of the footpath. The proposals are therefore not considered to have an overbearing impact on these units, or the dwellings set directly opposite the

112 site frontage on the southern side of Newcastle Road. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy CS34 and DM4.

6.5 Access to the site is on foot only as there no on-site parking; however provision is made for allotment holders to drive onto the site to deliver equipment/materials to their plot. A new vehicle gate therefore forms part of the application, but does not seek to alter the existing access arrangements to the site. The proposal does not intensify traffic movements to the site or seek to provide car parking. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters).

Equalities impact assessment 6.6 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.

Discussions with applicant 6.7 If permission is granted, the Council’s decision notice will need to explain in an informative how the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. These proposals have been the subject of discussions with the applicant at application stage in respect of the issues set out in the table below. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Planning Issue Issue resolved Issue Comments requiring resolution at pre- resolved at application application stage ? stage ? Visual appearance No pre- Yes Further information has application been submitted to clarify submission the appearance of the fencing. Landscaping/Ecology Ditto Yes Mitigation measures agreed in terms of monitoring possible nesting in the hedgerow.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 The assessment above considers that the proposal seeks to improve the quality of facilities by improving security whilst not adversely affecting the character of the area or neighbouring residential occupants.

7.2 For these reasons and subject to agreement the officer recommendation is to grant planning permission.

Case Officer: Susanna Bedford

113

Photograph of fence specification.

Plan to show position of proposed fencing.

114 WHITLEY

115 116 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 06 March 2013

Ward: Whitley App No.: 12/01430/FUL Address: Burghfield Landfill site, Island Road. Proposal: Development of a Leachate Treatment Plant. Applicant: CEMEX UK Materials Limited Date valid: 09 October 2012 Minor Application: 8-week target decision date: 04 December 2012 26-week target decision date: 09 April 2013

RECOMMENDATION:

GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions to include: 1. TL1 – Full 3 years. 2. AP1 – Development as per approved plans. 3. M2 – Details to be submitted. 4. Detailed landscaping proposals to be submitted to be submitted and approved prior to first use. 5. Landscape and ecological management plan to be submitted to be submitted and approved prior to first use. 6. Development shall not be brought into use until parking and turning space has been provided. 7. No development shall commence until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include measures to deal with: - Vehicle parking; - Loading and unloading of plant and materials; - Storage of plant and materials; - Erection and maintenance of security hoarding; - Wheel washing facilities; - Measures to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads; - Details of Footpath/Road closures needed during construction; - Traffic management needed during construction, and - Times, routes and means of access for construction traffic. 8. No development shall commence until details of external lighting measures have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 9. The development shall only be used to treat leachate from the Burghfield Landfill site. 10. The cessation of the use and restoration of the land to its former condition shall be undertaken when the development is no longer required.

Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach by LPA. 2. Development plan compliance. 3. EA Environmental Permit. 4. Building regulations required.

117 5. Damage to the highway. 6. Terms and conditions. 7. Pre-commencement conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is approx. 0.495 ha in size and lies on the northern edge of the existing Burghfield Landfill site at the western end of Island Road. To the north of the application site lies the River Kennet and wetland habitat associated with Fobney Island including groups of established mature trees. To the east lie other areas of restored landfill level with the application site.To the south lie raised areas of landfill which rise to between 7m and 14m above land at the application site. Immediately west of the application site lies the existing Landfill Gas Utilisation Facility (LGUF), refer to Photo. 1 below and the original approved plans at Appendix 1, which processes gas from the restored landfill and turns it into energy. Further west lies a 30m high pylon and electricity lines and beyond that lies the railway embankment (again raised above the level of the application site) which runs north-south. The closest residential properties include Southcote Mill, approximately 500m to the north west, and dwellings at Manor Farm Cottages, about 700m to the north east.

1.2 The site lies outside of the Council’s settlement boundary which extends as far as the existing RE3 Waste Management Facility on Island Road. The site lies within the ‘Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature’ and within an area of ‘Public and Strategic Open Space’, both of which extends north from Island Road, as designated within the Council’s Core Strategy and Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD) Proposals Map.

1.3 The application site lies within Flood Zone 2 (as defined by the Environment Agency) which has up to a 0.1 per cent (1 in 1000) chance of flooding occurring each year.

Site Location Plan:

Fobney Island

Railway

Thames Water Sewage

Island Road Treatment Works

A33 LGUF

Burghfield Landfill site RE3

118 Photograph 1: Application site – looking west towards the LGUF and pylon.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal intends to construction of a Leachate Treatment Plant (LTP) in order to remove leachate from the existing Burghfield Landfill site. The proposed LTP comprises of the following:

• Two covered Raw Leachate Balance Tanks (RBLT) – 8m in diameter and 5.5m above ground level at its apex; • Modified Sequencing Batch Reactor tank (SBR) – 19m in diameter and 3.6m above ground level at its apex; • Treated Leachate Balance Tank (TLBT) – 8.6m in diameter and 4.0m above ground level at its apex; • Bunded Chemical Dosing Area – specialist chemical tanks the largest of which would be 3.5m above ground level at its apex; • Site Office and Control Building – 12m x 5m linked modular containers; • Compressor House and Store – each 6m x 2.5m modular containers, and • 2.3m high security fencing around the LTP compound.

