Public Document Pack Notice of Meeting

Eastern Area Planning Committee

Wednesday, 16th June, 2010 at 6.30pm in the Calcot Centre, Highview (off Royal Avenue), Calcot

Members Interests

Note: If you consider you may have an interest in any Planning Application included on this agenda then please seek early advice from the appropriate officers.

Date of despatch of Agenda: Tuesday, 8 June 2010

FURTHER INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Plans relating to the Planning Applications to be considered at the meeting can be viewed in the Calcot Centre between 5.30pm and 6.30pm on the day of the meeting.

No new information may be produced to Committee on the night (this does not prevent applicants or objectors raising new points verbally). If objectors or applicants wish to introduce new additional material they must provide such material to planning officers at least 5 clear working days before the meeting (in line with the Local Authorities (Access to Meetings and Documents) (Period of Notice) () Order 2002).

For further information about this Agenda, or to inspect any background documents referred to in Part I reports, please contact Stephen Chard Tel: (01635) 519462 Email: [email protected].

Further information, Planning Applications and Minutes are also available on the Council’s website at www.westberks.gov.uk

Agenda - Eastern Area Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 (continued)

To: Councillors Peter Argyle, Pamela Bale, Brian Bedwell (Chairman), Richard Crumly, Alan Law, Keith Lock, Royce Longton, Alan Macro, Tim Metcalfe, Irene Neill (Vice-Chairman), Graham Pask and Terry Port Substitutes: Councillors Keith Chopping, Lee Dillon, Manohar Gopal, Owen Jeffery, Tony Linden, Mollie Lock, Quentin Webb and Keith Woodhams

Agenda

Part I Page No.

1. Apologies To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any).

2. Minutes 1 - 34 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this Committee held on 26 May 2010.

3. Declarations of Interest To receive any Declarations of Interest from Members.

4. Schedule of Planning Applications (Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and participation in individual applications.)

(1) Application No. & Parish: 10/00556/HOUSE, Basildon. 35 - 48

Proposal: Single storey and first floor extensions to existing bungalow structure with revised materials. New mono-pitched roof to existing structure. Location: Brickfields, Blandys Lane, , Reading Applicant: Mr Paul Smith Recommendation: The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to APPROVE Planning Permission subject to conditions.

Agenda - Eastern Area Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 (continued)

(2) Application No. & Parish: 10/00631/HOUSE, . 49 - 56

Proposal: Retrospective – Wall to front of garden Location: 6 Charrington Road, Calcot, Reading, , RG31 7AW Applicant: Recommendation: The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant retrospective planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Items for Information

5. Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area Planning 57 - 60 Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area Planning Committee.

6. Plans and Drawings 61 - 76 The plans and drawings relating to the planning applications submitted to this meeting.

Background Papers

(a) The South East Plan: The Regional Spatial Strategy for 2006-2026 (May 2009), District Local Plan (Saved Policies September 2007), the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire and relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents. (b) Any previous planning applications for the site, together with correspondence and report(s) on those applications. (c) The case file for the current application comprising plans, application forms, correspondence and case officer’s notes. (d) The Human Rights Act.

Andy Day Head of Policy and Communication

West Berkshire Council is committed to equality of opportunity. We will treat everyone with respect, regardless of race, disability, gender, age, religion or sexual orientation. If you require this information in a different format, such as audio tape, or in another language, please ask an English speaker to contact Moira Fraser on telephone (01635) 519045, who will be able to help.

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 2. DRAFT Note: These Minutes will remain DRAFT until approved at the next meeting of the Committee

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, 26 MAY 2010

Councillors Present: Pamela Bale (P), Brian Bedwell (Chairman) (P), Richard Crumly (P), Alan Law (P), Keith Lock (P), Mollie Lock (SP), Royce Longton (P), Alan Macro (P), Tim Metcalfe (P), Irene Neill (Vice-Chairman) (P), Quentin Webb (SP)

Also Present: Brian Conlon (Planning Officer), Gareth Dowding (Senior Engineer), Paul Goddard (Team Leader - Highways Development Control), Katherine Goodchild (Principal Planning Officer), Liz Patient (Solicitor), Gary Rayner (Development Control Manager), Stephen Chard (Policy Officer), David Cook (Principal Policy Officer)

Apologies: Councillor Peter Argyle, Councillor Graham Pask and Councillor Terry Port

PART I

4. Apologies Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were received on behalf of Councillors Peter Argyle, Graham Pask and Terry Port. Councillor Quentin Webb substituted for Councillor Graham Pask and Councillor Mollie Lock substituted for Councillor Terry Port. 5. Minutes The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 April 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment: Item 19, Bethesda Street – final sentence, paragraph 2 on page 11 – None of the houses in Bethesda Street had dormer windows on the third storey. The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 May 2010 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman. Gary Rayner then addressed the Committee and made the following points in relation to agenda items 4 (1), (2) and (3) that all related to 14 and 16 Reading Road, : • Although each application related to the development of the same single site they all needed to be considered as individual applications. • Agenda item 4 (3), which was for the full application, was to be withdrawn from the Agenda to allow for the implications of the demolition of the building within the Conservation Area to be referred to and fully addressed as part of this ‘Full’ application so that it could stand as an independent application (whether refused or approved) separate from any requirement for Conservation Consent. Members queried whether a decision taken on one of the items could predetermine the decision on another. Gary Rayner confirmed that if, for example, the Conservation Area Consent was refused then the Outline permission could still be approved and access could remain as a reserved matter. If, on the other hand, Conservation Area Consent was granted it would stand alone as an approval and a condition would be added to ensure that there was a planning permission for redevelopment and a contract in place for those works to be carried out, before the demolition could be carried out. It was

Page 1 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

therefore possible to consider the applications separately without needing to take into account the decision taken on any separate applications which related to the site. 6. Declarations of Interest Councillor Alan Macro declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(4), and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter, other than to speak as Ward Member. Councillor Brian Bedwell declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(5), and reported that, as his interest was personal and prejudicial, he would not participate during the course of consideration of the matter, other than to speak as Ward Member. Councillor Richard Crumly declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(7), but reported that, as his interest was personal and not prejudicial, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter. 7. Schedule of Planning Applications 7(1) Application No. & Parish: 09/02680/CON, Pangbourne. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 09/02680/CON in respect of the demolition of Nos. 14 and 16 Reading Road, Pangbourne. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs K Lacey and Ms J Hughes, Parish Council representatives, Mr Richard Anstis, objector, Ms Angela Foot, supporter, and Mr Paul Galliver and Mr Adrian Keal, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs Lacey in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Mrs Lacey was a member of the Pangbourne Residents Association but did not attend meetings when objections to this application were discussed. • The Parish Council objected to the application. The proposed demolition of the existing building would have a negative impact on the street scene. The Parish Council did however support the development of the post office. • This would lead to a loss of a Class A1 retail unit. • The development would have a harmful effect on the Conservation Area and would be a great loss of amenity. • The existing buildings should be retained, which the Planning Inspector had agreed with. They were of historic interest. The Secretary of State had indicated that buildings of this sort should be protected. • The Parish Council felt these would be adequate reasons on which to refuse the application. In response to Member questions, Ms Hughes advised that she felt that it was possible to expand the post office without the need for any demolition, as the original 2006 application proposed that the extension would be to the rear of the property and not to the side. Ms Hughes added that she felt it was possible to incorporate the properties proposed for demolition for the use of the post office. Mrs Lacey advised Members that the properties proposed for demolition had been empty since 2007.

