Ian Wardle Managing Director
Civic Centre, Reading, RG1 7AE 0118 937 3737
Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Councillor Maskell (Chair) Cttee\Agendas\141112.doc Councillors Ayub, Ballsdon, Gavin, Your Ref: Lawrence, Livingston, Page, Robinson, Singh and Whitham Direct: 0118 937 2112 e-mail: [email protected]
4 November 2014
Your contact is: Nicky Simpson – Committee Services
NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 12 NOVEMBER 2014
A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 12 November 2014 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 15 OCTOBER 2014 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -
3. QUESTIONS - - -
4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 10 COMMITTEE ITEMS 5. PLANNING SITE VISITS REVIEW DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 13
6. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 15
7. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 20
8. OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION DECISION ABBEY 32 ORDER AT 10 CLIFTON STREET 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)
Planning Applications to be determined
Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page 9-10 DECISION ABBEY 41
11 DECISION CAVERSHAM 63
12 DECISION MINSTER 117
13-14 DECISION PARK 135
15 DECISION REDLANDS 149
16 DECISION SOUTHCOTE 161
17 DECISION THAMES 185
18 DECISION TILEHURST 203
19-20 DECISION WHITLEY 211
21 DECISION OUT OF BOROUGH 247
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 12 November 2014
Item: 9 Page: 41 Ward: Abbey Application Number 141596 Application Type Demolition Prior Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Civic Centre, Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7AE Proposal Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and public toilets on Dusseldorf Way. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 9 Page: 41 Ward: Abbey Application Number 141603 Application Type Screening Opinion Applicant Atkins Limited Address Reading Borough Council, Civic Centre, Castle Street/ Dusseldorf Way, Reading, RG1 7AE Proposal Screening Opinion requested relating to the demolition of the Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and the public toilets on Dusseldorf Way, Reading. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 10 Page: 51 Ward: Abbey Application Number 141601 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Reading Civic Centre Including The Mayor's Garden, Civic Centre, Reading Proposal Change of use of land to a temporary pocket park following the demolition of existing Civic Centre building. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 11 Page: 63 Ward: Caversham Application Number 140997 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Hermes Property Unit Trust Address St Martins Precinct, Church Street, Caversham, Reading Proposal Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 12 November 2014
Item: 12 Page: 117 Ward: Minster Application Number 141471 Application Type Variation of Condition Applicant Porcelanosa UK Ltd Address 21 Rose Kiln Lane, Reading Proposal Demolition of the existing warehouse and the erection of a new retail warehouse (use class A1) with associated storage, car parking and landscaping, at 21 Rose Kiln Lane, Reading, without complying with conditions 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 of planning permission 140542. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
Item: 13 Page: 135 Ward: Park Application Number 071612 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant George Wimpey South West Thames Address Land At Green Road, Reading Proposal Construction of 2, 3 and 4 storey residential accommodation comprising 33 apartments, 6 detached houses, 34 semi-detached houses and 20 terraced houses (including 8 affordable semi-detached houses and 3 terraced houses) (re- submission of 07/00369/FUL) Recommendation Deed of variation
Item: 14 Page: 138 Ward: Park Application Number 141428 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mr Alan Wick Address 44 College Road, Reading, RG6 1QB Proposal Retrospective Change of use from C3 to C4, changing an existing 4/5 bedroom house to six bedroom HMO with en-suites. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 15 Page: 149 Ward: Redlands Application Numbers 141324 & 141325 Application Types Full Planning Approval (141324) & Listed Building Consent (141325) Applicant Reading School Address Reading School, Main House, Erleigh Road, Reading, RG1 5LW Proposal Demolition of existing chemistry building and firing range to allow the erection of a new two storey science block and associated services and landscaping, including temporary classrooms and temporary construction vehicle access off Addington Road for the duration of construction. The existing chemistry building is within the curtilage of a listed building and is connected to this listed building by a glazed link. A new glazed link will be built joining the two buildings. Recommendation Application Permitted
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 12 November 2014
Item: 16 Page: 161 Ward: Southcote Application Number 141380 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Southcote Primary School, Silchester Road, Reading, RG30 3EJ Proposal Two new build teaching block extensions (one part two-storey, one single storey), extension to front of school plus associated external works including new staff car park and new pedestrian accesses from Shepley Drive and Silchester Road. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
Item: 17 Page: 185 Ward: Thames Application Number 141288 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant The Grey Coat Hospital Foundation Address Queen Annes School, Henley Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 6DX Proposal The refurbishment and extension of Moore House to provide the school with a dedicated sixth form centre as well as a state of the art dining and kitchen facility. The sixth form centre will include a contemporary knowledge centre, a common room cafe and flexible teaching areas. The application also includes new external landscaping. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
Item: 18 Page: 203 Ward: Tilehurst Application Number 141473 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Park Lane Primary School, School Road, Tilehurst, Reading, Berkshire, RG31 5BD Proposal Replacement boundary fence. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 19 Page: 211 Ward: Whitley Application Number 141447 Application Type Approval of Reserved Matters Applicant Oxford Properties Address 500 - 600 Longwater Avenue, Reading Proposal Application for approval of reserved matters (Access, Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping) following outline approval 02/01311/OUT, as extended by 10/01659/EXT, relating to the development of 22,540 sqm of B1 business use, car parking, landscaping and related works Recommendation Application Permitted
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 12 November 2014
Item: 20 Page: 225 Ward: Whitley Application Number 141602 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant SEGRO Industrial Estates Limited Address Worton Drive, Reading Proposal Erection of new car showroom with ancillary offices to be used for the sale and display of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accessories and spare parts, service garage and workshop for the repair, servicing and maintenance of motor vehicles (with car wash and lubrication bays), parts storage and sale and hiring of motor vehicles, erection of free-standing car valet building, rooftop car storage deck with access ramp, photography bay, means of access, car parking (customer, sales and storage spaces) cycle parking facilities, drainage, landscaping, plant and ancillary works. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
Item: 21 Page: 247 Ward: Out of Borough Application Number 141642 Application Type Adjacent Authority Consultation Applicant Marino Family Address Hogwood Farm, Sheerlands Road, Finchampstead, Berkshire, RG40 4QY Proposal Hybrid Application for: PART 1 - OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR: New Homes (Use Class C3) 1 500 dwellings (including affordable) on 43.63 hectares of land totalling approximately 225,000 sq. m of floorspace, comprising a mix of 2-5+ bed detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Employment (Use Class B2) 1.87 hectares of land for 12,000 sq. m of General Industrial uses. Village Centre (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 and D1) A village centre (0.3 hectares) containing 1,900 sq. m of floorspace for: Shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, public house and/or hot food takeaways; church; and children's nursery. Car parking will also be provided to serve the village centre and SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace). Schools (Use Class D1) 2.5 hectares of land to accommodate a two-form entry primary school (with potential to expand to 3- form entry) and associated playing fields, sports pitches, and parking areas. Open Space Formal and informal open space, totalling approximately 29.45 hectares of land including car parking, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage systems (including surface water attenuation works) as follows: 5.46 ha Parks and Public Gardens 3.54 ha Amenity Green Space 0.90 ha Children's Play Areas 5.98 ha Outdoor Sport 1.87 ha Community Allotments 0.04 ha Civic Space 11.66 ha Other Open Space PART 2 - FULL PERMISSION FOR: Highway Infrastructure Provision of highway infrastructure (including associated utilities footway & cycleway) comprising: The Nine Mile Ride Extension - a new road running westwards from Park Lane, connecting the existing Nine Mile Ride to the village centre and primary school. Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) 30.04ha of land for SANG. Recommendation Observations sent
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 12 November 2014
Item: 21 Page: 247 Ward: Out of Borough Application Number 141710 Application Type Adjacent Authority Consultation Applicant Arborfield Garrison Landowners’ Consortium Address Arborfield Garrison & Adjoining Land, Arborfield, Wokingham, RG2 9LN Proposal HYBRID APPLICATION FOR:PART 1 - OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR: Up to 2 000 new dwellings (including 80 units of extra care housing and housing within new district centre) (Class C3). District centre (up to 9 000 sq m (gross) floor space comprising a foodstore up to 4 000 sq m gross with a up to a further 3 500 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 D1 and D2 (with residential above - Class C3) and up to a further 1 500 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes D1 and D2 transport interchange village square car parking servicing and drop off area. Neighbourhood centre to provide up to 300 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 D1 and D2 with parking/servicing area. Secondary school for up to 1 500 pupils (Class D1) including sports pitches flood-lit all-weather pitch. Indoor swimming pool and parking areas. Up to three-form primary school (Class D1) with sports pitch and parking areas. Associated provision of: car parking; public open space including sports pitches informal/incidental open space children's play areas including multi-use games area (MUGA) BMX track and skate park community gardens/allotments; landscaping/buffer areas; boundary treatments; new roads footpaths cycleways and bridleways; sustainable urban drainage systems including flood alleviation works. PART 2 - FULL PERMISSION FOR: Creation of two new areas of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGS)(In the north-eastern part of the application site (Northern SANGS)and at West Court (West Court SANGS) including car parking areas path/walkways fencing and associated landscaping; re-use of existing MoD gymnasium for sports/ community uses/centre (Classes D1/D2; new roundabout junction to A327 Reading Road; junction improvements to Langley Common Road Baird Road and Biggs Lane; junction improvements and new access at Biggs Lane/ Princess Marina Drive; re-use and improvements to existing site accesses from Biggs Lane. Recommendation Observations sent
KEY TO CODING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
1. Planning application reference numbers are made up of 2 parts.
1.1 The number begins with the year e.g. 13
1.2 This is followed by a consecutive number, showing what number the application is in any year (e.g. 130128).
2. The following is a key to existing officers with their direct dial telephone numbers.
GF1 - Giorgio Framalicco 9372604 KAR - Kiaran Roughan 9374530 LEB - Lynette Baker 9372413 JW6 - Julie Williams 9372461 RJE - Richard Eatough 9373338 AJC - Andrew Chugg 9372458 JT3 - Justin Turvey 9372993 SFB - Susanna Bedford 9372023 BFP - Ben Pratley 9372417 SDV - Steve Vigar 9372980 GPC - Gary Crawford 9372446 CR2 - Claire Ringwood 9374545 CJB - Christopher Beard 9372430 SGH - Stephen Hammond 9374424 MDW - Mark Worringham 9373337 AJA - Alison Amoah 9372286 SHE - Sarah Hanson 9372440 KMR - Kate McHale 9374294 DPG - David Griggs 9372488 POA - Peter Owusu Ansah 9373827 TJF - Toby Fox 9374294 BXP - Boja Petkovic 9372352
Keytocoding Issue 28/08/2014
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 28/08/2014
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 28/08/2014
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
Present: Councillor Maskell (Chair);
Councillors Ayub, Ballsdon, Gavin, Lawrence, Livingston, Page, Robinson, Singh and Whitham.
RESOLVED ITEMS
28. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2014 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
29. SITE VISITS
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted, at the meeting, a 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, together with any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Service might consider appropriate, be the subject of site visits:
141490/REG3 – HODSOLL ROAD
New primary school including 200 sq m of community facilities along with the demolition of two temporary buildings and associated hard standings on Victoria Park.
30. SITE VISITS REVIEW
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report seeking the views of the Committee on how Planning Site Visits should be arranged in the future.
Resolved – That consideration of the report be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.
31. PLANNING APPEALS
(i) New Appeals
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a schedule giving details of notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate regarding two planning appeals, the method of determination for which she had already expressed a preference in accordance with delegated powers, which were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
(ii) Appeals Recently Determined
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted details of two 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
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the following appeal decision in Appendix 3:
Allowed:
140125 – 10 CROSS STREET
One internally illuminated fascia sign and one internally illuminated projecting sign.
Advertisement consent appeal.
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 report on the appeal decision, as set out in Appendix 3, be noted.
32. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 18 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of 10 applications for prior approval decided between 28 August and 30 September 2014.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
33. DCLG / DEFRA CONSULTATION ON PROVIDING SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the implementation of Schedule 3 of The Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which established Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) Approving Bodies (SABs) in unitary authorities and county councils, and gave those bodies statutory responsibility for approving Drainage Applications, and in some cases adopting, the approved drainage systems associated with all new developments.
The report explained that, following several consultations by DEFRA, the Government had not implemented Schedule 3 due to concerns from the development industry and councils over the implications this would have on their business. Schedule 3 had been due to be implemented on 1 October 2014, but this date had been cancelled by the Government in May 2014 for a further round of
2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014 consultation detailing how SUDS systems would be implemented. At the beginning of September 2014 DEFRA together with the DCLG had produced a consultation document which explained that the latest proposals were not to progress with the SABs, but to incorporate the provision of SUDS within the Planning System.
The report set out the implications of the latest proposals for the planning process and attached at Appendix 1 was a proposed response to the consultation.
Resolved – That the report be noted and the Council’s response, as set out at Appendix 1, be agreed.
34. DCLG PLANNING TECHNICAL CONSULTATION – COUNCIL RESPONSE
Further to Minute 26 of the meeting held on 10 September 2014, the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report setting out the Council’s response to the ‘Technical Consultation on Planning’ that had been published by the Department for Communities and Local Government on 31 July 2014 and reported to the meeting on 10 September 2014. The consultation had included various proposals intended to make the planning system more streamlined and effective, and the Council’s response, which had been sent to DCLG by the 26 September 2014 deadline, was set out at Appendix 1.
Resolved – That the Council’s response to the ‘Technical Consultation on Planning’ be noted.
35. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered reports by the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services.
Resolved –
(1) That, subject to the conditions now approved, permission be granted under planning legislation and, where appropriate, under the Advertisement Regulations, as follows:
140486/LBC – 173-175 KINGS ROAD
Internal works associated with the change of use from office to 13 dwellings. Minor external alterations to create one new window at lower ground floor and new roof lights to mansard roof.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional consent and informatives as recommended.
Comments received and considered.
140551/FUL – KINGS WALK, KING STREET
Alterations to front & rear elevations.
Granted as recommended.
3 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
Conditional planning permission as recommended.
Comments and objection received and considered.
140552/ADV – KINGS WALK, KING STREET a) LED display around existing glazed canopy fronting King Street for the display of advertisements relating to businesses within the shopping centre. b) Atlantis Village & Logo signs on Kings Walk & Yield Hall Place frontages.
Granted for a) on the grounds that the installation of the screen would provide significant benefits to the use of the shopping centre andthe potential visual impact of the LED display was not considered by the Committee to be as harmful as stated in the report.
Condition requiring that the LED displayonly be used during the shopping centre opening hours.
Granted as recommended for b).
Comments and objection received and considered.
141252/FUL – KINGS MEADOW, NAPIER ROAD
Temporary Change of Use for up to 30 days in calendar year 2014, to change from Class D2 Assembly & Leisure to Christmas Party Events at Kings Meadow.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
Comments received and considered.
141340/FUL & 141341/CON – 8 CLIFTON STREET
141340/FUL - Single storey rear and side extension with glazed roof to replace the existing lean-to.
141341/CON – Relevant Demolition in a Conservation Area.
An update report was tabled at the meeting which explained that the proposals included the demolition of a wall over 2m in a Conservation Area,and therefore the works were also subject to an application for full planning permission for relevant demolition in a Conservation Area. additional This application (141341/CON) was recommended for approval.
141340/FUL - Granted as recommended in the original report.
141341/CON – Granted as recommended in the update report.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
141631/FUL – THAMES TOWER, 37-45 STATION ROAD
Application to discharge condition 3 of planning permission 141043 (Construction method statement).
An update report was tabled at the meeting, which explained that the S106 agreement for planning permission 141043 had been signed and planning permission 141043 issued on 13 October 2014, and an application to discharge condition 3 had been received on 14 October 2014, following submission and approval of the Construction Method Statement. With the conclusion of these outstanding matters it was recommended that condition 3 be discharged.
Condition 3 of planning permission 141043 discharged as recommended in the update report.
141263/NMC – REAR OF 154 OVERDOWN ROAD, TILEHURST
Non-material change to planning permission 101288(10/01745/FUL) for construction of new three-bedroom detached dwelling house.
Granted as recommended.
New condition 2 amending the approved plans as recommended.
All other conditions and informatives as previously agreed for planning permission 101288 (10/01745/FUL).
Comments and objections received and considered.
140213/FUL – THAMES WATER PLC, FOBNEY TREATMENT WORKS, ROSE KILN LANE
Retrospective application to replace boundary security fencing and installation of security kiosks over existing equipment kiosks.
An update report was tabled at the meeting, which explained that the applicant had advised that the ‘Flat-Wrap Razor Wire’ previously proposed along the southern boundary of the site was no longer considered suitable to meet the site’s security requirements, and it was therefore now proposed to retain the ‘Concertina Razor Wire’. It was considered that the security merits associated with this proposal outweighed any visual amenity concerns and the report therefore recommended the exclusion of Condition 2 which would have required ‘Flat-Wrap Razor Wire’.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with Condition 2 excluded as recommended in the update report.
Comments received and considered.
141157/FUL – UNITS 1A AND 1B, READING LINK RETAIL PARK, ROSE KILN LANE
5 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
Application for external alterations to elevations and internal reconfiguration to create three new units.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
(2) That the following application be refused for the reasons indicated:
141153/FUL - LAND ADJOINING 16 ST BARNABAS ROAD, EMMER GREEN
Construction of a self-contained five-bedroom detached dwellinghouse.
Refused as recommended.
Comments and objections received and considered.
Objectors John Holland and Caroline Crossand agent Mick Howlett attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.
(3) That, subject to the requirements indicated, Head the of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to determine the following applications under planning legislation:
140485/FUL – 173-175 KINGS ROAD
Change of use from office to 13 dwellings. Minor external alterations to create one new window at lower ground floor and new roof lights to mansard roof.
An update report was tabled at the meeting, which gave details of an agreed Affordable Housing contribution. The recommended Heads of Terms had been amended accordingly.
The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 12 November 2014 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services) to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the update report, with the addition of Eldon Square Gardens to the listed open space infrastructure.
In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
Comments received and considered.
141216/VAR – READING LINK RETAIL PARK, ROSE KILN LANE
Operation of outline permission for Residential and Retail and retail development on land west of Rose Kiln Lane without complying with condition 13 of 01/00873/VARIAT (as amended by 11/00983/VARIAT) to allow for an extended range of goods that can be sold from Unit 1 Reading Link Retail Park.
6 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014
The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 30 October 2014 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services) to secure the contribution towards improvements to the A33/Rose Kiln Lane signalised junction set out in the report.
In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
Traffic movement into the development through the A33/Rose Kiln Lane signalised junction to be referred to the Traffic Management Sub-Committee.
Comments received and considered.
141214/FUL – 1 BROWNLOW ROAD
Change of use from residential institution (C2) to large House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis).
The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 5 November 2014 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services) to secure the contribution towards transport improvements set out in the report.
In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with an additional informative regarding on-street parking.
Comments and objections received and considered.
Objector Mischa Tytel, agent Emily Temple and Councillor Gittings attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.
(4) That, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, thecarrying out of the following developments be authorised, subject to the conditions now specified:
141403/REG3 – PLAZA WEST, BRIDGE STREET
One external free standing sign.
An update report was tabled at the meeting explain whiched that no representations had been received during the consultation period, and that the application was therefore now recommended for approval.
Granted as recommended in the update report.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original
7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014 report.
141289/REG3 – THAMESIDE PRIMARY SCHOOL, HARLEY ROAD, CAVERSHAM
Extension to School.
An update report was tabled at the meeting which included information on flooding, tree protection and a sustainability statement, and recommended additional conditions relating to these matters.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with additional conditions 12-18 as recommended in the update report.
Comments and objections received and considered.
141076/REG3, 141077/REG3, 141078/REG3, 141079/REG3 & 141080/REG3 – VARIOUS ADDRESSES ON DULNAN CLOSE, GAIRN CLOSE, ELDART CLOSE, ESKIN CLOSE AND DEVERON DRIVE
Removal of existing cladding systems, insulation and associated items and the supply and installation of 150mm plank Marley Eternit continuous panels including starter trim, expansion trim, internal trim, top and window trim to first floor and Steni Panels on the ground floor.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
141498/REG3 – THE WILLOWS CARE HOME, 2 HEXHAM ROAD
Siting of temporary single storey modular building for a further three years.
That the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorisedto grant subject to no material objections being received during the public consultation period, as recommended.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.
(5) That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be consulted on the following application and supporting papers in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009:
141151/REG3 – ST MICHAEL’S PRIMARY SCHOOL, DEE ROAD, TILEHURST
Part two storey part single storey extension with canopy links to main school, entrance extension, removal of three modular buildings, associated external works and new free-standing canopy to retained modular.
An update report was tabled at the meeting, which set out the Emergency Planning Officer’s consultation response and recommended an additional informative
8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 15 OCTOBER 2014 advising the applicant that the Schools Emergency Response Plan (Rainbow Plan) should be updated.
That the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission in the event that: i) The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application for 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.
The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the receipt of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking by 17 November 2014 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services) to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the report.
Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the additional informative recommended in the update report.
Comments and objections received and considered.
36. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
Resolved –
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 as it was likely that there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) of the Act.
37. PLANNING ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY UPDATE
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the current status of all outstanding enforcement notices/prosecutions, including cases where formal enforcement action and/or prosecutions had been undertaken but where the action taken had not yet resolved the breach of planning control. An overview of all outstanding cases involving formal action was attached at Appendix 1.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
(The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 8.30 pm).
9 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Date: 12 NOVEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 4
TITLE: POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS
SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: BOROUGH WIDE
AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN TEL: 0118 9374530
JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER E-MAIL: [email protected]
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 at the 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.
10 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 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).
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— • 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. 11
7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 None 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.
Local Safety Practice 2013 Planning Applications Committee site visits.
12 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 5
TITLE: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE SITE VISITS - REVIEW
SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: BOROUGHWIDE
AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN TEL: 0118 9374530
JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER E-MAIL: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 Committee Planning Site Visits and developer presentations have been relatively poorly attended in recent months. The cost of arranging and providing transport for the visits to take place also needs to be reviewed. This reports seeks the views of Councillors on the Planning Applications Committee about how Committee Planning Site Visits should be arranged in the future
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 That Committee note the issues relating to Committee Site Visits and indicates its preferred way forward.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Giving proper consideration to, and fully appreciating, planning applications proposals benefits from being able to assess the proposals on site. Certainly officers will normally visit a site to properly assess application proposals. Committee has traditionally identified sites for committee site visits and on occasions has decided to defer applications for further consideration following a site visit.
3.2 While site visits have been pre-arranged in the Municipal calendar each month, recent attendance has generally been very low with, on occasions, only one or two councillors attending. This has also been the case for visits that have included a programmed presentation by prospective applicants. Organising site visits and presentations has resource implications and there is also the cost of the bus that is normally hired to provide transport to and between sites. The size of the Committee has also been reduced this year so there are fewer councillors who might attend. Modern technology now makes it easy to view proposals via the web and to use tools such as street view, so Councillors may feel that have less need to visit sites. In the light of this, it is felt appropriate to review the current arrangements.
13 4. PROPOSAL
4.1 If Committee is to continue to have arranged Committee Site Visits a number of questions need to be considered:
• Is the current time, Thursday mornings, the most appropriate? Previously Site visits were held on a Friday afternoon. Is there a better time to arrange site visits for the Committee? • Where appropriate, and where prospective applicants wish to make a presentation to Committee, is this best arranged before site visits or would it be better to hold them separately maybe in the early evening, at say 5.00 or 5.30? • For transport, while a bus is more efficient and effective if the Committee are visiting 3 (4?) or more sites in one session, it becomes quite costly for only one or two sites. Is Committee happy to consider alternative arrangements when the Committee Site Visit is only to visit 1 – 2 (3) sites? • Alternative arrangements would include councillors making their own way to sites, meeting up at arranged times. Officers could also ensure that a car (with space for 3 or 4 passengers) is going from the Civic Offices. • A further alternative is for officers to put together a ‘booklet’ with a plan and bullet points of issues for each site which would be distributed after PAC, for Councillors to go and look at sites, if they wish, in their own time. The disadvantage is that it will not always be possible for councillors to go into sites or view them from neighbouring properties. • With the benefits of modern technology, it is now possible to get a very good appreciation of individual proposals via plans and photographs attached to Committee reports. It is also easy to delve into the material forming part of an application as all relevant details, including photographs and illustrative plans are easily accessible via Public Access on the Council’s website. In addition, the web provides considerable information including Street View that provides views of individual locations around the Borough. Therefore there is a case that Councillors do not actually need to visit the sites of planning applications to gain a fuller appreciation of what is being proposed.
Officers have no specific preferences for site visits in the future. However, a proposal can be brought back to a future Committee based on views expressed at, or following, this meeting of the Committee.
5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 None arising directly from this report.
6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 There is a small cost involved in using a hire bus to undertake site visits. Consequently there will be a small saving if a bus is not used when the number of sites being visited is low.
14 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 6
TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS
AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN TEL: 0118 9374530
JOB TITLE: PLANNI NG MANAGER E-MAIL: [email protected]
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 :
• 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
15 7.2 Defending planning appeals 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
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.
16
APPENDIX 1
Appeals Lodged:
WARD: Norcot APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/A/14/2226915 CASE NO: 140581 ADDRESS: 37 St Georges Road, Reading PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for conversion of existing two storey residential property into 2 x 1 self-contained flats CASE OFFICER: Claire Ringwood METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 14.10.2014
WARD: Mapledurham APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/14/2227203 CASE NO: 140473 ADDRESS: Outlands, Upper Warren Avenue, Caversham PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garage and construction of 2-bed annexe to existing residence with double garage CASE OFFICER: Lynette Baker METHOD: Written Representation on Householder appeal APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 22.10.2014
APPENDIX 2
Appeals Decided:
WARD: Southcote APPEAL NO: APP/TPO/E0345/3995 CASE NO: 140727/TPO ADDRESS: 21 Lingholm Close PROPOSAL: Fell one Yew tree CASE OFFICER: Sarah Hanson METHOD: Fast Track DECISION: Dismissed DATE DETERMINED: 23 September 2014
APPENDIX 3
Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions.
21 Lingholm Close
Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions attached.
APP/TPO/E0345/3995 - 21 Lingholm Close 17 APPEAL DECISION Report: BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014
Ward: Southcote Appeal No: APP/TPO/E0345/3995 Planning Ref: 140727/TPO Site: 21 Lingholm Close, Tilehurst Proposal: Fell one Yew tree Decision level: Officer Method: Written Representation (Fast Track Procedure) Decision: Dismissed Date Determined: 23 September 2014 Inspector: Dr P G Biddle OBE BACKGROUND The trees at 21 Lingholm Close have been subject to a TPO since the 1960s. A TPO review in 2001 resulted in an updated TPO for 21 Lingholm Close (No. 42/01) which includes 1 individual Yew tree and a group of Oak and Ash. An application was received in 1 May 2014 to carry out various pruning operations to the Oak and Ash and to fell the Yew tree. The reasons given for the felling of the Yew tree were: 1) it had killed the hedge and surrounding grass, 2) the roots poison the soil, 3) damage to the house if the tree falls, 4) concern over grandchildrenpicking up poisonous berries and 5) the tree is too large Officers did not consider the Yew tree to be too large for its location and in any case, some minor pruning to contain the spread or to provide greater clearance from the house would be reasonable. Yew does create dense shade which would account for the grass struggling to grow under its canopy but this was not a reason to fell a healthy tree. In relation to the tree poisoning the soil and killing the hedge, officers considered it reasonable to say that the combination of shade caused by the Yew and adjacent Oaks and conifers would be a major factor in unsuccessful plant growth in the vicinity of the Yew. In addition, there are several pests/diseases that are likely to be the cause of the death of parts of the conifer hedge, rather than the Yew. Whilst concerns over the Yew potentially harming the applicant’s grandchildren were appreciated, the poisonous part of the berry is the small seed inside which has to be broken to release the toxin. The risk that berries present is very small and is not such that it outweighs the value of the tree. The concern about the house being damaged should the tree fall was not considered to be a valid reason alone to fell a healthy tree. In Reading there are thousands of trees within falling distance of property and it would not be reasonable to fell these on the basis of the worst case scenario. Officers considered the Yew tree to be a healthy specimen of good form and being native (one of only two native conifers in the UK) is valuable for wildlife. The Yew forms part of the tree coverage in Lingholm Close and the immediate area and has notable amenity value being very visible when coming up Lingholm Close due to its location at the end of the Close. As it is an evergreen, its value will increase in winter when all the Oaks are not in leaf. The reasons put forward in support of its felling were not considered to justify the removal of this tree and the resulting loss of amenity. The felling of the Yew tree was therefore refused. SUMMARY OF DECISION The Inspector considered two main issues: 1) The contribution of the tree to the visual amenity of Lingholm Close and 2) The extent of problems associated with the tree. The Inspector considered the Yew to be an attractive, prominent specimen, not too large or out of proportion to its location. The shade and falling needles were considered as the reasons for sparse grass growth rather the poisoning of the soil by the Yew roots. A pest or disease was deemed as the most likely cause of death of part of the cypress hedge rather than the Yew. The risk of collapse of a compact Yew tree was considered extremely unlikely. In relation to potential poisoning, the Inspector dismissed these 18 concerns, pointing out that the seed within the berry (if eaten) has a tough seed coat and is intended to pass through the body as a means of seed dispersal by birds, therefore ingesting the seeds does not pose a risk to human health. The inspector therefore dismissed the appeal. HPBC COMMENTS ON THE DECISION: Officers are satisfied with the appeal decision as it supported the reasons for refusal. The poisonous nature of Yew trees/hedges is often cited as a reason to prune/fell/not plant Yew and therefore it is helpful that the Officer’s dismissal of this concern has been vindicated by an Inspector. Site Plan:
Appeal Yew tree
Officer: Sarah Hanson
19 READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014 AGENDA ITEM: 7
TITLE: APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL
AUTHOR: LYNETTE BAKER & JULIE WILLIAMS
JOB TITLE: AREA TEAM LEADERS E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 To advise Committee of new applications and decisions relating to applications for prior-approval under the amended Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (GDPO).
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 That you note the report.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 At your meeting on 29 May 2013 a report was presented which introduced new permitted development rights and additional requirements for prior approval from the local planning authority for certain categories of permitted development. It was agreed then that a report be bought to future meetings for information and to include details of applications received for prior approval, those pending a decision and those applications which have been decided since the last Committee date.
4 TYPES OF PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
4.1 The categories of development requiring prior approval under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order1995 as amended (the GDPO) are summarised as follows:
• Householder development – single storey rear extensions. GDDO Part 1, Class A1. • Change of use from B1 office to C3 residential. GDPO Part 3, Class J. • Change of use from A1 shops to use as a “deposit taker” (eg bank, building society etc) within Use Class A2. GDPO Part 3, Class CA. • Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial and professional or a mixed use of A1 or A2 with residential to Class C3 residential use. GDPO Part 3 Class IA • Change of use from B1 (business), C1 (hotels), C2 (residential institutions), C2A (secure residential institutions and D2 (assembly and leisure) to state funded school D1. GDPO Part 3 Class K. Decision period 56 days. • Change of use of 150 sq m or more of an agricultural building (and any land within its curtilage) to flexible use within classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2. GDPO Part 3 Class M. Decision period 56 days. • Change of use from Agricultural buildings and land to state funded school or registered nursery D1. GDPO Part 3 Class MA. Decision period 56 days. • Change of use from agricultural buildings and land to Class C3 dwellinghouses and building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to the C3 use. Class MB (a) change of use and MB(b) building operations. Decision period 56 days. 20 • Development under local or private Acts and Orders (e.g. Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845). GDPO Part 11. No decision period is specified. • Development by telecommunications code system operators. GDPO Part 24. Decision period 56 days. • Demolition of buildings. GDPO Part 31. Decision period 28 days.
4.2 Those applications for Prior Approval received and yet to be decided are set out in the appended Table 1 and those applications which have been decided are set out in the appended Table 2. The applications are grouped by type of prior approval application. Information on what the estimated equivalent planning application fees would be is provided.
4.3 It should be borne in mind that the planning considerations to be taken into account in deciding each of these types of application are specified in more detail in the GDPO. In some cases the LPA will first need to confirm whether or not prior approval is required before going on to decide the application on its planning merits where prior approval is required.
4.4 Details of any appeals relating to prior-approvals will be included elsewhere in the agenda.
5. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS
5.1 The planning development management service 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.
Changes of use brought about through the prior approval process are beyond the control or influence of the Council’s adopted policies and Supplementary Planning Documents. Therefore it is not possible to confirm how or if these schemes will contribute to the strategic aims of the Council.
6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION
6.1 Statutory consultation takes place in connection with applications for prior-approval as specified in the Order discussed above.
7 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7.1 Where appropriate the Council must have regard 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.
7.2 There are no direct implications arising from the proposals.
8. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 None arising from this Report.
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
21 9.1 Since the additional prior notifications were introduced in May 2013 in place of applications for full planning permission, the loss in fee income is estimated to be £346,732.
(Office Prior Approvals - £330,865: Householder Prior Approvals - £14,792: Retail Prior Approvals - £1075)
9.2 However it should be borne in mind that the prior notification application assessment process is simpler than would have been the case for full planning permission and the cost to the Council of determining applications for prior approval is therefore proportionately lower. It should also be noted that the fee for full planning applications varies by type and scale of development and does not necessarily equate to the cost of determining them.
10. BACKGROUND PAPERS
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment and Consequential Provisions) (England) Order 2014
22
Table 1 – Prior-approval applications pending @ 31 October 2014
Application type CLASS A - Householder
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Householder 141543 7 Green Road, Reading, Park Rear extension 24/09/2014 04/11/2014 £172 Prior RG6 7BS measuring 3.6m in Approval - depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 3.54m, and 2.27m in (2013 height to eaves amendment) level. Householder 141557 5 Rossendale Road, Thames Rear extension 29/09/2014 09/11/2014 £172 Prior Caversham, Reading, measuring 5.1m in Approval - RG4 5JU depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 3.8m, and 2.8m in (2013 height to eaves amendment) level. Householder 141669 24 Morecambe Avenue, Thames Rear extension 15/10/2014 25/11/2014 £172 Prior Caversham, Reading, measuring 5m in Approval - RG4 7NL depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 3m, and 3m in (2013 height to eaves amendment) level. Householder 141173 68 Greenfields Road, Whitley Prior approval of a 18/07/2014 £172 Prior Reading, RG2 8SG proposed larger Approval - home extension. Class A, Part 1 GPDO (2013 amendment)
23
Application type CLASS A – Householder
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Householder 141564 16 Tavistock Road, Whitley Rear extension 30/09/2014 24/11/2014 £172 Prior Whitley, Reading, RG2 measuring 3m in Approval - 7SR depth from existing Class A, Part 3m extension, 6m 1 GPDO from the original (2013 dwelling, with a amendment) maximum height of 2.5, and 2.3m in height to eaves level.
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141220 1a Randolph Road, Abbey Change of use of 30/07/2014 05/11/2014 £690 Approval - Reading, RG1 8EB building from Class Class J, Part B1(a) (offices) to C3 3, GPDO (dwellinghouses) to (2013 comprise 2 x 1 bed amendment) flat. Office Prior 141511 Unit 3, St Giles Court, Abbey Change of use of 18/09/2014 12/11/2014 £690 Approval - Southampton Street, building (ground and Class J, Part Berkshire, RG1 2QL first floor) from 3, GPDO Class B1(a) (offices) (2013 to C3 amendment) (dwellinghouses) to comprise 2 x 2-bed flats.