2.2 The LTP compound would also be enclosed in a bunded area to contain any potential spillages and exclude flood waters. The height of the bund would vary between 0.2m to 1.0m, depending on ground level, so that the top of the bund is at 41m AoD. Main other features outside of the LTP compound include a car parking area (6 spaces), access road and landscape areas.

2.3 Following pre-application discussions, the applicant proposes to partially bury the SBR tank in the ground to a depth of 6m in order to limit its visual impact.

119 2.4 The leachate would be pumped from cells within the existing landfill to the proposed LTP facility from where it could be discharged directly to the nearby Thames Water Sewage Treatment Works. This system would replace the existing arrangement whereby a 45,000m3 litre storage tank that collects the leachate has to be emptied twice daily and transported by road tankers off-site for treatment.

2.5 The applicant has advised that the proposal is required to comply with environmental permits relating to the restored landfill area and complies with best practice guidance.

2.6 The following supporting information has been supplied with the application:

Drawings: • Site Location Plan (Drawing no. JW30192 - 1) • Key Local Features Plan (unreferenced) • Planning Applications Boundaries (Drawing no. JW30192 – 2A) • Proposed Landscaping Planting (Drawing no. JW30192 – D1C) • Proposed Site Layout (Drawing no. JW30192 – 3H) • Proposed LTP Compound Lighting Plan (Drawing no. JW30192 – 5B) • Proposed Elevations (Drawing no. JW30192 – 4D)

Documents: • Planning Supporting Statement (including Design & Access Statement) • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (including photographic survey) • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report (Jan 2012) • Great Crested Newt Survey (July 2012) • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA)

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

12/00029/SCR Request for an Environmental Impact Not EIA Assessment Screening Opinion for the development development of a Leachate Treatment Plant. 03/10/12

01/00678/FUL Installation of Landfill Gas Utilisation Facility Approved (LGUF), three electricity generators and 08/01/02 ancillary plant.

4. CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Consultees

Environment Agency (EA) 4.1 The EA support this proposal as it would allow for greater volumes of leachate to be treated and thus comply with the conditions of the applicant’s Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Environmental Permit for the site. The EA has accepted that adequate leachate management and secondary containment measures would be put in place as part of this proposal. A condition to secure details of a landscape and ecological management plan is also requested.

120 Non-statutory Consultees

RBC Transport Development Control 4.2 Transport DC raises no objection to this application as the proposal would result in a significant reduction in vehicle trips and adequate parking and manoeuvring space for vehicles would be provided on site.

4.3 RBC Ecologist Raises no objection to this proposal as it would result in no significant or adverse ecological impacts. However, conditions are suggested to secure details of any contractor’s storage compound, details of any external lighting measures and a detailed landscaping scheme.

RBC Environmental Protection 4.4 Raise no objections to this proposal but have requested that the EA is consulted on this application.

RBC Parks & Open Spaces 4.5 Raise no objections to this proposal.

RBC Building Control 4.6 Advise that Building Regulations approval is required.

West Berkshire Council 4.7 No comment.

Public consultation 4.8 A site notice was displayed and an advert placed in the local press advising that the application forms a departure from the development plan. No written representations were received in respect of this proposal.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction & Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS6 Settlement Boundary CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS8 Waterspaces CS24 Car / Cycle parking CS28 Loss of Open Space CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS37 Major Landscape Features and Strategic Open Space CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

121

Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (adopted October 2012) - SDPD SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting SA11 Settlement Boundary SA16 Public and Strategic Open Space SA17 Major Landscape Features

Waste Local Plan for Berkshire (1998) WLP11 Preferred Areas for Waste Management Uses

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents The Council’s following adopted supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are also material planning considerations:

• Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)

National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

• Chapter 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy) • Chapter 4 (Promoting sustainable transport) • Chapter 7 (Requiring good design) • Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

6. APPRAISAL

(i) Main Issues

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are: a) Settlement boundary b) Waste and sustainability c) Visual impact of the surrounding area d) Impact on usability of open space e) Transport and parking issues f) Ecology g) Flooding h) Residential amenity

Other issues • Equality • Positive and Proactive Approach Assessment

a) Settlement boundary 6.2 SDPD Policy SD1 states that “a positive approach to considering development proposals will be taken that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Core Strategy Policy CS6 and SDPD Policy SA11 state that no development will be permitted outside the settlement boundary as defined in the proposals map.