Page 2 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Mr Anstis in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • In considering this as a single application, it should be refused as the Conservation Officer required redevelopment as a condition of approval. Without this the objections of the Conservation Officer stood. • Consultees were invited to comment individually on the three applications as well as collectively. The removal of one of the applications made this process invalid. • The Tree Officer and the Footpath Officer had not responded and the views of all consultees should be taken into account. • Any demolition could not take place until the Planning Authority were content that a contract was in place, however the contract would be between the applicant and the builder. There were no guarantees that building work would occur immediately following the demolition. • The late removal of agenda item 3 had caused confusion and this had an impact on the two applications remaining for a decision. Ms Foot in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Ms Foot ran the post office and had taken on the lease in January 2002. Since that time it had been difficult to maintain this rural post office and there was limited support provided by Post Office Limited. • For the post office to be economically viable it needed to extend in order to sell products such as greeting cards and stationery. • This was the third application to extend the post office in eight years and fulfilled previously raised objections. • Other premises had been considered but none were suitable. • If development was approved then the post office would still provide its normal service in a temporary premises. • Development of the post office would help to maintain other businesses in the village. It was queried whether there was the potential for the post office to move to number 14 (the Gaia building). Ms Foot advised that the dimensions of the Gaia building were not suitable as it was too wide and the proposal to extend to the rear was a more affordable option which would enable access to the front and back of the post office. Mr Keal in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The applications were submitted separately in line with the previously submitted applications considered in 2006. The Planning Inspector also considered the development in this way and this approach was found to be acceptable in pre application discussions with the Planning Service. • However the applications were for a complete scheme and the applicant was willing to enter into a unilateral undertaking on that basis. There was no intention for a partial implementation of the scheme.

Page 3 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• Previous flaws were sought to be addressed and this scheme was vastly superior. This scheme would retain the gap and not alter the street scene, which was a previous concern. • The Conservation Officer was content subject to the inclusion of specific conditions. • The existing buildings were not commercially viable. • The deferred application needed to be referred to. This showed that the replacement post office would enhance the area and retain the existing arched design, this was another improvement on the previous scheme. It was commented by a Member that a number of these points were based on jointly considering the applications. However, when considering this application in isolation, the concerns of the Planning Inspector remained. Councillor Pamela Bale, as Ward Member, thanked those Members who attended the site visit and made the following points: • This application was for the demolition of buildings in a Conservation Area and it was Planning Policy to maintain vibrant villages. This was a designated rural centre that also serviced neighbouring villages. The post office was key to this and it was a priority to locate more suitable premises. The fact that the properties had been empty for a period of time was not a suitable reason for demolition. • As the linked applications could not be considered, the potential benefits of the development could not be taken into account. In its own right this application would lead to a loss of a retail unit. • Members were being asked to make a decision without an awareness of what would be put in place to mitigate against the loss of the demolished buildings. This made it difficult to accept Officers Recommendation. In considering the above application a Member queried whether there was any merit in deferring a decision until the full proposal could be discussed. Gary Rayner acknowledged that there was an opportunity to defer this application, but reiterated that if a decision was to be made on this application then it had to be taken in isolation for Conservation Area Consent only. A Member commented that the existing building was not fit for purpose and the extension of the post office should be supported. However, an awareness was needed of the full scheme. Councillor Alan Law proposed to reject Officers Recommendation and refuse the application on the grounds that the demolition of Nos. 14 and 16 Reading Road, Pangbourne would be a great loss to the Conservation Area. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Keith Lock. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the above reason. 7(2) Application No. & Parish: 09/02682/OUTMAJ, Pangbourne. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 09/02682/OUTMAJ in respect of the demolition of Meadow Lane House and erection of

Page 4 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

14 dwellings on land to the rear of Nos. 14 and 16 Reading Road with access and associated works. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs K Lacey and Ms J Hughes, Parish Council representatives, Ms Helen Goodwin, objector, Ms Angela Foot, supporter, and Mr Paul Galliver and Mr Adrian Keal, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs Lacey and Ms Hughes in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The Parish Council opposed the loss of a building in the Conservation Area. • They were opposed to the number of dwellings, they considered the number to be too high and felt that they would have a negative impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). • The Pangbourne Village Design Statement identified the area as an important open space especially for wildlife. This would be lost under this development. • West Berkshire Council’s Public Rights of Way Officer objected to the application as the amenities of the adjoining land use and the rights of way should be protected. • The orchard was of principal importance for protecting biodiversity of the site and thus should be protected. • There was concern about the safety of both pedestrians and road users if another access point was added to the road. • The proposed development would increase congestion. • The application stated that refuse collection would take place along Reading Road, this raised concern about increased traffic congestion whilst refuse was being collected. • There had been no mention within the report about the impact on the area during construction of the proposed dwellings. • If planning permission was granted Section 106 contributions should be used in Pangbourne. In response to Member questions, Mrs Lacey informed the committee that just because there were already existing problems with access along Reading Road there was no need to exasperate the problem by allowing another access onto the road. Members were also informed that although the Meadow Lane footpath would remain, the open space would be lost. Ms Goodwin in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • She was speaking on behalf of over 100 residents who objected to the proposed development. • They objected to important loss of open space. • Development on the site would result in loss of amenity for neighbouring properties. • Part of the development was in a flood zone so there was concern about the risk of flooding. • Development on the site would increase traffic congestion in the area.

Page 5 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• There would be difficulties collecting refuse from the site and this would have an adverse impact on traffic flow. Ms Foot in addressing the Committee referred the Committee to the comments made in the previous application (09/02680/CON, Pangbourne). Mr Galliver and Mr Keal in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Access and layout to the site would be determined under another application and should not be a consideration under this application. • The line of trees and shrubs along Meadow Lane would be kept and enhanced. • The loss of open space was not seen as a reason for refusal. • New dwellings would enhance the character of Meadow Lane. • West Berkshire Council’s Highways department had raised no objection to the application. • Previous issues of overlooking had been addressed in this application. • They were concerned that all three applications for this site were not being considered at this meeting as it would have alleviated some of the issues raised. Councillor Pamela Bale, as Ward Member, made the following points: • The open space was seen as an important village amenity. • She would have to question if access to the site would be appropriate as there were already existing problems with traffic flow and there would be an adverse impact on pedestrians using the area. • She felt that the application was not an acceptable layout, as there would be overlooking of neighbouring properties. • Refuse collection would be a problem as vehicles could not access the site. In considering the above application Members were concerned about the impact on the area, the importance of the open space, the adverse impact refuse collection would have due to existing traffic problems and poor access to the site, that the application went against guidelines in the Pangbourne Village Design Statement, there was concern about the layout of the proposed development and the impact on neighbouring properties. Councillor Quentin Webb proposed to reject Officers Recommendation and refuse the application on the grounds that there was no agreed defined access to the site, the negative impact on neighbouring amenity to neighbouring properties, the loss of open space and the lack of a S106 agreement. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Tim Metcalfe. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the above reasons. 7(3) Application No. & Parish: 09/02679/FUL, Pangbourne. Planning Application 09/02679/FUL in respect of the demolition of Nos. 14 and 16 Reading Road, Pangbourne, construction of new access and new post office with existing flat extended over was deferred prior to Committee and would be considered at a future Committee meeting.

Page 6 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

7(4) Application No. & Parish: 10/00562/XFULEX, . (Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(4) by virtue of the fact that he had predetermined the application. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he left the meeting at 7.30pm and took no part in the debate or voting on the matter, other than to speak as Ward Member). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 10/00562/XFULEX in respect of the renewal of planning permission 04/01219/FULMAJ – proposed residential development of 350 houses and apartments with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Wood, Parish Council representative, Mr Brett Dyson, objector, and Mr Trevor Hollinger, agent, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr Wood was not registered to address the Committee (in line with paragraph 7.13.1 of the Constitution), however the Committee voted in favour of allowing Mr Wood to speak. Mr Wood in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The Parish Council had concerns with regard to further extending the size of the village. • The proposed development would overlook the primary school. • The proposed development consisted of five storey buildings with flat roofs, this was out of character with the local area. It was on the edge of the AONB and was close to the settlement boundary. • Mr Wood acknowledged that the renewal application was very similar to that already agreed. Mr Dyson in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • He was a resident of Cavalier Close which was built in the 1980’s. • There were a number of material changes that the Committee needed to consider, which were reasons for refusal. • Of primary importance was the negative impact this would have on local wildlife. The woodland located to the east was home to the lesser spotted woodpecker which was a globally threatened species. The woodland therefore needed to be retained. There were also deer in the area. • An Environmental Impact Assessment had not been produced. • The South East Spatial Strategy required local authorities to maintain networks of green corridors. Approval of the application would be contrary to the strategy. • There was not sufficient information on the impact building work would have on the nearby lake which was home to a fishing club. • Drainage ditches adjacent to the A4 were not maintained and the additional burden that would be caused by this development would mean an increased risk of flooding, in an area already defined as a flooding zone.