24
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141529 7-11 Station Road, Abbey Change of use of 22/09/2014 17/11/2014 £6850 Approval - Reading, RG1 1LG building from Class Class J, Part B1(a) (offices) to C3 3, GPDO (dwellinghouses) to (2013 comprise 18 x flats. amendment) Office Prior 141547 St Giles House, 10 Katesgrove Change of use of the 25/09/2014 19/11/2014 £12240 Approval - Church Street, Reading, ground, first and Class J, Part RG1 2SD second floors from 3, GPDO Class B1(a) (offices) (2013 to C3 amendment) (dwellinghouses) to comprise 20 x 2 bedroom flats and 12 x 1 bedroom flats. Office Prior 141668 4 London Court, East Katesgrove Change of use of 16/10/2014 16/12/2014 £1845 Approval - Street, Reading, RG1 ground, first and Class J, Part 4QL second floors from 3, GPDO Class B1(a) (offices) (2013 to C3 amendment) (dwellinghouses) to comprise 5 x 1-bed flats. Office Prior 141720 83-85 London Street, Katesgrove Change of use of 29/10/2014 £4155 Approval - Reading, RG1 4QA building (ground, Class J, Part first and second 3, GPDO floor) from Class (2013 B1(a) (offices) to C3 amendment) (dwellinghouses) to comprise 11 self- contained flats.
25
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141544 Office/store to rear of, Kentwood Change of use of 24/09/2014 18/11/2014 £305 Approval - 66 Armour Road, building from Class Class J, Part Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 B1(a) (offices) to C3 3, GPDO 6HF (dwellinghouses) to (2013 comprise a single amendment) dwelling Office Prior 141611 1 Blenheim Road, Redlands Change of use of 08/10/2014 04/12/2014 £690 Approval - Reading, RG1 5NG building from Class Class J, Part B1(a) (offices) to C3 3, GPDO (dwelling houses) to (2013 comprise 1 x 1 bed amendment) flat and 1 x 2 bed flats. Office Prior 141618 320 Kings Road, Redlands Change of use of 09/10/2014 03/12/2014 £305 Approval - Reading, RG1 4JG part ground floor, Class J, Part first and second 3, GPDO floors from Class (2013 B1(a) (offices) to C3 amendment) (dwelling houses) to comprise one residential unit.
Application type CLASS 1A – Retail to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments Equivalent type reference Received Expiry Date planning number application fee Retail Prior 141502 72 Kidmore Road, Thames Change of use of 18/09/2014 12/11/2014 £1075 Approval Caversham, Reading, building from Class RG4 7NA A1 (shops) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise 3 x 1 bed flats. 26
Demolition Prior Approval applications
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Comments type reference Received Expiry Date number Demolition 141596 Civic Centre, Castle Abbey Application for prior 07/10/2014 17/11/2014 Prior Street, Reading, RG1 notification of Approval 7AE proposed demolition of Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and Public toilets on Dusseldorf Way
27
Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 1 October to 31 October
Application type CLASS A - Householder
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision Equivalent type reference Received Date planning number application fee Householder 141494 1B St Ronans Road, Norcot Rear extension 16/09/2014 23/10/2014 Prior £172 Prior Reading, RG30 2QE measuring 3.04m Approval Approval - in depth, with a NOT Class A, maximum height REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO of 3.52m, and (2013 2.45.m in height amendment to eaves level.
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision Equivalent type reference Received Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141305 2 St Giles Court, Change of use of 12/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £690 Approval - Southampton Street, building from Approval Class J, Part RG1 2QI Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to - Approval (2013 C3 amendment (dwellinghouses) ) to comprise 2 x two bed flats. Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).
28
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision Equivalent type reference Received Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141275 29-35 Station Road, Abbey Change of use of 08/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £10315 Approval - Reading, RG1 1LG 29-35 Station Approval Class J, Part Road (1st, 2nd, Notification 3, GPDO 3rd, 4th and 5th - Approval (2013 floors) from Class amendment B1(a) (offices) to ) C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise 27 flats. Office Prior 141277 Garrard House, Abbey Change of use of 08/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £31875 Approval - Garrard Street, Garrard House Approval Class J, Part Reading, RG1 1NR from Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to C3 - Approval (2013 (dwellinghouses) amendment to comprise 83 flats. Office Prior 141280 37-42 Market Place, Abbey Change of use of 11/08/2014 01/10/2014 Prior £13780 Approval - Reading, RG1 2DE building from Approval Class J, Part Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to C3 - Approval (2013 (dwellinghouses) amendment to comprise 5 x ) two bed flats,13 x one bed flats and 18 studio flats.
29
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision Equivalent type reference Received Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141256 Lismore House, 28b Battle Change of use of 06/08/2014 30/09/2014 Application £1845 Approval - Wilton Road, building from Refused Class J, Part Reading, RG30 2SS Class B1(a) 3, GPDO (offices) to C3 (2013 (dwellinghouses) amendment to comprise 5 ) one and two bedroom self contained flats. Office Prior 141276 Unit 4 St Giles Court, Katesgrove Change of use of 11/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £690 Approval - Southampton Street, building from Approval Class J, Part Reading, RG1 2QL Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to C3 - Approval (2013 (dwellinghouses) amendment to comprise 2 x two bed flats. Office Prior 141352 5 St Giles Court, Katesgrove Change of use of 12/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £690 Approval - Southampton Street, building from Approval Class J, Part Reading Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to - Approval (2013 C3 amendment (dwellinghouses) ) to comprise 1 x one bed flat and 1 x two bed flats.
30
Application type CLASS J – Office to Residential
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision Equivalent type reference Received Date planning number application fee Office Prior 141354 7 St Giles Court, Katesgrove Change of use of 12/08/2014 03/10/2014 Prior £690 Approval - Southampton Street, building from Approval Class J, Part Reading Class B1(a) Notification 3, GPDO (offices) to - Approval (2013 C3 amendment (dwellinghouses) ) to comprise 2 x one bed flats. Office Prior 141343 Hanover House, 202 Redlands Excluding the 20/08/2014 10/10/2014 Prior £34570 Approval - Kings Road, Reading, fourth floor, Approval Class J, Part RG1 4NN change of use of Notification 3, GPDO building from - Approval (2013 Class amendment B1(a) (offices) to ) C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise up to 80 x 1 bed units and 10 x 2 bedroom units. description)
31 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014 TITLE: OBJECTION TO TREE PRESERVATION ORDER AT 10 CLIFTON STREET, READING
Ward: Abbey
RECOMMENDATION
That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 To report to Committee objections to Tree Preservation Order No. 72/14 relating to 10 Clifton Street, Reading (copy of TPO plan attached – Appendix 1).
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 In June 2014, formal Notification was received from the owners of the flats at 11 & 11A Goldsmid Road for the felling of one Sycamore and one Oak tree at 10 Clifton Street. Six-weeks prior written Notification was required due to the tree being within a Conservation Area. The only way Officers can prevent the felling of a tree in a Conservation Area following Notification to fell being given is by making a Tree Preservation Order. Officers had no objections to the felling of the Sycamore, however the Oak was a more prominent tree therefore in this instance local consultation was considered appropriate.
2.2 A consultation letter regarding the proposed felling was sent to local residents at 34-56 Goldsmid Road, 8-18 Clifton Street, 1-6 & 11-15 Elgin Place and The Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association. Appendix 2 shows the extent of the consultation in relation to the tree’s location. Four responses were received. 48 Goldsmid Road and 10 Clifton Street (the owner of the trees) were in support of the felling of the Oak. The Reading Civic Society and The Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association (with a petition of 16 names) were against the felling of the Oak. Of the responses received, the majority were in favour of retaining the Oak tree, hence a Tree Preservation Order was served on 31 July 2014.
3. RESULT OF TPO SERVICE
3.1 Following the service of the TPO, objections have been made by the 42, 44, 48 Goldsmid Road and the owner of 11 & 11A Goldsmid Road which included a petition of 20 names (covering 15 addresses) in support of felling. It is noted that the petition includes the owner of the tree, the objector (owner of 11 & 11a Goldsmid Road) and two residents each at 42, 44 & 48 Goldsmid Road who have objected separately to the TPO. The objections cover similar issues which can be summarized as:
• The effect of ‘natural tree debris’, i.e. leaves blocking private gutters and road drains, ‘sap’ dripping on parked cars, bird droppings on parked cars. • Loss of light to nearby houses due to the proximity of the tree and its branches
32 • Potential damage caused by the tree, i.e. to roofs of adjacent properties, main drains, telephone wires • Concerns that falling branches may harm persons (a broken, hanging branch already present in the tree). • Disregard for the effect of the tree on local residents when making the TPO • The tree has no public amenity being hidden behind a house, other trees and the adjacent fence and it is not in a public place. • The tree can be viewed by the public and is prominent due to its size and height but its loss will not affect the amenity of the street or reduce its feeling of a leafy green lane in the centre of the city due to the presence of a multitude of trees along the east side of Goldsmid Road. • Concern over the potential height and spread of the tree and increase in trunk girth with the associated problems this will cause, e.g. damage to adjacent fence and drains. • A condition could be attached to its felling requiring a ‘more appropriate’ replacement. • There is not overwhelming support from local residents for the retention of the tree and those in favour of its retention do not live in the immediate vicinity.
3.2 Support for the Tree Preservation Order, hence retention of the Oak has been received from the Chairman of The Reading Civic Society (on behalf of the Society), The Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association and a Clifton Street resident.
• The Reading Civic Society commented that the Oak tree is a significant tree in the townscape which appears to fit and adds significantly to the streetscape. They consider that the presence of the Oak (which would not have changed significantly since 11/11A Goldsmid Road was built) should have been taken into account by the owner and occupants and also that, whilst leaf fall must be significant and require work to clear up, if that was a consideration in felling, all trees in towns would have to be removed. • The Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association requested that their previous support and petition be taken into account. Also, they pointed out that the tree stands in a ‘somewhat run-down neighbourhood area which already suffers from a shortage of trees’. They consider the Oak to be a fine specimen with several hundred years life expectancy and whose felling would be a serious loss to the landscape character and amenity of the neighbourhood for the present and future generations. They recognise that the tree will need to be managed to prevent damage to adjacent property and phone wires. • The Clifton Street resident expressed concern over the impact on the numerous birds and insects residing in the tree if it were felled. The resident also pointed out that the area would be poorer if the beautiful tree were allowed to be felled and that sensitive pruning could be carried out to address concerns rather than total removal.
3.3 Officers have the following response to the objections raised:
Reading’s LDF Core Strategy includes Policy CS38: Trees, Hedges and Woodlands of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy, which states that ‘Individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodlands will be protected
33 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’. There is therefore an adopted planning policy for the protection of trees, which have significant amenity value.
Objective 3 of the Council’s adopted Tree Strategy aims to retain and increase tree coverage in areas lacking in tree cover. The Oak tree in questions sits in an area of 10% or less canopy cover, therefore its retention is important and its felling should be prevented unless acceptable justification can be provided. The tree is highly visible and is prominent when coming down Goldsmid Road as can be seen from the photograph attached to this report. Officers are therefore satisfied that the tree provides sufficient amenity value to warrant a TPO, hence that its loss would have a detrimental impact on the locality.
As stated in 2.2, Officers undertook a consultation with local residents following receipt of the Notification to fell the Oak tree. Officers could only reasonably gauge local feeling about the tree from the responses received. From the responses received, the majority were in favour of keeping the Oak, hence it was reasonable for the decision to be made to serve a TPO.
It is claimed by the owner of 11/11A Goldsmid Road that support from The Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association (BSANA) and Reading Civic Society is not from ‘local residents’ and that the views of residents living in the immediate vicinity should take precedence over those who do not. The petition in support of felling, submitted by the owner of 11/11A Goldsmid Road, includes residents of Goldsmid Road and the owner of the tree at 10 Clifton Street. The petition, submitted by BSANA, in support of retention of the Oak also includes residents of Goldsmid Road and Clifton Street therefore the support is from residents in the immediate vicinity.
Officers recognise that the tree has the potential to increase significantly in height and spread and that conflicts with adjacent structures could occur if the tree was not managed. However, Officers are mindful of the fact that trees in urban locations often need to be managed to contain their size to appropriate proportions, as would be reasonable in this case. The TPO would not prevent appropriate management to prevent damage and to also address concerns over loss of light to adjacent dwellings. With regard to potential damage to adjacent structures occurring, if this could not be prevented by tree management, Officers would reconsider the future of the tree if/when appropriate.
The concerns over ‘natural tree debris’ are common and are not considered to be valid reasons for felling a tree. Officers cannot comment on whether the leaves of this particular tree causes issues with the road drains, however residents have been advised to contact Streetcare with such issues.
The owner of 11/11A Goldsmid Road has been advised of his ability to make a formal application under the TPO for felling and that an appeal process is available should the Council refuse this felling. If the TPO is confirmed and such an application and appeal made, Officers would be obliged to consider replacement planting, making recommendations to the Planning Inspectorate in case an appeal was allowed. However, any mitigation planting is unlikely to provide the same level of value as the current mature Oak tree.
34
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
4.1 The tree is highly visible and therefore provides amenity value to the locality. Officers gave residents the opportunity to comment on the Oak tree prior to the service of the TPO, the majority of respondents being in favour of the retention. The service of the TPO was wholly appropriate considering the amenity value and residents’ response. There would appear to be a reasonably equal level of feeling for and against the tree’s retention from local residents. Given that the objections received are not considered to be valid reasons for the loss of the tree and that it is situated in a priority area for tree retention and planting, the recommendation is for the confirmation of 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 In assessing objections to TPOs, 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.
7.2 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 this TPO.
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 street index and at a glance map of TPO’s
35 9.2 Register of Tree Preservation Orders
9.3 Plan of TPO 72/14, relating 10 Clifton Street, Reading (Appendix 1)
9.4 Plan showing extent of consultation (Appendix 2)
Officer: Sarah Hanson
36 37 38 ABBEY
39 40 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12th November 2014
Ward: Abbey App No.: 141596 App Type: Prior Notification of Proposed Demolition. Address: Civic Centre, Castle Street, Reading, RG1 7AE Proposal: Prior notification of proposed demolition of Reading Civic Centre, associated concrete barrier and Public Toilets on Dusseldorf Way. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date valid: 20/10/ 2014 Determination Date: 28 day determination period :16/11/ 2014 (Sunday) Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: N/A
App No.: 141603 App Type: Screening Opinion Proposal: Screening Opinion requested relating to the demolition of the Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and the public toilets on Dusseldorf Way, Reading. Date valid: 8/10/2014 Determination Date: 3/12/2014 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
App No: 141596 / DEM
Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to (i) give written notice that prior approval is not required subject to further clarification in relation to archaeology and transport (ii) give written notice that prior approval is required should the satisfactory clarification not be received before 14th November 2014.
App No: 141603 / SCR
The Local Planning Authority hereby adopts a Screening Opinion to the effect that the development is not development that is likely to have significant effects on the environment and an Environmental Statement is not required to accompany the application.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Reading Borough Council is in the process of vacating the existing Civic Centre and relocating to new premises within the Plaza West building. To allow comprehensive redevelopment of the area to be vacated the Civic Centre building and public toilet block on Dusseldorf Way are proposed to be demolished.
1.2 The demolition of the majority of buildings is now classified as development. The General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) sets out that demolition can be permitted development subject to meeting the criteria specified at Part 31 of the GPDO. These criteria state that the developer must apply to the Local Planning Authority for a determination as to whether prior approval will be required as to the
41 method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site. The only issues that can be considered under this prior notification request are the proposed method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site.
1.3 The LPA have 28 days to give written notice that prior approval is or is not required. If the LPA do not make a determination within 28 days of the receipt of the application the demolition can commence on the expiry of the 28 days.
1.4 This application (141596/ DEM) for consideration by Planning Applications Committee therefore is to determine whether prior approval is required and whether the method of demolition and proposals for the restoration of the site are acceptable. Due to the size of the site and the asbestos content of the building an accompanying Screening Opinion application (141601/SCR) has been submitted to assess whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required for the proposed demolition and restoration.
1.5 A further full planning application has also been submitted ref 141601/FUL for the ‘Change of use of land to a temporary pocket park following the demolition of existing Civic Centre building’. The consideration of this application is set out in a separate report on this agenda.
1.6 The application site is formed of the following:
• The foot print of the existing Civic Centre which is on two levels, podium level where pedestrians access the current main entrance; and lower ground level that contains vehicle accesses to car parking and the Hexagon Theatre.
• The Mayors Garden to the rear of the civic building that would form a temporary contractor’s compound. A new temporary vehicular access to serve the compound is also required from the IDR slip road that runs parallel to the western boundary of the site. The creation of the access road is permitted development as this section of the slip road is unclassified; however this element is considered in relation to the transport implications of the proposed demolition.
• The public toilet block on Dusseldorf Way/ Hosier Street, with a small temporary demolition compound area directly to its west.
1.7 The application site is located within the defined Town Centre; an area of archaeological potential bisects the site and the site is within an Air Quality Management Area. The site is also designated within the West Side Major Opportunity Area under RCAAP Policy RC2 (Site RC2e Hosier Street) for redevelopment including new open spaces.
1.8 The site is boarded by the IDR to the west, Hexagon Theatre and Broad Street Mall to the north and the Police Station and Magistrates Court to the south. The St. Mary’s Butts/Castle Street Conservation Area although separated from the site is located to the east/south-east and the Russell Street/ Castle Hill Conservation Area is set to the west on the opposite side of the IDR.
42
1.9 These applications are to be determined at Committee as they are classified as REG3 Applications as the applicant is stated as Reading Borough Council.
Site Location Plan
43 2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 The proposal is for the demolition of the existing Reading Civic Centre; the concrete edge barrier adjoining the podium walkway and concrete steps to lower ground floor to the front of the building; and the public toilets on Dusseldorf Way. The building will be demolished to lower ground level with the existing foundations to be retained. The podium walkway will be retained and made safe following the demolition works. The existing vehicular road will be maintained throughout the demolition works to maintain access to the Broad Street Mall car park. The demolition site will be bounded at podium level by 2.4 m high hoardings that incorporate bulk head lighting. At lower ground floor adjacent to the vehicle access road would also be bounded by hoardings during demolition. The two existing trees to the front of civic building are to be retained, with vegetation within the Mayors Garden lost to accommodate the required access.
2.2 In relation to restoration the demolition of the existing Civic Centre will create a void below podium level. Therefore in order to safeguard this ‘edge’ the existing concrete barrier to be demolished will be replaced with a glass and steel balustrade (1.15m in height) to form a new barrier with LED lighting set in to the concrete plinth. At lower ground floor the site, adjacent to the vehicle access road, will be fenced off. The footprint of the existing building and Mayors Garden (when no longer required for the contractor compound) would be landscaped with grass and low level planting (as set out in application 141601 for the ‘Pocket Park’). This area would be accessed by the same means as the existing Mayors Garden from podium level. The landscaping of the area is a temporary solution as the application site and wider area are allocated for further development in the RCAAP.
2.3 The public toilet building will be demolished however the existing concrete slab will be retained as a level surface. It is intended that the recycling bins on Dusseldorf Way will be relocated to this area.
2.4 In relation to the method of demolition the first phase of ‘demolition’ is internal and will be the internal removal of asbestos from the Civic Centre and public toilet building. This will be carried out by licensed assessors in accordance with up to date asbestos regulations and the Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes. This will take up to approximately 12 months.
2.5 The demolition of the external structure will take place when the building has been enveloped with scaffolding and mono flex sheeting. Prior to the demolition of the structure strengthening works including the erection of new concrete circular columns at those locations where the podium is currently connected by walkways to the Civic Centre will be carried out. These works will ensure that the podium structure is a stand-alone structure that does not rely on the Civic Centre Building for support.
2.6 Submitted plans and documents,
Submitted plans: Fig 1 Site Location Plan Fig 2 Land Ownership plan
44 Fig 3 Site Plan Fig 4 Public Toilet Restoration Railings Plan 1 and 2 (ref 178/01B and 178/02B)
Submitted documents: • Supporting Statement and updates • Ecological Impact Survey • Bat Inspection Survey Report – produced by Resource and Environmental Consultants ref 60340p1r0 10.09.2014 • Noise and Vibration Report - produced by URS ref 47071283.ACOU1.R1/01 (October 2014). • Copy of the site Notice • Photographs of the site Notice in situ
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Plaza West 130687 Change of use from B1 Office to Local Government Offices with ancillary Post Office, and external works to include erection of front lobby; and generator and secure screen to rear. Permitted, works being implemented.
Application site 141601 Change of use of land to a temporary pocket park following the demolition of existing Civic Centre building. Under consideration in this report.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory Consultation
None.
(ii) Non Statutory Consultation
141596 / DEM Archaeology: Site falls within Area of Archaeological Potential therefore Archaeological Desk Based Assessment required. Further information to be submitted.
Asbestos Officer: No objection, subject to works being carried out in accordance with the submitted details.
Building Control : No comments received at time of writing
Environmental Health: No objection subject to works being carried out in accordance with submitted and details.
Ecology: No objection, subject to informative on nesting birds.
Health and Safety Executive – No comments received at time of writing
Landscape Officer: Further clarification of tree removal and tree protection. Further information to be submitted.
45
Transport Strategy: No objection subject to further details of access. Further information to be submitted.
141601 / SCR No objection from following consultees : Ecology, Environmental Health, Highways, Landscape
Further clarification sought from Archaeology Officer
Environment Agency - No comments received at time of writing
Health and Safety Executive – No comments received at time of writing
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
None required or undertaken by Local Planning Authority.
However the applicant, as required by the GPDO, erected a Site Notice on the front of the Civic Building and toilet block.
No representations have been received.
5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (2008) CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands
Reading Borough LDF Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) RC2 West Side Major Opportunity Area
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)
6.0 APPRAISAL
141596 / DEM 6.1 Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the only issues that can be considered under this prior notification request are the proposed method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. Further information has been submitted to support the original Statement following advice from officers and further clarification, as set out, is to be submitted.
6.2 The proposed methods of demolition including consideration of the issue of asbestos removal which is also subject to the Health and Safety Executive legislation and will be subject to audits by the HSE
46 and the Councils Consultants, are considered to be acceptable by Officers. In terms of noise monitoring and dust control and hours of operation and transport generation the details submitted and clarified are considered to be acceptable to safeguard the amenity of surrounding occupants. A full ecology survey was undertaken for the proposals and concluded that no protected species constraint were identified in the context of the site. Further clarification is required in terms of archaeological issues therefore an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment is being undertaken, to be updated at your meeting.
6.3 The provision of the associated contractor’s compound requires the creation of a new access to the rear of the site, this results in the loss of non protected trees and vegetation, but replacement landscaping is proposed as part of the temporary restoration process. Confirmation of the visibility splays for the new access have been sought by transport officers and this information is to be provided as an update.
6.4 In relation to restoration of the site it is considered that the replacement boundary treatment at podium and lower level are acceptable and the re-landscaping of the footprint of the existing building and Mayors Garden would provide visual interest in the area.
6.5 Specific details of demolition would also be dealt with under Building Regulations (a demolition notice). Therefore at this stage, subject to further information in relation to archaeology and transport from the information submitted and after consideration of the consultees responses, the proposed demolition and proposed restoration is unlikely to give rise to any significant issue in relation to asbestos removal, amenity (in terms of dust or noise), highway safety, landscape or ecology considerations; and does not prejudice future redevelopment of the site.
141603 /SCR
6.6 The Screening Opinion relating to the demolition of the Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and the public toilets on Dusseldorf and associated restoration was submitted in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. A Screening Opinion is required to be undertaken to consider whether the proposal would fall within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the above Regulations, and whether or not the proposal is an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) development, and therefore whether an Environmental Statement (ES) is required to be submitted with any subsequent planning application.
6.7 It is the Council’s opinion that the development does not fall within Schedule 1 of the EIA Regulations, that the proposed development falls within Schedule 2 Paragraph 10 (b) (urban development projects) and that the proposed development exceeds the criterion of 0.5ha as set out in Schedule 2 Paragraph 10 (b), and accordingly this Council is required to undertake a Screening Opinion.
6.8 The development consists of the demolition of the building and the proposed restoration, including the creation of temporary ‘pocket park’. The nature and scale of the development, taking in to account the asbestos removal, is such that it would not lead to a significant
47 environmental impact to the wider area and is not of more than local importance.
Equality Act 2010 6.9 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, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.
6.10 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.
Positive and Proactive Working 6.11 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 141596 / DEM Subject to satisfactory further information in relation to archaeological and highways matters the proposed method of demolition and the proposed restoration of the site as a landscaped area are considered to be acceptable and a further Prior Approval application is not required.
7.2 141603 /SCR In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, the Local Planning Authority hereby adopts a Screening Opinion to the effect that the development is not development that is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location. Accordingly, an Environmental Statement is not required to accompany the application.
Case Officer : Susanna Bedford
48
Site plan showing extent of compound and removal of existing vegetation within it.
49
Details of replacement railings at podium level.
50 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12th November 2014
Ward: Abbey App No.: 141601 App Type: FULL Address: Reading Civic Centre including The Mayor's Garden, Civic Centre, Reading Proposal: Change of use of land to a temporary pocket park following the demolition of existing Civic Centre building. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date valid: 7/10/2014 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 2/12/2014 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 7/4/2015 RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to no substantive objections within the consultation period, that closes 4th November 2014, delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT permission subject to conditions to include;
1. 3 year time limit to implement 2. Prior to commencement details of internal and external lighting shall be submitted and approved 3. Prior to commencement submission and approval of hard and soft landscaping details including the boundary with the IDR 4. Prior to commencement submission and approval of landscape maintenance and aftercare for both the establishment period (minimum 5 years) and ongoing. 5. Implementation of landscaping as approved 6. Replacement planting should anything die within 5 years of being planted. 7. No clearance of vegetation in bird nesting season 8. Standard Hours of working during construction phase 9. Prior to commencement an archaeological mitigation strategy to be submitted and approved
Informatives: 1. Positive and proactive working 2. Compliance with approved plans and details 3. Conditions precedent 4. Contaminated land
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The proposed demolition of the existing Civic Centre building is considered elsewhere on the agenda (application 141596/DEM). The building is proposed to be demolished and the existing Mayors Garden cleared of vegetation to form a contractor’s compound. The full planning application subject of this report seeks the creation of an interim ‘Pocket Park’ on the site (to include the existing Mayors Garden) following the completion of the demolition works.
1.2 The application site is located within the defined Town Centre; an area of archaeological potential bisects the site and the site is within an Air
51 Quality Management Area. The site is also designated within the West Side Major Opportunity Area under RCAAP Policy RC2 (Site RC2e Hosier Street) for future redevelopment and therefore the specifications of the park are temporary in nature and do not prejudice the implementation of Policy RC2e.
1.3 The site is boarded by the IDR to the west, Hexagon Theatre and Broad Street Mall to the north and the Police Station and Magistrates Court to the south. The St. Mary’s Butts/Castle Street Conservation Area although separated from the site is located to the east/south-east and the Russell Street/ Castle Hill Conservation Area is set to the west on the opposite side of the IDR.
1.4 This application is to be determined at Committee as it is classified as a REG3 Application as the applicant is stated as Reading Borough Council.
Site Location Plan:
52 2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 Following the demolition of the Civic Centre (the foundations are to be retained) the site is proposed to be top soiled/ sub soiled and then seeded with amenity grasses and wild flower species to form wildflower meadows (over 40%) of the site and a more formal seating area in the vicinity of existing lower ground level terrace that serves the Hexagon Theatre. Proposed in the area of the existing footprint of the Civic Building are two soil mounds (maximum 2m high) formed of uncontaminated demolition waste covered with 250mm layer of clean sub soil suitable for the proposed wildflower meadows to thrive.
2.2 Following the removal of the temporary vehicular access from the IDR, required for the demolition phase, the soil levels adjacent to the boundary with the IDR will be re-profiled to create a bank; and a relatively level grassed area is to be created in the centre of the site where the seating area is proposed. To differentiate between the application site and Hexagon Theatre terrace a new kerb with timber and illuminated bollards are proposed, which will still allow pedestrians to move between the two spaces. The footpath and seating areas will be self-bonding gravel that has a degree of permeability, edged with timber. Four hardwood benches are proposed with central hooped arm rests.
2.3 The access arrangements to the Pocket Park will be the same as the existing Mayors Garden, to the north there is level access to the site from the Hexagon Theatre and from the podium level via steps and the existing ramp to the Hexagon. To the south there is a footpath link accessed from adjacent to the police station. This path will not be available during the demolition phase but will be re provided afterwards.
2.4 In relation to enclosure of the site at lower ground level the boundary is formed by a 2.4m tall steel mesh security fence located parallel to the car park access road. Security gates are proposed to allow access to the Councils street car depot in the south east corner of the site, and sub station adjacent to the Hexagon Theatre.
2.6 Submitted plans and documents
Submitted plans:
178/05 Location Plan dated 13/10/2014 178/03B Details and elevations of Lower Level security Fence dated 18/08/2014 178/04B Plan for landscape treatment of Demolition Site dated 26/09/2014
Supporting documentation: Design and Access Statement
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Plaza West 130687 Change of use from B1 Office to Local Government Offices with ancillary Post Office, and external works to include erection of
53 front lobby; and generator and secure screen to rear. Permitted, works being implemented.
Application site 141596 Prior notification of proposed demolition of Reading Civic Centre, associated concrete barrier and Public Toilets on Dusseldorf Way. Under consideration on this agenda.
141603 Screening Opinion requested relating to the demolition of the Reading Civic Centre, concrete barrier and the public toilets on Dusseldorf Way, Reading. Under consideration on this agenda.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory Consultation
None
(ii) Non Statutory Consultation
Archaeology: The construction of the Civic will have impacted on archaeological remains however due to the potential for the survival of important remains an archaeological Desk Based Assessment is required. Applicant undertaking these works at this time.
Environmental Health: No objection, suggested informative re rat activity
Ecology: No objection; subject to native plant species, and conditions re lighting and no vegetation clearance works during bird nesting season.
Landscape: No objection, subject to minimal ground planting to avoid the creation of rat habitats. Mature tree planting on the boundary with the IDR could provide beneficial screening in the long term.
Leisure: No objection, seeking greater diversity plant species; and no contribution sought
Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No comment at time of writing.
Transport Strategy: No objection. No contribution sought.
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
The following properties were consulted The Hexagon Theatre, Police Station, Magistrates Court and Broad Street Mall.
Four site notices were erected by the Case Officer in the following locations: front entrance to the Civic Centre Building, pedestrian approach from Dussledorf Way, pedestrian approach from Queens Walk and at intersection of Cusden Walk and Castle Street. Consultation to close on 4th November 2014.
54 One representation received at time of writing seeking further information in relation to the application.
5.0 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:
National Planning Policy Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (2008)
CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS25 Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development CS29 Provision of Open Space CS30 Access to Open Space CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands
Reading Borough LDF Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) RC2 West Side Major Opportunity Area RC5 Design in the centre RC6 Definition of the centre
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) Policy DM2 (Decentralised Energy) Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) Policy DM18 (Tree Planting)
6.0 APPRAISAL
Main considerations i) Principle of Development ii) Visual Impact iii) Landscape and Ecology iv) Access and Security v) Other matters
55 (i) Principle of Development 6.1 The application site is located within the Central Core and is designated within the West Side Major Opportunity Area under RCAAP Policy RC2 (Site RC2e) for redevelopment including new open spaces. The proposed park use is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location and due to its interim nature would not prejudice further re- development of the site and is considered consistent with the Policy aims of the Development Plan.
(ii) Visual Impact 6.4 The proposal has been designed as an interim solution to the visual void created by the demolition of the existing Civic Centre Building. The proposal will be seen as an extension to the existing Mayors Garden (to be re landscaped) which will predominantly be viewed from podium level above. The mesh fencing at a lower ground level will give some views into the site; and is considered to be in keeping with the functional nature and appearance of the access roads and service areas at lower ground floor at present. The proposed vegetation, new hard surfacing and seating within the public realm are considered to visually enhance this area and accordingly Local Plan Policies CS7 and RC5 are satisfied.
(iii) Landscape and Ecology
6.7 Due to the potential future redevelopment of the application site and wider area the Design and Access Statement sets out that the design is “purposely relatively simple and flexible” to allow future redevelopment of the site for other uses. The plant species proposed seek to provide biodiversity and wildlife interest by the use of natural flowering shrubs, and the wildflower meadow will include native species eg Poppy and meadow Butter cup. Comments have been received from the Councils Parks department and Ecologist in relation to the variety of flower colours and the use of less invasive plant species. The applicant has suggested alternative species and the introduction of semi mature replacement trees on the boundary with the IDR, it is therefore considered appropriate to deal with this detail by way of condition.
6.8 The issue of the use of dense low growing plants that provide cover for rats has also been raised. The applicant has confirmed that the use of more prostrate plants can be used. Rats are predominantly attracted to areas where there is waste food; therefore adequate refuse disposal and litter picking overseen by the management of the Hexagon Theatre and Reading Borough Council should reduce the likelihood of rats. The lighting plan does not show any cowls or shields to avoid light pollution which may have an effect on biodiversity. This matter can be dealt with by condition. The proposal is considered to accord with Policy CS36 and CS38.
(iv) Access and Security
6.9 As set out in the proposals section the intended access arrangements to the pocket park are those used to access the Mayors Garden at present. This is therefore considered to be acceptable. There is no cover provided in the pocket park and proposed benches have central arm rests to deter sleeping on. It is considered that due to the
56 proximity of the proposed park to the Hexagon Theatre, that operates late night opening, the pedestrian environment can be considered to be adequately lit, welcoming, and perceptively safe and secure. In this regard, the development would comply with and Core Strategy Policy CS7 and DM4.
(viii) Other matters
Archaeology 6.10 If the applicant is able to demonstrate that no ground disturbance beyond what has already been observed and investigated were to be necessary, then no further archaeological mitigation would be needed in respect of this proposal. If further mitigation is required this can be dealt with by condition.
6.11 Drainage The applicant sets out that demolished building slab will be broken up to facilitate natural ground drainage, the soils will be permeable and the footpaths and seating areas will be laid with a cross fall to facilitate drainage.
Section 106 6.28 No S106 contributions are required for this form of development.
Equality Act 2010 6.29 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, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.
6.30 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.
Positive and Proactive Working 6.31 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 above. The recommendation to grant permission is considered to be a positive result of these discussions.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed creation of a Pocket Park on the footprint of the Civic is considered to comply with policies as it visually enhances the area and does not cause harm to the surrounding environment and is recommended for approval in accordance with RC5, CS7, CS36 and DM4.
Case Officer: S. Bedford
57 Layout of Pocket Park
58
Details of fencing to secure lower ground floor boundary, adjacent to access roads to be retained.
59
60 CAVERSHAM
61 62 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014
Ward: Caversham Application No.: 140997 Address: St Martin’s Centre, Church Street, Caversham
Proposals: Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works.
Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust
Date Valid: 24 June 2014
Application target decision date: 23 September 2014
26 week date: 23 December 2014
63
RECOMMENDATION
Subject to receipt of an acceptable proposal for the provision of Affordable Housing and subject to receipt of suitable pruning specifications for the retained Holm Oak, delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement to secure: i) Affordable Housing (details to be agreed). ii) The sum of £430,048 to be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index- linked and payable prior to commencement of development iii) The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iv) The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. v) An Employment Skills and Training Plan for construction and end user phases - in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing. vi) A pedestrian route between the new public square and Church Street, to be provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vii) Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. viii) Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity.
or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 12 December 2014 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement or submission of amendments).