122 6.3 The proposal fails to accord with Policies CS6 and SA11 and the main issues associated with the development being located outside of the settlement boundary are its potential visual impact on the ‘Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature’ and any potential impacts on the usability of the designated ‘Public and Strategic Open Space’ area. However, whilst the proposal is in conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS6 and SDPD Policy SA11, the extent to which the above issues would occur should be assessed in detail before concluding on the proposals overall acceptability. In addition, the merits of the proposal in wider sustainability terms must also be considered along with any other material considerations.

b) Waste and sustainability 6.4 The application site forms part of the Burghfield Landfill site as defined within the adopted Waste Local Plan (Site A of Smallmead, Reading - Area 11 refers). Core Strategy Policy CS2 requires that development should demonstrate measures to minimise the generation of waste in the construction, use and life of buildings and promote more sustainable approaches to waste management. SDPD Policy DM1 states that all developments will demonstrate how they have been designed to incorporate measures to adapt to climate change.

6.5 The function of the proposed development is to remediate leachate occurring from the existing Burghfield Landfill site. The proposal would ensure that this process could be carried out more effectively and efficiently through the use of automated control system systems and by eliminating the need to transport large volumes of raw leachate many miles by tanker. In addition, a greater volume of leachate could be treated as part of proposals compared to the existing arrangements. The applicant has advised that waste created as a result of the excavations for this development would be used in the construction of the bund around the facility thereby minimising the amount of waste generated in the construction phase.

6.6 The proposal therefore helps reduce the Borough’s reliance on landfill areas by hastening the remediation process and, as such, is in accordance with the Waste Local Plan and Core Strategy Policy CS2 and SDPD Policy DM1.

c) Visual impact on the surrounding area 6.7 Core Strategy Policy CS37 states that planning permission will not be granted for any development that would detract from character and appearance of Major Landscape Features. SDPD Policy SA17 identifies that the sites lies within the Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature. Core Strategy Policy CS7 requires that all development must be of a high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Core Strategy CS8 requires development to provide a positive contribution to the distinct character, appearance, landscape and amenity of waterways. Policy DM18 states that new development shall make provision for tree planting.

6.8 By its very nature, the proposed development would be industrial in appearance and could not be considered to enhance the visual amenity of the surrounding area. However, the proposal’s industrial appearance is similar in character to that of the neighbouring LGUF development (the majority of which ranges between 4m and 7.5m high) and reflects the quality of the area immediately surrounding the application site; which includes electricity pylons, railway embankment and landfill areas. Therefore, it is considered that the application site and immediate surroundings is of a much lower quality than that of the wider Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature that is approximately 300ha in size. Moreover, it should be noted that the proposal is on

123 the very southern periphery of the Major Landscape Feature that is bounded by Island Road.

6.9 Whilst the proposal would be visible from the Kennet and Avon Canal to the north, views would be restricted due to the intervening vegetation. Views to the south and west would be limited by the intervening railway embankment and existing raised landfill areas respectively. The most prominent views of the proposal would be from the railway but would comprise a relatively small element against a wider backdrop seen for a short duration.

6.10 The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was prepared in accordance with ‘Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ (Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Assessment, 2002) and focuses on an area extending to appropriately 2km from the proposed development. Key receptors assessed as part of this document include:

i. Viewpoint at junction of Island Road and entrance to the RE3 Waste Management Facility; ii. Viewpoint at adjacent to Fobney Lock on the Kennet & Avon Canal; iii. Viewpoint from Island Road south of Manor Farm Cottages; iv. Viewpoint at the entrance to Kennet Island; v. Viewpoint at the lock at Southcote Mill; vi. Viewpoint at the bridge over the weir at the point where the River Kennet and Avon Canal separate around Fobney Island; vii. Viewpoint on River Kennet Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the east of the railway line, and viii. Viewpoint at the southern edge of housing in Minster Ward, near The Brookmill.

6.11 The assessment concludes that “the proposed development would constitute a limited change and the consequential landscape and visual impacts would be minimal.” Officers agree with this conclusion but recommend that conditions are added to secure detailed landscaping measures, including native tree planting, in order to further screen the development from the surrounding area, to secure details of external materials and to require the removal of the development upon it becoming no longer required.

6.12 Subject to adherence to the above conditions, the proposal would minimise any visual harm associated with the development and not significantly detract from the character of the Major Landscape Feature and therefore accords with Core Strategy Policies CS37 and CS38.

6.13 Whilst the proposal does not comply with Core Strategy Policies CS7 and CS8 in the sense that it doesn’t enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area, it must be considered that the proposal represents the optimum design solution for a development of this type. As mentioned above, the largest structure (the Sequencing Batch Reactor tank), would be part buried beneath the ground and soft landscaping measures could be agreed to screen the development to an acceptable degree. Therefore, on balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of its visual impact on the surrounding area.

d) Impact on usability of open space 6.14 SDPD Policy SA16 and Core Strategy Policy CS28 state that areas of Public and Strategic Open Space will be protected and that any development which would jeopardise their use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted.