Page 7 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• The proposed site was in the outer consultation zone for AWE. This meant that consultation was required with all other local authorities in the zone to ensure there was no risk to residents. There was no reference to this. • Some of the proposed housing fell within the consultation zones for safeguarding of hazardous substances stored at Foster Yeoman, the site was also in close proximity to Murco Petroleum. The development was therefore inappropriate and should at least be amended, as there would be a safety risk to residents. Mr Dyson was asked to comment on the statement in the report that the eastern woodland would be retained and there would therefore be no harm to the wildlife. Mr Dyson felt that the loss of the remaining woodland would still have a disturbing impact to local wildlife as would increased pedestrian traffic. Mr Hollinger in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • This renewal application was identical to the already approved application. • The applicant viewed the site as suitable for residential development, however development work had to date been delayed as a result of the economic downturn. • It was possible that work could commence before the current permission expired. A delay would disadvantage the applicant financially. • The S106 requirements were complex and work to finalise the details were ongoing with the Council, although the amount required was not an issue. These discussions had been taking place for some time. A particular element of this was education contributions. Meetings had been held with the Headteacher and Education Officers to seek to meet their requirements. This had led to discussions regarding a more expensive solution, but one that would be of greater benefit to the school. The applicant was willing to pursue this. This amount was unconfirmed at this stage but the already agreed contribution amounted to £1.6m. • Meeting the deadline to agree S106 contributions by 7 June 2010 would be a challenge due to the complexities involved and an extended deadline, even for a matter of weeks, would be beneficial to all concerned. A Member raised concerns that the school was already at capacity with catchment area children and the number of new pupils, which could result from development, would cause additional pressure with the school landlocked. Mr Hollinger responded by saying that a specialist education consultant had been engaged in order to find the best solution for the school and to help meet the schools aspirations. The number of children to be accommodated was unchanged from the agreed application. Mr Hollinger was asked whether the original application would be implemented if the renewal was refused and it was confirmed that this was the intention. However, this was not the applicants preferred way forward. It was suggested by a Member that the Council would benefit from approving the renewal application, as refusal would only mean the implementation of the original application.

Page 8 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

It was then pointed out that the Committee felt that the proposed properties were out of character when the original application was refused. In response Mr Hollinger advised that the Planning Inspector was of the view that the development was of a high quality. Councillor Alan Macro, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points: • The proposal was out of character with the surrounding area. • The proposed development was overly dense and would be located in an already built up area next to the countryside. This was a view shared by the Secretary of State and one that would be agreed with by a number of Theale residents (400 letters of objection were received for the original application). • The impact 350 additional homes would have on local services, such as the school and the General Practitioner (GP) surgery was concerning. The suggested S106 contribution for health was not adequate. • The amended PPS1 gave grounds to refuse the application. Design and outcome statements were required to ensure that minimum requirements were met. This included a need to detail minimal energy consumption and that the buildings were sustainable. These statements were at present unavailable. • There was also a need for a sustainable drainage system which did not appear to be in place. • Safety concerns as a result of the close proximity of the Murco depot was an issue, which had not previously been raised. • Whereas the site was previously in one AWE zone, changes to these zones meant that the site was in three zones which heightened concerns. • It was also a concern that the amended education S106 contribution had not been disclosed. There should also be no rush to agree contributions. In responding to the suggestion that the development would proceed in some way and that approval of the renewal application would bring greater benefits to Theale, Councillor Alan Macro commented that development of the site had been discussed for many years but to date no action had been taken. Theale residents did expect development in some form, but the preference was for lower density, more conventional housing. If this was the case then the primary school could be expanded more reasonably. Katherine Goodchild then commented on some of the technical issues raised by some of the speakers, many of which were covered in the report and the update sheet: • The Ecologist was of the view that there was no harm to local wildlife and no objections had been raised by Natural England. • There was no requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment. • The Environment Agency had no concerns regarding surface water flooding as long as certain conditions were met. • No objections had been raised by the Health and Safety Executive Explosives Directorate and although a response was awaited from the Nuclear Safety Directorate this should not mean that a decision could not be taken. • A draft S106 agreement had been sent to the agent for comment.

Page 9 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• There was little time for the applicant to meet the deadline for agreeing S106 contributions and any extension would need to be authorised by the Development Control Manager. • The changes to PPS1 did not have an impact as design and access statements were not required for renewal applications. • The fact that the renewal application was identical to the already agreed application had to be taken into account. Members returned to concerns with regard to the impact on education. Children were required to have a certain size of play space and increased school numbers would impact on this. Katherine Goodchild advised that a statement had been received from Education acknowledging there were restrictions but they continued to negotiate with the developer to achieve the best solution possible. Based on this information, it was commented that there were no new reasons to refuse the application and approval would lead to a greater outcome for the Council and for the residents of Theale. Therefore Councillor Alan Law proposed to accept Officers Recommendation to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly. Before being put to the vote, Gary Rayner advised that there was the potential to extend the deadline to agree S106 contributions, but it would mean that the target to agree the contributions would be missed for this application. Members took this into consideration, but agreed to extend the deadline by 14 days. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the response of the Nuclear Safety Directorate raising no further issues and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement by 21st June 2010 in respect of the following matters:

• Highways: Provision of access onto The Green, £201,000 Section 278 works plus £218,000 Section 106 financial contribution; • Education: This still has to be confirmed; • Open Space: Commuted Maintenance Sum required index linked and uplifted from the previous figure of £32,380. • Libraries: Contribution of £67,070; • Health Care: Contribution of £46,070; • Adult Social Care: Contribution of £171,435; • Rights of Way: Contribution of £10,850; • Affordable Housing: 105 Units. and subject to the following conditions and informatives: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Page 10 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

2) No development shall commence until details of a phasing scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing with by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the phasing scheme thus approved.

Reason: To ensure that the overall development proceeds in a coordinated manner assessed against Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

3) No work shall commence on each phase of the proposed development until samples of the external materials to be used in that phase of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall then be carried out in accordance with the samples thus approved. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to external materials that may have been submitted with the planning application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

4) The hours of work for all contractors and sub-contractors for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, be limited to 0730 to 1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0730 to 1300 on Saturdays. No work shall be carried out outside those hours and no work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

5) No work shall commence on each phase of the proposed development until details of floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels in respect of that phase of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall then be carried out in accordance with the levels thus approved.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land and in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no addition or extension to any of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be carried out.