And the following conditions to include:
1. Time Limit – 3 years
64 2. In accordance with approved drawings
3. External materials in accordance with approved drawings and submitted sample panel. Block A and C façade construction in accordance with drawing PP-MP-11 Revision –P1. Block B, D and E façade construction in accordance with details to be submitted for approval prior to commencement.
4. Hard and soft landscaping details, including wildlife planting and all trees shown on submitted landscaping and site layout plans, detailed specification of green wall to car park, Tree pit and root barrier details, details of all services, existing and proposed, details of water permeable surfacing.
5. Landscaping maintenance – including watering regime, aftercare
6. Landscaping in accordance with landscaping phasing plan to be submitted prior to commencement.
7. Details of proposed tree planting along Archway Road, with associated tree pit and root barrier specification in consultation with Thames Water prior to commencement – implementation in first planting season after first use of car park – unless otherwise agreed in writing by LPA.
8.Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement for tree works prior to commencement
9. Lighting scheme for all public areas prior to commencement – safety for users of the site, control of light pollution, and to enhance the appearance of the buildings and spaces.
10. Ecological enhancements – bat and bird boxes details prior to commencement.
11. Detailed design of north-south pedestrian route to be submitted prior to commencement – (highway safety and landscaping)
12. Details of access control bollards to public square prior to commencement.
13. Archaeological works in accordance with written scheme of investigation submitted prior to commencement.
14. Details of mechanical ventilation for all new dwellings adjoining Church Street prior to commencement - intake to be at roof level or at rear (air quality).
15. Air quality management travel plan – submitted for approval prior to commencement.
16. Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure submitted to, for approval (in consultation with Thames Water) prior to commencement.
17. Construction Management Statement – prior to commencement
18. Provision of vehicle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to
65 occupation of new floorspace/dwellings.
19. Provision of cycle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation of new floorspace.
20. BREEAM – Very good with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each Block, prior to occupation of new build elements of that block
21. Code for Sustainable Homes – Level 3 with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each new dwelling, prior to occupation of that dwelling.
22. Evidence of compliance with Lifetime Homes Standard to be submitted for each new dwelling prior to occupation,.
23. Noise mitigation for flats to be provided in accordance with submitted noise assessment – prior to occupation of flats within each Block - (amenity of future occupiers).
24. Hours of Construction.
25. Floor levels of Block A (flooding)
26. Times of Deliveries to Block D service yard and vehicle movement within public space/square to south of Block D - no deliveries or other associated vehicle movements between the hours of 0900 and 1700 (conflict with pedestrians)
27. Times of Deliveries – no deliveries to Blocks A, B and C between the hours of 2000 and 0800 (noise and disturbance)
28. Second Floor, Block C – cinema use only – no other uses within Class D2.
29. External restaurant seating associated with A3 uses not to be used outside of the hours of 08:00 – 23:00. No amplified music.
30. Externally located or externally vented plant - BS4142 Noise assessment to be submitted for approval prior to provision.
Informatives:
1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. Holm Oak – long term retention 3. A Thames Water main crosses the development site. Thames Water easements and way leaves run through the north west of the proposed development. 4. Environmental Protection advice 5. Highways licences.
66
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site fronts onto the south side of Church Street, the main commercial street in Caversham and is bounded by Archway Road to the east and Abbotsmead Place to the south. The site adjoins blocks of flats in Abbotsmead Place. A national cycle route runs to the west side of the site, separating it from a telephone exchange.
1.2 The site was developed as a retail centre, predominantly in the 1960s, with more recent 1980s buildings to the north eastern corner housing a supermarket. The ground floor units are predominantly in retail use and form a continuous frontage to Church Street, with the exception of a recessed precinct space which continues the retail frontage away from the street to form a public square. The southern end of the precinct is formed by a two storey building, also occupied by a supermarket.
1.3 Upper floor uses include 10 flats above the westernmost block with offices and a gym above the supermarket at the eastern end of the site. Elsewhere the upper floors are used as ancillary space serving the commercial units below.
1.4 A large expanse of car park serving the centre exists to the south of the retail units, together with ancillary facilities such as public toilets and a bottle bank. This is accessed via Archway Road.
1.5 Pedestrian access to the site from Church Street is via the main precinct space and also a narrow passageway that separates the 1980s supermarket building from the central 1960s built block. There is no formal provision for pedestrians across the car park from Archway Road or Abbotsmead Place.
1.6 The site forms part of the setting of a number of listed buildings, most notably Caversham Library at the corner of Church Street and Hemdean Road and Caversham Baptist Free Church at the junction of Prospect Street, South Street, Gosbrook Road and Church Street. Listed buildings that are more peripheral to the site include those fronting the junction of Bridge Street and Church Street and West Memorial Hall on Gosbrook Road. The St Peter’s Conservation Area is approximately 100 metres to the west of the site at its closest point.
1.7 The site is subject to TPO 134/01 and TPO 58/13. The protected trees include 5 Horse Chestnut within the precinct area and a Holm Oak also within the precinct and adjacent to Church Street. These trees have been subject to a TPO since 1966 prior to the construction of St Martins Precinct and were subsequently incorporated into the precinct.
1.8 The 2013 TPO was made to ensure protection of the 2 new Dawn Redwood which were planted as replacements for felled Sycamore trees at the rear of the buildings and to protect an existing Lime tree sited towards the south west corner of the site.
67 1.9 Lime and Ash trees close to the south west boundary of the site are also protected by TPO 125/07. These are outside the site within the grounds of adjacent flats.
1.10 The site is mainly within Flood Zone 1 (at the lowest risk of flooding) with the southern part of the site (occupied by the existing car park) and a small area at the north western corner of the site falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium risk).
Kings Road
Site Location Plan (not to scale)
68
Site photograph
2. PROPOSALS
2.1 Full Planning Permission is sought for a remodelling of the existing centre and the erection of a new five storey block on vacant land to the western edge of the site. A new car park arrangement is proposed to the rear to include a decked car park with a single upper level supported on a metal framework which is proposed to be screened by a climbing plant system. A new public square is proposed at the rear of the precinct.
2.2 The new block at the western edge is proposed to contain a restaurant use at ground floor with 17 flats on the four upper floors. This is referred to as Block A throughout the application documentation. This block has been the subject of revisions in response to officer comments on the design. These include amendments to the design of windows and an increase in the proportion of brick cladding relative to zinc cladding.
2.3 The block of existing shops and flats to the east of Block A is referred to as Block B and is proposed to remain largely unaltered where it fronts Church Street. The block continues at a right angle to the street and forms the western edge of the precinct. This part of the block is proposed to accommodate an additional floor of residential accommodation comprising 4 flats. The design of this block has also been revised with the introduction of brick clad vertical elements, and a re-ordering and amended design for the windows.
69
2.4 The existing building at the southern end of the precinct ‘Block C’ is set back from Church Street and is proposed to be extended with a third storey and a new stairwell arrangement to the east side. The ground floor is proposed to remain as a retail unit with the first floor changing to a restaurant use from storage associated with the retail unit. The new second floor is proposed to house a D2 use, described as a cinema in the application submission. The design has been revised during the application process in response to officer comments.
2.5 The existing building that forms the eastern side of the precinct and extends along Church Street is referred to as Block D by the applicant. It is proposed to extend the building upwards by two storeys to form a four storey building containing 19 flats.
2.6 Overall 40 new dwellings are proposed, comprising 22 two-bed and 18 one- bed flats. 10 existing one-bed flats are proposed to remain.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
1960’s Centre permission – record not available.
80/TP1197 – supermarket squash courts offices, 3 maisonettes – approved.
Numerous small advertisement and shopfront applications are listed in the submitted planning statement but have little bearing on the current application.
131711/PREAPP - Proposed Redevelopment of St Martin's Centre. Meetings held but pre-app not concluded prior to application being submitted.
140802/SCR – Request for a Screening Opinion on the need for the submission of an Environmental Statement for Full Planning Permission relating to the regeneration of St Martin's Precinct, Caversham as described in the submitted statement. Decision: Environmental Statement not required.
4. CONSULTATIONS
RBC Transport Development Control
4.1 Analysis of the highway network has been undertaken by using the TRICS database and from surveys of other Waitrose supermarkets which have been enlarged.
4.2 The proposals will result in an increase of 40 flats, a modest increase to the Waitrose supermarket, a refurbishment of the centre which will increase the A3 element together with the addition of a boutique cinema. These additional elements will result in additional trips on the network and the Transport Assessment (TA) has calculated the additional trips all as primary trips, and has assumed that none will be linked. For example a
70 new trip to the enlarged retail units will not come from an existing trip to the gym within the centre. The TA also assumes that all the trips are new to the network and none are existing trips on the network which have just diverted to the centre as part of another trip, which is often the case for trips to such centres during peak times. This again is a robust assessment using the worst case scenario. Based on this scenario the development would be likely to result in an increase of 1358 two way movements in and out of the car park during a weekday (over a 24 hour period) with 23 additional movements in the am peak and 105 additional movements in the PM peak. At weekends there would be a daily increase of 788 two-way movements with 97 during the peak period during the weekends of 12.30pm to 13.30pm.
4.3 These trips have been assigned on to the network based on traffic counts undertaken around the site and Central Caversham. Following this assignment and in agreement with Transport Officers the following junctions were assessed for the morning and evening peak periods as well as the peak period at the weekend in accordance with Department for Transport guidance.
1) Archway / Gosbrook Road / Prospect Street / Church Street, double mini roundabout 2) Henley Road / Peppard Road / Prospect Street / Westfield Road , Traffic Signals 3) Gosbrook Road / Westfield Road junction 4) Church Street / Bridge Street / St Peters Hill signalised junction
4.4 The assessment also took in to account background growth and committed developments within the vicinity of the site. The analysis showed that on completion there would be minimal increases in delays at junctions 2,3, and 4 above with queue lengths on average increasing by 3 to 4 Passenger Car Units (PCU). These are not material and produce negligible increases in queue lengths.
4.5 The analysis of the junction 1, the double mini roundabout at the site entrance did show increases in queue lengths over 10 vehicles. This however does not correspond with the analysis of all the junctions above which have to be passed through to reach this junction. Site visits since the double mini roundabout was completed in the summer do not indicate operational issues and the main reason for this junction showing greater queue length increases is due to the limitations of the TRL Computer Program ARCADY used to assess roundabouts. The program is designed for normal roundabouts and can be used for single mini roundabouts, however with a double mini roundabout and the close proximity of both roundabouts the program has difficulty in separating all the possible movements. Given this and the results from above, Transport Officers accept that the proposals will not have a detrimental effect on the highway network.
Car Parking and Servicing.
71 4.6 Currently car park access is from Archway Road and servicing is to and from Abbotsmead Place (apart from the service area for Waitrose which is from Archway). As a result of the proposals Waitrose’s servicing area does not change. The proposed servicing changes previously proposed which included an egress on to Church Street have been removed and this is welcomed by Transport. The new arrangements are very similar to current arrangements with access from Abbotsmead Place. A servicing yard with adequate turning for articulated vehices is provided for blocks B and C and a new service area will also be provided behind block D
4.7 The service yard for block D remains the same but the parking area altered to enable large vehicles to enter the service yard. However for these vehicles to turn round they will have to utilise the public realm area, which during the day when there are large volumes of people present, will be detrimental to pedestrian safety. There are other shopping areas where this practice occurs although restrictions are in place to prevent vehicles coming in conflict with pedestrians. To ensure that the public using the public realm are not in conflict with vehicles a condition is recommended to prevent servicing of block D between the hours of 9am and 5pm.
4.8 Currently there are 254 parking spaces on the site which is an overprovision when compared to the parking required for uses in Zone 2 as detailed within the Parking SPD. From the information in the planning statement with regards the various uses the existing parking provision should be as follows.
A1 (Food) 2680m2 @ 1 parking space per 40m2 = 67 spaces A1 (non-food) 1297m2 @ 1 parking space per 40m2 = 32 spaces A3 Coffee House / Cafes etc. 283m2 @ 1 parking space per 7.5m2 = 37 spaces D1 Opticians @ 1.5 spaces per consulting room = 3 spaces D2 Gym 1201m2 @ 1 space per 35m2 = 34 spaces 16 flats @ 1 space per flat = 16 spaces
4.9 Total required = 189 spaces resulting in the car park having an over provision of 65 spaces.
4.10 The additional parking requirement from the extended development is as follows.
40 additional flats @ 1 space per flat = 40 spaces A1 (Food) 500m2 of additional space @ 1 space per 40m2 = 13 spaces A3 restaurants 524m2 @ 1 space per 7.5m2 = 70 spaces.
Total additional spaces required = 123 spaces
4.11 The proposed parking provision on the site is 324 spaces. Following negotiation with officers the applicant has agreed to a permit scheme securing 40 permits, one per new flat, to allow unrestricted parking for future occupiers anywhere in the new car park. This approach is accepted by Transport DC on the basis that a parking provision below 1 space per
72 each of the new 40 residential dwellings would not be acceptable due to existing pressure on parking in surrounding roads. If all 40 permits were in active use this would leave 284 spaces remaining for retail uses. This is still an over provision of 28 spaces for the retail uses. The applicant claims that 21 spaces need to be used for tenants of the shops and this should be discounted from the retail parking provision thereby reducing the retail parking element to 263 spaces. Even if this is taken in to consideration, when the SPD’s provision for retail parking takes in to account parking for staff there is still an over provision of 7 spaces for the retail parking against the SPD’s requirement of 256 spaces.
4.12 As previously stated, the parking standard for residential dwellings is a ‘required standard’ and takes in to account the accessibility of the site and the levels of car ownership predicted.
4.13 This is especially the case for origin destinations such as a residential developments and the latest evidence clearly shows that a reduction in residential parking does not result in reduced car ownership but leads to various parking issues. The latest research document published in February 2014 by central government “Space to park” recommends 1 space per 1 or 2 bed dwelling, 2 spaces per 3 or 4 bed dwelling with at least a 20% provision for visitor parking on street. It is the government’s intention that this guidance should be followed.
Pedestrian and Cycle Provision
4.14 Currently the site has no formal cycling parking provision with cyclists having to secure their bikes to street furniture. These proposals provide 48 cycle parking spaces which is in excess of 35 cycle parking spaces required according to the SPD. 12 spaces will be provided at the Waitrose Entrance, 12 spaces on Archway, 12 spaces in close proximity to the RBC ReadiBike cycle hire station and 12 spaces in a secure environment on the ground floor of the car park. Given the lack of cycle parking provision at present this proposed provision is considered acceptable.
4.15 The TA and Planning statement refer to the new footbridge and claims that a pedestrian / cycle route linking the centre to Abbotsmead Place and the bridge will be created. The route is approximately 3 metres wide and goes through the car park and while not ideal given the confines of the site this is the only realistic route. However this route will need to be treated in such a way that it is clear to car drivers that this is a pedestrian cycle route and therefore will need to be raised as it crosses the car park, so vehicles slow down when crossing it. This can be covered by condition.
4.16 The existing National Cycle Route 5 passes to the west of the site before linking with the towpath adjacent to the Thames. Given the location of the RBC cycle hire docking station on this route and the provision of a new Toucan Crossing on Church Street where the route meets it, there is no advantage in diverting this route through the Precinct given that there is likely to be conflict between cyclists and pedestrians within the confines of the busy shopping area.
73
Section 106 Contribution
4.17 In accordance with Section 5 (Transport) of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on planning obligations, November 2013, developments will be expected to contribute to wider and strategic transport improvements in relation to roads, public transport, and facilities for cycling and pedestrians. The contribution is as follows. The weighted contributions in the SPD have been used as the TA shows the centre has very little impact during the morning peak period.
40 additional flats @ £2,700 per flat = £108,000 A1 (Food) 500m2 @ £56,316 per 100m2 = £281,580 A3 restaurants – 134 additional trips @ £302 per trip = £40,468
4.18 The sum of £430,048 will be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan.
Planning Natural Environment
4.19 The site is subject to TPO 134/01 and TPO 58/13, the latter being made to ensure protection of the 2 new Dawn Redwood trees (planted as replacements for felled Sycamore trees) and to protect 1 Lime tree not previously included.
4.20 Of the protected trees, 6 are proposed for felling - the 5 Horse chestnut within the precinct and 1 of the new Dawn redwoods; 2 of these for arboricultural reasons (2 chestnut on the Church St frontage) and 4 in order to facilitate development as shown on Tree Survey & Retention Plan 30- 1018.01-B.
4.21 The Horse chestnuts have been subject to a TPO since 1966 prior to the construction of St Martins Precinct. They were subsequently incorporated into the precinct and have contributed amenity value to the locality since then. The Council has, over the last 10-20 years, been made aware of issues related to tree roots and have consistently resisted the trees’ removal on this basis. However the Natural Environment officer has always been mindful of the possibility that justification for their removal could be made at some point. The removal of the 2 Horse chestnut on the frontage has already been agreed under TPO procedures. In relation to the other 3, whilst two are noted as ‘B’ category trees in good condition, none are in top condition and their long-term retention as healthy trees is limited, particularly with this species currently being affected by several pests and diseases. The Natural Environment officer advises that the proposals provide an opportunity to provide better quality trees, with a longer lifespan and for these to be planted in a manner so as to avoid future root/surfacing problems. Natural Environment Officers accept the removal of all 5 Horse chestnuts on the condition that mitigation planting is secured.
74
4.22 Concerns remain over a potential conflict between the proposals for Block A and the retained (protected) Holm Oak. The plans show principal rooms and balconies facing the tree, which will require pruning in order to construct and thereafter will result in pressure for significant pruning as residents will look directly out/into the canopy of this evergreen tree. This is an undesirable situation and significant pruning could be detrimental to the appearance of this tree, hence amenity value it provides. As it is a prominent tree on the Church Street frontage, its safe retention long-term should be ensured.
4.23 The applicant should confirm why both Dawn Redwood trees cannot be retained.
4.24 It is noted that Caversham Globe have expressed concern over the loss of two street trees outside Block A (3011 and 3012 on the Tree Survey).
4.25 Caversham Globe has advised that tree 3009 has died – the tree survey noted the decline of this tree. If tree 3009 and the adjacent dead tree are to be removed (which would seem sensible), replacement planting should be required.
4.26 Tree 3018, whilst indicated on the Soft Landscaping plan (but with no label confirming its retention) is not included in the Public Realm Sheet as this plan does not extend that far. Confirmation of its retention is required.
4.27 The street frontage to Waitrose is lacking in soft landscaping. The expanse of building makes the retention of tree 3018 more important.
4.28 The Natural Environment Officer has no objection to the change of proposed tree species for the central precinct to Tulip (from Japanese Pagoda trees).
4.29 The agent’s letter of 19 September 2014 states that tree planting on the east side of the car park is not feasible due to the presence of a mains sewer. Tree planting over mains sewers has been secured elsewhere in the Borough (A33 street trees and in Dee Park) with the agreement of Thames Water. This was subject to specific planting details and with the caveat that if access to the sewer in those locations was required in the future and this required the removal of one or more trees that would be accepted. The applicant should therefore demonstrate that they have explored the possibility with Thames Water.
4.30 In relation to the ‘green wall’ planting on the car park, it is necessary for the applicant to provide details of the proposed system to demonstrate, particularly in terms of maintenance, that it is a tried and tested system.
4.31 In terms of the tree species proposed, the only comment is that confirmation that the soil is suitable for Quercus palustris is required. This species struggles in alkaline soils and there has been difficulty in establishing it in certain places in Reading.
75
4.32 Confirmation of service runs is required. Successfully achieving comprehensive tree planting in this development will be crucial therefore it needs to be ensured that there are no conflicts with any services.
4.33 Confirmation of maintenance arrangements to cope with the large amount of weekly watering that will be required is required.
4.34 With regard to the remaining trees to be removed, those proposed for removal on arboricultural grounds are agreed and the loss of those proposed for removal in order to facilitate development has to be accepted if the proposal is approved. In any case, if the number of trees indicated on the Public Realm drawing is feasible, this would provide compensation.
4.34 The Natural Environment Officer agrees that the indicative planting of trees in the central part of the site, within specifically designed tree pits, should result in an appropriate softening of the revamped precinct area.
RBC Environmental Protection
Noise impact on development 4.35 The noise assessment has identified insulation requirements for the most exposed façade (Church Street) and subsequent information from the applicant has clarified the requirements for the remainder of the centre. These are deemed to be acceptable.
Noise arising from development 4.36 Noise limits have been specified for the cinema (see page 19 of noise assessment) and appear to be set as equal to the existing L90 background noise 1 metre from the façade of the nearest residential property. Typical noise levels in a cinema are provided, with maximum noise break out values.
4.37 It is also stated that because cinemas require low levels of noise intrusion from outside, that the sound insulation of the new section of the building will necessarily be of a high standard. However assuming that the planning permission would be granted on the basis of use class D2 in which case a different use could go into the building e.g. a gym, without the same requirements for sound insulation.
4.38 Noise from A1 and A3 uses: It is recommended that if appropriate the following are controlled by planning condition: - No amplified music in external seating areas - External seating areas not to be used outside of the hours of 08:00 – 23:00 - A1/A3 units with amplified music to have glazing and doors to shop frontages providing minimum sound insulation of 40 dB Rw
4.39 Noise limits have been proposed for new plant, based on measured background noise levels around the site. These provide a useful guideline, however plant selection has not yet been made. EP recommend that no
76 new plant is approved until detailed noise assessments have been made for each location/plant item. It may be that the background noise levels already measured can be used in these assessments, or additional measurements may be needed if background noise levels are not representative for the particular plant location.
4.40 The planning statement refers to the relocation of the bottle bank. Further detail needs to be provided regarding where this will be relocated to and an assessment made as to the impact of noise from the bottle bank on nearby residential properties.
4.41 EP have concerns about the potential for noise disturbance due to deliveries and waste collections on occupants of nearby residential properties, particularly late at night and early morning. A restriction on permitted hours for these activities is recommended.
4.42 The noise report states that the new restaurant will have night time deliveries between midnight and 6 am, three times per week, in service yard no.1 which has previously only been used for car parking. This is to the rear of existing residential flats, and new residential properties. Night time deliveries in this location are unlikely to be acceptable as transient noise events such as this are likely to wake people up and disturb sleep. The background noise levels in these sheltered locations will generally be low at night time, making any noise from deliveries even more noticeable. This is particularly the case because the existing flats will not benefit from the proposed sound insulating glazing that is proposed for the new properties.
4.43 Due to the number of different service yards and the varying impact of deliveries to these, an overall condition restricting delivery and waste collection times is unlikely to be appropriate for the site as a whole. However, due to the sensitive location of delivery yards to the rear of Blocks A, B and C and the fact that service yard to Block A has not previously been used for deliveries, a condition is recommended that restricts the hours of waste collections and deliveries to these yards.
4.44 Properties fronting onto Church Street are to be provided with mechanical ventilation as part of the noise insulation measures. The inlet for this ventilation should be from the cleaner side of the building or the roof and not from the façade fronting onto Church Street.
4.45 The proposed development is located within an air quality management area and the air quality assessment has concluded that there will be a minor adverse impact on local air quality particularly if the vehicle technology improvements do not lead to the improvements in air quality that were originally predicted by the government.
4.46 It is important to mitigate this adverse impact because despite being considered minor, a significant number of the receptors around the site are experiencing exceedances of the air quality objectives so are very sensitive to any worsening of the air quality.
77
4.47 To deal with this minor adverse impact, a travel plan is proposed by the applicant. It is recommended that the requirement for production and implementation of a travel plan/air quality mitigation plan is required by planning condition. It is recommended that the travel/mitigation plan includes consideration of the following:
• Allocated parking for low emission vehicles • Provision of electric charging bays or low emission fuelling points • Provision of cycling facilities / residents cycles • Improvements to local public transport • Provision of NO2-reducing surfaces such as pavement tiles.
4.48 Further information is requested regarding any proposed external lighting to be installed as part of the development to ensure that there is no loss of amenity to nearby residents. This could be dealt with by planning condition.
4.49 Details should include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule of equipment in the design (luminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles and luminaire profiles) and an isolux contour map to show light spill levels down to 1 lux and showing neighbouring buildings. The applicants should demonstrate that light levels will not exceed the relevant guidance lux levels specified in the table below. Information should also show how glare will be controlled, and the proposed hours of use.
Environmental Zone - Brightness Light trespass (into windows) Ev [Lux] Pre-curfew Post-curfew (before 23:00hrs) (after 23:00hrs) E1 – Intrinsically dark (national parks 2 1 etc) E2 - Low district brightness (rural / 5 1 dark) E3 – Medium district brightness 10 2 (urban) E4 – High district brightness (town 25 5 centers) ILE (2005) guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light.
4.50 EP have concerns about odour from the restaurant kitchen extraction system causing nuisance to the surrounding residents/businesses. Noise from the extraction systems has been addressed in the plant noise section of my comments.
4.51 It is recommended that the applicant refer to the Defra Guidance on the Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (January 2005).
78 4.52 A planning condition is recommended that requires the submission of details regarding the proposed odour control systems that will be installed.
4.53 A condition restricting the hours of noisy construction, demolition and associated deliveries is recommended.
RBC Education
4.54 Request £61,482 as a contribution towards education infrastructure in the North education area of the Borough to meet the additional pressures placed on education infrastructure as a result of the development.
RBC Leisure Service
4.55 Request £2,100 per unit under 75 square metres floor area and £2,800 per unit above this size. The funding would be spent on the continued implementation of the Thames Parks Plan.
RBC Valuer
4.56 Response to Affordable Housing, Section 106 and other financial viability considerations awaited as negotiations with the developer are ongoing.
Berkshire Archaeology
4.57 The heritage statement provided with the application touches on the known archaeology of the area – albeit only from data on the Heritage Gateway – and makes no reference to the archaeological potential of the wider area, and the impact of the proposals on buried remains of various periods that may survive across the site. As previously recommended by this office, some archaeological work is likely to be needed, in order to ascertain the survival of archaeological deposits on site; however, this will need to be preceded by some further exploration and documentary assessment in order to target areas for investigation.
4.58 A condition is recommended securing implementation of a phased programme of archaeological works, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority
Thames Water
4.59 Thames Water advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, they do not have any objection to the planning application.
4.60 The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies
79 should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.
4.61 Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to any planning permission: There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer’s cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair.
Environment Agency
4.62 The EA Advise that, provided the Council is satisfied that the sequential test and exceptions test are passed then the EA have no objections to the proposed development subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, including the finished floor level for Block A (proposed restaurant and residential units) being set no lower than 38.69 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Public Consultation
4.63 Notification letters were sent to all premises adjoining the site on 7 July 2014.
4.64 Site notices were displayed on Church Street at the junction with Archway Road, adjacent to the precinct entrance and adjacent to the telephone exchange. A site notice was displayed at the entrance to the car park on Abbotsmead Place.
4.65 A second round of consultation took place on 25 September following the submission of revised proposals in response to officer advice.
4.66 28 Letters of objection, 3 of support and 11 commenting on the scheme were received. These include objections from Caversham and District Residents’ Association (CADRA) and Caversham Globe. These are summarised below:
i) Responses received following the initial consultation
4.67 Objections:
• What Hermes proposes is essentially the right concept for Caversham. But it's the detailed design and appearance that I, and many others, object to. The proposed architecture is poor and uninspiring. The Local Plan highlights the importance that the quality of the built environment can have on the life of the residents (Adopted Core Strategy, para 11), and Policy CS26 stresses that the vitality and viability of the District Centres, of which Caversham is the largest, should be maintained and enhanced. The bland facades of the frontage of the proposed shops and flats that Hermes are proposing for the new St Martin's scheme provides
80 neither a “quality” environment that the Local Plan requires nor enhances its character or vitality. • The Caversham library is an Edwardian masterpiece - and it is to be faced by these cheap warehouse-style shop fronts. • The proposed Block D development, will cut into the existing canopy of the Holm Oak, the only tree in this area to be retained. Occupants of the north westerly flats would receive little light in this area and possibly be able to climb into the tree from their windows if it survived. Scaffolding required to construct these further storeys would cut a further 1.5 metres into the existing canopy. • The existing canopies of thin steel posts, white steel clapboard fascias and stained and leaking concrete soffits currently exacerbate the poor experience of using St. Martin's Precinct. Clarification of the proposed treatment of these fascias would therefore be welcome. • The portion of the elevation either side of the street side Waitrose entrance looks weak and nondescipt with unsupported brick panels above glazing. Is the glazing transparent or obscure? Why not continue the canopy which ends for no apparent reason half way along block D, or incorporate a canopy at higher level as per the Pizza Express canopy either side of the Waitrose atrium to strengthen and add interest to this part of the elevation • The proposed designs reflect current standardized and unimaginative designs that appear to have come from Government guidelines rather than any inspired vision for the centre. The supporting documents are extremely wordy and formulaic. The basics of the scheme - the new stores, car parking and restaurants etc - are not in dispute and are supported. • It is very difficult to see how they can conclude, as they do in section 9.0 of their “Planning Statement” that the scheme is in keeping with the “character, scale and role”; of the centre and that it will “respect the significant (sic) of the Grade II listed Caversham Library”;. The contrast in architectural styles between the proposed new buildings and the existing buildings, exemplified by Caversham Library, is stark. • The style of the buildings are disappointing and entirely out of character with the architecture of the surrounding buildings. This design is what I'd expect to see in Swindon, Bracknell or Basingstoke, not in Caversham. • This will be the largest planning application in Caversham, and certainly one of Reading's largest development schemes. Much more time and effort should be spent on getting the details right now, so that people in the future (including Hermes' team and the Council's planners) can look back on a successful and attractive development with pride. The application details at the moment look rushed and amateurish. • CADRA comments that the design of the new upward extension above Boots and Costa and the new block including Pizza Express appear as standard designs which could go anywhere. They do not reflect the character of the centre of Caversham, and would not enhance the street scene. The new 5 storey block would appear very massive and out of scale as you approach from Caversham Bridge. It protrudes on to Church Street and may obscure sight lines for vehicles. The existing street scene does not contain buildings of height and this is a fundamental part of the ‘village’ character. The bright blue door for Pizza Express is too dominant. The flat roofs are inconsistent with the existing character and appear very unsympathetic. The proposed materials are bland. The
81 Waitrose atrium is out of place in a village centre. It would be out of scale and out of place in terms of style and materials. • CADRA suggest that the impact on the Heritage Assets and street scene is not neutral and disagree that old and new “together form a harmonious group.” • CADRA: The signage shown for the Superdrug store is unnecessarily large out of place with other signage. Should be smaller and lower which would allow for some features above, on an otherwise blank and uninteresting wall. • CADRA: Street trees in front of the current Waitrose store and Block A are not shown to be either retained or replaced. This would leave Church Street with no street trees except the Holm Oak – a highly regrettable change which will detract further from the street scene. More planting is needed on the frontage. • Object to the loss of the horse chestnut and other trees in the precinct.
• Scale of Block A a threat to daylight availability and privacy of those already living in the closest blocks of Abbotsmead Place.
• There is not enough parking proposed. • Car parking has been reduced from additional 50 to 14. The development will attract many more people to Caversham and the additional parking will be inadequate. • Extra traffic and poor air quality – Need to look at biodiversity ie green roofs, organic roofs, living roofs and walls - beautiful to look at and they will take care of some of the poor air quality! • CADRA raise safety concerns about deliveries to the service area by ‘Caversham Square’, particularly the turning circle and also the need for pedestrian access across the car park from flats on Abbotsmead Place which have a significant retired and elderly population. • CADRA: 20 cycle parking spaces in the covered part of the car park is an inadequate provision and poorly located. It will not encourage cycle use. Cycle parking is needed close to the shops and in an area with pedestrian flows and well observed, to discourage theft and vandalism. • the only entrance in and out is under the archway which will cause no end of problems, at the moment its chaos, so its just an accident waiting to happen, you cant have all this extra generated traffic going in and out of a tiny little entrance • One of the objectives to the re-planning of the precinct was to improve access to the river and the new bridge. As far as I can see this hasn't happened; the objective needs re-visiting.
• CADRA: Concerns over loss of availability of public toilets outside Waitrose opening hours – toilets could replace proposed kiosk and be accessed from outside. • 4/5 storey development will completely dominate Church St, overshadowing the library, a heritage site described as having medium importance, and further down Church St, the baptist church and memorial, hall, both described as having high importance in heritage terms.
4.68 Comments:
• The submitted Economic Development Document purports to provide an assessment of the potential economic benefits that could result if planning
82 permission is granted for the Proposed Development of the St Martin’s Precinct. The report appears to substantially over estimate the economic benefits that the scheme itself will bring to Caversham. At the same time, it provides only a partial assessment of the wider and potentially greater benefits that Caversham as a whole could experience
• CADRA: It is unfortunate that the accompanying reports are unnecessarily long and wordy. It is also notable that no plans show the visual relationship with other buildings. For example, the relationship between the two sides of Church Street is not shown, nor the height of Block A in relation to other buildings. It is also disappointing that the Transport Assessment includes inaccuracies on junction changes in the past few years and in the conclusions on traffic capacity.
• The success of the car park deck structure and the proposed treatment will depend on the type, quality, maintenance and irrigation of the proposed planting on tension wires if these areas are to be improved from the makeshift service and parking areas that are currently experienced.
• Will this decked car park still be free to users within limits as per the current arrangements? The imposition of charges may have wider consequences for parking within Caversham.
• Surely the alleyway next to Waitrose constitutes an established right of way.
• There should be a limit on size of vehicles using the access road. Because Abbotsmead Place is quite narrow there should be a limit on the length (rather than the size) of lorries using this access road.
• CADRA have submitted their own heritage assessment by Dr Megan Aldrich FSA – This concludes that the applicant’s heritage statement is flawed and unsound with regard to its assessment of the St Martin’s Precinct site. “The submitted Heritage Statement does not take account of the full extent of the St Peter’s Conservation Area and its ancient structures; does not take account of the streetscapes of Caversham as an important and defining historical asset (in accordance with the Reading Core Strategy of 2008); and has missed the central importance of the Caversham Library, both in terms of its architecture and its architect, to the built environment of Caversham… the submitted designs are completely generic and bear no reference to Caversham’s heritage assets either in scale, materials, or architectural references. These are the designs for a scaled down High Street shopping mall, not the high street of a Thames-side village with a strong architectural heritage. …In summary, it is an unimaginative, overbearing response to this highly sensitive site, and in this author’s view the proposed designs ignore national and local Heritage Planning guidelines cited in pages 22-24 of the Heritage Statement.”