124

6.15 The area of Public and Strategic Open Space, as referred to above, covers the same area (approx. 300ha) as the Kennet and Holy Brook Meadows Major Landscape Feature. The proposal would be located within the area of Public and Strategic Open Space and would be sited at its southern periphery. The application site would only be accessible to the public via informal tracks that branch off the River Kennet Public Right of Way (PRoW) to the north of the application site.

6.16 As can been seen in Photograph 1. above, the application site is made up of remediated landfill that is uneven and covered with scrub. It is considered that the open space value of the site derives from it forming part of the much larger area. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to be in conflict with Policies SA16 and CS28 as the likely loss of amenity to the public would be minimal.

e) Transport and parking issues 6.17 SDPD Policy DM12 states that development proposals will be assessed against their effect on highway safety, congestion and the environment. Core Strategy Policy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD outlines the Council’s requirements for parking provision on developments.

6.18 The vehicular entry point to the proposed development would be from the existing entrance to the Burghfield Landfill site on Island Road. An assessment of the number of vehicular trips has been provided by the applicant to assess the impact of the development against that of the existing leachate treatment process. The existing process currently requires two daily tanker visits to and from the site to transport raw leachate offsite in addition to weekly management and monitoring visits generating approximately 31 weekly vehicle trips.

6.19 As mentioned, the proposal will enable raw leachate to be treated on-site thereby reducing the need for daily tanker visits. It is estimated the proposed facility will generate approximately 3 weekly vehicle trips resulting in a significant reduction in the number of traffic movement on the local highway network. The submitted Planning Statement confirms that the LTP is to be used only for treating leachate generated at the Burghfield Landfill site.

6.20 The proposal intends 6 car parking spaces which accords with the Council’s standards for this type of industrial development. The route into the compound is a one way anticlockwise loop from the access road that is acceptable in highway safety terms.

6.21 Therefore, in transport terms, the proposal is considered acceptable and accords with SDPD Policy DM12, Core Strategy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD.

f) Ecology 6.22 Core Strategy Policy CS36 requires development to retain, protect and incorporate features of biodiversity within it.

6.23 The submitted Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey Report concluded that a further survey to assess the site’s potential for Great Crested Newt (GCN) habitat should be conducted. The application duly undertook and submitted a GCN survey which found no GCN’s or any signs of them.

125 6.24 The Council’s Ecologist advised that the above ecological reports had been undertaken to an appropriate standard and considered that no significant or adverse ecological impacts would result from the proposal. Subject to conditions to secure details of the contractor’s storage compound, external lighting measures and detailed landscaping proposals the proposal accords with Core Strategy Policy CS36.

g) Flooding 6.25 Core Strategy Policy CS35 states that planning permission will not be permitted for development in an area identified as being at high risk from flooding. Core Strategy Policy CS34 states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air… or land pollution.

6.26 The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) identifies that the application site lies within Flood Zone 2 (as defined by the Environment Agency) and that the proposed development would not be subject to undue levels of flood risk. The EA has given their support to this proposal following confirmation from the applicant that a leak detection system and secondary containment measures would be put in place to deal with the unlikely event of a leak from the aeration tank. The secondary containment measures (a drain, collection pipe and geo- membrane) would be able provide the equivalent of 110% of the volume of the operating capacity of the aeration tank and would be secured by the EA through the Environmental Permit requirements.

6.27 The proposal therefore complies with Core Strategy Policies CS34 and CS35 in terms of flooding implications and environmental pollution.

h) Residential amenity

6.28 SDPD Policy DM4 states that development will not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties. Core Strategy Policy CS34 states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through… noise pollution. Policy Chapter 11 of the NPPF states that the planning system should prevent development from contributing to unacceptable levels of noise pollution.

6.29 The submitted Planning Supporting Statement advises that the noise levels generated by the proposed development, at nearby noise sensitive receptors, are predicted to result in no significant impact regardless of the existing ambient noise environment. Therefore, a full noise survey has not been undertaken and the Council’s Environmental Protection team has raised no concerns with this aspect of the development as the closest dwelling is approximately 500m away.

6.30 In terms of potential noise pollution and impacts on residential amenity, the proposal therefore complies with the requirements of SDPD Policy DM4 and Core Strategy Policy CS34.

Other matters:

Equality

6.31 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including

126 from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

Discussions with Applicant

6.32 If permission is granted, the Council’s decision notice will need to explain in an informative how the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. These proposals have been the subject of discussions with the applicant at pre-application and application stage in respect of the issues set out in the table below. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Planning Issue Issue resolved Issue resolved Comments requiring at pre- at application resolution application stage ? stage ? Applicant amended draft scheme to park bury the proposed structure beneath the Visual impact Yes √ N/A ground to reduce its visual impact.