Reason: To prevent the over-development of the site and to safeguard the amenities of the surrounding area and neighbouring occupiers in accordance with

Page 11 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

7) No development shall commence until a scheme of fencing and other means of enclosure to be erected on the site (including acoustic fencing) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied before the fencing and other means of enclosure have been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

8) No development or other operations shall commence on the site until details of a tree and landscape protection scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include positions and specifications of temporary fencing to be erected and no excavations for services, storage of materials, parking of vehicles, excavation of soils or materials shall take place within the area designated as being protected.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy OVS 2b of West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

9) No development shall commence until full details of hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include the laying out of those parts of the site illustrated on the CPM Amended Amenity Open Space Strategy plan No 2305/152d and a scheme of maintenance. For the avoidance of doubt the submitted details shall also include details of the proposed planting, fencing, pathways, furniture, viewing platforms, and (in respect of nature conservation requirements) details of native species planting, aquatic and marginal species planting to the lake edge, fishing platforms, information boards and path location and construction, and details of the design and layout of and the specification of play equipment for the LEAP equipped play area which shall comply as a minimum requirement with the National Playing Fields Association LEAP standard.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and to ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies OVS2 (a & b) and OVS 3 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

10) All landscape works shall be completed in accordance with the details approved by the local planning authority during the first planting season following the completion of the development or in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, with the exception of the LEAP equipped play area which shall be completed prior to the first occupation of all of the adjacent dwellings namely Blocks AF4 and F9 and units 47 to 58

Page 12 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

inclusive as shown on application drawing No 602/PL050 Rev B. The landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme of maintenance. Any trees, shrubs or hedges planted in accordance with this condition which are removed, die, or become diseased within five years from completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies OVS2 (a & b) and OVS 3 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

11) Surface water control measures shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before works commence.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and ensure future maintenance of these in accordance with the guidance in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

12) No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water table and they shall not in any event exceed 1m in depth below existing ground level. No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of existing or proposed occupant/users of the application site or adjacent land in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

13) No development shall commence until details of a scheme of works to provide for the drainage of foul and surface water from the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No works which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be commenced until the drainage scheme has been completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision would be made for foul and surface water drainage from the development in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk and with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

14) No development shall commence on site until the method of piling foundations has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The piling shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with the approved method.

Reason: The applicant must demonstrate that any piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods does not pose a risk in accordance with PPS23 'Planning and Pollution Control'.

Page 13 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

15) During the construction process no construction materials shall be stored within 10m of any bank of the lake.

Reason: To prevent debris falling into the channel causing a blockage, and increases in flood risk or pollution of the watercourse in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk.

16) No development shall commence until a scheme of works for protecting the occupiers of the development from externally-generated noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Within each phase of the development no dwelling shall be occupied until all noise protection works relating to that phase have been completed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interest of amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

17) No development shall commence until a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, has been submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The works shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the timetable.

a. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The desk study shall detail the history of the site uses and propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority before investigations commence on site.

b. The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, shall be carried out by a suitable qualified and accredited consultant / contractor in accordance with a Quality Assured sampling and analysis methodology.

c. A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The local planning authority shall approve such remedial works as required before any remediation commences on site. The works shall be of such a nature as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters.

d. Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during the works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation strategy agreed with the local planning authority.

Page 14 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

e. Upon completion of the approved remediation works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show that the site has reached the required clean- up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, in accordance with the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control.

18) No development shall commence until a scheme indicating the external lighting to be erected on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The external lighting scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority wish to be satisfied that these details are satisfactory, having regard to the setting of the development in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

19) As a first development operation the access into the site from the public highway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to accord with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007

20) Notwithstanding any details submitted within the application, no development shall commence until details of the Homezone layout (including roads / footways / cycleways / parking and turning areas) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Within each phase of the development no dwelling shall be occupied until the Homezone layout relating to that phase has been completed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: The application does not contain sufficient details of the Homezone layout to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to those matters in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

21) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the garages on the site shall not be used for any purpose other than as garage accommodation.

Page 15 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in order to ensure that there is adequate parking on site in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006.

22) No development shall commence until details of cycle parking have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and the cycle areas shall be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe cycle storage space within the site in accordance with Policy T4 of The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

23) No tree on the site shall be felled until it has been surveyed for the presence of bats. If bats, or evidence of bats, are found a report including a mitigation plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before felling works commence. The approved mitigation plan (if any) shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

24) No site clearance shall be undertaken during the bird-nesting season (March to August) without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. Such approval shall not be given until a report has been submitted from a qualified ecologist to state that no birds’ nests are present in the area to be cleared.

Reason: In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

25) No dwelling on the site shall be occupied until a detailed management plan for all created and retained habitats on site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved management plan shall be implemented in full and reviewed every five years to ensure that it is fulfilling its objectives.

Reason: In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

26) No works shall commence on site until a reptile survey of the site has been undertaken and a report of the survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If reptiles are found, the report shall include a mitigation plan. The approved mitigation plan (if any) shall be implemented as approved.

Page 16 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Reason: In accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

27) Notwithstanding any details submitted within the application, no development shall commence until details of the accommodation to be provided in the affordable housing units Type D1 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the details thus approved.

Reason: The application does not contain sufficient details of the affordable housing units Type D1 to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to those matters in accordance with Policies OVS2 and HSG9 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

28) Notwithstanding any details submitted within the application, no development shall commence until details of the following apartment block flank elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority: Block F1 north and south, Block F2 east and west, Block F3 east and west, Block F6 south and west, Block F7 south, Block F8 east and west, Block F9 west, Block F11 south, Block AF1 east and west, Block AF2 west, Block AF3 east and Block AF4 east and west. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the details thus approved.

Reason: The application does not contain sufficient details of these flank elevation to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to those matters in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

29) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be sold until a Travel Plan and a programme for its implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless the Local Planning Authority has first given written approval to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles in accordance with Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

30) Development shall not commence until a scheme to control the environmental effects of construction work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the following measures:

a. control of noise;

b. control of dust, smell and other effluvia;

c. control of surface water run-off;

d. site security arrangements including hoardings;

Page 17 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

e. hours during the construction process when delivery vehicles taking materials are permitted to enter or leave the site;

f. provision for the temporary parking of construction vehicles.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme unless the local planning authority has first given written approval to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

31) Except where otherwise required by any of the above conditions, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

COUL1018/1 – Site Location Plan 602/PL001 – Site Survey 602/PL002 Rev E – Revised Master Plan & Key Plan (350 Units) 602/PL004 Rev A – Site Sections 602/PL005 Rev A – House Types – Plans (Sheet 1 of 2) 602/PL006 Rev B – House Types – Plans 602/PL007 Rev A – House Types – Elevations (Sheet 1 of 2) 602/PL008 Rev A – House Types – Elevations (Sheet 2 of 2) 602/PL009 Rev B – Affordable Housing Types – Plans and Elevations 602/PL010 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F1 602/PL011 Rev A – Apartment Elevations: F1 602/PL012 Rev A – Apartment Plans: F2 602/PL013 Rev A – Apartment Elevations: F2 602/PL014 Rev A – Apartment Plans: F3 and F4 602/PL015 – Apartment Elevations: F3 and F4 602/PL016 Rev C – Apartment Plans: F5 602/PL017 Rev C – Apartment Elevations: F5 602/PL018 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F6 and F7 602/PL019 – Apartment Elevations: F6 602/PL020 – Apartment Elevations: F7 602/PL021 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F8 602/PL022 Rev B – Apartment Elevations: F8 602/PL023 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F9 (Sheet 1 of 2) 602/PL024 Rev B – Apartment Elevations: F9 602/PL026 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F10 602/PL027 Rev D – Apartment Elevations: F10 602/PL028 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 602/PL029 Rev A – Apartment Elevations: F11 602/PL030 Rev B – Apartment Elevations: F12, 13, 14 & 15 602/PL031 Rev C – Apartment Plans and Elevations: AF1 602/PL032 Rev C – Apartment Plans: AF2 602/PL033 Rev B – Apartment Elevations: AF2 602/PL034 Rev D – Apartment Plans: AF3

Page 18 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

602/PL035 Rev C – Apartment Elevations: AF3 602/PL036 Rev C – Apartment Plans: AF4 602/PL037 Rev A – Apartment Elevations: AF4 602/PL038 – Site Layout Detail 602/PL039 Rev B – Apartment Plans: F9 (Sheet 2 of 2) 602/PL050 Rev B – Development Plan (350 Units) 602/PL051 – Apartment F5 North Elevation

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

32) No development shall commence 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 Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand in accordance with Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

It must be noted that the following conditions (33-39) are requested by the Environment Agency as updated conditions to those contained within the previous decision. It is not clear which conditions these are to replace therefore the full list of conditions to be appended to any approval is subject to clarification from the Environment Agency to confirm which conditions they are seeking to replace by those now recommended.