4.69 Support:
• Strongly supportive of the plans as they stand and would like to see them move into delivery and completion at the earliest opportunity. Development of the centre of Caversham in this manner is vital, in particular the adding of additional
83 parking space and also the inclusion of restaurant retail space to be taken by a chain restaurant (Pizza Express) • The plans are wonderful and long overdue. • I think these proposals will much improve the look and use of central Caversham, and the inclusion of new restaurants, a cinema and an enlarged Waitrose are in particular elements that I strongly support ii) Responses received following the second consultation
4.70 Objections:
• The designs are generic, blocky, and already dated, neither in keeping with a Victorian town centre nor an example of sympathetic modern design. • The new buildings will contrast harshly with the decorative elevations of the Victorian library. • The use of large areas of galvanised zinc finish seems a poor choice aesthetically. • While it is excellent news that the dreadful St Martin's Precinct is to be redeveloped, the designs submitted are incredibly disappointing - bland, boxy with cheap and nasty materials. • The monotone engineering brick and metal fascias (which will soon look dated and scream "early 21st century commercial development") are breathtakingly dull. • The current plans do not respond to the built environment around them in any way - this could be any building anywhere. • The buildings themselves are not in keeping with the area as they are much taller than existing buildings. They are just uninspiring. • The plans show a large imposing structure which is not sympathetic with the height of local buildings. • The massing of Block A is too great – tall and imposing for the location – will overshadow neighbouring buildings – adversely altering the street scene and character. • CADRA request the scale of Block A be reduced to four storeys and a greater proportion of brick finish to reduce the amount of grey zinc cladding. • CADRA raise concerns that the additional storey to Block B, overlooking St Martins Square will add to the problem of excessive shade on the square. Also the balcony access to the 2nd floor flats is an outdated approach resulting in poor living conditions • CADRA welcome the redesigned entrance to Waitrose but are critical of the use of the same brick as used currently on the Waitrose building. The elevations either side of the new Waitrose entrance are weak and nondescript.
• It would be an overdevelopment of the centre. Permitting a large number of new residential properties in an already overcrowded area doesn't seem sensible. This would have an adverse effect on existing residents, for example, there aren't enough primary school places already with a local school having to take a bulge year despite a new school starting and traffic frequently jams over the bridges especially if flooding affects Sonning bridge. • The traffic survey looked at the bridge traffic congestion, the problems are often getting back into Caversham. The survey already indicates that several junctions are already over capacity.
84 • The proposals do little to address traffic congestion and pollution. • The car parking spaces being made available amount to a very high number ie approx 235 + spaces. I am against this very high number. Exhaust fumes and noise pollution. The new cinema will lengthen the times of day that the site is busy with vehicles.
• Assuming that cyclists will not be allowed to use (and indeed should not use) the proposed 'pedestrian link towards the river' marked with zebra crossing markings in the plans in the Design and Access statement. That means that the only access to the cycle parking would be by cycling through the car park, an inherently dangerous undertaking. • The pedestrian and cycle provision is still poor. • The pavement on Abbotsmead Place should be widened, or alternatively the new pedestrian route through the car park should run from the south east corner. • Walking and cycling into Reading - scheme needs improved access that feels safe at night. These plans don't seem to add this and the increased HGVs in the area will only make it less safe for us and our small children. • There is a large park down by the river and safe pedestrian and cycle routes are hugely important. • No improvement to the public bridleway bordering the site which is already an important cycle route, allowing cyclists to avoid the crowded roadways of Caversham on their way into Reading or to gain access to the shops in the precinct. When the new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the Thames is open this route will be even more important. Require at least 12 cycle parking hoops - better siting of cycle parking hoops: St Martin's Square is the obvious place, so that cyclists can reach them easily without passing through a car park - widening of the narrow section of the public bridleway bordering the southwestern edge of the site. - improvement of the angle of the existing very acute corner in the public bridleway. • Sustrans – a national charity promoting sustainable transport has commented that National Cycle Route 5 currently follows a circuitous route around the service yard and Sustrans would like to see a direct cycle route provided through the new development, linking directly into the onward route to the north and the new bridge (when built) to the south.
• It is a really large development with very few green trees. • There is a lack of greenery. Planting, flower displays etc are needed to offset the harshness of hard landscaping. • The extended canopy of Block A would conflict with existing street trees. • CADRA describe the decked car park as a “large utilitarian structure of steel and concrete [that] requires considerable softening on all sides with more trees on the edges. The view from the entrance road (and sheltered housing behind School Lane) would be much improved by trees as well as a hedge if this can be accommodated with the position of the sewer”.
• CADRA object to the proposed Block D building due to conflict with the existing Holm Oak. The retention of the Holm Oak is critical to softening the impact of
85 new building on Church Street. Lighting on the ground floor of the car park needs to be of a very high standard to avoid a gloomy and insecure walk through for pedestrians.
• Lack of independent shops: Currently Caversham has many small independent shops and this should be encouraged as it benefits the local economy by creating jobs and keeping the business profits in the locale. • Don’t need another large chain restaurant. • Lack of public conveniences: Very concerned that there are no public toilets in the plans. Toilets within Waitrose will only be available during opening hours. This is not enhancing the local area but simply taking away an existing facility which works well. • CADRA state that it is very disappointing that the applicant is unwilling to recognise the need for public toilets to be available outside the Waitrose opening hours.
4.71 Comment:
• A more broken frontage and/or pitched roof line, multi-coloured brickwork, or a softer more organic modern design might be a better solution. • The one cycle route nearby (R40/NCR5) is rather indirectly linked to the new development. It is currently a very poor quality route in the immediate vicinity, yet there are no plans to improve and integrate it, despite the clear opportunities. It is part of a key route on the National Cycle Network and should be discussed with Sustrans, the coordinating organisation. • Better cycle parking in the revised design is welcome. The provision of the ten stands near the "proposed kiosk" only really maintains the current provision, but is well located. The other additional spaces are not very conveniently located for shoppers, though longer stay visitors/workers may use them. Instead or as well, it would be useful to have a small number of spaces provided on the Church St side.
• On the north side, consideration should be given to how the design might integrate with a future pedestrian priority area on Church St which has been mooted.
• CADRA describe the revisions to Block C (cinema) as a welcome improvement.
• The introduction of red brick finish to Block D is welcome as is the greater vertical emphasis to the elevations
• CADRA state that the car park also serves the shops on Prospect Street where the shortest pedestrian route is along Archway Road. The opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian and vehicle route in and out of the car park.
86 • CADRA are very concerned that an appropriate location is identified for a community notice board to replace the current board in St Martin’s Square.
• CADRA argue that parking spaces should not be reduced in order to support the economic success of the High Street. There is already significant pressure for spaces. The car park serves the whole of Caversham Centre and is critical to its economic and commercial success.
• Parking is already a big issue in Caversham as the current parking facilities are already overstretched. Adding a block of flats will create further need for parking. Adequate parking is essential for the community to be able to use the facilities without further impacting on the surrounding residential roads.
• The proposed Block D development, however, 3 storeys at its northern end and 4 storeys to the south replaces the current 2 storey block and will cut into the existing canopy of the Holm Oak, the only tree in this area recommended for retention. Scaffolding required to construct the extra storeys would cut further into the existing canopy than the building itself, this and the requirement for daylight to the flats would mean cutting the tree back on its eastern side nearer to the line of the lamppost on the attached photograph. The tree would also need to be cut back by a similarly drastic amount on its southern side. This clash is not immediately evident due in some cases the tree not being shown on the drawings and in one case the tree being inaccurately positioned on the drawing as set out below. If the bole and existing canopy of this tree were shown on Plan drawings D501, D502, D503, and D504, it would illustrate the extent of this clash and the impracticality of both retaining this tree and building Block D as currently configured. The position of the tree and its canopy shown on the street elevation drawing PP-MP-04 is not correct and is misleading (the existing tree is several metres to to the east of that shown on the drawing). The tree is not shown on the Block D elevation drawings. Block D should be redesigned/ reconfigured to avoid the canopy of the Holm oak by a reasonable margin. This could be done without loss of accomodation by reconfiguring the flats over the shop unit at the east end of Block D, which currently remains only 2 storey. The current proposal will lead either to the destruction of this tree during construction or substantial disfigurement.
4.72 Support:
• Green/brown roofs - glad to see it is being considered. • CADRA welcome the increase in the number of spaces with better locations.
• I think that the new design is just what Caversham needs as the precinct has looked tired and dated for many years and without this plan will deteriorate further
5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
87 5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.
5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
5.3 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'.
5.4 The applications have been assessed against the following policies:
5.5 National National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance
5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS18 Residential Conversions CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS25 Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development CS26 Network and Hierarchy of Centres CS27 Maintaining the Retail Character of Centres CS29 Provision of Open Space CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology
88 CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands
5.7 Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM5 Housing Mix DM8 Residential Conversions DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM13 Vitality and Viability of Smaller Centres DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality
5.8 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents
Affordable Housing SPD (2013) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Residential Conversions SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2013) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)
6. APPRAISAL i) Principle of Development
6.1 Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy states that the vitality and viability of the centres within the identified network (including Caversham) will be maintained and enhanced, including widening the range of uses, environmental enhancements and improvements to access. These matters are addressed in more detail below.
6.2 Policy CS26 also states that development for main town centre uses in centres will be of an appropriate scale. Scales are set out in supporting paragraph 8.15 of this policy, with the upper limit for a district centre being 2,500 sq. m. This proposal contains an increase of 1,677 sq m of main town centre uses, and is therefore considered to be of an appropriate scale.
6.3 As the development is proposed within an identified centre, and accords with the scale limit of that centre, the applicant is not required to demonstrate accordance with the tests for main town centre uses in the NPPF, i.e. a sequential approach or that there would be no impact on existing centres.
6.4 In terms of the residential element of the scheme, the introduction of new housing into the district centre is considered to be positive in policy terms. The spatial strategy as set out in the Core Strategy (paragraph
89 3.23) sets out the importance of higher density residential development within identified district and local centres, and Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy links the intensity of development to accessibility by a variety of modes of transport. ii) Design and Appearance
6.5 Policy CS7 deals with design and the public realm and this is assessed below, firstly looking at the individual built elements of the proposed scheme and then looking more generally at the scheme as a whole in relation to the individual criteria in Policy CS7.
Block A
6.6 Block A would be the tallest building in the street and would be also be prominent due to its positioning on the bend in the road, which would result in the building protruding forward of the adjacent Block when viewed from the street. This prominence would be mitigated to some extent by the staggered footprint, with the massing of the building increasing further back away from the street. The recessed fifth floor in particular would serve to emphasise the first four storeys of the building and would be seen in the context of the adjacent large telephone exchange building. On this basis it is considered that the apparent scale would be reasonable within the street and the building would not be overly dominant.
6.7 With regard to the architecture and detailing, the window proportions have been improved compared to the original submission on the advice of officers, with an increase in the amount of glazing. The detailing of the façade has also been improved with details of the façade construction being submitted to show appropriate articulation of the different materials to give an appropriate sense of ‘depth’. The amount of brickwork has also been increased to better reflect the prevailing local character and additional windows have been introduced fronting Church Street.
6.8 With regards to the proposed external materials, the proposed powder- coated metal originally proposed would not have resulted in a sufficiently high quality appearance and would result in a bland untextured finish and an overly dark colour that would have made the metal clad sections overly dominant. The proposals have been amended on the advice of officers with a higher quality natural zinc cladding product with a lighter tone. This change, together with the increase in the area of brickwork relative to zinc, is considered to result in a reasonable quality finish to the facades.
6.9 In line with many of the objections received, it is agreed that the architecture is in many respects bland and generic that does little to promote local distinctiveness. However the overall effect of the changes secured by officers has been to improve the architecture to a point at which it would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the street scene and on this basis the proposals for Block A are considered acceptable
90
Block B
6.10 The building fronting Church Street would remain as existing, with the main changes being to the part of the Block fronting the precinct.
6.11 The initial design, as originally submitted, appeared functional and informed more by the interior room layout rather than any particular visual contribution to public realm. Officers required a far more coherent, strongly-defined arrangement of windows fronting the precinct. In addition officers criticised the dominance of large expanses of polyester powder coated aluminium standing seam cladding and a somewhat incongruous area of white render at first floor level on the east façade.
6.12 The applicant has responded to these concerns with vertical brick ‘fins’ in a regular pattern to help to improve the rhythm of the façade together with an improved window layout. The powder-coated metal has been replaced with a more ‘natural’, higher quality standing-seam zinc cladding.
6.13 It is considered that the external finish to the building would not relate particularly well with the prevailing architecture within Church Street due to the expanse of metal cladding, but that this should be balanced against the fact that it is most closely related to the existing precinct space which already has a distinct, albeit unattractive, character and that changes in this area would have a lesser effect upon the character of the main street compared to changes fronting Church Street. It is considered that the amendments made by the applicant are improvements and these are sufficient to provide a reasonable quality of building fronting the precinct that represents an improvement upon the existing situation.
Block C
6.14 It is considered that the overall scale of the building would appear to be appropriate with the layout of the upper floor extension focusing the massing of the building towards the main entrance and precinct frontages.
6.15 Officers advised that the proposed full height glazed stairwell as originally submitted had the potential to be a strong feature that could define the entrance to the upper floors. However it appeared heavy and lacked refinement.
6.16 As with Blocks A and B, the design of the block was a concern and required improvements to the quality of the detailing and to relieve the apparent mass of cinema extension and provide a well-proportioned building with more coherence between facade elements.
6.17 In response to these concerns, the applicant provided a revised design that has provided some simplification to the façade design with more clearly defined proportions. Whilst the architecture is similar to Blocks A and B, concerns over the relationship to local character are arguably less important in this part of the site as main views of the the building would
91 be from the rear of the site within an area that has less of a coherent character. Whilst a more architecturally interesting building that continues the character of Church Street southwards into the site would be far better in this location, the current proposal does represent an improvement to the current poor quality building and would serve as a reasonable backdrop to the upgraded public space within the precinct to the north and the new public space to the east.
6.18 The building (together with the increased scale of Blocks B and D) would increase the sense of enclosure and shadowing to the precinct space as referred to in a number of objections received. It is apparent that the building would reduce daylight and sunlight within the precinct space. However the increase in the mass of the building is not considered to be so great that it would degrade the quality of the space to a harmful extent or prejudice its use.
Block D
6.19 The recessed third floor and break in the brickwork at second floor level would give a predominant impression of a three storey, rather than four storey scale viewed from Church Street. It is considered that the apparent scale of Block D would be reasonable in the context of the existing street.
6.20 As with the other blocks referred to above officers advised that greater depth, detailing and visual interest was needed, especially on the precinct (west) and Church Street (north) façades – more articulation between cladding materials, better alignment of vertical elements between floors. To the south, the small windows, lack of coherent fenestration, large expanses of featureless render wrapped around the upper floors and overall lack of a clear architectural approach was criticised.
6.21 The applicant has responded to these concerns. The window proportions to upper floors have improved as has the architecture to the southern side of the building. Details of the proposed make-up of the facades is recommended to be secured by condition as only Plot A and C details have been submitted but based on the details provided for these other blocks it is considered that a reasonable amount of articulation can be provided to improve visual interest. The ‘Superdrug’ unit has been amended to include stronger verticals to break up the expanse of the façade.
6.22 The architectural approach originally proposed fell well short of what could be reasonably expected of a development of this type in this location. The amendments made bring it up to a reasonable standard. The improved palette of materials referred to in respect of other blocks has also been applied to this block and is considered to be of an acceptable standard.
Block E
6.23 The scale of the proposals is the same as existing when viewed from Church Street, the main difference being an greater projection to the rear and a new architectural approach.
92
6.24 As originally proposed, the new entrance to Church Street, was considered to be out of keeping with the scale of the host building and wider street and was criticised by officers as being reminiscent of a retail park or out of town shopping unit rather than the more refined smaller scale detailing typical of a high street location. The thick powder coated framework lacked refinement and the doorway, which failed to align with the framework appeared awkward and functional.
6.25 The applicant has responded to these concerns with a far simpler, more refined approach with a frameless glazing system around the entrance and an off-white porcelain square feature above that provides a suitable focal point to the entrance. The outwards projection of the entrance has also been reduced resulting in a less obtrusive feature.
6.26 The use of brickwork to match the existing Waitrose to the east of the new entrance has been criticised in a number of letters of objection. It is acknowledged that this brick is far from ideal due to its dark tone that does not reflect the traditional local orange brick. However as the current proposals involve the extension and remodelling of existing buildings, the existing brickwork cannot be ignored. It is considered that the approach taken by the applicant to continue the darker brick across part of the new extension and change to a more appropriate orange brick to the west of the new entrance serves to integrate the new build elements with the existing parts of the building which are to be retained.
6.27 On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the amendments made by the applicant are sufficient to avoid conflict with Policies CS7 and CS26.
Car Park Deck
6.28 The proposed car park deck would be approximately 3 metres in height to the deck surface and 4 metres to the top of the surrounding barrier and screen. It is proposed to soften the appearance of the structure using a green wall climbing plant system. It is considered that the scale and extent of the deck are acceptable to meet the need for increased parking without an excessive increase in pressure on surface parking, thereby allowing spaces such as the new public square to be created and new landscaping provided. The car park deck would replace an existing poor quality car park. However, despite its failings, the existing car park has a good degree of openness with some semi-mature trees within it. The deck would require removal of a number of trees and would interrupt views across much of the southern part of the site. In order to ensure a net benefit in terms of the effect of the deck on the visual appearance of the site, it is considered critical that the deck is well integrated within a planting scheme that, in addition to the proposed green wall, includes tree planting to the eastern side of the site adjacent to Archway Road. A condition to this effect is recommended. Provided that the softening effects of the tree planting are secured by condition, it is considered that
93 the decked car park would maintain the existing character of the immediate area. iii) Site Layout and Landscaping
6.29 The principle of a public square to the rear of Block D was negotiated at pre-application stage and is considered to provide a necessary pedestrian space to the rear of the buildings to allow free movement between the car park, pedestrian routes from the south and as a continuation of the existing Precinct as well as providing an opportunity for an appropriately landscaped setting to the rear. This will help to consolidate the currently disjointed and car-dominated space and begin to create a ‘sense of place’ at the rear as well as to the front of the centre. This is especially important given that a high proportion of people visiting the site will arrive by car. The indicative hard landscaping within the square appears to be a reasonable approach, although significantly more detail is required to be secured by condition. This should include measures to reduce the visual impact of the lorry turning space (no deliveries to be allowed between 0900 and 1700) to unify the space and ensure that it functions as single square. This could include seating, planters and other street furniture that help to demarcate the space, to the periphery as well as the centre of the square together with a single surface material that suggests pedestrian priority over vehicles. The soft landscaping, consisting of an existing Dawn Redwood tree to be retained and a number of cherry trees appears to be a reasonable approach, although detailed specifications are required, to be secured by condition.
6.30 The hard landscaping to the existing precinct area is considered to be reasonable and is in essence an improved version of the existing with hard paving throughout, with a central strip for tree planting. The proposed Tulip trees have been assessed by the Council’s Natural Environment Officer and are considered to be a suitable species in this location. More detailed proposals relating to the planting and establishment of these trees are required, to be secured by condition.
6.31 The hard landscaping proposed within the car park area is a fairly standard approach of tarmac to the circulation routes and block paving to the parking bays. Whilst the proposals do little to introduce a landscaped space that is more distinctive than a typical supermarket car park, the approach is nevertheless sufficient to offer an improvement over the existing poor quality car park and is considered to be acceptable on this basis. The proposed tree planting will soften the car park area that would otherwise appear as a continuous hard surfaced space, dominated by vehicles. The proposed green wall to the upper storey of the car park deck, formed from climbing plants grown across a metal mesh, would serve to soften the otherwise overly functional appearance of the structure, but requires further softening with tree planting to the eastern edge of the car park.
6.32 The new cycle and pedestrian bridge at Christchurch Meadows will provide a new link to the centre, with potential for users of the bridge to continue along Abbotsmead Place as the most direct route to the site. A pedestrian
94 route was originally proposed between the south of the site and the new square, however this ran beneath the edge of the car park deck and was considered to be unpleasant and failed to prioritise pedestrians over vehicles. A new alignment has been proposed by the applicant in response to these concerns. This is straighter, 3 metre wide, with an elevated profile. This new alignment is considered to be an improvement however there would be no buffer between parked cars (including opening car doors) and the route. Furthermore trees are shown planted within the route rather than to one side, reducing the width.
6.33 Whilst the width of the north-south route is acceptable in purely functional terms officers have advised that a more generous route for pedestrians that provides a pleasant environment and that does not feel hemmed in by vehicles is necessary. Omitting the 3 parking spaces to the east of the route to allow it to be widened, to provide more space for the trees and to allow for a greater landscaped ‘buffer’ between pedestrians and vehicles was recommended. The applicant has resisted this, stating that they consider the route to be sufficient and that they are unwilling to reduce car parking to improve landscaping in order to create a better pedestrian environment. Whilst this unresolved matter is considered to be a failing of the scheme, it is considered that the route would nevertheless allow pedestrians to pass through the site and that the proposed tree planting would provide some softening to the extensive and unbroken car park area. On balance the proposals are considered to be an improvement on the poor quality landscaping and layout of the existing car park and are therefore acceptable on that basis.
6.34 The proposed pedestrian route through the extended retail unit at Block E is intended to replace the existing alleyway on a similar alignment. Whilst it is acknowledged that this would be more limited as access would be restricted to store opening times, this should be balanced against the poor quality, unpleasant pedestrian environment of the existing alley. On balance, the new route, to be secured by Section 106 agreement would provide a wider, more pleasant, better lit and better maintained route for users of the site during peak hours of use and is considered acceptable on this basis. In response to a question raised by one objector, the existing alley is not a Public Right of Way.
6.35 The applicant initially showed tree planting to the eastern edge of the car park but removed these on the revised drawings due to concerns over proximity to a main surface water sewer and the presence of a Thames Water wayleave related to this. Officers have contacted Thames Water who have advised that they do not object to tree planting in this location in principle, subject to suitable tree pit and root barriers being agreed. Given that the reason for the applicant’s concern has now been overcome it is considered necessary to secure a row of trees along the eastern edge of the car park. This will soften the form of the car park deck (see above) and will also serve to increase the level of tree coverage, in accordance with Policy CS18, within a stretch of road that would otherwise be dominated by hard surfacing with an absence of trees. Following negotiations with officers, the applicant has confirmed their agreement to
95 a scheme of tree planting being secured by condition, provided this includes consultation with Thames Water. If Thames Water cannot agree the planting the condition allows for an alternative to be agreed, for instance the hedgerow currently shown on the submitted plans. This is considered to be a reasonable approach.
6.36 The Natural Environment Officer has confirmed that they do not object to the proposed Tulip tree species for the central precinct to replace the existing Horse Chestnut trees. The proposed trees are considered to be acceptable on this basis, subject to suitable planting and maintenance details being agreed, to be secured by condition.
6.37 On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed landscaping is sufficient to avoid conflict with Policies CS7, CS26 and DM18. iv) Character
6.38 Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) requires all development to be of high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area of Reading in which it is located. On the basis of the design and site layout assessments above it is considered that the proposals are not of high design quality in terms of the degree of integration with the urban structure or grain beyond the site boundary, where the structure changes to a finer grain informed by a more historic street layout with historic buildings integrated within it.
6.39 It is also considered that whilst the proposals continue the ‘sense of place’ of the 1960’s precinct, which is distinct from the surrounding streets, in doing so it does little to integrate with, or contribute to, the sense of place of Caversham centre as a whole.
6.40 The layout and design sections above also raise questions over the quality of the public realm proposed and the degree to which the development would secure pedestrian and cycle permeability enhancements. Both these areas are referred to in Policy CS7 as requirements that contribute to high design quality.
6.41 However these character concerns need to be balanced to some extent with the character of the current precinct which exists as a visually distinct element within the district centre, and also the wider benefits of the scheme as a whole in terms of enhanced district centre facilities, more car parking and additional residential units. It is of relevance that the nature of the proposed development is predominantly a re-working and remodelling of the existing St Martin’s Centre and therefore has more limited scope for improvements compared to a full redevelopment.
6.42 There is also a degree of enhancement to the character of the existing centre with renewed facades and shopfronts and improved landscaping. The degree to which the proposals would result in a character
96 enhancement beyond the site is questionable, although the character impact is not considered to be worse than that of the existing centre.
6.43 On balance it is considered that the degree of character enhancement within the St Martins Centre site, and the neutral impact on the character of the area beyond the site boundary, would be sufficient to avoid conflict with Policy CS7.
v) Effect upon Heritage Assets
6.44 The eastern end of the site, Blocks D and E lie closest to the listed buildings of Caversham Library and the Baptist Free Church. Given the assessment above, it is considered that the relatively modest increases in scale of Blocks D and E and the somewhat bland detailing would ensure that the proposals would not appear overly obtrusive. This, taken within the context of the poor quality appearance of existing architecture within the site, would ensure that the proposal has a neutral effect on the listed buildings. The negative visual separation resulting from the traffic- dominated street and highway infrastructure also reduces the extent to which the new buildings impinge on the existing historic buildings across the street.
6.45 It is considered that Block A, whilst significantly taller than adjacent Block B and other surrounding buildings, would have sufficient visual separation from the listed library and church buildings, and also the listed buildings at the junction of Bridge Street and Church Road. This building would be more closely related to the petrol filling station, telephone exchange and road and would not be of such a large scale as to be particularly obtrusive when viewed in the context of these listed buildings.
6.46 It is considered that the street layout, intervening buildings and the distance from new-build elements of the scheme would ensure that the proposals would have little effect upon the setting of the Grade II listed West Memorial Hall on Gosbrook Road.
6.47 On this basis it is considered that the proposal would preserve the setting of these listed buildings, especially when compared to the effect of the existing buildings within the site.
6.48 It is considered that the separating distance, the curved street layout and the scale of intervening buildings, including the telephone exchange, would ensure that the proposals preserved the setting of the St Peters Conservation Area.
6.49 Overall, it is considered that the development would preserve the setting of nearby listed buildings and the setting of the St Peters Conservation Area and as such the proposals comply with the requirements of heritage legislation, Policy CS33 and national policy within the NPPF and associated guidance.
97 vi) Transport
6.50 The detailed comments of the Council’s Transport section are set out in section 4.0 above.
6.51 Following extensive negotiation with Transport officers the applicant has submitted a revised Transport Assessment which demonstrates that, based on worst-case-scenario figures, the proposed development would not result in the capacity of surrounding roads and junctions being exceeded. The proposals are therefore considered to have an acceptable effect on the highway network in terms of capacity and safety. On this basis the proposals comply with Policies CS22, CS23 and DM12.
6.52 The amended proposals omit a service route exit onto Church Street adjacent Block A and opposite the petrol station on the advice of Transport officers due to highway safety concerns. The revised servicing arrangements for Blocks A, B and C are similar to those for the existing units and remain acceptable. A condition restricting servicing to Block D between the peak hours of 0900 and 1700 requested by Transport is considered to be necessary to prevent conflict between goods vehicles and pedestrian users of the square. This strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of retailers and those visiting the centre It also helps reduce the negative effects of the pre-existing service yard which is now in a less than ideal location within the new scheme as it requires vehicles to cross the new public space.
6.53 Taking into account Transport comments, it is considered that the amount of parking proposed is appropriate to meet the needs of future users of the commercial uses. 324 spaces are proposed compared with the 254 existing. The proposed permit approach, with one permit available for each of the 40 new flats allowing them to park one vehicle unrestricted within any space within the car park is considered to be a reasonable approach that will ensure adequate parking for occupiers of the flats, whilst maximising the amount of parking available for other uses when demand for the residential spaces is low, for instance during the day.
6.54 With regard to cycling provision, the Council’s Transport section advise that the proposals represent an improvement on the current situation as currently the site has no formal cycling parking provision. with cyclists having to secure their bikes to street furniture. These proposals provide 48 cycle parking spaces which is in excess of 35 cycle parking spaces required according to the Council’s parking standards SPD. 12 spaces will be provided at the Waitrose Entrance which are in a convenient location in terms of the proximity to the centre. Access to these is relatively poor however as cyclists would be required to either pass under the car park deck, share the north-south pedestrian route, or use the service route. 12 spaces on Archway are more accessible, but not close to the shops. 12 spaces in close proximity to the RBC ReadiBike cycle hire station would require cyclists to dismount and walk around the front of the centre, but there is some logic to providing parking next to the cycle hire point. A
98 further 12 spaces are proposed on the ground floor of the car park. This is not a particularly pleasant environment for cycling.
6.55 It is apparent that many of the proposed spaces are in less than ideal locations. However, given the lack of cycle parking provision at present, this proposed provision is acceptable.
6.56 A condition requiring details of the design of the north-south pedestrian route is recommended, on Transport advice. This is necessary to ensure that the route is suitably raised and marked to ensure that it is clear to drivers and to prioritise pedestrians over vehicles.
6.57 Whilst a number of objectors suggest that the National Cycle Route should be diverted through the site to straighten and widen it and avoid the current dog-leg, Transport DC advice is that given the location of the RBC cycle hire docking station on this route and the provision of a new Toucan Crossing on Church Street where the route meets it, there is no advantage in diverting this route through the Precinct given that there is likely to be conflict between cyclists and pedestrians within the confines of the busy shopping area.
6.58 Objector concerns over the narrow width of the canopy support poles and the potential for conflict with pedestrians have been referred to the Council’s Transport section. Advice received is that the paths under the canopies are not part of the adoptable highway and are on private land and that they are not on the desire line of pedestrians. Responsibility for painting or other changes to these are the responsibility of the landowner.
6.59 On balance, whilst many aspects of the proposal will not achieve a high quality environment for pedestrians and cyclists, when compared to the existing site layout, there is a degree of improvement. The proposal would make suitable provision for vehicle access and parking and would have an acceptable effect on the Highway Network. On this basis the proposals are considered to comply with Policies CS4, CS20 CS22, CS23, CS24 and DM12, together with the requirements set out in the Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD 2011. vii) Tree Protection
6.60 The Holm Oak shown to be retained on the proposed plans has been the subject of a number of detailed objections. These relate to the extent to which the tree would require pruning to accommodate the additional floors on Block D and the extent to which the design of Block D would result in further pressure to prune or fell the tree in the future.
6.61 The tree pre-dates the existing precinct buildings and it is apparent that these buildings were provided with little thought or concern for its future growth. The existing tree has grown together with two horse chestnuts fronting Church Street. Permission to remove the two Horse Chestnuts has already been approved under TPO regulations. The Holm Oak has been
99 constrained by these trees and has grown an irregular canopy which extends above the roof of the existing Block D building.
6.62 Given the proximity of the tree to the building, which is a consequence of the failings of the original precinct layout and design, there is an argument that it would be reasonable to allow some pruning clear of the building regardless of whether any enlargement of the building is proposed. Further detailed information regarding the extent of pruning proposed, the predicted effect of this on the future health of the tree and a better indication of the effect of the re-shaping of the tree canopy on the visual amenity of the area has been sought from the applicant. This will be reported to Committee in an update report. The recommendation for approval is currently given subject to these details being received and found acceptable.
6.63 The other three Horse Chestnut trees within the Precinct space are proposed to be removed. The advice of the Council’s Natural Environment officer is that their long-term retention as healthy trees is limited, particularly with this species currently being affected by several pests and diseases and that the proposals provide an opportunity to provide better quality trees, with a longer lifespan and for these to be planted in a manner so as to avoid future root and surfacing problems.
6.64 Three existing street trees on Church Street, two adjacent to Block A and one adjacent to Block E are now shown as being retained following negotiation with the applicant.
6.65 It is considered that suitable tree protection to BS5837:2012 can be provided during construction for trees to be retained, to be secured by condition.
6.66 It is necessary for the landscaping details to provide full details of existing and proposed underground services, tree pits, root barriers, watering schedules in addition to full details of plants to be provided. This will be included in the recommended landscaping conditions.
6.67 The removal of existing trees within the centre of the existing car park area is considered to be reasonable to allow for provision of the car park deck, this is on the basis that a significant number of new trees will be provided within the non-decked area, including those secured by condition to the eastern side of the deck along Archway Road.
6.68 On this basis, subject to further assessment of the implications of the scheme for the Holm Oak, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in relation to the retention and protection of existing trees, in accordance with Policies CS26 and CS38. viii) Amenity of neighbouring occupiers
6.69 It is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations to Blocks fronting Church Street, due to their scale, design and separation distance,
100 would relate acceptably to nearby residential uses across the street in terms of overbearing effects, loss of light, or loss of privacy.
6.70 Concerns have been raised by occupiers of neighbouring flats in Abbotsmead Place that the proposed scale of the new building at Block A would be overbearing on these flats to the south (41 to 60 Abbotsmead Place). Block A would extend to within 15 metres of the closest flats to the south at the closest point, although this would increase to 22 metres due to the angled relationship between the two. It is considered that there would be some impact arising from the new building works and that the outlook northwards from the flats would be altered significantly. However it is considered that the separation distance, together with the screening effects of the intervening trees (subject to a TPO) would be sufficient to prevent harm to the amenity of existing occupiers in terms of loss of outlook, overbearing impact or loss of light. The gap between the buildings also forms part of the public realm with the bridleway running through it. The privacy and amenity requirements across this public area are therefore less than would be the case in a back-to-back relationship separated by private garden.
6.71 Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the upwards extension of Block C on the flats at 2 to 40 Abbotsmead Place to the south west. The additional storey would be 22 metres from the flats at its closest point increasing in distance due to the angled relationship and the proposed design which stops short of the southernmost part of the existing building. Whilst the proposals would alter the view from the flats, it is considered that the scale increase at the distances involved would not be so great as to cause harm to the amenity of occupiers of the existing flats in terms of overbearing effects, loss of light, or loss of outlook. The proposals do not involve new windows facing the rear and as such privacy would not be affected.
6.72 With regard to noise, the submitted noise assessment has considered the D2 use in Block C on the basis of cinema use and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council’s Environmental Protection Team that a cinema use would be acceptable in terms of the impact on surrounding noise- sensitive premises. The D2 Use Class includes a wide range of uses including bingo, dance halls, gyms, concert halls etc. Given that these uses can have very different characteristics such of hours of use, the activity associated with the use and the nature of noise generated, it is considered reasonable to restrict the use to a cinema only with any future use to be assessed under a separate application.
6.73 The retail and café/restaurant uses within the development as a whole represents a continuation of the existing situation and it is not anticipated that this would alter the noise environment significantly. A condition requiring a noise assessment for additional plant (air conditioning, refrigeration, air extract etc.) is recommended as the implications of these is not clear at this stage and will depend on the specific requirements of future commercial occupiers of the site.
101 6.74 On this basis it is considered that the proposals would comply with Policies DM4 and CS34.
ix) Amenity of Future Residents
6.75 The proposed flats comply with the Council’s internal space standards and it is considered that they would benefit from appropriate daylight, outlook and privacy.
6.76 The site fronts a busy road and the existing noise levels would exceed appropriate residential standards without suitable insulation. It is therefore recommended that the noise mitigation measures set out in the submitted noise assessment are implemented and a condition is recommended to secure this. The Council’s Environmental Protection team are satisfied that this would ensure a reasonable noise environment for future residents and as such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in this respect.
6.77 In order to meet the noise insulation standards, mechanical ventilation is required. Given the poor air quality on the street frontage, it is recommended that a condition is included to require air intakes to be located at the rear, or at roof level, where air is cleaner.
6.78 Objector concerns relating to the access arrangements to the second floor flats are noted. It is apparent that were the proposals to involve an entirely new-build, the proposed arrangement would not be appropriate. However as the proposals are an extension to the existing building, which already has a similar raised walkway access arrangement at first floor, a continuation of this approach is considered to be reasonable.
6.79 It is considered that the proposals would offer an acceptable living environment for future occupiers of the flats, in accordance with the aims of Policies DM4.
x) Archaeology
6.80 The advice of Berkshire Archaeology is that the site has the potential to contain archaeology of interest. It is recommended that a condition securing a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological works is imposed to avoid harm to archaeology. This is in accordance with Policy CS33.
xi) Flood Risk
6.81 The Sequential Test applies to Block A as it proposes a new residential building within Flood Zone 2. In this particular instance it is considered that the current poor quality appearance of the vacant plot on which Block A would stand and the need for regeneration of the site to improve
102 the appearance of the district centre suggests that the sequential test search area should be limited to the site itself. Within this constraint, it is considered that there are no reasonably available alternative sites and the proposal therefore passes the test.