Details of Measures agreed with the containment Environment Agency. arrangements in N/A Yes √ the event of a leak.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 On balance, the sustainable merits of the proposal and the fact the proposed use is directly related to the established landfill site are considered to outweigh the proposals shortfalls in respect of Core Strategy Polices CS7 and CS8 in terms of failing to enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to suitable conditions, as set out in the recommendation section above.

Case Officer: Andrew Chugg

127

128

129 APPENDIX 1: LGUF APPROVED PLANS (01/00678/FUL)

130 COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 06 March 2013

Ward: Whitley App No.: 12/01522/FUL Address: Units 6 and 7 Merrick House, Whale Avenue, Kennet Island. Proposal: Change of use of ground floor Units 6 and 7 to a crèche/children's daycare centre (D1) and alterations to ground floor elevation; resubmission of planning application 10/01207/FUL. Applicant: St. James Group Date valid: 26 September 2012 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 21 November 2012 26 week target decision date: 27 March 2013

RECOMMENDATION:

Delegate to Head of Planning and Building Control to (i) GRANT planning permission subject to completion of a Deed of Variation to the s106 legal agreement associated with planning permission 08/00452/FUL by 27th March 2013, or (ii) REFUSE permission should the Deed of Variation not be completed by 27th March 2013 (unless the Head of Planning and Building Control agrees to a later date for completion of the Deed of Variation).

The Heads of Terms for the Deed of Variation would secure:

1) That the proposed crèche/children’s daycare centre shall form part of the phased provision of 724sq m of ‘Community Centre’ floorspace at Kennet Island as agreed under planning permissions 08/00452/FUL and 09/00181/FUL;

2) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. In compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policy CS23: Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans, the travel plan shall include:

i. a full analysis of the proposed modal split for staff at the crèche, ii. reasons for the modal choice, iii. detailed proposals for future transport provision with the aim of securing reduction in car trips generated to and from the crèche, and iv. an initial travel survey (carried out within 3 months following occupation) which shall include a detailed survey of the number of movements generated by the crèche.

3) There shall be an annual review of the Travel Plan, which shall include a detailed survey of the number of movements generated by the crèche. This shall be compared with the initial survey (the ‘control level’) carried out under the terms of 2) iv. above and in the event of any reduction not being secured the crèche shall undertake whatsoever measures, as may first have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority, as are necessary to cause a reduction in the number of car borne trips to, as a maximum, the control level. This may include such options as a greater provision of subsidised transport in order to

131 minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway in compliance with Core Strategy Policy CS23: Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans.

If such an agreement is entered into, planning permission shall include the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions to include:  TL1 – Full 3 years.  AP1 – Development as per approved plans.  M2 – Details to be submitted.  Use restricted to a creche/children's daycare centre (D1).  Restriction on hours of operation between 07:00hrs and 19:00hrs Mon – Fri and 08:00hrs – 16:00 hrs on Saturdays. No opening on Sundays or Bank Holidays.  Restriction on use of external play area between 09:00hrs and 17:00hrs Mon – Fri.  No development until details of acoustic attenuation system (to ensure ‘good’ levels as recommended in BS8233 are achieved in adjacent premises) have been submitted and approved. Approved acoustic attenuation measures to be installed prior to first occupation.  C1 – Limit on hours of construction and demolition – standard hours.  Submission of an amended Community Centre Management Plan to incorporate the proposed crèche/children’s daycare centre.  Units 6 and 7 not to be occupied until vehicle parking spaces provided and made available for use.  External glazed screen to be removed upon cessation of the crèche use.

Informatives  Positive and Proactive Approach by LPA.  Development plan compliance.  Building Regulations approval required.  Terms and conditions.  Pre-commencement conditions.  Environmental Health Law

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site incorporates Units 6 and 7 (totalling 370 sq m) Merrick House and their allocated car parking spaces (two spaces total). 17 unallocated visitor spaces are also provided around the Piazza. Units 6 and 7 are located on the ground floor and face onto the main Piazza and have been vacant since their construction in 2007. Residential flats are located in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors above.

1.2 The site is well served by buses to the town centre at a frequency of 1 bus every 15-20 minutes peak and 1 bus every 30 minutes off-peak. Bus service frequencies have regularly been increasing due to increased customer demand from residents living within Kennet Island. The site is also well served by existing cycle routes.

132 Site Location Plan:

133 2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is a resubmission of planning application 10/01207/FUL. The previous application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) on 15 September 2010 but was deferred following concerns raised by the Kennet Island Residents Association (KIRA) that a crèche was inappropriate to be considered as ‘Community Centre’ floorspace. The application was subsequently withdrawn.