The following conditions are recommended by the Environment Agency:

33) No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

• details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion • consideration of additional sustainable drainage techniques, where technically appropriate, such as swales, permeable paving, ponds, basins etc. • detailed surface water drainage calculations to demonstrate how the development will maintain the existing Greenfield run-off rate. These should include all rainfall events up to the 1 in 100 year event and also include the impacts of climate change by including an additional 30% on the rainfall intensity. • details of the proposed drainage network, how this will be sized,

Page 19 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

including any sustainable drainage techniques. This should be designed to ensure there will be no risk of flooding within the site. • calculations of the proposed volumes of surface water, how this will be attenuated prior to discharging into the lake. This is required to ensure the volume of water entering the lake does not exceed its capacity up to the worst case rainfall event and highest ground water levels. • an assessment of the lake level to ensure that it has not changed since 2002 when detailed within the FRA by White, Young and Green dated January 2006 Issue 2, in order to make sure the proposed resilience measures on the proposed dwellings are still accurate.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk.

34) No development shall commence until a landscape management plan, including long- term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas (except privately owned domestic gardens), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved and any subsequent variations shall be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The scheme shall include the following elements:

• details of the extent and type of new planting (NB planting to be of locally native species of UK genetic provenance) • details of maintenance regimes • details of any new habitat created on site • detailed design of the lake edge treatment with an emphasis on maximising the ecological value of the lake edges

Reason: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of wildlife and supporting habitat and secure opportunities for the enhancement of the nature conservation value of the site in line with national planning policy in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

35) No development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall commence until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site have each been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

1) 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.

Page 20 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

2) 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.

3) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (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.

4) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out 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 consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: The site is on a infilled quarry. It is possible that contaminating materials may have been deposits at this site, which may have resulted in contamination being present in the soil and/or groundwater. Previous usage associated with railway activities, may also have resulted in contamination being present in the soil and/or groundwater. In accordance with Planning Policy 23 – Planning and Pollution Control.

36) Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development , a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and 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, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that contamination at the site is remediate, such that the site does not pose a threat to controlled waters. in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control.

37) Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The site is potentially contaminated, piling could lead to the contamination of groundwater in the underlying chalk or gravels aquifer aquifer in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control.

Page 21 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

38) No development shall commence until such time as a scheme to dispose of surface water has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: Run off from car parking and maintenance areas could contaminate elevated levels of contaminants, these may pose a treat to controlled waters in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control and Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk.

39) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the improvement of the existing sewerage system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. No occupation of dwellings approved by this permission shall occur until the scheme for improvement of the existing sewage system has been completed.

Reason: To ensure adequate sewerage infrastructure is provided for this development for the protection of the aquatic environment in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 23 – Planning and Pollution Control and Planning Policy Statement 25 – Development and Flood Risk.

INFORMATIVES

1) This is a renewal application and therefore the principle of the development in the manner proposed has already been granted. The proposed scheme for residential development on this site is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. It is further considered that there has been no material changes in policy or circumstances to warrant a different decision being made following approval of the previous application by the Secretary of State in September 2007.

2) In relation to Condition 22, the applicant is advised that cycle parking requirements should comply with the guidance contained in the Council’s document entitled “Cycling Advice and Standards for New Development Guidance”.

3) This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with the terms of a Legal Agreement of the ***. You are advised to ensure that you have all the necessary documents before development starts on site.

4. The applicant is advised that from 6 April 2008 it is a legal requirement to have a site waste management plan (SWMP) for all new construction projects worth more than £300,000.

The level of detail that your SWMP should contain depends on the estimated build cost, excluding VAT. For projects estimated at between £300,000 and £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain details of the: • types of waste removed from the site

Page 22 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• identity of the person who removed the waste • site that the waste is taken to. For projects estimated at over £500,000 (excluding VAT) the SWMP should contain details of the: • types of waste removed from the site • identity of the person who removed the waste and their waste carrier registration number • a description of the waste • site that the waste was taken to • environmental permit or exemption held by the site where the material is taken. At the end of the project, you must review the plan and record the reasons for any differences between the plan and what actually happened.

You must still comply with the duty of care for waste. Because you will need to record all waste movements in one document, having a SWMP will help you to ensure you comply with the duty of care.

Further information can be found at www.netregs-swmp.co.uk

5. The applicant is advised that due to the proximity of the site to the lake all works carried out in connection with this development should comply with Environment Agency pollution prevention guidelines (PPG5): 'Works and maintenance in or near water'. Copies and further information are available from your local Agency office or from www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ppg

6. The applicant is advised that groundwater at this site occurs at shallow depth. There should be 1m of freeboard between the base of any Soakaway/SUDs system and groundwater. As groundwater occurs at shallow depth the use of unlined infiltration system may not be viable at this site.

Support for the SUDS approach to managing surface water run-off is set out in paragraph 22 of Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS): Delivering Sustainable Development and in more detail in Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk at Annex F. Paragraph F8 of the Annex notes that "Local Planning Authorities should ensure that their policies and decisions on applications support and complement Building Regulations on sustainable rainwater drainage".

Further information on SUDS can be found in: PPS25 page 33 Annex F PPS25 Practice Guide CIRIA C522 document Sustainable Drainage Systems-design manual for England and Wales CIRIA C697 document SUDS manual the Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems. The Interim Code of Practice provides advice on design, adoption and maintenance issues and a full overview of other technical guidance on SUDS. The Interim Code of Practice is available on both the Environment Agency's

Page 23 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

website: www.environment-agency.gov.uk and CIRIA's website: www.ciria.org.uk

OR

If the Legal Agreement is not completed by 21st June 2010, DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to REFUSE PERMISSION for the following reasons:

The development fails to provide an appropriate scheme of works or off-site mitigation measures to accommodate the impact of the development on local infrastructure, services or amenities or provide an appropriate mitigation measure such as a planning obligation. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice contained in Circular 05/05, Policy CC7 of The South East Plan – Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009, and Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as the West Berkshire District Council's adopted SPG4/04 - Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development.

The proposal fails to make provision for affordable housing contrary to Policy OVS3 and Policy HSG9 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007. 7(5) Application No. & Parish: 10/00209/FULD, . (Councillor Alan Macro rejoined the meeting at 8.25pm). (Councillor Brian Bedwell declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda item 4(5) by virtue of the fact that he knew local residents and he had predetermined the application. As his interest was personal and prejudicial he would not participate during the course of consideration of the matter, other than to speak as Ward Member). (Councillor Irene Neill assumed the Chair at 8.25pm). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(5)) concerning Planning Application 10/00209/FULD in respect of the demolition of the existing house (Rowan House) and the erection of five detached dwellings. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Jean Gardner, Parish Council representative, Mr Tony Butler, Ms Muriel Parsons and Mr John Roche, objectors, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs Gardner in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The Parish Council felt that the proposed density was too high. • There was already a problem with flooding and this would be exacerbated by this development. • The area was not appropriate for a development of this type. • As the trees were not evergreens there would be privacy issues in the winter. • Local elderly residents used New Lane Hill as safe pedestrian and wheelchair access to local shops. This proposed development would impact on their safety due to increased traffic movement.