6.82 It is considered that dry access exists to Church Street and the majority of the surrounding land is within Zone 1. On this basis it is considered that Block A would retain suitable access during a flood.
6.83 The advice of the Environment Agency in respect of floor levels is noted and a condition requiring the minimum floor level is recommended.
6.84 The proposed car park within Flood Zone 2 is considered to be acceptable as it is open sided and would have very little impact on the capacity of area in respect of flood water and minimal obstruction to floodwater flow. The parking at surface level is very similar to existing.
6.85 A condition is recommended (included as part of the landscaping condition) to secure water-permeable surfacing wherever possible to reduce surface water runoff and reduce impermeable areas within the flood zone.
6.86 It is considered that the proposals would not result in a harmful increase in flood risk. In accordance with Policies CS26 and CS35. xii) Sustainability
6.87 The applicant has submitted pre-estimators for Code for Sustainable Homes for the new dwellings and BREEAM for the commercial elements. These indicate that the scheme can meet and potentially exceed the policy requirement for Level 3 / Very Good with a score of 62.5 as an alternative and more practical approach to meeting the halfway split between Level 3 and 4 of the Code and Very Good and Excellent of BREEAM. Conditions securing this are recommended. xiii) Dwelling Mix
6.88 The proposals consist of 22 two bedroom and 18 one bedroom flats. It is considered that this is appropriate for the district centre location and is in excess of the requirement of Policy DM8 for a minimum of 25% of the units to be 2 bedroom or larger and complies with the aims of Policy CS15 on dwelling mix. xiv) Public Toilets
6.89 A number of objections have been received to the removal of the existing toilet block and its replacement with a facility inside the Waitrose retail unit next to the southern entrance. It is acknowledged that the proposals will result in a change in the amount of toilet provision as the current block operated by the Council is open 06.30 to 23.30, 364 days a year. The new facility would be limited to the opening hours of the retail unit. Benefits are likely to include more regular cleaning checks and inclusion within the
103 store’s security arrangements. The effect of the changed location is minimal as the store entrance is close to the existing toilet block and would remain convenient for all users of the precinct. On balance it is considered that the proposals would maintain a good quality toilet facility during the peak hours of use of the centre. Uses such as the leisure and restaurant uses in Block C, which would have later opening times, would be expected to have their own toilet facilities for customers to use. On this basis it is considered there would be no harmful reduction in the availability of toilet facilities in accordance with Policies CS26 and CS32. xv) Refuse Storage and Collection
6.90 The service yards to the rear of the buildings offer good potential for off- street collection of refuse and recycling associated with all uses within the site, in accordance with Policies CS2 and DM12. xvi) Ecology
6.91 The Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposals and confirmed that the proposed works would not result in harm to protected species or the ecological value of the area, in accordance with Policy CS36 Biodiversity and Geology. The proposals include good potential for ecological enhancements within the buildings and landscaping xvii) Affordable Housing
6.92 The Planning Statement notes that the Draft Alteration to the Local Plan on Affordable Housing requires 30% of new residential to be affordable. It is important to make clear that this is emerging policy that has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State, and is not likely to be adopted until 2015. Whilst it is a material consideration, the development plan policy remains Core Strategy Policy CS16 which sets a requirement of 50% on site provision unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this would not be viable.
6.93 The question of viability and the extent to which a reduction in the policy requirement can be justified is currently the subject of ongoing discussions between the applicant and the Council’s Valuer. The outcome of these discussions, together with any associated amendments to the recommendation, will be reported to Committee in an Update Report. xvii) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 & Community Infrastructure Levy)
6.94 In accordance with Policies DM3, CS9, CS20, CS29, CS32 and associated Supplementary Planning Documents, the following are required to be secured by S106 agreement:
6.95 The sum of £430,048 will be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to commencement of development
104
6.96 The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development.
6.97 The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index- linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development.
6.98 In addition to the financial contributions towards infrastructure set out above the following are also required to be secured under the legal agreement:
6.99 Affordable Housing, details to be agreed as described above.
6.100 An Employment Skills and Training Plan – in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing.
6.101 A pedestrian route between new public square and Church Street, to be provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP- E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours.
6.102 Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours.
6.103 Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity.
6.104 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These Heads of Terms have been agreed by the applicant and an s106 Legal Agreement is in the process of being prepared to secure these contributions. xviii) Equality
6.105 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 from consultation on the current applications) that the
105 protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
6.106 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Whilst the proposals do not address all the concerns raised by officers or local residents, the proposed development taken as a whole offers an improvement to the site compared to the existing centre and would not conflict with development plan policy to a harmful extent. On balance and taking into account the benefits of the scheme, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the satisfactory resolution of ongoing negotiations in respect of the provision of Affordable Housing and the retention of the Holm Oak.
Case Officer: Steve Vigar
Information Submitted with the Application:
Drawings:
Masterplan PP-MP-01 Rev. P2 Existing Site Plan PP-MP-02 Rev. P5 Proposed Site Plan PP-MP-03 Rev. P3 Proposed Site Sections PP-MP-04 Rev. P3 Proposed Streetscape Elevations PP-MP-05 Rev. P3 Proposed View along Church St - 1/3 PP-MP-06 Rev. P2 Proposed View along Church St - 2/3 PP-MP-07 Rev. P2 Proposed View along Church St - 5/3 PP-E-01 Rev. P1 Site Location Plan PP-MP-08 Typical Shopfronts and Canopy Detail PP-MP-09 Signage Strategy Plan PP-MP-11 Proposed Façade Build Up
Block A: PP-A-01 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor GA PP-A-02 Rev. P3 Proposed First Floor GA PP-A-03 Rev. P3 Proposed Second Floor GA PP-A-04 Rev. P3 Proposed Third Floor GA PP-A-05 Rev. P2 Proposed Fourth Floor GA PP-A-06 Rev. P2 Proposed South Elevation PP-A-07 Rev. P3 Proposed North Elevation PP-A-08 Rev. P2 Proposed West Elevation PP-A-09 Rev. P2 Proposed East Elevation PP-A-10 Rev. P2 Proposed West Elevation (Context)
Block B: B-E1 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor Plan B-E2 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor Plan B-E3 Rev. P2 Existing Second Floor Plan
106 B-E4 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations E&W B-E5 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations N&S B-P1 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan B-P2 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan B-P3 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan B-P4 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations N&S B-P5 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations E&W
Block C: PP-C-01 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor GA PP-C-02 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor GA PP-C-03 Rev. P2 Existing Roof Plan PP-C-04 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations PP-C-05 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor GA PP-C-06 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor GA PP-C-07 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor GA PP-C-08 Rev. P2 Proposed Roof Plan PP-C-09 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 PP-C-10 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2
Block D: D201 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor Plan D202 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor Plan D203 Rev. P2 Existing Roof Plan D301 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations Sheet 1 D302 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations Sheet 2 D501 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan D502 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan D503 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan D504 Rev. P2 Proposed Terrace Floor Plan D601 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevation Sheet 1 D602 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevation Sheet 2
Block E: PP-E-02 Rev. P1 Existing Ground Floor GA PP-E-03 Rev. P1 Existing First Floor GA PP-E-04 Rev. P1 Existing Second Floor GA PP-E-05 Rev. P1 Existing Roof Plan PP-E-07 Rev. P1 Existing Elevations N, S & W PP-E-08 Rev. P1 Existing Elevations East PP-E-14 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan PP-E-15 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan PP-E-16 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan PP-E-17 Rev. P2 Proposed Roof Plan PP-E-18 Rev. P3 Proposed Car Park - Grade PP-E-19 Rev. P2 Proposed Deck Parking PP-E-20 Rev. P2 Proposed Front Elevation PP-E-21 Rev. P1 Proposed Rear Elevation PP-E-22 Rev. P2 Proposed Sections Sheet 1 PP-E-23 Rev. P2 Proposed Sections Sheet 2 PP-E-24 Rev. P2 Proposed Car Park Elevations (1:200) PP-E-25 Rev. P2 Proposed Kiosk PP-E-26 Rev. P1 Proposed Car Park Elevations (1:100)
Public Realm
107 L25 Rev. 03 18511-L25 Public Realm Sheet RG-L-AI13 Rev 01 Soft Landscaping
Documents Arboricultural Impact Assessment Air Quality Assessment Design and Access Statement Construction Waste and Recycling Drainage Strategy Report Economic Benefit Statement Flood Risk Assessment Ground Conditions Statement Heritage Statement Noise Assessment Phase 1 Habitat and Bat Survey Planning Statement Statement of Community Engagement Sustainability and Energy Statement Transport Assessment Travel Plan
Case Officer: Steve Vigar
108
109
110
111
Site of proposed Block A – Block B to left side of frame.
112
Church Street Block E to left, Block D and Holm Oak beyond.
Holm Oak (evergreen) to be retained and Horse Chestnuts to be removed. Library in background.
113
Rear car park area looking north west – entrance to car park to left of frame – Rear of Block E to right side.
114 MINSTER
115 116 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014
Ward: Minster App No.: 141471 App Type: VARIATION OF CONDITION Address: 21 Rose Kiln Lane, Reading Proposal: Demolition of the existing warehouse and the erection of a new retail warehouse (use class A1) with associated storage, car parking and landscaping, at 21 Rose Kiln Lane, Reading, without complying with conditions 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 of planning permission 140542. Applicant: Porcelanosa UK Ltd Date valid: 16/ 9/2014 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 16/12/2014 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 17/03/2015
RECOMMENDATION:
GRANT permission.
AMENDED CONDITIONS:
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not laterhan t 02/07/2017. Reason: to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions, and in accordance with Section 91 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development (excluding demolition) shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include: (a)proposed finished ground levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, hard surfacing materials, structures and ancillary objects (refuse bins, lighting columns etc); and (b) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes etc; and (c) planting plans; tree pit details; a timetable for implementation; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes andd propose numbers/planting densities where appropriate. (d) details of maintenance for 5 years following planting; (e) ecological enhancement, including: • The provision of mixed native hedgerows in an appropriate location • Details of sustainable drainage and irrigation systems such as permeable hard surfaces, rain gardens, and temporary pools and swales • Amphibian friendly kerbs and gulley pots • Biodiversity enhancements, including integral bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities on trees and on and around the new buildings Reason: in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
9. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development (excluding demolition) shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
117 authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed, in accordance with the approved plan, before the development is occupied or in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm)
17. The development shall achieve a BREEAM rating of at least 62.5%, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and before the building is occupied, a post-construction review shall be carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor which shall confirm that the building meets the approved standard. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with sustainable building standards. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) SPD Sustainable Design and Construction
19. No development (excluding demolition) shall take place until a detailed land gas site investigation has been carried out by a competent person to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of land gas and its implications. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work and shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
20. No development (excluding demolition) shall take place until a scheme showing how the development is to be protected against the possibility of land gas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be fully implemented and completed before the development is first occupied and those measures incorporated into the development shall thereafter be retained unless the Local Planning Authority agrees otherwise in writing. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
22. No development (excluding demolition) shall take place until a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: a. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. b. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. c. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. d. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment
118 and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
24. No development (excluding demolition) shall take place until such time as a scheme to dispose of surface water that ensures that soakaways are not constructed into contaminated land has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the following submitted drawings: HYA 13035(P)000 - LOCATION PLAN RECD 14/04/2014 HYA 13035(P)101 – PROPOSED SITE PLAN RECD 14/04/2014 HYA 13035(P)102 – PROPOSED ROOF PLAN RECD 14/04/2014 HYA 13035(P)104 – PROPOSED ELEVATIONS RECD 14/04/2014 HYA 13035(P)105 – PROPOSED ELEVATIONS RECD 14/04/2014 29603/3003/01 REV A – LANDSCAPE STRATEGY RECD 14/04/2014 Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 2 3. No development shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of ensuring the acceptable visual appearance of the buildings and area. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) 3 4. No works in relation to demolition shall take place until a plan showing the position and specifications of tree protection measures during demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the tree protection measures shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any construction work and retained until completion of the development. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that proper protection is given to trees on site. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) 45 6. The hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out before any of the development is occupied or in accordance with a timescale which has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) 6 7. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation. Reason: in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) 7 8. Notwithstanding the approved plans and details, no development shall take place until Arboricultural Method Statement for all works relating to demolition and construction within the RPA’s of retained trees, and including a schedule of any tree works required
119 and a timetable of arboricultural supervision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that proper protection is given to trees on site. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) 89 10. Notwithstanding the approved plans and details, no external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage including an isolux contour map showing light spillage to 1 lux both vertically and horizontally over the adjacent River Kennet have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting approved shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the development provides adequate mitigation, and enhances its value, to wildlife. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) 10 11. Should the warehouse not be demolished by June 2016 an updated bat survey is to be undertaken and a report detailing the results of the survey and any mitigation and compensatory measures is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to commencement of demolition of the building. Reason: In the interests of ensuring that the development provides adequate mitigation, and enhances its value, to wildlife. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) 11 12. No development of the site shall commence until the access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority for work carried out within the public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety. LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 12 13. No building shall be occupied until vehicle parking space has been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The space shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. Reason: In the interests of road safety. LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 13 14. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to provide for: (A) The parking of vehicles and site operatives and visitors. (B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in constructing the development. (C) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. (D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding if required. (E) Wheel washing facilities (F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads during construction. (G) Footpath Closures /Road Closures needed during construction (H) Traffic Management needed during construction. (I) Times, routes and means of access into and from the site for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the removal of waste from the site and methods of
120 preventing deposition of materials on the public highway). The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of local land uses, the character of the area and highway safety. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 14 15. No building shall be occupied until all the visibility splays shown on the approved drawings have been provided. All areas shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above the carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of road safety. LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 15 16. Secure, covered and lockable bicycle storage spaces shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before occupation of the dwellings to which they relate. Reason: To ensure adequate cycle provision and to encourage travel by sustainable alternatives to driving a motor car in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's approved transport policies. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 117 18. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) produced by Peter Brett Ref 29603 rev Final dated April 2014 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: a. Limiting the surface discharge to the River Kennet to 5l/s utilizing suitable sustainable drainage techniques b. Finished floor levels are set at least 300mm above the 1 in 100 plus climate change flood levels c. Provide at least an 8m easement between the development (any structures) and the top of bank of the River Kennet The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage of/disposal of surface water from the site. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS35 (Flooding) 120 21. The land gas remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A validation report (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any part of the accommodation hereby approved is occupied, unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) 222 23. No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and
121 approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure the development is suitable for its end use and the wider environment and does not create undue risks to occupiers of the site or surrounding areas. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) 224 25. No later than 3 months prior to implementation of the development, the developer shall submit to the Council for approval an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) for the development which identifies and promotes, in collaboration with the Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business campaign, employment opportunities generated by the proposed development. The ESP’s shall include requirements for training and apprenticeships and target Reading Borough based workforces (although will not specifically exclude workforces from outside that area) for both the construction phase(s) of each phase of the proposed development and for the end user(s) of each phase. The developer or occupier shall implement the ESP’s as approved. The development shall not commence until the ESP for the construction phase(s) is approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall not be occupied until the ESP(s) for the end user phase is approved in writing by the LPA. Reason: In order to ensure the development contributes towards the range of employment, skills and training measures to mitigate the impacts of the development. SPD Employment Skills and Training 25 26. The site shall be used for the sale of furniture and furnishings, tiles, or kitchen and bathroom products and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Order 2005, (or in any provisions equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: In order to exercise control over the range of goods sold from the building hereby permitted in the interests of the vitality and viability of existing centres. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS25 (Location and Scale of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development) LDF Core Strategy Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 26 27. No mezzanine or other form of internal floor to create a first floor level shall be constructed in the development hereby permitted. Reason: In order to exercise control over the expansion/intensification of use of the building hereby permitted. LDF Core Strategy Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway- Related Matters) 27 INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE
1. The Council has acted positively and proactively over the course of the application to address the issues raised by the proposal, including impact upon bats, to ensure that the application could be recommended for approval by officers. The Council has also acted positively and proactively by presenting the application to Committee at the earliest opportunity.
122 2. The Council's Transport Development Control Section should be contacted at Civic Centre, Reading, RG1 7TD telephone: 0118 937 3949, to agree the access construction details and to grant an agreement before any work is carried out within the highway. A formal application should be made allowing at least 8 week's notice to obtain details of underground services on the applicants` behalf.
3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to damage caused by extraordinary traffic.
4. Any works affecting the highway shall be in accordance with Reading Borough's Council's document 'Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway within the Borough of Reading'. The applicant should be made aware that compliance with this document is mandatory and licences to work on the highway will only be issued if the requirements contained within it are met. A copy can be obtained at http://www.reading.gov.uk/ltp/General.asp?id=SX9452-A782F664 (within the Transport Strategy area of the Transport Section on the Reading Borough Web Site). To comply with this document, especially with regards Construction Method Statements, Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders may be required and all costs associated with these will be borne by the applicant.
5. Building regulations approval will be required for the development. Please contact the Council's Building Control section for further information: 0118 937 2449.
6. The developer's attention is drawn to the various requirements for the control of noise on construction sites laid down in the Control of Pollution Act 1974, in order to ensure that residents are not adversely affected by air pollution and noise during decommissioning and construction works.
7. There should be no burning of waste on the site.
8. All sewage or trade effluent should be discharged to the foul sewer if available subject to the approval of Thames Water Utilities or its sewerage agent
9. This planning permission does not grant advertisement consent for any advertisements which the applicant may wish to display.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is 21 Rose Kiln Lane, a vacant former retail showroom/warehouse, which was last used as a builders merchants. The site contains a 2000 sqm warehouse building with hardsurfacing surrounding it and access onto Rose Kiln Lane. The surrounding area is largely commercial in nature, with a number of car showroom, office and storage and distribution uses along Rose Kiln Lane and the A33. The site immediately to the south is vacant, whilst the site to the north is occupied by a car showroom. To the east (rear) the site is bounded by the River Kennet and to the west by Rose Kiln Lane with the A33 beyond.
1.2 The applicant currently occupies a smaller site along Bridgewater Close. If planning permission is granted for the development, the applicant is seeking to complete construction of this larger building by summer 2015.
123
Site Plan (not to scale)
124
2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 Full planning permission 140542 was granted for the demolition of existing warehouse and erection of a new retail warehouse with associated storage, car parking and landscaping in July 2014. The permission was subject to a number of planning conditions, including pre-commencement conditions (conditions precedent).
2.2 The development as granted under 140542 has not commenced, but the applicant has confirmed that they would wish to begin demolition (which is included within the definition of a ‘material operation’ and would constitute commencement of the development) works as soon as possible, and that the presence of asbestos within the existing building requires removal by a specialist contractor and will therefore take longer than a standard demolition and clearance. In order to facilitate this, the applicant has a submitted an application to amend the wording of the pre-commencement conditions placed on the consent (conditions 5, 9, 19, 20, 22 and 24) to enable demolition works to be undertaken prior to the discharge of these conditions.
2.3 The applicant has proposed alternative conditions, which would have the same result as the current conditions attached to 140542, but would allow demolition to take place before any pre-commencement conditions would be required to be discharged.
2.3 In addition, the applicant is proposing to amend the wording of condition 17, which relates to the BREEAM Assessment to enable a different rating to be achieved under that condition. Again, the applicant has proposed an alternative condition.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
- 140542 - Demolition of the existing warehouse and the erection of a new retail warehouse (use class A1) with associated storage, car
125 parking and landscaping. Permitted 02/07/2014. - 140298 - Screening Opinion relating to the demolition of 21, Rose Kiln Lane, Reading and the erection of a new retail warehouse (Use Class A1) with associated storage, car parking and landscaping. Observations sent (Not EIA development). - 991460 - Application for a Certificate of Lawful Existing Use for premises as warehouse for the purpose of storage, ancillary retail and trade distribution of building products including the use of the forecourt for open storage. Withdrawn.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory Consultation
Environment Agency: No comments received. Any comments will be reported at your meeting.
(ii) Non Statutory Consultation
RBC Ecology: No objections.
RBC Natural Environment: No objections.
RBC Transport: No objections.
RBC Environmental Health: No objections.
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
Letters were sent to: Reading Audi, BP, Babcock House, Kilnbrook House, 23, 25 Rose Kiln Lane; Katesgrove Children’s Centre Elgar Road. No comments were received.
A site notice was also posted.
5.0 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:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
126 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008. Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) Policy CS2 (Waste Minimisation) Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) Policy CS10 (Location of Employment Development) Policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses) Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) Policy CS35 (Flooding) Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) Policy CS37 (Major Landscape Features and Strategic Open Space) Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) Policy DM2 (Decentralised Energy) Policy DM3 (Infrastructure) Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) Policy DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) Policy DM14 (Impact of Main Town Centre Uses) Policy DM17 (Green Network)
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents ‘S106 Planning Obligations’ (2013) ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ (2011) 'Revised Sustainable Design and Construction' (2011)
6.0 APPRAISAL
Main considerations
(i) Principle of Development
6.1 The application site benefits from planning permission for the erection of a new retail warehouse under application reference 140542; this current application seeks to amend conditions attached to that consent. There is no objection to the carrying out of the development without complying with Conditions 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 in principle, subject to satisfactory replacement conditions.
6.2 Were this permission granted, the standard three year time limit for the commencement of the development would run from the date that 140542 was granted permission i.e. 02/07/2014 and condition 1 has been amended to reflect this.
(ii) Conditions 5, 9, 19, 20, 22 and 24
127 6.3 Conditions 5, 9, 19, 20, 22 and 24 currently require the pre- commencement submission and approval of:
- 5 – hard and soft landscaping details - 9 – boundary treatment details - 19 – a land gas site investigation - 20 – land gas mitigation - 22 – contamination investigation - 24 – surface water disposal details
6.4 Whilst the applicant accepts the requirement for the conditions, they have submitted this S73 application to enable the details to be approved after demolition, but before any other development takes place. This would therefore enable demolition of the existing building to be carried out in advance of these conditions being discharged.
6.5 In relation to the requirement to provide landscaping and boundary treatment details prior to the commencement of development, the Council’s Natural Environment Officer and Ecologist have confirmed that there is no objection to the proposal on landscaping grounds, subject to a condition requiring the submission and approval of the details prior to construction works. Likewise, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that there is no objection to the proposal on environmental grounds, subject to the imposition of satisfactory alternative conditions. Accordingly, subject to the imposition of conditions 5, 9, 19, 20, 22 and 24 as worded in the recommendation above, the proposal would not conflict with planning policy and there is no objection to the application.
(iii) Condition 17
6.6 Condition 17 requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved BREEAM Assessment submitted with the application, which showed that the development would achieve a rating of 65.6%. Having undertaken further detailed design work since the grant of permission, the applicant considers it unlikely that this figure could be met. The Council’s policy requirement is that major non-residential developments meet a BREEAM rating of 62.5% (halfway between ‘Very Good’ and ‘Excellent’), which the applicant considers can be met. Accordingly, it is considered that the development would accord with Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Core Strategy, subject to a condition as per the recommendation above to ensure that the development meets a score of 62.5%.
(iv) Other Issues
Planning Conditions
6.7 Were this application granted, a new separate planning permission for the whole development would be granted. Therefore, all other conditions of the original planning permission (140542), need to be re- imposed (plus the conditions as amended under this application) This approach is set out in the recommendation above.
Equality Act 2010
128 6.11 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, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.
6.12 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 It is considered that the applicant has provided a reasoned justification for the application. The Council’s Ecologist, Natural Environment Officers and Environmental Health Officers have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to replacement conditions.
7.2 It is recommended that the application be granted subject to the imposition of planning conditions, including amended Conditions 5, 9, 17, 19, 20, 22 and 24 and the imposition of all other conditions attached to 140542.
Case Officer: Justin Turvey.
129
130
131
132 PARK
133 134 COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014
Ward: Park App No.: 07/00741/FUL Address: Land at Green Road, Reading. Proposal: Construction of 2, 3 and 4 storey residential accommodation comprising 33 apartments, 6 detached houses, 34 semi-detached houses and 20 terraced houses (including 8 affordable semi-detached houses and 3 terraced houses) (re-submission of 07/00369/FUL).
RECOMMENDATION
Delegate to the Head of Planning and Regulatory Services to undertake and complete a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 legal agreement associated with planning permission 07/00741/FUL in order to:
Delete requirement to : • provide a footpath in the playing fields linking Green Road to the playing fields and replace with: • A financial contribution of £80,000 to go towards the provision of footpath/cycle path improvements within the vicinity of the Alfred Sutton Playing Fields. Payment of the financial contribution to be made on completion of the Deed of Variation.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The above planning application was granted planning permission, following consideration by the Planning Application Committee, subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, which was completed on 19th September 2007.
1.2 The development has been built out and is occupied but the detailed requirements for a footpath/cyclepath along the eastern edge of the playing field have not been resolved. This is due to the changes to other sites around the playing fields including the change to the college, the Alfred Sutton School expansion, the possible Free School proposal and the Mosque site which has given cause to reconsider the purpose of the pathway.
1.3 In the meantime the developer is left in a situation where through no fault by them the obligation remains unmet.
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The applicant is seeking a relaxation of the legal (S106) agreement to allow the obligation be met by way of a financial contribution made payable to the Council to provide for a new pathway or to improve existing footpaths within the vicinity of the site.
135 Plan showing possible route of foot/cycle path
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Non statutory consultations • Transport Strategy
3.2 Public consultation None required
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY
4.1 Reading LDF Core Strategy 2008 CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS20: Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The concept of a new pathway to link the new residential development on the east side of the site to and across the playing
136 field was seen as a benefit when considering the original application and it was accepted that the best way to achieve this would be to require the developer to provide the path as part of the construction works on the residential site.
5.2 However, as described above, with changes to other uses around the playing fields it was unclear if the intentioned path would be the best approach. Concerns have also been expressed by the primary school for the safety of children if the public were to be encouraged to use the footpath to cross the playing field. Discussions have not resolved this matter but the developer is keen to be able to sign off all of the obligations in the legal agreement.
5.3 Based on the estimated cost of providing a pathway as shown on their submitted drawings and specifications officers and the developer have agreed that £80,000 would be an acceptable contribution towards providing this pathway or making improvements to other existing paths in the area. This financial contribution would be in accordance with the Council's S106 SPG ‘Planning Obligations Under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’, and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 as otherwise the development would fail to make adequate provision towards the identified infrastructure needs of the Borough, contrary to Core Strategy Policies CS9:(Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS20 (Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy).
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 In light of the above as this requested variation to the Section 106 agreement is not contrary to policy and there are no other land use issues associated with the requested change Members are advised to approve the recommendation above.
Case Officer: Julie Williams
137 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12th November 2014
Ward: Park App No.: 141428 App Type: FULL Address: 44 College Road, Reading, RG6 1QB Proposal: Retrospective Change of use from C3 to C4, changing an existing 4/5 bedroom house to six bedroom HMO with en-suites. Applicant: Mr. Alan Wick Date valid: 4th September 2014 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 30th October 2014 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 10/03/2015
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRANT planning permission. Conditions to include:
Standard 1. TL1 - Full - time limit - three years 2. Cycle storage details 3. Bin storage details 4. No parking permits 5. Communal use of lounge and dining area as shown on approved drawing to be retained for communal use at all times.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE:
1. Terms and Conditions 2. Environmental Health Licence 3. Building Regulations 4. No parking permits 5. Requirement for Planning Permission for a Large Sui Generis HMO 6. Positive and Proactive
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is a traditional Victorian semi-detached three storey property to the east of Reading with original decorative brickwork and other features. It has a large rear garden and an enclosed paved area to the front bounded by a wall and low railing above.
1.2 At the time of the site visit (9th October 2014) the house had already been converted to a six bedroom letting house and was being actively marketed (as a seven bed) with some rooms already let and occupied.
1.3 There are a number of existing HMOs in the road along with a block of flats, Day Nursery, Cranbury College and a Nursing Home. There is on-street parking, with a few houses with their own off-road parking. It was evident
138 from the site visit that the road is very well used for parking, with few, if any, spaces available.
1.4 The application was called in by Councillor Rob White.
2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 The retrospective change of use from a five bedroom C3 dwellinghouse to a C4 small HMO of 6 bedrooms each with ensuite bathroom. The change of use involved the refurbishment of the property, but no additional extensions or changes to the external appearance of the house.
2.2 The application site is within the Article 4 Direction Area, which restricts the permitted change of use from C3 dwellinghouse to C4 small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).
2.3 The following plans and supporting documents were submitted with the application, all received 4th September 2014:
Site Location and Block Plan - Drawing no: A-1000 Rev A Existing and Proposed Floor Plans – Drawing no: A-1010 Rev A Existing and Proposed Elevations – Drawing no: A-1015 Rev A Proposed Landscape – Drawing no: A-1200 Rev A
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
None
139 4. CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory
None.
(ii) Non-statutory
Building Control – No response received.
Transport – Given the proposal would not increase the demand for on-site park over and above the existing permitted use, there are no transport objections on parking grounds. Transport suggested a condition regarding appropriate bicycle storage.
It should be noted that there is Council approval for a residents’ car parking permit scheme (not yet implemented). A proposed condition and informative restricting car parking permits for residents of the HMO is included.
Environmental Health – No objection to this conversion.
(iii) Public/ local consultation and comments received
No. 42 & 46 College Road were consulted. 37 no. objections were received, all residents of College Road, and in summary the issues raised are as follows:
• Overdevelopment of the road and property- College Road is being overdeveloped e.g. nursery school, flats, school – lot of use of the road and pavements; The street cannot take the extra traffic and people. • Inadequate waste facilities and sanitary disposal - The renovations do not appear to have increased the efficiency of the existing drainage system which dates to the 1880; Residents have already experienced drainage problems; No of bins on site is not sufficient to dispose of the waste of a six bedroom home with health and safety hazard and effect on overall appearance (Checklist Item 17 of SPD); Already experience the overflow from existing neighbouring HMOs encouraging rats and foxes. • Parking problems - Pressure on parking which is at saturation; will put an intolerable strain on the already difficult and dangerous level of parking in the road; The application site has no off-roading parking; According to the Council’s transport comments the proposed 6 living spaces will cause no more demand for parking than if the house retained its use as a family home. This is absurd. Even by the Council’s own standards it would have to provide 2.5 spaces, which it does not. We are dismayed that the agreement to proceed with the residents’ parking scheme was not included in the transport comments; Reference to no restrictions for on-street parking is not true. A permit parking scheme has recently been passed; Parking shortage is due to: pick up and drop off for parents of children attending the Day Nursery (No. 8), who are looking to double their size, which will exacerbate the issues, existing HMO residents, residents from HMOs on Wokingham Road, visitors to The Boltons (No. 4), commuters and shoppers. Tenants would need to find alternative parking putting further pressure on surrounding streets. This will create parking problems for the tenants themselves. • Unduly dilute and harm the balance of the street - Loss of a family unit; would fail to meet Checklist Item 3 [of Residential Conversions SPD]; Erosion of nature of the road towards a transient population; will not be able to maintain a
140 sense of community with any more than six HMOs, and three businesses; a danger that the road will lose its character as a family street; Even though there is not 25% HMO presence within 50m radius this fails to consider that the street is relatively short on which an overwhelming number of HMOs currently operate both licensed and unlicensed. Licensed HMOs at 15, 54, 64 and unlicensed at no.1, 9, 13 and possibly no. 15, 48 & no. 11 (pending decision). Major changes at no.66, the scale of which suggests it will be turned into another HMO. In addition there is a Nursing Home, Day Nursery and Cranbury College. These represent over 22% of the 57 properties in the street; Parts of the street are close to the upper limit of 25% imposed by the Council for a 50m radius; Conversion of the property would run counter to the Council’s stated aim of maintaining the supply of family housing; It is possible to form intensive islands of HMOs that would encircle families living in adjoining houses; Granting this will encourage other speculative HMO planning applications, reducing the amount of family housing. • Noise and disturbance - Would fail to meet Checklist Item no.5 regarding noise and disturbance; this would be increased. An increase in the number of occupants has already caused raised noise levels. • No Section 106 - Would fail to meet checklist item no. 19 as there is no plan to compensate for loss or damage created by the development. • Insufficient communal and cooking space for up to 12 people - The application misleadingly refers to 3 communal areas; there are only two. Concerned that the room shown as a living room, is actually a bedroom as it is being advertised as 7 letting rooms. Even if it is kept as a living room the communal facilities are very small. • Fire risk - A seven room HMO introduces criteria for approval including fire safety regulations, that, if ignored, will place current and future tenants at risk. This is three storeys, but with no external fire escape. Therefore fire regulations require an internal route clad in material that will resist fire for up to 30 minutes. There was no evidence during building works that any such cladding was installed. A fire safety inspection should be carried out (Paras 2.51 to 2.53 SPD, 2013) • Conversion took place before permission sought - Developer should have sought approval before advertising the property for 7 (not six) letting rooms. • Not affordable accommodation - Recognise that there is a need of reasonably affordable rented accommodation. However, rooms at £710 per month do not meet the criterion of reasonably affordable. • No sound insulation - Fails to satisfy Checklist 8 regarding sound insulation. Each room will suffer from poor noise insulation from adjacent rooms. Since the conversion there is significant noise interference from next door. It is evident that no attempt has been made to sound insulate the common walls. Also concerned about possible noise levels form 7 tvs and from music centres. Six unrelated tenants are likely to have more visitors than a family would which could exacerbate noise further. • Loss of amenity for other residents - Resulting from poor management which includes lack of maintenance, parking problems, rubbish left in front gardens and rows of wheelie bins permanently left on the pavement. • Not a C4 small HMO - The application is fraudulent; the intent is to convert the Living Room to a seventh bedroom, indeed the letting agency has advertised it as a seven bedroom house. A change of use to C4 is not the right application. They areas marked living room and storage were originally designed as a seventh en-suite bedroom, and are concerned that eventually this might be converted. • Alterations appear to be superficial and not designed to properly maintain the building.
141 • Inappropriate change of use - The houses are still entirely appropriate for a single household occupancy.
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:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) CS18 (Residential Conversions) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM8 (Residential Conversions) DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space)
Supplementary Planning Guidance/ Documents: Residential Conversions SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011)
6. LEGAL CONTEXT
6.1 Reading Borough Council made an Article 4 Direction in May 2012, which came into force on 16th May 2013, which removes permitted development rights to convert from a dwellinghouse (C3 use) to a house in multiple occupation (C4 – small HMO for 3-6 unrelated persons sharing at least one basic amenity) in parts of Redlands, Katesgrove and Park Wards. The application site is within the Article 4 Direction Area.
7. APPRAISAL
7.1 Along with the adopted local planning polices the appraisal of the application has mainly been based on the Adopted Residential Conversions SPD (2013). Section A of the SPD, deals with the ‘General Assessment of all Conversions’ (i.e from C3 dwellinghouses to flats or HMOs (both small C4 use and sui generis HMOs). Section B specifically covers the assessment of applications for HMOs within the area covered by the Article 4 Direction. This application has been considered against both sections. The SPD sets out a number of checklist items and the relevant ones of these have been used to form the basis of the following appraisal.