2.2 The current proposal is effectively the same as that proposed under 10/01207/FUL and seeks a permanent change of use of Units 6 and 7 to a crèche/children's daycare centre - thereby forming part of the ‘Community Centre’ floorspace provision as outlined in Table 1 above. The proposal also involves the stepping back of part of the ground floor elevation (by 2.5m) to provide additional external play area for the crèche. A glazed screen is proposed to form a boundary between the play area and the piazza and will be opaque at a lower level to restrict views into the crèche from outside (refer to 3-dimensional visuals provided at Appendix 1). Moreover, the two end windows in this unit are proposed to be replaced with rendered panels.

2.3 The proposed crèche would be open from 7am – 7pm Monday – Friday (drop off/pick up times being around 7:30AM – 9:00AM and 5:00PM – 7:00PM) and 8:00AM – 4:00PM on Saturdays. The applicant has advised that use would initially generate 3 or 4 new jobs which could increase to a maximum of 15 employees, dependent of the number of children attending the crèche. The maximum number of children expected to attend the crèche would be 60 when fully subscribed.

2.4 The proposed crèche would be open to the general public but would offer preferential rates to Kennet Island residents. As such, the proposal is made on the proviso that the crèche would form part of the phased provision of ‘Community Centre’ floorspace, as approved under 08/00452/FUL.

2.5 A further revised draft CCMP has been submitted alongside this application and a deed of variation to the 2008 legal agreement to incorporate the proposed ‘crèche and children’s day care centre’ into the definition of a ‘Community Centre’ floorspace will be required should this application be permitted.

2.6 The following supporting information has been supplied with the application:

Drawings:  Site Location Plan  Kennet Island Piazza Units Block Plan (Drawing no. KICUP001 Rev B)  Ground Floor Plans (Drawing no. 1349 301 P4)  Existing and Proposed Elevations (Drawing no. 1349 302 P3)

Documents:  Planning Application Supporting Statement  Noise Impact Assessment  Photographic Schedule

3. PLANNING HISTORY 10/01207/FUL Change of use of ground floor commercial units Withdrawn 6 and 7 to a crèche and holiday club. 16/09/10

134 09/00181/FUL Change of use from temporary use as sales and Approved marketing suite to gymnasium (D2 use). subject to s106 15/04/2009 08/00452/FUL Various changes of uses including A1 retail Approved units, A2 sales and marketing suite, D1 Dental subject to Surgery and D1 Community Centre. Alterations s106 10/09/08 to ground floor frontages of Block H and Block T. 05/00548/OUT Mixed use development comprising up to Approved 1,150 new homes, offices (126,000 sq m), subject to s106 private hospital, hotel, retail and community (18 September uses including cafes, bars, restaurants and 07). health and fitness studios, open space and associated infrastructure including a pedestrian and cycle bridge link across the A33.

00/01215/OUT Demolition of Manor Farm sewage works. Approved High-density mixed-use development subject to s106 comprising 850 dwellings including affordable (02/10/01) units, offices, a hotel and ancillary facilities.

3.1 Planning permission 08/00452/FUL allowed a phased approach to providing 724 sq m of ‘Community Centre’ floorspace at Kennet Island; including Units 6 and 7. The objective of providing ‘Community Centre’ floorspace within the Kennet Island development is both to provide for the needs of the resident community and to assist in animating and enlivening the two main public Piazza’s which form the focal point for communal activity within the development.

3.2 Therefore, the required ‘Community Centre’ floorspace for Kennet Island is outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Kennet Island ‘Community Centre’ Floorspace. Unit Permitted use Floor Current status area sq m Unit 5 Gymnasium 173 Opened March 2010 Merrick House

Unit 6 Unit has temporary permission 136 The building has been Merrick (08/00452/FUL) as a sales and marketing vacant since built in House suite until 10 September 2013 after which late 2007. the authorised use reverts back to ‘Community Centre’ floorspace. Current proposal is for use as a crèche and children’s daycare centre.

Unit 7 2 year temporary permission as a sales and 234 The building has been Merrick marketing suite has expired and authorised vacant since built in House use ‘Community Centre’ floorspace. late 2007.

135 Unit 13 Function / meeting space 86 Opened 7/11/2009 Tean House

Unit 14 Function / meeting space 95 Can be made available Tean subject to demand. House

Total 724

3.3 The adjacent Unit 5 is occupied as a gymnasium which has been included in the definition of community space (via a Deed of Variation to the 2008 legal agreement). Unit 13, Tean House (referred to as ‘Block T’ in the appended Block Plan) has been open to the public since November 2009 and is in use as a function / meeting room, while Unit 14 is not currently open but can be made available when there is demand. It should be noted that Unit 8 is currently in use as the Hallmark Management Office for Kennet Island and will remain in this use.

3.4 Pursuant to permission 08/00452/FUL, a Community Centre Management Plan (CCMP) was approved which covered matters such as maintenance, charges and promotion of the ‘Community Centre’ floorspace. The CCMP was subsequently varied in concert with a Deed of Variation to the 2008 legal agreement for permission 09/00181/FUL (for the gymnasium).