Page 24 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Mr Butler, Ms Parsons and Mr Roche in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • This was the fourth application in 15 months that had received objections from local residents, the parish council and Reading Housing Association. • The proposed development would be overbearing and not in keeping with the surround area. • There would be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities and overlooking of neighbouring properties. • Access to the site was poor, there would be difficulties for larger vehicles entering the site and there were concerns about the ability of 2 vehicles passing along the road. • There would be an adverse effect on the Conservation Area if the trees were removed. • There were concerns about flooding in the area. Councillor Brian Bedwell, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points: • The proposed development was out of keeping with the surrounding area. • Any loss of trees would result in overlooking, therefore tree preservation orders were required should Members be minded to approve the application. • He supported the views raised by the Parish Council. • There would be overdevelopment on the site. In considering the above application Members discussed the Council’s planning guidance which highlighted the importance of design and the character of an application in the context of the surrounding area being a planning consideration when considering density. Members discussed the access to the area and the issues of drainage on the site. They were concerned about the density of the application and the impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Quentin Webb proposed to reject Officers Recommendation and refuse the application on the grounds of density and that there was a loss of space, there would be an adverse effect on the surrounding area and conservation area (amenity to protect), and the lack of a S106 agreement. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Mollie Lock. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the above reasons. 7(6) Application No. & Parish: 10/00599/FULD, . (Councillor Brian Bedwell resumed as Chairman at 9.05pm). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(6)) concerning Planning Application 10/00599/FULD in respect of the demolition of existing pair of semi-detached houses and outbuildings and the erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Peter Brook, Parish Council representative, and Mr Dominic Murphy, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Page 25 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Mr Brook in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The Parish Council objected to the application as the scale and density of the development was inappropriate in comparison to the existing properties. • The gardens to number 46 and 47 Roundfield were not part of the proposal and there was a concern that this land could be subject to a future application. • The proposal did not comply with the Bucklebury Vision Statement. • Letters of objection had raised local infrastructure problems, including sewerage and low water pressure. • Traffic problems would be exacerbated on the narrow road which was not designed for the high density being proposed. Mr Murphy in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The application had been formed in liaison with Planning Officers and sought to remove previously raised concerns. • A number of these issues were found to be acceptable at appeal including density, impact on the street scene and car parking at the front of the proposed dwellings. It was also felt that the development would not harm the nearby AONB. These were important material considerations. • The original application was refused at appeal on the grounds of the overbearing impact the development would have on number 45 Roundfield. This had been addressed by the following measures: • The nearest dwelling was further away and the distance was in line with Council guidance. • The roof height was in line with the existing properties and was a hip roof, not gable. • The combination of these changes would maintain the amenity and address the Inspectors concerns. • The proposal would fit with the existing character and provide needed family homes. • If the application was approved then Mr Murphy would like to negotiate the timings for payment of S106 contributions. • In response to a Member question, Mr Murphy advised that land to the rear had not been included at this stage. However, there was the potential to apply for planning permission to erect a bungalow at a later date as it was a suitable plot. Councillor Quentin Webb, as Ward Member, made the following points: • The application did seek to address previously raised concerns. • However it was of a compressed nature and was not in keeping with the Bucklebury Vision. • There were still issues with the car parking provision.

Page 26 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

In considering the above application Members voiced concern that the proposal was for the removal of appropriate, quality properties. Also the density was too high. Katherine Goodchild reminded Members that the Planning Inspector did not object to the previous application on the grounds of density and refused the application on the basis of the impact on neighbours and the unsecured S106 agreement. Members did note that the scheme would provide more modern housing that was perhaps more suitable than the existing homes. In addition the overlooking problems previously highlighted had been dissipated. Therefore Councillor Tim Metcalfe proposed to accept Officers Recommendation to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Keith Lock. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 agreement by 14 June 2010 and subject to the following conditions: Conditions 1. The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title numbers RUB/P/02; RUB/P/01; RUB/P/03 and RUB/P/04 received on 29th March 2010, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against National, Regional and Local Planning Policy.

3. No construction of the dwellings shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CC6 and BE 1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

4. No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation

Page 27 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment. The scheme shall ensure;

a) Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b) Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies C3 and C4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policies OVS2 (a & b) and OVS 3 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

5. No development or other operations shall commence on site until a scheme of fencing and other means of enclosure to be erected on the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no buildings shall be occupied before the fencing and other means of enclosure have been erected to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: The fencing and other means of enclosure are essential elements in the detailed design of this development and the application is not accompanied by sufficient details to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to these matters in accordance with Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

6. No development shall commence on site until a scheme for the means of treatment of the hard surfaced areas of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No building shall be occupied before the hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009.

7. The dwelling shall not be occupied until the window at first floor level in the west elevation has been fitted with obscure glass and the obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained in position to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no additional openings shall be inserted in the first floor west elevation without a formal planning application made to the Local Planning Authority for that purpose.

Page 28 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

8. Irrespective of the provisions of the current Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no additional openings shall be inserted in the first floor east elevation without a formal planning application made to the Local Planning Authority for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjoining properties and in the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

9. No development shall commence until details of the surfacing arrangements for the vehicular accesses to the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall ensure that bonded material is used across the entire width of the accesses for a distance of 3 metres measured back from the carriageway edge. Thereafter the surfacing arrangements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid migration of loose material onto the highway in the interest of road safety in accordance with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006.

10. No development shall commence on site until the vehicle parking and/or turning space be provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided for adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users in accordance with Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

11. No development, or other operations on site including demolition, shall commence until a scheme of works or such other steps as may be necessary to minimise the effects of dust from the development is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall then be implemented during demolition and construction as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007. 12. The hours of work for all contractors (and sub-contractors) for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, be limited to; 7.30 am to 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays, 8.30 am to

Page 29 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

1.00 pm on Saturdays, and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding residents in accordance with and Policies OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

13. No development shall commence on site until details to show a temporary parking area and turning space to be provided and maintained concurrently with the development of the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such approved parking area and turning space shall at the commencement of development be provided and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details until the development has been completed and shall during that time be used for parking by all employees, contractors and operatives or other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site.

Reason: In accordance with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 to ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities during the construction period, in order to minimise the incidence of off site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users or long term inconvenience to local residents.

Informatives

1. This Decision Notice must be read in conjunction with the terms of a Legal Agreement of the ^IN; . You are advised to ensure that you have all the necessary documents before development starts on site.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service or the Council website.

3. The Applicant is advised to seek prior consent (section 61, Control of Pollution Act 1974) to ascertain the extent of additional construction noise conditions that may be imposed. For further information contact the Head of Environmental Health.

4. The Highways (Planning) Manager, West Berkshire District Council, Highways and Engineering, Council Offices, Faraday Road, Newbury RG14 2AF, telephone 01635 519169, should be contacted to agree the access construction details and to grant a licence before any work is carried out within the highway. A formal application should be made, allowing at least four (4) weeks notice, to obtain details of underground services on the applicants behalf.

Page 30 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

5. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations

6. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

7. Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0845 850 2777. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system. 7(7) Application No. & Parish: 10/00271/HOUSE, . (Councillor Richard Crumly declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(7) by virtue of the fact that he knew the objector on a professional level. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he was permitted to take part in the debate and vote on the matter). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(7)) concerning Planning Application 10/00271/HOUSE in respect of a two storey side extension to provide enlarged kitchen, re-positioning of garage and enlarged bedroom over, and with single storey rear extension for utility room. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Darbyshire, objector, and Dr and Mrs Zhu, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Mr Darbyshire in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The application was on a relatively new estate with planning conditions in place. • The detached properties were separated by garages; the proposed development would result in overlooking of his property. • The extension would result in a loss of sunlight to his property. There had been no analysis of this in the planning report. • The proposed balcony looked into his conservatory. • The development would hinder access to the property. Dr and Mrs Zhu in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The application was in keeping with the surrounding area. • There would be no loss of sunlight and no shadow would be cast over the neighbouring property’s conservatory.

Page 31 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• The proposed balcony was in the position of an existing window and there would be no overlooking. • Local residents had voiced their support for the application. • The extension would be no further forward than the existing building. Councillor Mollie Lock, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points: • She was concerned that the application would change the character of the area by filling in the existing space between the properties, this would alter the street scene. • If the application was approved she would like to see a condition for working hours on a Saturday changed to a later start time. Councillor Keith Lock, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points: • No other properties on the estate had extensions. He was concerned that this would create a precedent. • The size of the gardens on the estate were already small so he would object to further loss of garden space. • The development would have an adverse impact on the street scene. • There had been three letters of objection. • He was concerned about the impact of parking in front of the property. In considering the above application Members discussed the possible overlooking of the neighbouring property, the impact on the street scene and if the extension would result in overdevelopment of the site. Councillor Mollie Lock proposed to reject Officers Recommendation and refuse the application on the grounds that it would constitute overdevelopment, increased density and an adverse impact on the street scene. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Crumly. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the above reasons. 7(8) Application No. & Parish: 10/00631/HOUSE, Holybrook. In accordance with paragraph 7.2.8 of the Constitution, the Committee voted unanimously to continue the meeting beyond 10.00pm. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(8)) concerning Planning Application 10/00631/HOUSE in respect of a retrospective application for a wall to the front of the garden. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mrs Mary Bedwell, Parish Council representative, Mr Tony Klinkenberg, objector, and Mr Gareth Thomas, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application. Mrs Bedwell in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • The Parish Council objected to the application for a number of reasons. • A number of complaints were received by local residents.