Main considerations
(i) Whether the conversion of the property to C4 use has resulted in unduly diluting or harming a mixed and sustainable community
142
7.2 Checklist 3 – Does the residential conversion contribute to achieving an appropriately mixed and sustainable community by providing an acceptable housing mix, ensuring that, as appropriate, single family housing remains the dominant form of dwelling in the vicinity of the application site and ensuring there is not detrimental impact on the physical character of the area – YES - The SPD identifies that the ‘tipping point is when the concentration of HMOs becomes over dominant and the community is no longer considered to be mixed and sustainable.’ The SPD defines that “planning permission will not normally be granted where the proportion of HMOs will result in HMOs representing 25% or more or the residential properties within a circle of 50m radius measured from the application site” (para. 5.43). The concentration of HMOs in the area surrounding the application site has been calculated as a percentage of the total estimated number of existing HMOs (C4 or sui generis) against the total number of residential properties, i.e. those falling with C3, C4 or sui generis HMO use. Available data from Environmental Health, Council Tax, extant (unimplemented) permissions for HMOs, and data on sites such as Rightmove, and data held by the Enforcement Team, has been used. The total number of properties within the 50m radius, including the application site, has been calculated as 29. The total number of properties within HMO use, using the above sources of data, is estimated to be 5no. (Including the application site) and therefore the overall percentage is calculated as 17.2%, which is below the threshold of a maximum of 25%. In this regard the principle of the conversion of the application property to a C4 small HMO is considered acceptable.
(ii) The impact on amenity of existing residents of the property and those of nearby properties
7.3 Checklist 4 – Provide an appropriate level of outdoor space? – YES – The existing garden is greater than the gross floor area of the dwelling, and therefore of an acceptable size for six individuals.
7.4 Checklist 5 –Affect privacy and overlooking, access to sunlight and daylight; visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development; noise and disturbance, crime and safety – NO – The proposal does not include any external changes or extensions, so the effects on privacy, access and daylight and visual dominance and overbearing effects are no different to the use of the house as a C3 dwelling. In terms of noise and disturbance the numbers of occupants would be similar to that of a five bedroom house, and potentially fewer.
7.5 There is proposed cycle storage in the rear garden. A condition is recommended that details are to be provided which shows the layout for at least 2 ‘Sheffield’ type stands.
7.6 Checklist 8 – Does the property have appropriate sound insulation between it and the neighbouring units? – NO – There is no evidence that specific sound insulation has been used, however, the level of noise generated from a six person HMO is unlikely to be significantly different to a five bedroom family unit. In terms of Building Regulations requirements specific sound insulation would only be required where independent units were being created.
7.7 Checklist 10 - Do habitable rooms benefit from an external window? – YES.
143
7.8 Checklist 17 – Are there sufficient and suitable refuse containers within the curtilage of the application building? – YES - The application shows a bin store for two bins. Although this would be inadequate for a six person HMO, a condition is recommended requiring further details of additional bin storage more appropriate in scale for a 6 person HMO.
7.9 Checklist 21 – Was Building Control contacted and has a building regulations application been submitted? – YES – There is a current Building Regulations application.
7.10 Checklist 22 - The HMO team should be contacted about Environmental Health matters – The property would require an HMO licence as it is 3 storeys and has 5 or more occupants. A proposed informative is included to this effect.
7.11 Checklist 25 – Is there one communal room per 4-6 bedrooms? – YES - There is a lounge and dining room.
(iii) Whether the property is of a suitable size and type to be converted
7.12 Checklist 7 – Meet the adopted minimum internal floorspace standards [set out in Appendix 1 of the SPD as bedroom minimum of 6.5sqm; kitchen minimum 7sqm] – YES – all of the bedrooms are greater than 6.5sqm, and the kitchen is 8.75sqm.
(iv) Effect on car/ cycle parking
7.13 Checklist 14 – HMOs located within a street where a residents’ parking permit scheme operates will not be entitled to on-street car parking permits – Transport raised no objection to the proposed conversion. There is an approved residents’ parking permit scheme. Although the scheme is not currently in operation it is proposed to include a condition and informative regarding the restriction on car parking permits for HMOs.
7.14 Checklist 16 - Is there the provision of secure outdoor cycle storage? – YES – there is a proposed cycle storage area in the rear garden. A condition is proposed that details are provided which show the layout for at least 2 ‘Sheffield’ type stands.
7.15 There is proposed cycle storage in the rear garden. A condition is proposed that details are to be provided which shows the layout for at least 2 ‘Sheffield’ type stands.
(v) Other Matters
Equality Act and Human Rights Act
7.16 In determining these applications the Committee 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, and sexual orientation. 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.
144
7.17 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
Other issues raised by public comments – fire safety; inadequate drainage; not a C4 HMO proposal; No Section 106 provided
7.18 Issues regarding fire safety and drainage are matters which would be addressed through Building Control and Environmental Health. Informatives are proposed regarding the need to seek other relevant approvals.
7.19 The proposal is for a C4 HMO as it is for a six person HMO. If the numbers increased then permission would need to be sought for a change of use to a large Sui Generis HMO. An informative is proposed which deals with this issue.
7.20 Section 106 is only sought to compensate for loss or damage created by a development and mitigate any impact caused. Transport requested no Section 106 contribution.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposed development for the change of use from a C3 dwellinghouse to C4 small HMO for 6 persons is considered acceptable in planning terms and for the reasons given above.
8.2 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.
Case Officer: Alison Amoah
145
146 REDLANDS
147 148 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014
Ward: Redlands App No.: 141324/FUL and 141325/LBC Address: Reading School Proposal: Demolition of existing chemistry building and firing range to allow the erection of a new two storey science block and associated services and landscaping, including temporary classrooms and temporary construction vehicle access off Addington Road for the duration of construction. The existing chemistry building is within the curtilage of a listed building and is connected to this listed building by a glazed link. A new glazed link will be built joining the two buildings. Applicant: Reading School Date received: 18 August 2014 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 17 November 2014 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 13 October 2014 26 week Planning Guarantee date: 16 February 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Grant both applications.
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE (141324/FUL)
1. TL01 – Full time limit (3 years). 2. NSTD – Approved Plans. 3. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No works in relation to construction shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement, including a schedule of any tree works required and a timetable of arboricultural supervision, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement. 5. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include: (a)hard surfacing materials, structures and ancillary objects (refuse bins, lighting columns etc); and (b)proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes etc); and (c)planting plans; tree pit details; a timetable for implementation; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/planting densities where appropriate. 6. The hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out before any of the development is occupied or in accordance with a timescale which has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be
149 replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. 7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to provide for:
(A) The parking of vehicles and site operatives and visitors – to be shown on a Plan not less than 1.500. (B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500 (C) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500 (D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding if required. (E) Wheel washing facilities (F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads during construction. (G) Footpath Closures /Road Closures needed during construction (H) Traffic Management needed during construction. (I) Times, routes and means of access into and from the site for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the removal of waste from the site and methods of preventing deposition of materials on the public highway). The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 8. The combined operation of plant equipment associated with the development shall not exceed 31dBA in the day and 21dBA at night as measures at the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises. 9. In the event that contamination not previously identified is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, development must be halted on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Following that an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The measures in the approved remediation scheme must then be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10. No development shall take place before a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise and dust emanating from the site during the demolition and construction phase. Thereafter, the use shall not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. 11. The hours of noisy construction, demolition and associated deliveries shall be restricted to the hours of 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Mondays to Fridays, and 09:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays without prior approval from the Local Planning Authority. 12. No materials or green waste produced as a result of the clearance of the site, demolition works or construction works associated with the development hereby approved shall be burnt on site. 13. The temporary classrooms hereby permitted shall be removed from site no later than 3 years from the date of permission or 6 months from the first occupation of the building, whichever is soonest.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE (141324/FUL):
150 1. Standard positive and proactive informative. 2. Standard conditions precedent informative. 3. The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to damage caused by extraordinary traffic. 4. Any works affecting the highway shall be in accordance with Reading Borough’s Council’s document “Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway within the Borough of Reading”. The applicant should be made aware that compliance with this document is mandatory and licences to work on the highway will only be issued if the requirements contained within it are met. A copy can be obtained at http://www.reading.gov.uk/ltp/General.asp?id=SX9452-A782F664 (within the Transport Strategy area of the Transport Section on the Reading Borough Web Site).
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE (141325/LBC):
1. Standard 3 year commencement.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE (141325/LBC):
1. Standard approved plans informative. 2. Standard positive and proactive informative.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is located within the wider Reading School campus, and is situated to the south of the main school building. The listed Physics Building is located to the west of the site, with a single storey building to the east used for the teaching of Biology. Residential dwellings are located to the east of the site, and to the south, on the far side of Addington Road. The site is located close to the boundary of the Alexandra Road Conservation Area.
151
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The applications are for the demolition of an existing building currently in use for Chemistry lessons, and the erection of a new 2 storey science block. The existing building has a floor area of 279 square metres and the proposed building will have a floor area of 1,105 square metres.
2.2 The proposal also includes the provision of a temporary classroom unit containing two classrooms.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
• 101979 (10/02101/FUL). New refectory and toilet refurbishment. Granted. • 091903 (09/01866/REG3). Erection of a single-storey modular building for use as workshop. Conversion of existing workshop back into classrooms.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Statutory:
• No statutory consultations were required given the nature of the application.
4.2 Non-statutory:
• Transport Development Control – no objections subject to conditions • Environmental Health - no objections subject to conditions • Natural Environment Officer - no objections subject to conditions • Ecologist - Comments are awaited – an update will be given at your meeting
4.3 Public consultation:
152
• 10 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by officers. The consultation period expired on 18 September 2014. No representations were received.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
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'.
The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework
Part 7 – Requiring good design Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
5.2 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy
CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
5.4 Sites and Detailed Policies Document
SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters)
6. APPRAISAL
Main Issues
6.1 The main issues are: i. The principle of development ii. Demolition of chemistry building iii. Design iv. Temporary building v. Impact on neighbours vi. Transport implications
Principle of development
6.2 The National Planning Policy Statement states that planning authorities should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools.
6.3 DCLG issued a joint statement by the Secretary of State for Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education in 2011 entitled
153 ‘Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development’, which is material to the consideration of this application. This states, inter alia:
The Government believes that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals for the creation, expansion and alteration of state-funded schools, and that the following principles should apply with immediate effect:
- There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. - Local authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state-funded schools in their planning decisions. - Local authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state-funded schools applications. - Local authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. - Local authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible. - A refusal of any application for a state-funded school, or the imposition of conditions, will have to be clearly justified by the local planning authority. - Appeals against any refusals of planning permission for state- funded schools should be treated as a priority. - Where a local planning authority refuses planning permission for a state-funded school, the Secretary of State will consider carefully whether to recover for his own determination appeals against the refusal of planning permission.
6.4 Policy CS31 states that, “Proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable…”. The preamble to this policy confirms that education facilities at all levels constitute community facilities. A target for this policy is for a net increase in the overall amount of floor space for education activities. The proposal involves the increase in floorspace dedicated to educational purposes, and will improve the facilities available to the school.
6.5 The principle of this development is therefore supported by national and local planning policy.
Demolition of chemistry building
6.6 The chemistry building was constructed in the 1950s. It is connected by a small glazed link to the listed Physics Building, and is therefore technically listed itself. Nonetheless, it is a plain, functional building that pays no particular regard to the listed building. Furthermore the applicant has confirmed that it has not aged well and is inadequate for the purposes of teaching science. Its shortcomings include undersized classrooms that lack space for manoeuvrability during experiments and an inadequate number of laboratories to meet demand for practical science lessons.
154 6.7 The demolition of the chemistry building is therefore considered to enhance the setting of adjacent listed buildings, as well as enabling the school to improve facilities for the teaching of science.
Design
6.8 The proposed building will be two storeys in height, with the first floor accommodation partially positioned within the roof space. The roof will be clad in a standing seam sheet material which the applicant has confirmed could be either copper, zinc or aluminium. The lower level of the roof will be at the same height of the eaves on the Physics Building.
6.9 The principal elevation is considered to be the north elevation, that which faces into the school grounds. The elevation facing Addington Road, whilst also an important consideration, will be largely obscured by existing trees. The first floor window openings in the north elevation will extend across the wall and part of the roof slope, reflecting a similar design on the adjoining Physics Building. The original design proposed a continuous roof vent along the top of the building. Whilst recognising that these features performed an important function as part of the passive ventilation system, officers were concerned that they had a heavy, dominating appearance. The current plans indicate these vents would be separated and made smaller, breaking up their bulk and giving them proportions more closely related to a chimney, or the cupola on the physics building.
6.10 The plans originally submitted by the applicant indicated large areas of glazing to the ground floor. Officers considered that the proportions of the ground floor, and the visual relationship with the Physics Building, would be improved if there were less glazing. The plans now indicate a greater amount of brickwork.
6.11 The proposed building will be connected to the Physics Building by a partially glazed link, which will also serve as the main entrance for both buildings. This will have a minimal impact on the historic fabric of the building and its patterned brickwork and brick detailing will remain visible. A couple of conservation style rooflights will be installed in the section of the Physics Building closest to the link.
6.12 Whilst the proposed building would be taller than the Physics Building, the sloping back of the roof will minimize its visual impact. Furthermore, when considered on a site wide basis, the new building will remain significantly smaller than, and subservient to, the main school building, which is considered to be the principle building on site.
6.13 In summary the new building is considered to be a sensitive addition to the site and is considered to comply with the NPPF and adopted local policies. Given the importance of the materials it is recommended that a condition is attached requiring details to be submitted and approved.
Temporary building
6.14 The proposal includes the provision of a temporary classroom unit containing two classrooms to ensure adequate teaching space during the demolition and construction works. This unit will be located to the north of
155 two prominent plane trees. The Council’s Natural Environment Officer has raised no objections to this aspect of the proposal.
6.15 It is recommended that a condition is attached to the permission requiring the removal of the temporary classrooms 3 years from the date of permission or 6 months from the first occupation of the building, whichever is soonest.
Impact on neighbours
6.16 The proposed building will be 11 metres from the boundary of the nearest residential dwelling (7 Addington Road) and 14 metres from the house itself. This distance is sufficient to ensure there will be no detrimental impact on the occupants of this dwelling as a result of loss of light or privacy.
6.17 A noise assessment has been submitted by the applicant which indicates that plant noise will not have a detrimental impact on nearby neighbours. The Council’s Environmental Protection Department have confirmed that this is acceptable and can be secured by condition.
Transport Implications
6.18 The applicant has confirmed that the proposal represents the improvement of facilities for the teaching of science and is not being used to accommodate an increase in student numbers or teaching staff. The Council’s Transport Strategy Section are satisfied that the proposal will not result in an increase in trips to the site, or the need for additional car parking.
Equalities impact assessment
6.19 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, sexual orientation. 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.
6.20 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant national and local planning policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to suitable conditions.
Case Officer: Ben Pratley
156 Block Plan:
North and south elevations:
157 Sketch of proposed view from playground:
Sketch of link between proposed building and listed Physics Building:
158 SOUTHCOTE
159 160 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 16 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12th November 2014
Ward: Southcote App No.: 141380/REG3 Address: Southcote Primary School, Silchester Road, Reading Proposal: Two new build teaching block extensions (one part two-storey, one single storey), extension to front of school plus associated external works including new staff car park and new pedestrian accesses from Shepley Drive and Silchester Road. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date validated: 27th August 2014 Other Application: 13 week target decision date: 26th November 2014 26 week date: 26th February 2015
RECOMMENDATION
RESOLVE to consult the Secretary of State on the application and supporting papers in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009; AND
Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatoryrvices Se to GRANT Planning Permission subject to receipt of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking in the event that: i) the Secretary of State decides not to call in the application for 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 expires.
Unilateral Undertaking to be received by29 th December 2014 or (ii) REFUSE permission should the Unilateral Undertaking not be received by 29th December 2014 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement). The Unilateral Undertaking shall secure the following in respect of:
• Transport – A financial contribution of £92,593.20 which will be used towards schemes identified in the South Western and Central action plan areas of this Authority’s Local Transport Plan, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities). Payable on implementation and index linked from the date of issue of planning permission.
Conditions to include: 1. Time limit – 3 years 2. Materials 3. Approved Plans 4. Access constructed before development 5. Vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans 6. Bicycle storage (pre-com) 7. Construction Management Statement (pre-com) 8. Travel Plan to be submitted (pre-occupation) 9. Annual Review of the Travel Plan 10. Hours of working 11. No Bonfires
161 12. Arboricultural Method Statement (pre-com) 13. Development in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement 14. Hard and soft landscaping details (pre-com) 15. Implementation of approved landscaping proposals 16. Replacement planting within 5 years 17. In accordance with Sustainability Statement
Informatives to include:
1. Pre-commencement conditions 2. S106 Agreement 3. Terms and conditions of permission 4. Building Regulations 5. Construction and demolition 6. S278 / Small Works Agreements 7. Damage to the highway 8. Works affecting the highway 9. Surface Water Drainage 10. Public sewers 11. Petrol/oil interceptors 12. Water infrastructure capacity 13. Sprinklers 14. Environment Agency 15. Birds, nests and eggs 16. Updating Rainbow Plan 17. Positive and proactive
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is located as shown on the plan below. The site slopes down from north to south and particularly steeply along the north site boundary. There are some attractive trees around the boundary of the site. The school buildings are mainly single storey with brick and tile hung elevations and flat roofs although the junior wing is two storey providing four classrooms on the first floor. The buildings are sited on the western part of the site and the school has two pedestrian entrances and a vehicular access at the western end of Silchester Road. A covered swimming pool is located to the rear of the school which is let for swimming lessons (during school hours) and is accessed via the school playground. The school does not have community use but does have breakfast and after school clubs.
Site plan not to scale
162 2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The application is for a two storey teaching block to link with the central area of the school. The single storey extension for ancillary accommodation would wrap around the front of the existing school. The total new build has a floor area of approximately 1,055m2 and provides 7 classrooms, group working spaces, new library, toilets and storage. The proposal also involves the remodelling of hard play areas and a new car park providing 43 spaces for staff parking. Visitor and disabled parking spaces are provided near the main entrance.
2.2 Reading has a rising demand for Primary School places and Southcote Primary School has been identified for expansion. The extension will enable the school to expand from a 2 form of entry (420 pupils) to a 3 form of entry (630 pupils). The school currently has 54 full time equivalent staff which is anticipated to increase to 81 full time equivalent staff. The school has already commenced its expansion to deal with the immediate demand for places. An additional Year Reception class opened in September 2013. This was accommodated within the existing building and allowed the number of pupils to rise to 425.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
09/00275/REG3 (091210) - Construction of 2 single-storey extensions. Permitted 02/04/2009.
11/01642/REG3 (111760) - Installation of pool building (polycarbonate housing type) over the open air swimming pool. Permitted 16/04/2012.
12/00075/REG3 (120997) - Installation of roof mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. Permitted 09/02/2012.
12/00729/APPCON (121183) - Discharge of condition 4 of planning permission 11/01642/REG3. Condition discharged 21/05/2012.
13/00642/REG3 (130648) - Installation of a lean to canopy to modular classroom unit. Permitted 03/07/2013.
163 4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Statutory:
Environment Agency – advised the application is deemed to have a low environmental risk and does not wish to comment as the site is less than 1 hectare.
Sport England – It is understood that the site forms part of, or constitutes a playing field as defined in The Townand Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (Statutory Instrument 2010 No. 2184). The consultation is therefore statutory and Sport England has considered the application in the light of the National Planning Policy ork Framew (in particular Par 74) and its policy to protect playing fields, ‘A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England. Essentially Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one of 5 exceptions applies: Summary of Exceptions E1 An assessment has demonstrated that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment and the site has no special significance for sport E2 The Development is ancillary to the principal use of the playing field and does not affect the quantity/quality of pitches E3 The Development only affects land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and would lead to no loss of ability to use/size of playing pitch E4 Playing field lost would be replaced, equivalent or better in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility E5 The proposed development is for an indoor/outdoor sports facility of sufficient benefit to sport to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of playing field It is proposed to extend Southcote Primary School. To accommodate the new teaching block, it is proposed to relocate part of the school’s existing MUGA onto the playing field. It is also proposed to locate a new car park on the school’s playing field. This will result in a loss of playing field.
Sport England’s pre-application advice covered the following issues;
Relocation of part of the MUGA onto the playing field The location of a MUGA onto a playing field may have the potential to meet Exception 5 of our Playing Fields Policy (see above). However, before Sport England is able to conclude this, further information is required that will demonstrate that the proposed development will be of sufficient benefit to sport to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of playing field. For example, will the replacement facility be a fenced MUGA or AGP, built in line with Sport England design guidance and made available for use by the community? Would the School be prepared to enter into a community use agreement to enable community use of the playing fields and MUGAs?
Location of the car park on the playing field The Applicant has explained that the car park will be positioned on an under- utilised part of the school playing field. This is because this area of the playing field slopes. For Sport England to accept that the car park in this location meets E3 of our Playing Fields Policy which states;
164 E3 - The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the site.
We require information that identifies clearly the degree to which this area of the playing field slopes. The Applicant has provided a plan showing the slope however this should also identify the degree of slope. Sport England’s design guidance, Natural Turf for Sport states that a playing field should be no steeper than 1:80 – 100 along the line of play and 1:40-1:50 across the line of play. How much change would be required to level this area for sport?
In light of the above, Sport England objects to the proposal because is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy.
Should your Council be minded to grant planning permission for the development then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, and the National Planning Policy Guidance the application should be referred to the National Planning Casework Unit.
Office for Nuclear Regulation – do not advise against this application provided that the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council, which has responsibility for the AWE Burghfield Off-site Emergency Plan under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001, are consulted with regard to this application and that they subsequently do not raise any objection to the granting of planning permission on the grounds that it may adversely effect the implementation of this off-site emergency plan.
Royal Berkshire Fire And Rescue Service – advised no additional fire hydrants are required. They advised access requirements for Fire Fighting are to meet the functional requirements of the Building Regulations 1991 and the relevant provisions of the Berkshire Act. Any gates required for emergency access should provide a minimum of 3.1m clear opening. An informative advising sprinklers should be fitted is recommended.
Southern Gas Networks - no comments at the time of writing.
SSE Power Distribution - no comments at the time of writing.
4.2 Non-statutory:
Development Control Transport - The proposed development consists of two new build teaching block extensions (one part two-storey, one single storey), extension to front of school plus associated works including new staff car park and new pedestrian accesses from Shepley Drive and Silchester Road. The proposed extensions will allow for the school to expand from a 2 form entry to a 3 form entry, increasing the schools capacity from 420 to 630 pupils. The application has been accompanied with a Transport Statement; a school travel plan has currently not been provided but I am happy for this to be dealt with by way of a condition.
The survey of the pupils and the staff has concluded that the proposal will generate an increase of 54 pupil drop off / pick up trips by the private car and
165 20 staff vehicle trips. However, increasing the number of pedestrian accesses surrounding the site will help disperse the current on street parking but also may encourage some of the residents located in south east Southcote to walk to the school as the access will be considerably closer than it is now. The school will also need to update its school travel plan which will encourage alternative methods to the private car; this will therefore help reduce the level of on street parking surrounding the school.
For information, Members at the Traffic Management Sub Committee in March 2014 approved the strategy document “School Expansion and Sustainable Travel in Reading”. This document details the requirements for all the schools in the expansion programme (including Southcote) on how to update their Travel Plans to ensure that parents and pupils come to the school by sustainable modes and do not add to the existing congestion issues. As such a condition to upgrade the travel plan will be required to ensure that the schools do undertake this and implement the requirements of the document. The travel plan should promote walking and cycling and the use of walking buses, where groups of children are met at a safe location and then walked to school.
The schools current car park is insufficient and accommodates only 18 spaces, the proposed development increases the car parking provision to 47 spaces, an increase of 29 spaces. The Councils Parking Standards and Design SPD requests a maximum car parking provision for the site of 1 space per Full Time Equivalent, however as part of this application we can only consider the proposed increase. The proposed staff levels have been confirmed as being an increase of 27 FTE staff therefore the 29 car parking spaces proposed are above this required level. I would also add that the staff travel survey concluded that only 69% of staff currently drive, if this percentage or similar were to continue with the new staff then the extra car parking proposed is likely to reduce a proportion of staff on street parking that currently occurs.
All of the proposed car parking spaces are to the correct dimensions and are provided with sufficient forecourt depth.
To accommodate these additional spaces a new car park is proposed at the north eastern boundary of the site. Access to this car park is to be gained from a new vehicular entrance located within close proximity to the Silchester Road / Faircross Road junction. A revised drawing (see below) has now been submitted that illustrates the access in the form of bellmouth with 6m radii on the western side and 1m radii on the eastern side, this has been deemed acceptable given that this is to be used for access only. A replacement give way line on the eastern section of Silchester Road has been illustrated and deemed acceptable.
166
The exit from this car park is to be off the roundabout at the end of Silchester Road and is also to be in the form of bellmouth with 6m radii on the western side and 1m radii on the eastern side. (See plan above). This has also been deemed acceptable given that this will not require vehicles to travel around the roundabout but turn left off the roundabout straight onto Silchester Road heading west.
It is intended to be a one way system but as the access and egress are to be approximately 4.1m in width they would be sufficient for two-way traffic and so could be used for emergency vehicles. The radii for both the access and egress have been designed to further demonstrate the one-way system.
Out of hours parking is currently not provided for the swimming pool and this is to continue following development. As this is the current arrangement this will not worsen the existing situation.
Cycle parking has been proposed and the provision of an additional 23 cycle spaces have been proposed. The required provision is a ratio of 1 space per 5 Full Time Equivalent staff equating to 5 spaces and 1 space per 15 pupils (years 1-3) equating to 7 spaces and 1 space per 10 pupils (years 4-6) equating to 11 spaces. This provision of cycle parking is to be in addition to the existing 60 cycle spaces and following a review of the submitted plans I can only see that a provision of 70 cycle spaces are proposed. This illustrated provision cycle parking also appear not to be provided with 1m centres as per the Councils Parking Standards and Design SPD, a revised drawing should therefore be submitted that illustrates the full amount of required cycle spaces and that all are in accordance with the Councils specifications. I am however happy for this to be dealt with by way of a condition.
The Construction Method Statement has been submitted to accompany the planning application and I can confirm that this is acceptable.
167 In accordance with Section 5 (Transport) of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on planning obligations, November 2013, developments will be expected to contribute to wider and strategic transport improvements in relation to roads, public transport, and facilities for cycling and pedestrians. In accordance with the SPD a sum of £126,840 (210 pupil trips x 2 x £302) should be payable. However details from the school of sibling make up shows that 44% of the pupils at the school have siblings with these siblings living at 27% of households going to the school. Given therefore that it is likely that 27% of new pupils will have siblings at the school and their parents will already be taking children to the school, the figure can be reduced by 27% as these will be linked trips and not new trips. The contribution will therefore be £92,593.20 (£126,840 – 27%) and will be used towards schemes identified in the South Western and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan.
Building Control - a Building Regulations application is required.
Natural Environment Trees – have no objections to the proposals subject to conditions as listed above.
The Arboriculture Impact Assessment is fine in principle but specific details are required – the consultant should be provided with service plans in order include any conflicts in the Arboriculture Method Statement.
Indicative landscaping is provided but details are required, including tree pit specification. It would be beneficial to include a few new trees on the frontage between the access and Maple (T32) to help screen the new building.
Berkshire Archaeology - advised that the applicant has undertaken a programme of exploratory trial trenching to establish the likely archaeological implications of the proposed development at the site. A copy of the report on the results of the exploratory trial trenching, prepared by Thames Valley Archaeological Services (Report 14/156, dated August 2014), accompanied the planning application. The report confirms the limited archaeological potential of the area of the proposed development. There are therefore no archaeological implications from this proposed development.
Environmental Health raised no objection subject to conditions relating to hours of working and no bonfires.
Thames Water – raised no objection subject to informatives being used.
Reading Borough Council Leisure and Recreation – raised no objection.
Reading Borough Council Ecology – raised no objection subject to an informative advising about vegetation clearance.
Reading Borough Council Valuation Team – no comments at the time of writing.
Reading Borough Council Emergency Planner – advised that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on the responding agencies and the AWE Off-site plan and would therefore not advise against the approval of this application subject to an informative advising the school to request that its Schools Emergency Response Plan (Rainbow Plan) should be updated to ensure that it covers in detail how the school should shelter in such a scenario, and that the school trains its staff in these processes.
168 Thames Valley Police – no comments at the time of writing.
Waste Operations Manager – no comments at the time of writing.
British Telecoms – no comments at the time of writing.
4.3 Public consultation:
Properties at Charing Court and all properties on Silchester Road, 7-12 (all) Kintbury Walk, 1, 2 and 8 Faircross Road, 61 Circuit Lane, 44 Stapleford Road, 19 and 21 Barn Close and 17, 39-73 (o) Shepley Drive were consulted. By the end of the consultation period there had been 5 objections sent in relating to:
1. There are already problems along Silchester Road with speeding cars, parents blocking driveways and being abusive when asked to move and a bigger school will make the situation worse. Silchester Road should be closed and should be for residents only. 2. No objection to the school expanding or the additional staff car park but object to the proposed pedestrian entrance from Shepley Drive as this will increase the number of parents parking along this road which is already under pressure from residents parking creating a bottle neck of vehicles as Shepley Drive is a dead end road creating a potentially dangerous situation. 3. Working shift patterns will mean there will be difficulty leaving driveway. There are already problems with children sitting and standing on property wall and the road is small and busy enough without adding more problems. 4. The new access from Shepley Drive will be detrimental to neighbouring properties resulting in a reduction of legitimate parking and will reduce the available road width to the detriment of road safety and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular movements. 5. Shepley Drive is a very narrow road and the extra traffic would cause unnecessary havoc due to lack of parking facilities. 6. The submitted documents do not provide adequate recognition, provision or solution to the certain significant increase in vehicle traffic associated with the increased attendance arising from the planned expansion. There are already significant issues connected with the availability of on-street parking. The proposed increase in the school roll will undoubtedly result in a commensurate increase in traffic and increased strain on limited on-street parking in the locality. It is difficult to understand how the increasing number of staff vehicles arising from the expansion will be accommodated within the school.
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:
National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Paragraph 72
169 Reading Borough Core Strategy (January 2008): . CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) . CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) . CS5 (Inclusive Access) . CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) . CS22 (Transport Assessments) . CS24 (Car / Cycle Parking) . CS28 (Loss of Open Space) . CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) . CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) . CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) . CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012): . DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) . DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) . DM17 (Existing and Potential Green Links) . SA16 (Public and Strategic Open Space)
Supplementary Planning Documents . Revised Parking Standards and Design (Oct 2011) . Sustainable Design and Construction (July 2011) . Revised Planning Obligations Under Section 106 (Nov 2013)
6. APPRAISAL – Planning Applications
(i) Legal context
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
(ii) Main Issues
6.1 The main issues are considered to be: (i) The principle of additional classroom accommodation; (ii) Loss of open space (iii) The effect upon visual amenity and the public realm (iv) Impact on neighbouring amenity (v) Traffic generation and parking (vi) Trees (vii) Environmental Issues (viii) Other Matters
(i) The principle of additional classroom accommodation
6.2 A rising population in Reading has seen increasing demand for primary places and as a result Reading Borough Council needs to increase the number of primary school places in a number of schools within the borough.
6.2.1 Policy CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) of the Reading Borough Core Strategy states that “Proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable, particularly where this will involve co- location of facilities on a single site.” The site is within an existing school site and would provide extended and improved community facilities which would meet an identified need within the Borough. As such it is considered that the
170 general principle of increased classroom provision is in accordance with policy CS31 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy.
(ii) Loss of open space
6.3 The proposed new building is mostly on an area of the existing hard play area however, the relocated staff car park and access to it and other proposed pathways and accesses around the school site would require the loss of some of the existing grassed open space and playing field.
6.4 The proposed works facilitate a permanent extension to the school to allow an increase in the number of pupils from 425 to 630. Sport England has objected as the proposal is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions in Sport England’s playing fields policy. As can be seen from their comments additional community use of the school sports facilities may be considered as mitigation however, given the existing constraints on accessing the site officers consider it unlikely that local residents would support more use of the school outside existing school hours than the current arrangements.
6.5 In response to the enquiry about the degree of slope on the site where the new car park is proposed it is clear from the sections provided by the applicant that the slope in this part of the site would prevent its use for school team sports. The works required to level the area out to make it more useful for sports would be extensive and officers consider not proportionate to the use that is currently made of it or what could be made of it given that this area is close to the school boundary with Silchester Road and peripheral to the main playing field area, which is being retained.
6.6 The submitted Design and Access Statement advises that, to accommodate the expansion, the use of outdoor play areas has been reviewed to maximize sports and games provision. This includes new games courts and hard play areas and keeping the loss of the useable sports field to a minimum.
6.7 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is clear that schools are an important aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 72 states:
The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:
● give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and ● work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.
6.8 DCLG issued a joint statement by the Secretary of State for Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education in 2011 entitled ‘Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development’, which is material to the consideration of this application. This states, inter alia:
The Government believes that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals for the creation, expansion and alteration of state-funded schools, and that the following principles should apply with immediate effect:
171 - There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state- funded schools, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. - Local authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state-funded schools in their planning decisions. - Local authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state-funded schools applications. - Local authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. - Local authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible. - A refusal of any application for a state-funded school, or the imposition of conditions, will have to be clearly justified by the local planning authority. - Appeals against any refusals of planning permission for state-funded schools should be treated as a priority. - Where a local planning authority refuses planning permission for a state- funded school, the Secretary of State will consider carefully whether to recover for his own determination appeals against the refusal of planning permission.
6.9 The expansion of the school complies with Policy CS31 of the Core Strategy and the relevant national planning policy considerations above, and would help to meet the Council’s statutory duty to provide a school place for every child.
6.10 The reasonable concerns raised by Sport England therefore need to be balanced against other material considerations.
6.11 Firstly, the applicant has submitted a proposed landscape strategy with the planning application to demonstrate how the remaining playing field and hard play areas could be used. Although there is a loss of part of the existing playing field the applicant has shown that the site can be reconfigured to continue to provide adequate sports and play areas and retain a substantial area of open space with additional planting.
6.12 Secondly, there is a clear need to provide additional classroom space at this school, supported by paragraph 72 of the NPPF and the ‘Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development’, which could only realistically be provided by encroaching on to part of the playing field for car parking given the constraints of the school site. Officers have held detailed discussions with the applicant to examine how the amount of playing field lost could be minimised through alternative layouts and designs. However, it has been accepted that the proposed design and layout are the optimal balance between meeting the needs of the expanded school and retaining a reasonable amount of playing field.
6.13 Having considered the two policy objectives officers consider that in this instance the loss of land capable of forming part of a playing field which is in conflict with paragraph 74 of the NPPF is outweighed by the proposal being a sustainable form of development which would go towards meeting the identified pressing need for school places in Reading and is in accordance with paragraph 72 of the NPPF and the ‘Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development’.
6.14 If, considering the issues raised above and below in respect of the development, Members are minded to approve the application, The Town and Country
172 Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 requires the Secretary of State to be consulted, with the Secretary of State having the option to call in the application and determine it.
6.15 It is possible that the Secretary of State may decide not to call in the application for determination or may fail to respond to the Council’s consultation within the 21 day period following receipt set out in the Direction. In these cases power to determine the application would revert back to the local planning authority.