4. CONSULTATIONS

Statutory Consultees

4.1 None.

Non-statutory Consultees

RBC Transport Development Control 4.2 Transport DC raises no objection to this application subject to the submission of a Travel Plan prior to first occupation and a condition to ensure that the dedicated parking spaces are made available for use before occupation.

RBC Environmental Protection 4.3 Following discussion with the applicant’s noise consultant, Environmental Protection Officers have raised no objection to the proposal because they agree with the applicant that suitable noise mitigation measures (including an acoustic dampening ceiling system) to minimise the transmission of noise between the proposed crèche and flats can be achieved. Conditions are recommended to secure details of this and to control opening hours for both the crèche and the use of the external play area.

RBC Building Control 4.4 No objection. Advise that Building Regulations would be required.

Public consultation 4.5 A site notice was displayed and letters were sent to 67 properties in the following streets:  Merrick House, Whale Avenue.  Gweal Avenue

136 4.6 The Kennet Island Residents Association (KIRA) was also consulted on this application.

4.7 One letter has been received from KIRA who support the application but raised general concerns regarding the perceived lack of visitor parking at Kennet island and the failure of developers to consult residents on the ‘Community Centre’ floorspace provision.

4.8 Ward Councillors Eden, Edwards and Orton have also written to confirm their support of this proposal.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) CS4 Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle parking CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS34 Pollution and Water Resources

Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (adopted October 2012) - SDPD SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM23 Shopfronts and Cash Machines SA1 South Reading Development Principles

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents The Council’s following adopted supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents are also material planning considerations:

 Planning Obligations Under S.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (2004)  Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)

National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

 Chapter 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy)  Chapter 4 (Promoting sustainable transport)  Chapter 7 (Requiring good design)  Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)

137 6. APPRAISAL

(i) Main Issues

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are: a) Principle of development b) Design and appearance c) Transport and parking issues d) Residential amenity

Other issues  Pre-application consultation  Equality  Positive and Proactive Approach Assessment

a) Principle of development 6.2 SDPD Policy SD1 states that “a positive approach to considering development proposals will be taken that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” Core Strategy Policy CS31 provides a general presumption in favour of new community facilities and states that they should be located where there is a choice of means of travel. SDPD Policy SA1 requires that developments contribute to the provision of community services and facilities that properly integrate with established residential areas.

6.3 As detailed above, the extant permission (08/00452/FUL) allows a phased approach to providing 724 sq m 'Community Centre' floorspace at Kennet Island. The original Kennet Island planning permission (00/01215/OUT) outlined that the ‘Community Centre’ floorspace provision was intended to ‘provide for the needs of the resident community and to assist in animating and enlivening the two main public Piazza’s which form the focal point for communal activity within the development.’

6.4 Following discussions with the envisaged crèche operator, the applicant has agreed to provide preferential rates for Kennet Island residents (the standard £4.50 per hour rate to be discounted to £4.00) for use of the proposed crèche. Details of these discounted charges, amongst other things, are recommended to be detailed within a revised Community Centre Management Plan that could be secured via condition. A condition restricting the use of the site to a crèche and children’s daycare centre only is also recommended to prevent the site moving into a D1 use which would be less compatible with the intention of the original planning permission.

6.5 The proposed crèche would add to the range of facilities accessible to Kennet Island residents and would bring people and activity into the main piazza. In these circumstances officers consider that a crèche would be within the range of uses that would meet an identified need and is a use which falls within the D1 non-residential institution use class which includes places of worship, health centres, public halls etc.

6.6 The proposed use is therefore considered acceptable in principle and appropriate to form part of the required ‘Community Centre’ floorspace at Kennet Island and therefore accords with Core Strategy Policy CS31 and SDPD Policy SA1.

138 b) Design and appearance 6.7 Core Strategy Policy CS7 requires that all development must be of a high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the surrounding area. SDPD Policy DM23 requires that shopfronts should present an active a frontage to the street at all times and that opaque coverings on windows should be minimised so as to not obscure the window. Core Strategy Policy CS5 requires that all buildings should provide suitable access for all potential users including disabled people.

6.8 The proposal would result in the two vacant units being combined into one and includes changes to the front elevation that faces onto the piazza. The proposal would involve the removal of the two end glazed panels (3m and 4.5m wide) at either end of the unit that would be replaced with rendered panels. In addition, a pair of double entrance doors, rather than two separate entrances, and folding doors in order to allow access to an enclosed external play area are proposed.

6.9 The proposed external play area would extend as far as the edge of the existing canopy to the building and this space would be secured with a glazed opaque screen that would be 1.5m in height that would restrict views to the crèche from outside.