Page 32 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

• An application should have been made for the wall and the applicant should have been aware of the covenant on the properties. • The wall was above the permitted height, which gave a restricted view to vehicles on exiting the property on what was a busy road, with buses passing every 12 minutes during peak times. • If this was approved then it would set a precedent that could encourage others and lead to a visual detriment. • Mrs Bedwell confirmed that the wall on the adjoining property retained a back garden and not a front garden, as was the case with the application. Mr Klinkenberg in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • Only four houses accessed Charrington Road directly from their front drives. This included number 6 which accessed a dangerous part of the road. • He was aware of major road traffic accidents on Charrington Road, one of which resulted in a fatality. • All residents in Beansheaf had covenants on their property to not have a wall built at the front of their homes. The applicant should have been aware of this and there was the potential to apply to have the covenant overturned. • The wall itself was of a high quality. However, this was the only front garden with a wall in Beansheaf, it exceeded the permitted height and was in some places as high as 1.8M. The measurements in the report were incorrect. • The wall height created health and safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users when cars exited the driveway, as the vision of the driver was obscured by the wall. • There were other fences and brick walls on Charrington Road, but these were to the side of properties and therefore did not create a health and safety risk. • A possible compromise would be to reduce the wall height to the legal limit and thereby remove safety concerns. Mr Thomas in addressing the Committee raised the following points: • He apologised for the situation and advised that the wall had been built slightly too high on the basis of incorrect information. • The wall was built in response to many acts of vandalism against his property. This included graffiti and his car tyres being slashed on more than one occasion. This had not been a problem since the wall had been built. • There were taller hedges in the area and many brick walls, some of which were higher than in this instance. • The wall was of a high quality and some local people felt that it enhanced the property. • Reducing the wall was not a straightforward option and would be expensive. Members then questioned Mr Thomas on the visibility when driving out of his property. Mr Thomas explained that it was possible to view oncoming traffic by virtue of a gap

Page 33 DRAFT EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 26 May 2010 - MINUTES

where the hedge height was reduced before getting on to the pavement. A full view could be ascertained by driving just onto the pavement. Mr Thomas advised that there had been no problems. Councillor Brian Bedwell, as Ward Member, made the following points: • The issue with this wall was that it was at the front of the house and its height made it a safety risk. • The height of walls at the front of properties, which adjoined the pavement, had a restriction of 1m in the area. This should be enforced. In considering the above application Members queried whether visibility requirements were met. Gareth Dowding advised that this was very tight, but the requirement of 2.4M visibility on exiting the driveway was met. In response to a Member question, Gary Rayner confirmed that this was a planning matter, but the restrictions were also linked to the covenant. Members felt that the main issue to consider was one of safety and these concerns had not been alleviated by the discussions. As a result Councillor Quentin Webb proposed that the item should be deferred for a site visit. This was seconded by Councillor Irene Neill. RESOLVED that the item would be deferred to allow for a site visit. 8. Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area Planning Committee Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Eastern Area.

(The meeting commenced at 6.00 pm and closed at 10.25 pm)

CHAIRMAN …………………………………………….

Date of Signature …………………………………………….

Page 34 Agenda Item 4.(1)

Application No. 8/13 Week Date Proposal, Location and Applicant and Parish Item No

(1) 10/00556/HOUSE 24th May 2010 Single storey and first floor extensions to Basildon. existing bungalow structure with revised materials. New mono-pitched roof to existing structure.

Brickfields, Blandys Lane, Upper Basildon, Reading.

Mr Paul Smith.

Recommendation Summary: The Head of Planning and Trading Standards be authorised to APPROVE Planning Permission subject to conditions.

Ward Member(s): Cllr Alan Law.

Reason for Committee Level of objection – 17 objection letters received. determination:

Committee Site Visit: N/A

Contact Officer Details Name: Jake Brown Job Title: Planning Officer Tel No: (01635) 519 111 E-mail Address: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 35 10/00556/HOUSE

Brickfields, Blandys Lane, Upper Basildon

Map Centre Coordinates : 459834.61 , 176490.35 Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation West Berkshire Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2003. Department Environment Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Date 04 June 2010

SLA Number 100015913

Page 36 1. Site History

101725 – Erection of a bungalow. Approved Planning Permission 11th December 1974.

107984 – Extension to Bungalow. Approved Planning Permission 7th March 1978.

2. Publicity of Application

Site notice expired 7th May 2010.

Neighbour Notification expired 4th May 2010.

3. Consultations and Representations

Parish Council: No objections – Concerns raised. ‘Although some members were not persuaded that the design was suitable in this particular location, (Basildon Parish) decided against objecting to the replacement of an unoffensive but undistinguished bungalow by a striking modern design. However, the Council does have reservations on several points and wishes these to be taken into account when a decision is made by WBC: 1. It seems likely that the house as constructed will impinge upon the root protection zones of at least some of the considerable number of trees in the garden. 2. Damage to the tree roots seems even more likely during the construction period, particularly bearing in mind point 3 below. 3. Blandys Lane is particularly narrow at this point and a workable and enforceable arrangement must be made to keep the lane clear at all times by requiring all contractors' parking and storage of materials entirely within the site boundaries without disturbing the root protection zones of the trees. 4. Since Blandys Lane is also used as one of the main access routes to the primary school arrangements must also be made about delivery times not co-inciding with arrival and departure times at the school when young children will be at risk in the lane. 5. In view of the proximity of Brickfields to other houses Council considers that the usual restrictions should be placed on working hours. 6. Council is aware of strong objections from neighbours and presumes that these will be fully taken into account in arriving at a decision.

Tree Officer: No objections subject to conditions.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 37 Letters of objection: 17 letters of objection citing: • Inappropriate materials not in keeping with the character of the area, the AONB and not in accordance with the Basildon Village Design Statement. • Impact of rural views from neighbouring dwellings • Design not in keeping with neighbouring dwellings and out of character to the area. • Noise impact from swimming pool • Impact on environment due to swimming pool • Proposal would be dominant in the AONB • Footprint is considerably increased • Impact on important views detailed in the Basildon Village Design Statement • Aggressively modern design does not match the existing neighbouring buildings • Height would be out of scale with existing buildings • Proposal would detract from local amenity • Urban design inappropriate to area • Overlooking garden areas of neighbouring properties

Letter of support: • 2 letters of support received citing a wide variety of styles of houses in Basildon representing most periods of architecture, proposal is a 21st century design using sustainable materials contributing to the varied architecture in the area, proposal would complement the village .

4. Policy Considerations

Planning Policy Statement 1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” (PPS1) Planning Policy Statement 7 “Sustainable Development in Rural Areas” (PPS7)

The South East Plan: The Regional Spatial Strategy for South East England 2006- 2026 (May 2009) [SEP] Policies CC1, CC4, CC6, CC7, T4, C3 and BE5.

Policies OVS1, OVS2, OVS6, OVS10, ENV1, HSG1 and TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 (WBDLP).

Supplementary Planning Document “Quality Design” (adopted June 2006) Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 04/2 “House Extensions”

Basildon Village Design Statement (adopted November 2005)

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 38 5. Description of Development

5.1 This application is for the erection of single storey extensions to the existing dwelling and a first floor extension above approximately half of the footprint of the dwelling. A new roof to the existing structure, together with internal alterations, is also proposed.