6.16 Development Plan Policy CS28 also needs to be considered as it is opposed to the loss of all open space. However, for all of the reasons given above in respect of the Sport England objection, officers consider that the wider benefits of the proposed expanded school outweigh the loss of part of the open space in this case.
(iii) The effect upon visual amenity and the public realm
6.17 The proposed extension is mainly single storey with most of the new development happening on the north and east side of the school so at a substantial distance from the nearest houses. While originally proposed to be clad in brick the proposed materials are now to be painted render which should work as complimentary to the mix of brick and tile hung elevations on the existing school. The effect on visual amenity is not considered to be significant and overall the proposed new buildings and arrangements are considered acceptable in terms of design and appearance.
(iv) Impact on neighbouring amenity
6.18 The main objections to the proposal have come from residents concerned about the proposed opening up of a pedestrian access from Shepley Drive to the south of the site. However, as noted above transport colleagues see this as being a possible way of alleviating parking around the school site generally:
“… increasing the number of pedestrian accesses surrounding the site will help disperse the current on street parking but also may encourage some of the residents located in south east Southcote to walk to the school as the access will be considerably closer than it currently is now.”
6.19 Some residents living in Shepley Drive might be inconvenienced at school start or finish times; however officers consider that this would be balanced by the new accesses helping to relieve the existing congestion experienced on other roads around the school. It would also prove beneficial to those living south of the school who might prefer to walk to the school.
6.20 No first floor windows are proposed to any elevation facing adjacent residential properties and there is unlikely to be any impact on these neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light, loss of outlook or overbearing effects due to the distances between the properties and the proposal.
6.21 However, the proposal will facilitate an increase in the number of pupils at the school which could increase the potential for noise associated with it. However, in the context of the established school use it is unlikely that any additional noise would result in significant harm to neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise or disturbance.
173 6.22 Environmental Protection have advised that the submitted Acoustic assessment reference SA_3214 completed by Sounds Advice includes a BS4142 assessment giving noise level criteria for day and night, 46dB and 24dB respectively. Environmental Protection are satisfied that provided these criteria are met for any plant to be installed it should not cause a noise nuisance to nearby residents.
6.23 Environmental Protection also confirm that the construction method statement submitted with the application addresses the dust and partially addresses their concerns about construction noise , however deliveries are specified at 6:30am which is considered to be too early. Conditions restricting hours of delivery and construction work starts to our standard times (8am Mondays – Friday and 9am on Saturdays) and prohibiting bonfires are recommended.
(v) Traffic generation and parking
6.24 The application has been accompanied with a Transport Statement but a school travel plan has not been provided. The Council’s Transport Section are happy for this to be dealt with by way of a condition.
6.25 As set out in the transport comments above it has been concluded that the proposal will generate an increase of 54 pupil drop off / pick up trips by the private car and 20 staff vehicle trips, which is considered to be acceptable in tandem with increasing the number of pedestrian accesses surrounding the site to help disperse the current on street parking and to encourage some of the residents located in south east Southcote to walk to the school. The school will also need to update its school travel plan which will encourage alternative methods to that of the private car to further reduce the level of on street parking surrounding the school.
6.26 The proposed location of the new car park and the access to it have also been considered and found to be acceptable following the submission of further details. A Construction Method Statement has been submitted to accompany the planning application which is acceptable.
6.27 As such, it is considered by the Council’s Transport section that the proposal would be acceptable in regard to transport, access and parking and when assessed against DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document and policy CS22 of the Reading Borough Council Core Strategy.
(vi) Trees
6.28 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment is acceptable in principle but specific details are required such as the consultant should be provided with service plans in order to include any conflicts in the Arboricultural Method Statement. Indicative landscaping is provided but details are required, including tree pit specification. Natural Environment Trees advised that it would be beneficial to include a few new trees on the frontage between the access and Maple (T32) to help screen the new building. The proposal is considered acceptable subject to relevant conditions and when assessed against CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) of the Reading Borough Council Core Strategy.
(vii) Environmental Issues
6.29 In relation to sustainability, the Council’s policy requirement is that major non-residential developments meet a BREEAM score of 62.5% (halfway between
174 ‘Very Good’ and ‘Excellent’). The applicant states that they will not be able to undertake a formal BREEAM assessment given the cost implications and the requirement of the school to open in time for the 2015-2016 academic year. They have, however, submitted a Sustainability Statement to support the application which states that although BREEAM would not be sought, ‘the intention remains to create sustainable school buildings that will comply with the principles of sustainable construction, design and energy efficiency’. The key points contained within the statement are that the development would:
- include a commitment to low carbon design to reduce energy requirements - adopt the principles of BREEAM - use daylighting to reduce artificial lighting/energy use - include a natural ventilation system - improve biodiversity as part of the landscaping proposals - include conservation measures such as bat and bird boxes - incorporate sanitary fittings with low water usage.
6.30 The development would not comply with specific requirements as set out in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy (or the Council’s adopted Sustainable Design and Construction SPD). However, it would meet the objectives of this policy by providing a sustainable building, subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the principles as set out in the Sustainability Statement, which is proposed as a condition.
(viii) Other Matters
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. 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.
6.32 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed development is considered acceptable in planning terms and for the reasons given above.
Plans: Drawing No: E02349-P100 – Location Plan Drawing No: E02349-P101 – Existing Block Plan Drawing No: E2349-P102 – Existing Building Plan Drawing No: E02349-P102 – Proposed Block Plan Drawing No: E2349-P104 – Proposed Building Plan Ground Floor Drawing No: E2349-P105 – Proposed Building Plan First Floor Drawing No: E2349-P110 – Proposed Visuals Drawing No: E2349-P121 – Existing Elevations Drawing No: E2349-P122 – Proposed Elevations Drawing No: E02349-P-700 – Proposed Landscape Strategy Sheet 1 of 2 Drawing No: E02349-P701 – Proposed Landscape Strategy Sheet 2 of 2 Drawing No: E02349-702 – Existing Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1
175 Drawing No: E02349-703 – Proposed Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 Drawing No: E02349-ME02 – Indicative External Engineering Services Drawing No: T13/0062/P/0001 – Topographical Survey Drawing No: T13/0062/P/0002 – Topographical Survey Drawing No: 61033252-9-SP-D-500 Rev A – Below Ground Drainage Site Strategy G.A Drawing No: 22695 – Drainage and Utility Survey 1 of 2 Drawing No: 22695 – Drainage and Utility Survey 2 of 2 Existing Floor Plan (Planning Exhibition) Site Plan (Planning Exhibition) Drawing No: 560-02 Rev A – Tree Protection Plan Arboricultural Impact Assessment, by SJ Stephens Associates, project no: 560, report date: 26th August 2014 Preliminary Ecology Appraisal, by Windrush Ecology, report date 25th November 2013, reference W1029_rep_Southcote School_25-11-13 Ground Investigation Report, by Terra Firma (South), Report No. 5425, date June 2014. Environmental Noise Assessment, by Sound Advice Acoustics Ltd, report ref: SA-3214, report date: 23rd June 2014 Archaeological Evaluation, by Thames Valley Archaeological Services, site code SSR 14/156, dated August 2014. Transport Statement, by WSP, project no: 70003742, report date 5th August 2014 Construction Management Plan, Revision A, by Miller, dated 15th July 2014 Construction Logistic Details, Rev 0, by Miller, dated 1st July 2014 Construction Phase Health & Safety General Risk Assessment, Issue No 1 Design & Access Strategy (from Inception to Completion), updated 25th January 2013 Below Ground Drainage, Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Received by the local planning authority on 27th August 2014
Drawing No: E02349-702 Rev A – Existing Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 Drawing No: E02349-703 Rev A – Proposed Site Plan Sheet 1 of 1 Drawing No: E2349-SK-01 – Existing Site Section Drawing No: 22695 – Drainage and Utility Survey 1 of 2 Drawing No: 22695 – Drainage and Utility Survey 2 of 2 Received by the local planning authority on 24th September 2014
Sustainability Statement Received by the local planning authority on 9th September 2014
Drawing No: 3742-SPS-SK-001 Rev B – Access Dimensions Received by the local planning authority on 14th October 2014
Case Officer: Claire Ringwood
176
Existing Site Plan
177
Proposed Block Plan
178
179
180
181
182 THAMES
183 184 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 17 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014
Ward: Thames Application No.: 141288 Address: Queen Annes School, Henley Road, Caversham
Proposals: The refurbishment and extension of Moore House to provide the school with a dedicated sixth form centre as well as a state of the art dining and kitchen facility. The sixth form centre will include a contemporary knowledge centre, a common room cafe and flexible teaching areas. The application also includes new external landscaping.
Applicant: The Grey Coat Hospital Foundation
Date Valid: 29 August 2014
Application target decision date: 28 November 2014
26 week date: 27 February 2014
185
RECOMMENDATION
Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan in accordance with the Employment Skills and Training SPD. or to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 28 November 2014 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement or submission of amendments).
And the following conditions to include:
1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. In accordance with approved drawings 3. Details of external materials to be submitted within 2 months of commencement. Implementation prior to occupation. 4. Construction Management Statement prior to commencement 5. Details of Hard and Soft Landscaping (with the use of permeable hard surface materials wherever possible) prior to occupation. 6. Landscaping Management Details prior to occupation 7. Landscaping - Implementation of works – first planting season following first occupation. 8. Landscaping – maintenance – details prior to first occupation. 9. Submission of BRE Final Code certificate demonstrating that the development achieves a BREEAM score of at least 62.5 points – prior first occupation. 10. Submission of details of external lighting for approval and implementation prior to first occupation. 11. Submission of details of ecological enhancements for approval and implementation prior to first occupation 12. Hours of demolition / Construction
Informatives:
1. Positive and Proactive Statement
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site is located immediately to the north east of Caversham town centre. The Queen Anne’s School site is bounded by Henley Road to the south, Peppard Road to the west and Derby Road, a private road, to the north. The wider school site includes the main block and chapel which are Grade II listed. The application site is contained wholly within the grounds of the school with the main focus of development being Moore House, which is located centrally, away from the boundary of the site.
186
Moore House
Site Location Plan (not to scale)
Site photograph
187
2. PROPOSALS
2.1 Full Planning Permission is sought for the extension and remodelling of the existing Moore House building to form a two storey, contemporary style, building to house a sixth form centre and dining facility. The sixth form centre will include a library, a common room cafe and flexible teaching areas. The application also includes new external landscaping to the edge of the building and within the large quadrangle space to the north.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
04/00855/FUL - Demolition of the existing bursary and arts blocks and the construction of a new science centre – Approved
10/00168/FUL - Demolition and erection of two new boarding houses and energy centre – Withdrawn.
10/00905/FUL - Erection of boarding house and energy centre (resubmission of 10/00168/FUL) (amended description). - Approved
11/00074/FUL Erection of extensions to original Maddock House to provide new boarding accommodation, (amended description). - Approved
140539/PREAPP - Pre-application enquiry relating to a new 6th form centre, dining hall and teaching rooms. Two storey building including an element of refurbishment of existing building known as Moore House. The proposed building is approximately 1200 sqm GEA. - Observations sent
4. CONSULTATIONS
RBC Transport Development Control
4.1 The proposed development consists of 1280m² of new build with a total GEA of 1791m² including Moore House. The Design and Access confirms that the proposed scheme is designed to replace and improve existing facilities, and no increase in pupils will occur as a direct result of this development.
4.2 Therefore, on the basis that this development is proposed as an improvement to existing facilities, there is no change required in terms of parking and or any existing travel plans. In addition, no change is proposed to the existing vehicular access as the new service yard can be served via the existing circulation of routes within the site.
4.3 There are no transport objections subject to a condition being imposed to secure a Construction Management Statement.
188 RBC Environmental Protection
4.4 Possible concerns about the impact of noise from external plant or kitchen extraction units on nearby noise sensitive receptors. Condition requiring noise assessment for any new plant recommended.
RBC Ecologist
4.5 No objection, subject to ecological enhancements being secured in accordance with submitted ecological assessment.
5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.
5.2 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'.
5.3 The applications have been assessed against the following policies:
National National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance
Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources
Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters
189 DM18 Tree Planting
Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents
Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Sustainable Construction and Design SPD.
6. APPRAISAL
i) Site Layout and Landscaping
6.1 Previous development in this area of the site, including the replacement Holmes boarding house and extensions to Maddock boarding house have sought to create a quadrangle layout in the space to the north of Moore House. It is considered that the layout proposed would continue this approach and that suitable landscaping, including at least one tree of an ultimately large size can be secured by condition, as recommended.
6.2 On this basis it is considered that the proposals accord with the aims of Policies CS7 and DM18.
Design and Appearance
6.3 The proposed building would have two storey scale, with the top of the flat roof sitting level with the eaves line of the adjacent Wilkins House building. This is considered to be an appropriate height that responds well to its context. The scale and location proposed would prevent any significant views of the building from outside the school site.
6.4 The massing of the building is arranged with a first floor that is orientated at right angles to the floor below resulting in breaks in the upper storey that provide visual interest and relief to the bulk of the building.
6.5 It is considered that the proposed building is well-proportioned in terms of its overall scale, but also in terms of the arrangement of the various parts of the building and the architectural effect that is achieved.
6.6 The proposed finishes, including, brick, zinc cladding and timber are arranged in a way which enhances the appearance of the building. Precise details recommended to be secured by condition.
6.7 It is considered that the proposal responds well to its context with a good quality architectural approach. The building would be seen in the context of other surrounding modern buildings and would not significantly alter views of or from the listed main school building. It is considered that the setting of the listed school building would be preserved.
190 6.8 On this basis it is considered that the proposals are in accordance with Policies CS7 and CS33.
ii) Transport
6.9 The proposed building would offer a support function to the existing school use. The Council’s Transport Development Control section are satisfied that this would not result in additional trips to the site or have any other adverse impact on the transport network. No contributions are required towards additional transport infrastructure.
6.10 The only potential impact is at construction stage and a condition is recommended to secure a Construction Management Statement to mitigate this.
6.11 On this basis the proposals are considered to comply with Policies CS20, CS22 and CS24 and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD 2011.
iii) Sustainability
6.12 The applicant has confirmed that the proposal would meet the policy requirement of BREEAM Very Good with a score of 62.5 points, which equates to a 50:50 split between BREEAM Very Good and Excellent, in accordance with Policy CS1 and the Sustainable Construction and Design SPD.
6.13 The proposals include additional features such as a thermal chimney for passive ventilation and the building will be heated from the existing biomass boiler which was provided recently to serve the Holmes and Maddock House boarding house developments.
6.14 On this basis it is considered that the building would achieve a suitable level of environmental sustainability in accordance with Policy CS1 and the Sustainable Construction and Design SPD.
iv) Amenity of neighbouring occupiers
6.15 The proposal is located centrally within the school site. It is considered that the scale of the building, together with the distances and intervening buildings that separate it from neighbours outside the school site are sufficient to prevent any harm to neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light, overbearing impact, loss of privacy or loss of outlook.
6.16 Environmental Protection concerns over noise are noted, however the need for a reasonable noise environment within the school site for the benefit of pupils and staff would be a self-limiting control on noise. Any noise that does result from use of the building or any new plant installed
191 would be unlikely to be at a level likely to cause harm to amenity beyond the school boundary, due to the distances involved.
6.17 On this basis it is considered that the new building would not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring premises, in accordance with Policies DM4 and CS34. v) Ecology
6.18 This part of the school site is of relatively low ecological potential and the submitted survey confirms that protected species such as bats were not present in the areas affected by development. The recommended ecological enhancements set out in the submitted assessment include swift boxes and wildlife planting. These are recommended to be secured by condition. In accordance with Policy CS36. vi) Employment, Skills and Training
6.19 An Employment Skills and Training Plan for construction and end user phases is required for this proposal due to the nature and scale of the use, in accordance with the Council’s Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013). This is to be secured by S106 legal agreement.
vii) Equality
6.20 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 from consultation on the current applications) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
6.21 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposals are considered to be acceptable on the basis of the above assessment and are recommended for approval, subject to completion of the S106 agreement, as set out in the recommendation.
Case Officer: Steve Vigar
192 Information Submitted with the Application:
Drawings:
2319 PL 011 Rev 00 – Existing Site Plan 2319 PL 020 Rev 00 – Existing Ground Floor Plan 2319 PL 021 Rev 00 – Existing 1st Floor Plan 2319 PL 030 Rev 00 – Existing Elevations Sheet 1 2319 PL 031 Rev 00 – Existing Elevations Sheet 2 2319 PL 050 Rev 00 – Existing Ground Floor Demolition Plan 2319 PL 051 Rev 00 – Existing 1st Floor Demolition Plan
2319 PL 010 Rev 00 – OS Site Plan
2319 PL 100 Rev 00 – Proposed Site Plan
2319 PL 200 Rev 00 – Proposed Ground Floor Plan 2319 PL 201 Rev 00 – Proposed First Floor Plan 2319 PL 202 Rev 00 – Proposed Roof Plan 2319 PL 300 Rev 00 – Proposed Elevations 2319 PL 301 Rev 00 – Proposed Elevations 2319 PL 302 Rev 00 – Proposed Elevations
Documents:
Design and Access Statement August 2014 Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment August 2014
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
View southwards across quadrangle from Holmes House towards Moore House
View northwards from Moore House across quadrangle to Maddock and Holmes Houses
200 TILEHURST
201 202 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 18 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 14th November 2014
Ward: Tilehurst App No.: 141473/REG3 Address: Park Lane Primary School, School Road, Reading Proposal: Replacement boundary fence. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date validated: 12th September 2014 Other Application: 8 week target decision date: 7th November 2014. An extension to the expiry date has been agreed until 14th November 2014. 26 week date: 13th March 2015
RECOMMENDATION
Grant
Conditions to include: 1. Time limit – 3 years 2. Materials as submitted 3. Approved Plans 4. Trees protection and future maintenance.
Informatives to include: 1. Construction and demolition 2. Encroachment 3. Positive and proactive
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The school building is located in the centre of the site and set back from School Road as shown on the plan below. The school shares a boundary with School Road, Green Acre Mount, Gratwicke Road and Corwen Road.
1.2 The application is referred to Planning Applications Committee for a decision in accordance with Council procedures as the application has been made by Reading Borough Council Education section.
203 2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The application is to replace the existing 1.8m high galvanised chain link fence with 2.4m high railings running around the entire boundary of the site. There would also be a 4m wide vehicular gate and a 2m wide pedestrian gate to replace the existing.
3. RECENT PLANNING HISTORY
12/00455/REG3 (Civica Ref: 121190) - Single storey timber constructed out door classroom. Permitted 26/04/2012.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Non-statutory:
Development Control Transport - raised no objection.
Natural Environment Trees – advised an assessment should be made of the vegetation to be removed from the entire perimeter and the crown lifting required. An update will be provided.
Building Control – no comments.
4.2 Public consultation:
Properties at 15 Green Acre Mount, 47, 32-52 (e), Tilehurst Library and Welfare Clinic School Road and 176 Corwen Road were consulted.
One observation received raising concerns about how maintenance of the existing trees and shrubs will be provided and that the fence will alter the look of the area and not be in keeping with its surrounding.
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 Core Strategy (January 2008): . CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) . CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) . CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012): . DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity)
204 6. APPRAISAL – Planning Applications
(i) Legal context
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
(ii) Main Issues
6.1 The main issues are considered to be: (i) Design, siting and appearance (ii) Impact on neighbouring properties (iii) Trees (iv) Other Matters
(i) Design, siting and appearance
6.2 The proposal involves the replacement of the existing 1.8m high chain link fence around the whole perimeter of the school with 2.4m high green steel railings and a lockable vehicular gate and pedestrian gate. The railings would provide additional security for the site, which is required due to increasing problems with vandalism and theft outside school hours.
6.3 The existing chain link fence is not particularly attractive nor does it provide adequate security for the site. It is considered that the proposals would not harm the character or appearance of the existing building. Contrary to the concerns raised (see above) officer consider that the proposed replacement railings would improve the appearance of the site while improving security for the school. Therefore the proposal is considered to be of an acceptable design and complies with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.
(ii) Impact on neighbouring properties
6.4 The replacement fence is proposed along the entire school boundary but would only extend along the boundaries with residential properties at 47 School Road and 15 Green Acre Mount. There is an existing 1.8m chain link fence in the same location at the site and the proposal would increase the height by 0.6m to 2.4m. It is considered unlikely that the increase in height would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.
6.5 It is considered that the proposed railings would be an improvement on the existing fence in terms of appearance and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on these neighbouring properties and would improve the security of these properties too.
6.6 Therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in regard to its impact on neighbouring properties in accordance with policy CS7 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy and DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.
(iii) Trees
6.7 The submitted Construction Method Statement indicated that all trees along the boundary will have lower branches removed to facilitate the height of the new fence and the canopies of larger trees will be raised to remove any
205 climbing aids over the new fence. The Council’s Tree officer advised that there is dense vegetation and tree coverage along the boundary in particular places, especially Gratwicke Road and along the public playground boundary.
6.8 An assessment of the vegetation to be removed and the crown lifting is required in order to 1) establish whether replacement planting would be required and 2) to be able to devise an appropriate, more specific, method statement. Additional information is being provided by the applicant for consideration and an update report on this matter will be provided.
(iv) Other Matters
6.9 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. 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.
6.10 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
The proposed development is considered acceptable in planning terms and for the reasons given above.
Plans: Site Plan Block Plan Drawing No: security_capped_top_fe_001 – Contour Security Capped Top Fencing System Design Statement & Access Statement Construction Method Statement Received by the local planning authority on 12th September 2014
Case Officer: Claire Ringwood
206
Proposed Fence
207
208 WHITLEY
209 210 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 19 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014
Ward: Whitley App No.: 141447 App Type: REM Address: 500 - 600 Longwater Avenue, Reading Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters (Access, Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping) following outline approval 02/01311/OUT, as extended by 10/01659/EXT, relating to the development of 22,540 sqm of B1 business use, car parking, landscaping and related works Applicant: Oxford Properties Date valid: 10/09/2014 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 10/12/2014 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 11/03/2015
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the receipt of no objections from the Council’s Natural Environment and Transport (Development Management) Sections, GRANT permission.
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:
1. NSTD – Approved Plans.
2. NSTD – Materials samples.
3. No building / phase shall be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces as relevant to that building / phase have been provided in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The space shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than parking.
4. No development of any phase shall take place until details of access and parking, including safe convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists, to all buildings and parking areas for that phase have been submitted to the Planning Authority for approval. Each phase of the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved plans.
5. Buildings 1 to 4 and 6 shall not be occupied until the northern vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.
6. Building 5 shall not be occupied until the southern vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.
211 7. No building shall be occupied until the 2m wide footway on the western side of Longwater Avenue has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing. Any statutory undertakers’ equipment or street furniture shall be re-sited to provide an unobstructed footway.
8. Secure, covered and lockable bicycle storage spaces shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before occupation of the dwellings to which they relate.
9. Lighting shall be implemented and retained at all times in accordance with the approved lighting scheme.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE
1. Positive and Proactive working 2. Transport - access construction 3. Building Regulations approval required 4. Control of Pollution Act 1974 5. No burning of waste on site 6. Note restriction on floorspace on original outline permission 7. Prospective occupiers to sign up to Green Park Travel Plan. 8. Transport informative (construction traffic to use A33, avoid Whitley area including Basingstoke Road)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Green Park, a business park, is situated in the south-west of Reading, to the west of Reading Football Club and to the north of the M4 motorway. Green Park spans three local authority areas, Reading Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council and Wokingham District Council.
1.2 500-600 Longwater Avenue (also referred to as Plot 17 or ‘The Green Triangle’) is situated to the west of Green Park. Longwater Avenue and Plot 3 bound the site to the east, Plot 10 to the south, and Smallmead Road with the Green Park Village site beyond this to the north.
1.3 The majority of the office development at Green Park stems from outline consents 85/TP/690 and 85/TP/691, granted permission in 1995. This application follows from a later outline consent, 02/01311/OUT, which was granted permission in 2003 and was subject to an extension of time application in 2010 (10/01659/EXT).
212 2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 The application seeks approval for Reserved Matters (pursuant to outline permission 02/01311/OUT as extended by 10/01659/EXT) relating to the construction of 6 buildings accommodating flexible office (B1) space with a total floor space of 22,540 sqm to include 490
213 car parking spaces and related works. All matters (Access, Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping) are for consideration at this stage.
2.2 The application proposes the erection of a group of modern four and five storey office buildings, with open and decked parking. The proposed schedule of accommodation is as follows:
UNIT FLOORS FLOORSPACE CAR PARKING CYCLE PARKING (SQM) PROVISION PROVISION 1 4 4,150 90 spaces 21 spaces 2 4 4,150 90 spaces 21 spaces 3 4 3,350 73 spaces 17 spaces 4 4 3,690 80 spaces 18 spaces 5 5 5,200 113 spaces 26 spaces 6 4 2,000 43 spaces 10 spaces
2.3 The planning application is submitted with the following plans and supporting documents:
- Design and Access Statement (DAS) - Planning Statement - Flood Risk Statement - Tree Survey - Utilities Statement - External Lighting Report - Ecological Appraisal - Transport Assessment Addendum - Travel Plan - Archaeological Desk-based Assessment - Proposed Site Plan - Proposed Floor Plans - Proposed Elevations - Proposed Site Sections - CGI Images - Landscaping Strategy
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
• 02/01311/OUT - Outline application for development of 22,540 Sq M of B1 (business use), car parking, landscaping and related work. Permitted 2003. • 08/00796/REM - Reserved Matters application pursuant to Outline Consent 02/01311/OUT for the construction of 6 buildings accommodating flexible office (B1) space with a total floor space of 22,540 sqm to include 564 car parking spaces and related works (design, external appearance and landscaping only). Permitted 2008. • 10/01659/EXT - Application for an extension of the time limit for implementation of permission 02/01311/OUT for the development of 22,540 sqm (242,618 sqft) of B1 (business use), car parking, landscaping and related works. Permitted 2011.
214 • 141387 SCR - Request for screening opinion in relation to office development of up to 22,540 sqm. Observations Sent (Not EIA Development).
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory Consultation
None.
(ii) Non Statutory Consultation
Environment Agency: Any comments received will be reported in an update at your meeting.
RBC Ecology: Amended comments will be reported in an update at your meeting.
RBC Natural Environment: Amended comments will be reported in an update at your meeting.
RBC Transport: As stipulated within condition 11 of permission 10/01659/EXT it was requested that the provision of pedestrian movement along the site frontage is submitted and condition 12 states that details of access and parking, including safe convenient access for pedestrians and cyclists, to all buildings and parking areas be provided. Plans have now been submitted that illustrate a footpath that serves the parking spaces either side of the road running parallel to Willow Walk and the footways either side of Longwater Avenue are also now illustrated. However following receipt of these amended plans which also demonstrates the parking allocation there are the following concerns:
• A footpath has been provided to the north east of Block 1 linking the building to the spaces running parallel to Willow Walk, however the footpath provided runs through three disabled parking spaces which is unacceptable. A revised drawing should be submitted illustrating the parking spaces to be set back. • No direct footpath link has been provided to any of the car parking spaces allocated to Block 6, and no disabled parking bays within the buildings allocated parking appears to be located within close proximity. • The courtyard area located to the frontage of Blocks 3, 4 and 6 appears to now have an increased level of car parking, which in principle is acceptable but this has removed the dedicated pedestrian areas / footpaths forcing pedestrians into the carriageway / access road. Given this area will accommodate a significant amount of pedestrian and vehicular movements a dedicated 2m wide footpath should be provided that links Block 1 with the footpath leading to Longwater Avenue.
215 It is also noted that a vehicular access is now proposed onto Kybes Lane however this was not approved by way of the Outline permission and permission 10/01659/EXT states at condition 13 that there shall be no vehicular access (other than footpaths / cycleways) to Kybes Lane from Plot 17 (500-600 Longwater Avenue). This access is however already erected and is to be an emergency access as stated within the Design and Access Statement, I am therefore happy for this access to remain.
Pedestrian / cycle bridges are provided on the northern boundary of the site across the channel onto Willow Walk / Smallmead Road. Given that this is used by vehicles as well as being National Cycle Route 23 the bridges should not obstruct the road. Revised drawings have now been submitted that illustrate that the bridges will not impinge on the flow of pedestrians / cyclists. It is also noted however that Willow Walk / Smallmead Road is not particularly well lit or surfaced to encourage its use by pedestrians or cyclists.
A Transport Assessment (TA) accompanied the original application, which provided a generally robust assessment of the transport implications of the development. A Transport Assessment Addendum has been submitted to accompany this application to cover issues of detail and these are addressed below:
Car parking The car parking provision has been proposed at a ratio of 1 space per 46m² which is in accordance with the planning condition attached to permission 10/01659/EXT. A breakdown has also been provided for each of the proposed buildings and this illustrates that the car parking is allocated in accordance with the approved car parking ratio mentioned above.
Although the provision has been agreed the drawings illustrating the car parking layout is not to the correct dimensions or the plans are at a scale that does not make it possible to determine whether the spaces are 2.4m x 4.8m in dimensions and the disabled bays are also provided with a 1.2m wide aisle width to the side and rear. It has also not been able to be determined whether a 6m forecourt depth has been provided. Revised drawings should therefore be provided at a scale of 1:200 illustrating the car parking layout or the plans should be annotated to confirm they are to the dimensions mentioned above.
In accordance with condition 15 a drawing has been submitted that illustrates the phasing of the car parking to ensure that each phase is provided with adequate levels of parking.
In addition to this the gradients of the ramps proposed for the car parks should also be annotated.
Cycle Storage The Transport Assessment Addendum states that a provision of 113 cycle spaces are required for the whole site but drawing TP-045 illustrates a standard cycle store that accommodates just 8 cycles. A revised drawing has been submitted but this is at a scale of 1:1000 so it is not possible to ascertain
216 whether it is to the correct dimensions, a revised drawing(s) will be required at a scale of 1:200 illustrating the cycle parking requirements for each building. This can be dealt with by way of a condition.
Service Vehicles Tracking diagrams have been provided illustrating the tracking of a 10m Rigid Vehicle, a Fire Appliance and a 11.3m Refuse Vehicle and all of the above are able to navigate the site comfortably.
Surface Water Drainage It is stated that the surface water drainage will be stored in three tanks located underground within the red line boundary which will connect onto the open channels surrounding the site. It is proposed that attenuation and appropriate flow control will be provided on site to ensure that surface water runoff from the site is restricted to 2l/s/ha, this has previously been agreed on the site in relation to a previous Reserved Matters application. The proposed surface water drainage scheme is acceptable.
RBC Environmental Health: No objections.
Wokingham Borough Council: No objections.
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
The application was advertised in the local press as a major development and a site notice was posted.
Letters were sent to: Smallmead Gate, Pingemead House, Pyning Smallmead Road; 350 Longwater Avenue; 22, 23, 24 Smallmead Cottages
No comments received following consultation.
5.0 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:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
217 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008 Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) Policy CS2 (Waste Minimisation) Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) Policy CS5 (Inclusive Access) Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) Policy CS10 (Location of Employment Development) Policy CS13 (Impact of Employment Development) Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) Policy CS22 (Transport Assessments) Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD), 2012 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) Policy DM2 (Decentralised Energy) Policy DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters) Policy DM19 (Air Quality) Policy SA1 (South Reading Development Principles) Policy SA12 (Core Employment Areas)
Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ (2011) ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2011) ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’ (2004) ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ (2013)
6.0 APPRAISAL
Main considerations
(i) Policy Position
6.1 The principle of office development on this site was established by 02/01311/OUT, which granted outline consent for 22,540 sqm of B1 business use. This was followed by an application to extend the time limit to implement the permission, 10/01659/EXT, and this reserved matters application is submitted pursuant to the extension of time application.
218 6.2 Within the Core Strategy, the A33 corridor (within which Green Park is located) is identified as a preferred location, along with the town centre, for office development under Policy CS10.
(ii) Character and Appearance
6.3 The proposed development would be largely four storeys in height, although unit 5 would be five storeys, which in combination with its oval shape, would make it act as a feature building within this section of the park. The spacing between buildings is considered sufficient, and to make the communal areas between buildings attractive spaces to use, which is further enhanced by the use of attractive hard landscaping, described in further details below.
6.4 In terms of building materials, the elevations would consist of full height glazing with aluminium panels. There is considered to be sufficient contrast between the glazed sections of the building and the aluminium to give sufficient interest to the buildings. The overall modern design is considered to be comparable to other plots and acceptable. Plans showing indicative materials have been submitted, but it is recommended that the submission of materials samples be secured by condition.
6.5 As such, it is considered that the proposals meet the requirement in paragraph 64 of the NPPF to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and comply with Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) of the Core Strategy.
(iii) Amenity of Surrounding Occupiers:
6.6 The proposal is bounded by Green Park developments to the south (Plot 10) and east (Plot 3). Green Park Village, as approved, will be located to the north, separated from the site by Smallmead Road with residential dwellings approximately 25m from the closest office building (Plot 1). However, the separation distance and boundary screening is considered sufficient and as the relationship would be side to side rather than rear to rear the development would not be overbearing or result in a loss of privacy to proposed neighbouring development.
6.7 The development would therefore be acceptable in terms of the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.
(iv) Access/Transport
6.8 The capacity of the surrounding highway network has been considered at outline stage, and found to be acceptable. A package of measures, including financial contributions towards buses and other local transport infrastructure has also been secured.
219 6.9 The outline consent restricts the level of parking provision to a maximum of 1 space per 46 sqm (with each building not exceeding 1 space per 40 sqm). The reserved matters submissions accord with this – the overall provision of 490 spaces equates to 1 space per 46 sqm, with each building having a ratio of between 1 space per 45.9 sqm and 1 space per 46.5 sqm. The level of parking for each building and overall is therefore in accordance with the conditions set out in the outline consent, and accords with Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD.
6.10 There are a number of relevant transport matters that have been conditioned at outline stage on the extension of time application, for example, the submission of a CMS, provision and retention of parking spaces, and a signage scheme for cyclists, which must be approved prior to the commencement of development – it is not necessary to repeat those conditions on this reserved maters application. Condition 13 of 10/01659/EXT does restrict access on to Kybes Lane from the site (other than for pedestrians and cyclists). Whilst a vehicular access route would be possible as a result of this application, the applicant has confirmed that access would not be provided onto Kybes Lane for vehicles, other than in an emergency, and the road layout as shown is therefore considered to be acceptable.
6.11 The Council’s Transport Section do raise concerns that some of the required pedestrian links through the site to individual buildings conflict with roads/shared surfaces within the site, and that sufficient cycle parking has not been shown. The applicant is preparing additional information for consideration, and an update on these issues will be provided at your meeting.
6.10 The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to highway safety and traffic congestion and to have provided for adequate car and cycle parking, the implementation of which is subject to conditions. Additional information will be provided in respect of footpaths and cycle parking. The development is therefore considered to comply with the NPPF, Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD.
(v) Trees, Landscaping and Ecology
6.11 As with all the plots within Green Park, landscaping is important in the overall design of the development, and has been carefully thought through. The perimeter landscaping helps soften the impact of the building upon the street.
6.12 A landscaping statement has been submitted with the application. This confirms that high quality planting and materials will be used surrounding the buildings. In terms of hard landscaping, high quality
220 paving is proposed at the buildings entrance, and for the car parking area SUDS are proposed. The hard and soft landscaping proposals are considered to be generally acceptable; however the Council’s Natural Environment Section and Ecologist have raised queries in relation to tree pit details and species proposed for planting. Additional information has been submitted by the applicant for consideration, and an update will be provided at your meeting in respect of these details.