6.10 The combination of both the proposed glazed screen and rendered panels would obscure the shopfront elevation and would therefore not provide an active frontage to the piazza. However, these concerns should be considered in light of the benefits of bringing this vacant unit into use and the need for privacy for the proposed crèche use. Subject to a condition requiring details of materials, it is considered that the proposed changes to the front elevation could be made acceptable in this instance although contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS7 and SDPD Policy DM23. A condition is also recommended to require the removal of the glazed screen once the crèche use ceases. The proposed internal layout would include a disabled WC and double entrance doors that would allow access for wheelchair users and prams in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS5.

c) Transport and parking issues 6.11 SDPD Policy DM12 states that development proposals will be assessed against their effect on highway safety, congestion and the environment. Core Strategy Policy CS23 requires a commitment to implement measures to promote and improve sustainable transport facilities. Core Strategy Policy CS24 and the Council’s ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ SPD outlines the Council’s requirements for parking provision on developments. Core Strategy CS4 states that the scale and density of development should be related to its level of accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport.

6.12 The application site is situated within the Secondary Core Area, Zone 3, of the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) which requires a maximum parking standard of 1 space per 2 FTE staff and 1 drop off space per 10 pupils. The maximum parking requirement for the proposal would be 14 spaces (7.5 staff parking spaces + 6 drop off spaces).

6.13 The applicant has advised that the crèche would have 2 parking spaces allocated for its employees and 17 unallocated visitor parking spaces around the Piazza which would provide short stay parking for parents during drop-off and collection times. Considering the crèche would offer preferential rates to Kennet Island residents, the proposed pick-up and drop-off arrangements are considered acceptable and would not impact on the overall availability of short stay spaces throughout the day.

139

6.14 A recent consultation with Kennet Island Residents has established that 80% of resident’s experience problems with parking within Kennet Island, however the main problems identified were in the evenings and at weekends. Even so while the pick-up and drop-off arrangements are acceptable, the Council should satisfy itself that staff parking does not cause problems. The parking problems in the evenings should therefore not be affected by these proposals and subject to a change in the opening times as not to open at weekends then this period should also not be affected either. However, parking is very near capacity on Kennet Island. Therefore, to minimise the amount of staff trips by car a Travel Plan should be secured via s106 as detailed in the recommendation at the start of this report.

6.15 Whilst these proposals would result in a shortfall of 6 spaces for staff against the Council’s current standards, it should be noted that the requirements for A1 or A3 uses, the type of uses you would expect to find around an urban piazza, would be the same or more.

6.16 Therefore, it is considered that the proposed parking provision and use of visitor parking is acceptable in this instance.

d) Residential amenity

6.17 SDPD Policy DM4 states that development will not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties. Core Strategy Policy CS34 states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air, land, noise or light pollution. Policy Chapter 11 of the NPPF states that the planning system should prevent development from contributing to unacceptable levels of noise pollution.

6.18 The proposed crèche would be acceptable given that noise attenuation measures to residential flats within Merrick House have already been approved and implemented and considering that further mitigation measures are deemed feasible to ensure that a ‘good’ noise rating level, as specified in BS8233, can be achieved between the proposed use and existing flats.

6.19 However, if an unrestricted D1 use (non-residential institutions) were to be permitted for the site there may be uses within that Use Class that might not be appropriate in this location. Such uses may also not be compatible with the spirit of the ‘Community Centre’ floorspace requirements intended for Kennet Island and would likely result in inappropriate use of the enclosed external space. Therefore, it is considered that it would be appropriate to attach a condition restricting the use of the site to a crèche/children's daycare centre only in order to ensure that the site remains in a use compatible with the intended community use of the units and does not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residents.

6.20 Following consultation with this Council’s Environmental Protection Officer’s, conditions are also suggested to control the hours of use of the crèche in general and that of the external play area. Subject to adherence to the suggested conditions, this proposal would protect the amenities of neighbouring residents and therefore complies with the requirements of SDPD Policy DM and Core Strategy Policy CS34.

140 Other matters: Pre-application Consultation

6.21 In respect of the concerns raised by KIRA regarding the lack of consultation by developers, the applicant has advised that they held two meetings with KIRA to discuss the proposals; the second of which was attended by the proposed crèche operator to discuss the proposals in detail and demonstrate the community benefits that it would bring.

Equality

6.22 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. As mentioned above, the proposed internal layout would include a disabled WC and double entrance doors that would allow access for wheelchair users and prams. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

Discussions with Applicant

6.23 If permission is granted, the Council’s decision notice will need to explain in an informative how the local planning authority have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. These proposals have been the subject of discussions with the applicant at pre-application and application stage in respect of the issues set out in the table below. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.

Planning Issue Issue resolved Issue resolved Comments requiring at pre- at application resolution application stage ? stage ? Applicant provided detailed justification that suitable noise Noise issues N/A Yes √ mitigation measures could be achieved. Provision of Travel Plan agreed. Transport N/A Yes √

7. CONCLUSION

Case Officer: Andrew Chugg

141

142

143

144 APPENDIX 1: 3-DIMENSIONAL VISUALS (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)

145

146