6.13 Subject to confirmation regarding the tree pit and species details, the development is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) and CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) of the Core Strategy.
(vi) Environmental Issues
6.14 Lighting details have been submitted within an External Lighting Report. The principles contained within it continue the theme across Green Park and is considered to be appropriate. A condition is proposed to ensure lighting is implemented in accordance with the approved document.
6.15 It should be noted that this is an application for reserved matters, rather than for planning permission, and as such the Environment Agency is not a statutory consultee; however, their comments will be reported at your meeting.
(vii) Other Issues
Equality Act 2010
6.16 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, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.
6.17 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 In conclusion, it is considered that the development is acceptable in principle, is acceptable in terms of parking provision, in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD and is a well-designed
221 building that will relate well to the existing development within this area of Green Park.
7.2 It is recommended that, subject to receipt of no objections from the Council’s Natural Environment Section and Transport (Development Management) Section to the additional information submitted by the applicants, that the application be granted subject to the imposition of planning conditions.
Case Officer: Justin Turvey.
222 223 224 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 20 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 NOVEMBER 2014
Ward: Whitley App No.: 141602 App Type: FULL Address: Worton Drive, Reading Proposal: Erection of new car showroom with ancillary offices to be used for the sale and display of motor vehicles and motor vehicle accessories and spare parts, service garage and workshop for the repair, servicing and maintenance of motor vehicles (with car wash and lubrication bays), parts storage and sale and hiring of motor vehicles, erection of free- standing car valet building, rooftop car storage deck with access ramp, photography bay, means of access, car parking (customer, sales and storage spaces) cycle parking facilities, drainage, landscaping, plant and ancillary works. Applicant: SEGRO Industrial Estates Limited Date valid: 08/10/2014 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 06/01/2015 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 07/04/2015
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the receipt of no substantive objection to the proposed development from the Environment Agency, Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT permission subject to completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement by 6 January 2015 or (ii) REFUSE permission should the agreement not be completed by6 January 2015 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Servicesagrees to a later date for completionof the agreement). The agreement shall secure the following in respect of:
• Transport – A financial contribution of £74,594 towards transport infrastructure schemes in the Reading Local Transport Plan Central and Southern Transport Areas of the Borough, in compliance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities). Payable on implementation and index linked from the date of issue of planning permission.
• Employment and Skills: • At least 1 month prior to implementation, to submit to the Council for approval (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed or withheld) - and if necessary re-submit until approved – a Construction 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 development. The Construction ESP shall target Reading Borough based workforces (although will not specifically exclude workforces from outside that area) for construction phase of the proposed development; to implement the Construction ESP as approved; and not to implement the development until the Construction ESP is approved, in accordance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services,
225 Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPD ‘Employment, Skills and Training’. • At least 6 months prior to occupation of the development, to submit to the Council for approval (such approval not to be unreasonably delayed or withheld) - and if necessary re-submit until approved – an End User Construction 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 development. The End User ESP shall target Reading Borough based workforces (although will not specifically exclude workforces from outside that area) for the end user(s); to implement the End User ESP as approved; and not to occupy the development until the End User ESP is approved, in accordance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPD ‘Employment, Skills and Training’.
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:
1. TL01 – Full time limit (3 years).
2. NSTD – Approved Plans.
3. NSTD – material samples.
4. The hard landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out before any of the development is occupied, or in accordance with a timescale which has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
5. The soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out in the first planting season following completion of the development or in accordance with a timescale which has been agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
6. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.
7. Notwithstanding the approved submissions, no works in relation to construction shall take place until Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement.
8. All development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Tree Protection Plan (1394-05). Protective fencing shall be erected in accordance with the plan prior to the commencement of development, and shall be retained until completion of the development.
9. No building shall be occupied until the access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local
226 Planning Authority for work carried out within the public highway.
10. The existing access to the site shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the new access has been brought into use. The footway(s) and verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
11. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no building shall be occupied until vehicle parking, allocation and turning space has been provided in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS24 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12.
12. Secure, covered and lockable bicycle storage spaces shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before occupation of the building.
13. No development shall take place, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to provide for:
(A) The parking of vehicles and site operatives and visitors – to be shown on a Plan not less than 1.500. (B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500 (C) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500 (D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding if required. (E) Wheel washing facilities (F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads during construction. (G) Footpath Closures /Road Closures needed during construction (H) Traffic Management needed during construction. (I) Times, routes and means of access into and from the site for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the removal of waste from the site and methods of preventing deposition of materials on the public highway).
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
14. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing / proposed modal split for staff and customers at the vehicle showroom and servicing / repairs workshop, reasons for the modal choice and detailed proposals for future transport provision with the aim of securing reduction in car trips generated to and from the vehicle showroom and servicing / repairs workshop.
15. There shall be an annual review of the Travel Plan, which shall include a detailed survey of the number of movements generated by the vehicle showroom and servicing / repairs workshop. This shall be compared with the initial survey carried
227 out under the terms of the condition above (the control level) and in the event of any reduction not being secured the vehicle showroom and servicing / repairs workshop 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.
16. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved BREEAM Pre-Assessment report received by the local planning authority 07/10/2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and before the building is occupied, a post-construction review shall be carried out by a licensed BREEAM assessor which shall confirm that the building meets the approved standard.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE
1. Positive and Proactive working 2. Transport - access construction 3. Damage to the highway 4. Works affecting a highway 5. Building Regulations approval required 6. Control of Pollution Act 1974 7. No burning of waste on site
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is the western half of the former Premier Foods site, located at the junction of Imperial Way and Worton Drive. The wider site contained a large (14,763 sqm) B2/B8 building with ancillary offices, which was demolished last this year. The eastern half of the site now contains a postal distribution centre occupied by Geopost.
1.2 The surrounding area is largely commercial; the wider site is bounded by industrial units to the north (rear), a hotel (Holiday Inn) to the east, Imperial Way with Worton Grange beyond to the south (front) and Worton Drive with office buildings beyond to the west.
2.0 PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 The application is for full planning permission, relating to the erection of a new car showroom with a variety of ancillary functions including offices, sale of motor vehicle accessories and spare parts, servicing and maintenance of motor vehicles (including car wash and lubrication bays), parts storage and sale and hiring of motor vehicles, car valeting, car storage, car photography and car parking (customer, sales and storage spaces).
228 2.2 The site would contain three linked buildings. To the front of the site would be the showroom building, measuring approximately 33m wide x 39m deep and 9m in height. Behind this would be a 30m wide x 33m deep 8m workshop building with a rooftop link to a valet and smart repair garage measuring 20m x 57m. At rooftop level, the workshop and valeting buildings would contain parking with an access ramp.
2.3 The overall floorspace of the development would be 4,800 sqm, of which 1,201 sqm would be given over to sales, 561 sqm to offices, and 3,038 to servicing and storage. 400 parking spaces, including spaces for visitors, staff, display and storage, are proposed. Landscaping is proposed to the eastern and southern boundaries.
2.4 The planning application is submitted with the following plans and supporting documents:
- Design and Access Statement (DAS) - Planning Statement - Draft Legal Agreement - Flood Risk Assessment - Arboricultural Survey and Arboricutural Impact Assessment - Phase 1 Desk Study - Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey - Transport Statement - Travel Plan - Archaeological Desk-based Assessment - Proposed Site Plan - Proposed Floor Plans - Proposed Elevations - Proposed Site Sections - Landscaping Plans
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
• 130275 - Prior notification for proposed demolition of building. Approved 2013. • 131314 – (the adjoining site) Construction of a Storage and Distribution Warehouse (Class B8) with ancillary offices, means of access, car and cycle parking facilities, drainage, landscaping, plant and ancillary works. Approved 2013. • 140904 - Request for EIA screening opinion for erection of a car showroom with service, MOT and workshop facilities and ancillary offices (approximately 7,000 sqm). Observations Sent (Not EIA development) 2014.
229 Site Plan (not to scale)
Aerial view of site including former building
230 Photo of similar development recently completed by proposed occupier
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory Consultation
Environment Agency: Any comments received will be reported in an update at your meeting.
(ii) Non Statutory Consultation
RBC Ecology: It will be particularly important to ensure that new large canopy trees are planted over the car parking area (the proposals as indicated include an area of hardstanding approximately 40 x 200m in size). The environmental benefits of trees over hardstanding include:
• The provision of wildlife habitat • Improved ecological permeability • Mitigation of the impacts of climate change • Reduced storm-water run off • The provision of shade • Reduction in air pollutants • Reduction in the urban heat island effect
Since the applicant has not provided any planting in the car park area despite our pre-application advice RBC Ecology would object to the proposals. However, the objection would be dropped if additional tree planting was conditioned.
RBC Natural Environment: The submitted Arboricultural Survey and Impact Assessment does not demonstrate in enough detail how certain aspects of the development will be implemented
231 without causing detriment to the root systems of trees to be retained. Particularly the installation of the ‘no-dig’ surface and removal of existing hard surfacing within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of retained trees. Therefore RBC Natural Environment recommend that an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is required by condition.
Additionally prior to any demolition and/or construction work taking place, all tree protection measures, in accordance with the submitted Tree Protection Plan, must be in place.
RBC Transport: The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement. Given that a significant amount of floor space (10,199m²) from the previous development can still be used as baseline data and this was agreed at the Pre-Application stage. This has been submitted and is assessed as follows:
Trip Rate Data The trip rate data for the proposed development has been calculated using an actual survey of a similar site in Leicester and this data is acceptable given that the site is to be of similar size and provides exactly the same facilities. These survey results have however been increased by 37% to take into account the increased staff levels proposed at this application site, this is a robust assessment and has therefore been deemed acceptable. The trip rates for the existing use have been calculated using those that were previously agreed for the adjacent site, application reference 131314, this has been deemed acceptable given that this site previously formed part of a larger plot to which the adjacent site was incorporated.
Based on the above it is stated that the development will result in a peak hour increase in vehicle trips of 44 which would be between 8.00am and 9.00am on a weekday this would equate to a vehicle every 1 ½ minutes. The data supplied within the Technical Note dated 30.10.2014 stipulates the development would result in a total of 672 vehicle movements equating to an increase of 247 daily vehicle movements. This proposed increased would result in an average of 1 vehicle every 2 ½ to 3 minutes. The increases mentioned above are not a material increase and within the daily fluctuations on the network.
Access and parking Two accesses are currently provided on Worton Drive for the site and two are to be retained which is acceptable. The southern access is to be relocated away from the junction with Imperial Way which is an improvement on the current situation and is therefore acceptable.
The car and cycle parking should be in accordance with the Councils Parking Standards and Design SPD which requires the following provision:
1 space per 1 FTE staff equating to 127 spaces 1 space per 10 display vehicles equating to 22 spaces 3 spaces per service bay equating to 105 spaces
232 Including display vehicles the site will have a total of 404 car parking spaces which are broken down as follows:
200 display vehicles 47 customer sales parking spaces 71 staff parking spaces 86 customer service bays spaces
Although staff parking provision has not been provided to accommodate the full 127 members of staff it has been stated that just 84 of staff will be on site at any one time. Also based on the travel survey results which states that 84% of staff currently drive to the existing site on the A33 Reading, this equates to the 71 parking spaces that have been proposed. The provision of parking around the site can be dealt with by way of a condition.
A tracking diagram has been submitted illustrating a refuse vehicle and car transporter entering and exiting the site in forward gear and is therefore acceptable.
Cycle parking is also required and should be at a ratio of 1 space per 6 FTE staff (vehicle sales), 1 space per 20 display vehicles and 1 space per 4 FTE staff (vehicle servicing), this equates to a total requirement of 34 spaces. Please note that this is based solely on the display / demonstrator vehicles and not those located within the compound. A provision of 34 cycle spaces is proposed but a drawing has not been submitted to illustrate the cycle parking layout, however given that the required number of spaces are to be provided this can be dealt with by way of a condition.
A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application which in general is acceptable, however there were several points that needed addressing the first of which referred to Table 6-1 which states that the long term timescales are between 3-5 years after full occupancy. However there should continue to be an annual review of the Travel Plan. The submitted Technical Note states that the proposed 5 year implementation and monitoring period for the travel plan is consistent with the approved travel plan for the adjacent Geopost site (ref 131314) however a Travel Plan for this site has not been approved by the Council and condition 16 of the permission requires that an annual review of the travel plan is undertaken. Both sites have the potential to generate high proportions of vehicle movements and therefore the annual review is required to help reduce the amount of vehicle trips generated.
The second point referred to Table 7-1 which states that the timescale for the investigation into the possibility of obtaining discounted season tickets or travel passes for both bus and rail would be within 1 year of the Travel Plan adoption. However the Travel Plan as amended to states that this will be within 3 months of occupation.
Therefore a revised travel plan is required with annual reviews and clarity on access to bus or train passes but this can be dealt with by way of a condition.
In accordance with Section 5 (Transport) of the Council’s Supplementary
233 Planning Document on planning obligations, November 2013, developments will be expected to contribute to wider and strategic transport improvements in relation to roads, public transport, and facilities for cycling and pedestrians. The sum of £74,594 will be used towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan.
RBC Environmental Health: Garages carrying out vehicle repairs, MOTs and servicing are commonly located within residential areas without noise complaint and the neighbouring building will provide a barrier between the servicing area and the Holiday Inn and residential areas nearby and therefore there are no concerns regarding noise impact from the proposed development.
In terms of contaminated land, the site is considered to be suitable for the current use and proposed use and therefore no further assessment is necessary.
The development includes the use of advertising lighting and internal lighting overnight. Although this is not recommended, due to potential light nuisance and environmentally in terms of wasted electricity and carbon emissions, due to the location of the development it is unlikely that there would be an impact on local residents and therefore there are no objections.
Conditions proposed regarding construction hours and noise.
Berkshire Archaeology: No objections and no conditions required.
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
The application was advertised in the local press a major development and a site notice was posted.
Letters were sent to: Unit 3, 3a, 4, 5, 7, Wellington House, Worton Drive; Atlantic House, Pacific House, Worton Grange Imperial Way; Holiday Inn Basingstoke Road.
No comments received.
5.0 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'.
234 5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008 Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) Policy CS2 (Waste Minimisation) Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) Policy CS5 (Inclusive Access) Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) Policy CS10 (Location of Employment Development) Policy CS12 (Maintaining a Variety of Premises) Policy CS13 (Impact of Employment Development) Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) Policy CS22 (Transport Assessments) Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Sites and Detailed Policies Document (SDPD), 2012 Policy SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) Policy DM2 (Decentralised Energy) Policy DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters) Policy DM19 (Air Quality) Policy SA1 (South Reading Development Principles) Policy SA12 (Core Employment Areas)
Supplementary Planning Documents ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ (2011) ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’ (2011) ‘Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990’ (2004) ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ (2013)
6.0 APPRAISAL
Main considerations
(i) Policy Position
235 6.1 Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy identifies the A33 or Core Employment Areas as the location for new employment uses, and Policy CS11 states that there is a general presumption against loss of employment land in these areas. Policy SA12 of the SDPD identifies the site as being located within a Core Employment Area (the ‘South of Basingstoke Road’ Core Employment Area (SA12c) where the overall level of B8 storage and distribution should be maintained. The SDPD clarifies that car dealerships are not generally considered to be employment uses, and therefore the provision of a car dealership in this location on its own would be contrary to policy.
6.2 However, the submissions with the planning application, including the Planning Statement submitted by the applicant, outlines that this proposal includes substantial vehicle servicing and storage elements. Vehicle servicing is a B2 use and storage is a B8 use and is therefore an employment use that would be appropriate in a Core Employment Area. According to the submitted plans and floorspace schedules the amount of floorspace for vehicle servicing and storage would be between 2 and 3 times that for vehicle sales. The Planning Statement also demonstrates that this split would be reflected in the number of employees in different parts of the business, with the number of servicing staff expected to exceed those in sales (albeit that there would also be a number of administration and management staff covering both elements). For this reason, it is not reasonable to consider this proposal as a straightforward vehicle dealership; rather it is a mixed use with a very substantial employment element. This means that, taken together with the adjacent B8 development approved under 131314 and now occupied, only a relatively small part of the former Premier Foods site would actually be lost to a non- employment use.
6.3 The principle of the development on this site is therefore considered to be in accordance with the Council’s adopted planning policies.
(ii) Character and Appearance
6.4 The former Premier Foods building was a substantial utilitarian building (in excess of 110m wide and 120m deep) set well back (approximately 60m) from the street frontage. It is proposed that the replacement building would be set further forwards towards Imperial Way (by between 12m and 15m). Whilst set further forward than the previous building on site and approved building on the adjoining site, the set back is consistent with Atlantic House and Pacific House to the south-west and the building would be softened from Imperial Way and Worton Drive by tree planting. Although the total length of the building (which is effectively three linked buildings) would be approximately 160m, the overall bulk and height would be less than the previous building on site. The proposed building would have not have a detrimental impact upon the streetscene, subject to the provision of appropriate landscaping, discussed in further detail below.
236 6.5 The site is located within an industrial/commercial area where there are a large number of buildings of varying age, scale and appearance. In terms of detailed appearance, the scheme follows the corporate design principles set by the proposed tenant – the proposed silver metal cladding is considered to result in an attractive modern building which serves to make the proposed building wholly acceptable in this location.
6.6 As such, it is considered that the proposals meet the requirement in paragraph 64 of the NPPF to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and comply with Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) of the Core Strategy.
(iii) Amenity of Surrounding Occupiers:
6.7 The proposed building would be located in an industrial/commercial area, would be sited over 170m from the closest residential properties and would be screened by existing buildings and proposed boundary treatment. It is therefore considered that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon surrounding residential properties in terms of its physical presence or potential overbearing nature.
6.8 The development would therefore be acceptable in terms of the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.
(iv) Access/Transport
6.9 The application has been submitted with a Transport Statement (TS), which details trip generation for proposed development. The trip generation data is based on an existing site operated by the prospective tenant and has been increased proportionately to take into account the proposed additional future staff levels on this site. It is therefore considered to be robust data. The TS shows that the development would result in 672 daily vehicle movements, which is an increase of 247 daily vehicle movements taking into account the trip generation of the former use on site. This is not a material increase and can be accommodated on the network.
6.10 The application proposes amended access on to Worton Drive, which are acceptable in terms of visibility – the southern access is moved further from the junction with Imperial Way and represents an improvement in highway safety terms. A tracking diagram has been submitted illustrating a refuse vehicle and car transporter entering and exiting the site in forward gear; the scheme is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of vehicle manoeuvring and highway safety.
6.11 The site would have a total of 404 spaces, split as follows:
- 200 display vehicles
237 - 47 customer sales parking spaces - 71 staff parking spaces - 86 customer service bays spaces
6.12 The overall level of parking provision is considered to be appropriate; however, in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards the site should provide an increased number of staff spaces and fewer display vehicle spaces. It is considered that this can be achieved through the submission of an amended parking layout, which is proposed to be conditioned. A total of 34 cycle parking spaces are proposed to serve the development. This level accords with standards and it proposed that these, and details of the lockable stores, are secured through condition
6.13 A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application. In general terms this is considered to be acceptable; however, annual review is only proposed for the first 5 years. There is also a discrepancy within the submissions regarding the length of time discounted season tickets/travel passes would be available. It is considered that these issues can be resolved through the submission of an amended Travel Plan by condition.
6.14 The application is therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to highway safety and traffic congestion and to have provided for adequate car and cycle parking, subject to conditions. The development is therefore considered to comply with the NPPF, Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy, Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD.
(v) Trees, Landscaping and Ecology
6.15 The site is within an area of less than 10% tree coverage as defined in the Council’s Tree Strategy, is located along a main route and contains a number of good specimen trees. Accordingly, the Council served an area TPO (36/13), protecting all trees on site.
6.16 An Arboricultural Survey submitted with the application has assessed the 37 trees on site, 6 of which were found to be category ‘A’. The application proposes the removal of 7 category ‘C’ trees due to poor health and the removal of further 8 category ‘B’ and ‘C’ trees to facilitate the development. In mitigation 32 replacement trees are proposed; a ratio in excess of 2 trees planted for every 1 tree removed.
6.17 The existing and proposed planting would be to the site frontages. The central part of the site is currently hardstanding and rubble, and would be car parking as a result of the development. The Council’s Ecologist has commented that tree planting should be required within the car park; however, the functional requirements of a car showroom/service centre are noted, the site is located within an industrial area, and the scheme results in an overall improvement in terms of landscaping,
238 including significant additional tree planting, at the site. It is therefore not considered to be necessary to require additional tree planting over and above that proposed by the applicant.
6.18 Planning conditions are proposed to ensure an Arboricultural Method Statement and provision, retention and maintenance of the approved landscaping.
6.19 Notwithstanding concerns raised by the Council’s Ecologist regarding lack of tree planting in the car park, taking into account other factors including the overall level proposed tree planting and landscaping proposed for the site, on balance, the development is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) and CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands) of the Core Strategy.
(vi) Environmental Issues
6.20 The site is situated within Zone 1 (i.e. a low probability of flooding) based on the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) Flood Zone map; however, the site is over 1ha and accordingly the application has been submitted with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The application submissions have been provided to the EA and any comments will be reported in an update at your meeting. Subject to the receipt of no objection from the EA the application accords with the NPPF and Policy CS35 of the Core Strategy.
6.21 In relation to contamination, the applicants have submitted a desk top study with the application, concluding that the risk of contamination is low. The work undertaken by the applicant is considered to be acceptable, and the development would not result in contamination, accord with Policy CS34 of the Core Strategy.
6.22 In relation to sustainability, a condition is proposed to ensure that the development meets the Council’s policy requirement for major non- residential developments to meet a BREEAM score of 62.5% (halfway between ‘Very Good’ and ‘Excellent’) unless agreed otherwise.
6.23 Berkshire Archaeology confirm that the site has been disturbed by previous development, and that the proposed development would not impact upon archaeology.
(vii) Infrastructure Contributions
6.24 In accordance with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations, 2013, the proposal will be expected to contribute towards infrastructure provision to meet the needs of the development. It is considered that the following planning obligation satisfies the three tests set out in the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure (CIL) Regulations 2010 in that they are (a) necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms, (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and
239 kind to the development.
6.26 A financial contribution of £74,594 would be required towards mitigating the impact of the development upon transport infrastructure. The monies would be used towards schemes identified in the Southern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan.
6.27 In accordance with the Council’s Adopted ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ SPD the development would result in the requirement for construction phase and end user phase Employment and Skills Plans (ESP) which identifies and promotes, in collaboration with the Reading UK CIC’s Skills for Business campaign, employment opportunities generated by the proposed development. The applicant has engaged in productive discussions with officers and Reading CIC’s Skills for Business Coordinator, which will inform the plans required under the Heads of Terms at the start of your report. The Skills for Business Coordinator confirms there is no objection to the approach taken by the applicants, and the development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this respect, subject to completion of the S106 Legal Agreement.
(viii) Other Issues
Equality Act 2010
6.28 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, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation.
6.29 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.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 The redevelopment of the site for a car showroom and servicing/repair garage does not result in an overall loss of employment uses and is acceptable considered against employment policies within the Core Strategy and SDPD. The development would be acceptable in relation to its design and appearance and would not be overbearing to neighbouring properties, in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document. The application is considered to be acceptable in relation to highway safety and traffic congestion, in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS20
240 of the Core Strategy and the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD. The application would, on balance, be acceptable in relation to its impact upon trees and in terms of landscaping, despite the concerns raised regarding lack of planting within the car park/sales area, in accordance with Policy CS38 of the Core Strategy.
7.2 It is recommended that, subject to completion of a S106 Legal Agreement to ensure a financial contribution towards RUAP and that the aims of the adopted ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ SPD are met, the application be granted subject to the imposition of planning conditions.
Case Officer: Justin Turvey.
241
242
243
244 CONSULTATION BY OTHER AUTHORITIES
245 246 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 21 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014
Ward: Out of Borough App No.: 141642 Address: Hogwood Farm, Sheerlands Road, Finchampstead (Wokingham Borough) Proposal: Hybrid Application for; PART 1 - OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR: New Homes (Use Class C3) 1 500 dwellings (including affordable) on 43.63 hectares of land totalling approximately 225,000 sq. m of floorspace, comprising a mix of 2-5+ bed detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. Employment (Use Class B2) 1.87 hectares of land for 12,000 sq. m of General Industrial uses. Village Centre (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 and D1) A village centre (0.3 hectares) containing 1,900 sq. m of floorspace for: Shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, public house and/or hot food takeaways; church; and children's nursery. Car parking will also be provided to serve the village centre and SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace). Schools (Use Class D1) 2.5 hectares of land to accommodate a two-form entry primary school (with potential to expand to 3-form entry) and associated playing fields, sports pitches, and parking areas. Open Space Formal and informal open space, totalling approximately 29.45 hectares of land including car parking, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage systems (including surface water attenuation works) as follows: 5.46 ha Parks and Public Gardens 3.54 ha Amenity Green Space 0.90 ha Children's Play Areas 5.98 ha Outdoor Sport 1.87 ha Community Allotments 0.04 ha Civic Space 11.66 ha Other Open Space PART 2 - FULL PERMISSION FOR: Highway Infrastructure Provision of highway infrastructure (including associated utilities footway & cycleway) comprising: The Nine Mile Ride Extension - a new road running westwards from Park Lane, connecting the existing Nine Mile Ride to the village centre and primary school. Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) 30.04ha of land for SANG. Applicant: Marino Family Date received: 2nd October 2014 (by Wokingham Borough Council); 13th October 2014 (by Reading Borough Council) Major Application: Wokingham Borough Council 13 week target decision date: 1st January 2015
Ward: Out of Borough App No.: 141710 Address: Arborfield Garrison and Adjoining Land, Arborfield Proposal: HYBRID APPLICATION FOR: PART 1 - OUTLINE PERMISSION FOR: Up to 2,000 new dwellings (including 80 units of extra care housing and housing within new district centre) (Class C3). District centre (up to 9,000 sq m (gross) floor space comprising a foodstore up to 4,000 sq m gross with a up to a further 3,500 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2 (with residential above - Class C3), and up to a further 1,500 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes D1 and D2, transport interchange, village square, car parking, servicing and drop off area. Neighbourhood centre to provide up to 300 sq m (gross) floor space within Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1, D1 and D2, with parking/servicing area. Secondary school for up to 1,500 pupils (Class D1) including sports pitches, flood-lit all-weather pitch. Indoor swimming pool and parking areas. Up to three-form primary school (Class D1) with sports pitch and parking areas. Associated provision of: car parking; public open space including sports pitches, informal/incidental open space,
247 children's play areas including multi-use games area (MUGA), BMX track and skate park, community gardens/allotments; landscaping/buffer areas; boundary treatments; new roads, footpaths, cycleways and bridleways; sustainable urban drainage systems including flood alleviation works. PART 2 - FULL PERMISSION FOR: Creation of two new areas of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGS) (In the north-eastern part of the application site (Northern SANGS) and at West Court (West Court SANGS) including car parking areas, path/walkways, fencing and associated landscaping; re-use of existing MoD gymnasium for sports/community uses/centre (Classes D1/D2); new roundabout junction to A327 Reading Road; junction improvements to Langley Common Road, Baird Road and Biggs Lane; junction improvements and new access at Biggs Lane/Princess Marina Drive; re-use and improvements to existing site accesses from Biggs Lane. Applicant: Arborfield Garrison Landowners’ Consortium Date received: 13th October 2014 (by Wokingham Borough Council); 21st October 2014 (by Reading Borough Council) Major Application: Wokingham Borough Council 13 week target decision date: 12th January 2015
RECOMMENDATION:
141642 That Wokingham Borough Council be informed that Reading Borough Council raise NO OBJECTION to the proposal subject to:
(1) Adequate measures to address the transport effects of the development along the A327 corridor being secured, which may include measures within Reading Borough, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council; and
(2) Adequate measures to secure the new education provision and to address the education effects of the development being secured, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council.
141710 That Wokingham Borough Council be informed that Reading Borough Council raise NO OBJECTION to the proposal subject to:
(1) Adequate measures to address the transport effects of the development along the A327 corridor being secured, which may include measures within Reading Borough, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council; and
(2) Adequate measures to secure the new education provision and to address the education effects of the development being secured, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Reading Borough Council (RBC) has been consulted on these two applications by Wokingham Borough Council (WBC). The two applications are on adjacent sites and propose a major new development comprising up to 3,500 homes with supporting uses including employment uses and new district/local centres. The site is located approximately 5 km to the South East of Reading Borough, but due the scale of the proposals and their
248 location on the A327 corridor leading to Reading, there is the potential for impacts on Reading Borough.
1.2 Taken together, the applications cover the area identified as the Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location in the Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (WBCS, adopted in 2010). The WBCS seeks to provide much of its allocation of new homes within four Strategic Development Locations (SDLs), of which Arborfield Garrison is to be the largest. Each SDL is also covered by a Supplementary Planning Document which provides more detail on the development, including on matters such as design. The Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location SPD was adopted in 2011.
Location – not to scale
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal involves the development of a new Strategic Development Location at Arborfield Garrison, as anticipated by the WBCS. The development would include the following main elements: • Up to 3,500 new homes • Employment uses, including 12,000 sq m of industrial development • A new district centre and two new neighbourhood centres, totalling up to 11,200 sq m of retail and related town centre uses • A new secondary school for up to 1,500 pupils • One new primary school and land for an additional primary school • New open space including sports pitches and play areas • Highways alterations • Areas of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGs), which are areas of green space to offset any potential effects on the Thames
249 Basin Heaths Special Protection Area as a result of the new development.
2.2 The applications are hybrid applications, with most elements in outline. The elements for which full permission are sought are mainly some of the important infrastructure such as the highways alterations and the SANGs.
2.3 Application 141710 for the most part covers the northern half of the SDL, whilst 141642 covers the southern half.
2.4 The proposed phasing for application 141710 is as set out below: • Phase 1 (2015-2020) – 700 dwellings, main access, foodstore, secondary school, primary school, northern SANG. • Phase 2 (2020-2025) – 700 dwellings, remainder of district centre, southern SANG. • Phase 3 (2025-2030) - 600 dwellings and strategic open space
2.5 Actual timescales for the phases of application 171642 are not given, but the sequence is proposed to be as follows: • Phase 1 – Residential development mainly in the east of the site (254 dwellings), employment land, highways alterations, primary school, land for sports, leisure and recreation facilities and the first phase of the SANG. • Phase 2 – The village centre, village green, internal routes, residential development in the east and west of the site (353 dwellings), second phase of SANG, sports and recreation facilities in the east of the site. • Phase 3 – Further residential development around the site (337 dwellings), internal routes, sports and recreation facilities in the east of the site. • Phase 4 – Residential development in west of site (558 dwellings), demolition of Hogwood Farm industrial estate and replacement with residential.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Hogwood Farm, Sheerlands Road, Finchampstead • 11/01864/ADJ - Application for a Scoping Opinion to determine the content of an Environmental Impact Assessment for proposed development of site including 1500 new homes employment land neighbourhood centre a primary school open space and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Observations sent.
Arborfield Garrison and Adjoining Land, Arborfield None
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 WBC has carried out its own consultations. RBC’s consultation responses are outlined below
4.1 RBC Transport Development Control: No response received at the time of this report. The response will be reported to the Committee in an Update Report.
250 4.2 RBC Education: No response received at the time of this report. The response will be reported to the Committee in an Update Report.
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:
National Planning Guidance National Planning Policy Framework
Wokingham Borough Local Development Framework Wokingham Borough Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) Managing Development Delivery Local Plan (Adopted 2014) Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted 2011)
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues where there are considered to be potential impacts on RBC are in terms of transport, education and retail impact.
(i) Transport Implications 6.2 The proposal represents a very major development directly on the A327, which links directly to Reading Borough. It is therefore considered likely that there will be transport implications for RBC.
6.3 Concerns have previously been raised with WBC about the transport implications of the Arborfield Garrison development. RBC’s response to the submission version of the WBCS stated that:
“While Arborfield Garrison is a large brownfield site with a sizeable housing area, as a major development site it is somewhat remote from employment, services and facilities and, at the current time, very poorly served by public transport. RBC is concerned that such a large development will be unsustainable giving rise to significant unsustainable car borne journeys with added pressure to roads and transport services, including roads and services in Reading Borough. Policy CP 19 needs to provide more assurance that development at Arborfield Garrison can be provided sustainably and that any impacts on services and infrastructure in the area including within Reading Borough will be mitigated as part of the development.”
6.4 It is therefore considered that development at Arborfield Garrison must contribute to transport improvements and mitigation measures along the A327 corridor, which may include measures within Reading. This matter should be raised with WBC through the response to these applications, and will need to be a subject of continuing liaison between the two authorities.
251
6.5 Due to the short timescales for responding given by WBC, it has not been possible for a full Transport response to be available at the time of this report. This full response will be provided in an update report.
(ii) Education Implications 6.6 The development includes a secondary school and two primary schools, meaning that there is significant new education provision proposed. However, there are existing cross-boundary education capacity issues between RBC and WBC, particularly in terms of secondary education. The delivery of a new secondary school at Arborfield Garrison was expected to help to support the South of the M4 SDL (between Shinfield and Spencers Wood), so there are implications for RBC. It is therefore considered that the response to WBC must highlight that cross-boundary education capacity, particularly in terms of secondary education, remains an important issue that requires ongoing liaison between the two authorities.
6.7 Due to the short timescales for responding given by WBC, it has not been possible for a response from RBC’s Education section to be available at the time of this report. This full response, if available, will be provided in an update report.
(iii) Retail Impact 6.8 The proposals include some retail and related uses in the form of a new district centre and two neighbourhood centres. The district centre would include a foodstore of up to 4,000 sq m. In total, up to 11,200 sq m of floorspace would be within the centres, although this would also cover other uses such as restaurants, community facilities and a children’s nursery in addition to retail.
6.9 Given the nature of the proposals, which essentially form a new sustainable settlement, it is entirely appropriate that retail and other town centre facilities are provided within the development itself. WBCS policy CP18 (Arborfield Garrison Strategic Development Location) states that ‘appropriate retail facilities’ should be provided, and Appendix 7 to the WBCS identifies that this should include a 4,000 sq m foodstore.
6.10 Application 141710, which includes the district centre, is accompanied by a Retail Impact Assessment, which considers the potential impact on nearby centres. No centres in Reading are considered. In most cases, this is appropriate. There is unlikely to be any noticeable impact on central Reading from a convenience goods-led proposal of this scale and in this location, and most of the other smaller centres in Reading do not have any particularly strong connections with the Arborfield Garrison site. It could however be argued that this Assessment should also have covered the Shinfield Road District Centre in Reading, which, like the proposal, is located on the A327. However, the impact assessment has demonstrated that the nearby centres likely to see any impact of note are those which are anchored by large or medium-sized foodstores. The units in Shinfield Road are significantly smaller, and serve a much more localised catchment. It is not therefore considered that there is likely to be any significant impact on centres in Reading.
252 7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Subject to responses from the RBC’s Transport Development Control and Education sections to be provided in an update report, it is recommended that RBC raise no objections to WBC subject to • Adequate measures to address the transport effects along the A327 corridor being secured, which may include measures within Reading Borough, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council; and
• Adequate measures to secure the new education provision and to address the education effects of the development being secured, requiring continued liaison with Reading Borough Council.
Case Officer: Mark Worringham
253
141642 Development Framework Plan
254
141710 Land Use Plan
255