5.2 The application site is a medium sized plot with a bungalow. The settlement boundary runs along the northern boundary of the site.

6. Consideration of the Proposal

The main issues to consider are;

6.1 The principle of the development 6.2 The impact on the character of the area 6.3 The impact on the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) 6.4 The impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of: • sunlight • daylight • overlooking / privacy • noise and disturbance • overbearing 6.5 Highway Matters 6.6 Other matters

6.1 Principle of Development

6.1.1 The application site lies within the settlement boundary of Basildon where there is a presumption in favour of residential development in accordance with Policy HSG.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007. Therefore the principle of this development is established, however, the specific impacts of the development on the character of the area, the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the neighbouring amenities and highway safety must be carefully considered.

6.2 The impact on the character of the area

6.2.1 The immediate street scene opposite and to the south comprises a variety of dwelling styles including two storey brick built dwellings with tile roofs, brick built and concrete tiled bungalows, thatched two storey dwellings, timber clad outbuildings, two storey slate roofed dwellings, two storey white and cream rendered dwellings, one and a half storey dwellings with flat roof dormers or pitched roof dormers and a two storey yellow brick dwelling. In the wider area of Basildon there is a wide variety of dwelling styles and types, of varying scale, representing architecture from different historical periods.

6.2.2 The existing dwelling, with white painted brick walls and a concrete tiled roof, was constructed in the 1970’s and is of no significant architectural merit.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 39 6.2.3 The proposed extensions to the existing dwelling would result in a dwelling of contemporary design with white render to most of the external walls and the introduction of timber and glazing to the first floor and rear ground floor aspect. A natural zinc roof with a standing seam is also proposed to cover the mono-pitched roof form over the single storey element of the dwelling and the shallow dual pitched first floor roof.

6.2.4 The western boundary of the application site comprises a mature dense hedgerow, approximately 2 metres in height, interspersed with tall mature trees. The southern boundary of the application site comprises a mature dense hedgerow, approximately 2.5 metres in height, interspersed with tall and medium sized trees. The eastern (rear) boundary of the application site comprises mature dense shrubs, bushes and trees. The northern boundary of the application site comprises a low level hedgerow approximately 1.2 metres in height with trees interspersed that have recently undergone crown reduction lowering the height of the trees to approximately 2.5 metres.

6.2.5 A view into the site is possible through the existing access. The access is to remain unaltered. When approaching the site from the south glimpses of the proposed development would be possible above the hedgerow. Such views would be broken up by the existing mature trees. When approaching the site from the north a view above the hedgerow of the proposed first floor extension would be possible, again broken in places by mature trees, however this would be seen against the backdrop of existing development that, as shown in drawing number 10 on the application file, is of smaller scale than the neighbouring dwellings.

6.2.6 Whilst the resultant dwelling would not match those of the immediate neighbouring properties in terms of red or brown bricks and concrete or clay tiled roofs, none of the existing dwellings are considered to be well matched to each other. The varied use of design and materials in the immediate area is apparent and the introduction of the proposed development is considered to add to such variety. As stated in the first recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon, ‘Any future development should conserve the variety of housing which is a characteristic of the village, thought with greater emphasis on well designed, smaller and more affordable units, as there has been a recent tendency to build large houses.’ (p.14).

6.2.7 Furthermore the second recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon states that ‘extensions, conversions and alterations should use materials and be of a design and scale compatible with original buildings’ (p.14). The proposal would largely maintain the white appearance of the original dwelling and the scale would be compatible to the original dwelling given that most of the resultant dwelling, when viewed from the road, would maintain the height of the existing dwelling. The first floor extension would be approximately 2 metres taller than that of the single storey element of the proposal, however, the narrower flank wall of the two storey element would face the road behind existing mature trees that would largely break up any view from the public realm of this element of the proposal. Therefore the proposal is considered to accord with the second recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon.

6.2.8 The third recommendation of recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon suggests the incorporation of a small office/workspace. The proposal

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 40 maintains room for use as a study and as such accords with this recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon.

6.2.9 The fourth recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon states that ‘developers might consider the inclusion’ of gabled windows. In the immediate area such a feature is not prominent and the recommendation is not a requirement. Therefore it is considered that the proposal is not contrary to this recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon.

6.2.10 In respect of the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth recommendations of the Village Design Statement for Basildon the proposal would not have any effect on the setting of Basildon due to the distance between the proposal and the Park. The existing garage would remain as well as the gravel driveway and much of the landscaping would be maintained or controlled through a condition should the application be approved.

6.2.11 The ninth recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon is in respect of infilling and as such is not a consideration for this application as no new dwellings are being erected.

6.2.12 The application is not contrary to recommendations 10 to 16 of the Village Design Statement for Basildon. Recommendation 17 of the Village Design Statement for Basildon states that ‘described viewpoints, listed on page 3, are a part of the reason why Basildon lies within an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ and should be taken into consideration in any future development of the village, with every effort made to conserve them.’ The viewpoint pertinent to this proposal is that ‘from the School across fields towards Basildon Park’ (p.3, Village Design Statement for Basildon). Your Officer has visited this viewpoint and when looking from the school no part of the application site can be seen. Further along the public right of way just beyond the school heading north towards the junction with Emery Acres, the path is well screened to the east by mature bushes trees and shrubs. Glimpses are possible through the vegetation, especially in winter, and there is one small open section that affords a view across the application site. The application site is located approximately 360 metres from this part of the path. Should one have binoculars and study the view for a while through the gap in the vegetation, one would be able to glimpse parts of the proposed development, however, such a view would be minimal and broken by trees and not discernible as a contemporary designed dwelling. The proposed zinc roof would have a dull matt finish, which can be controlled by condition, and the white rendered walls would not be dissimilar to that which exists at present or that which can be seen on other properties in the view. Moreover the resultant dwelling would have a lower ridge height than those surrounding it reducing the already minimal impact that the proposal would have on the specified view in the recommendations of the Village Design Statement for Basildon. As such the proposal would not be contrary to recommendation 17 of the Village Design Statement for Basildon.

6.2.13 The proposed materials of white render and timber exist at present within the area of Basildon and are not considered harmful to the street scene. Furthermore the use of a dull matt grey roof is not an uncommon feature within rural areas, including Basildon, as the nearby Blandys Farm to the north of the application site has existing barn type structure with a roof of similar colour. Similar colour to roofing of

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 41 agricultural buildings can also be seen in the wider area including Redmoor Row Farm, adjacent to Basildon Park.

6.2.14 In consideration of the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the street scene it has been demonstrated that the dwelling resulting from the proposed extensions and alterations would add to the variety that exists in Basildon, as required in the first recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon. Furthermore it would be an improvement on the outdated appearance of the existing dwelling. The proposal would not harm the views from the wider area or in the immediate vicinity of the site and the scale of the resultant dwelling would maintain the rhythm of the area whilst sympathetically respecting the edge of settlement location. With respect to the letters of objection it is considered that a proposal mirroring the neighbouring properties would result in a greater suburbanising impact on the character of the area than the proposal under consideration. Moreover the local amenity is considered, in part, to result from the variety of dwellings in the surrounding area.

6.2.15 The proposal would not be contrary to the recommendations of the Village Design Statement for Basildon and not harm any important views from the wider area. Furthermore the proposal is considered to accord with Local, Regional and National Planning Policy in respect of the impact on the character of the area.

6.3 The impact on the AONB

6.3.1 As previously mentioned in the preceding section no significant harm to the wider views of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) would occur due to the proposed works. The proposed height of the resultant dwelling would be sympathetic to this edge of settlement development and would be lower than the neighbouring properties. The use of a dull matt grey roof is not an uncommon feature within rural areas, the nearby Blandys Farm to the north of the application site has a similar colour roof on an existing barn type structure as well as in the wider area including Redmoor Row Farm, adjacent to Basildon Park.

6.3.2 Therefore it is considered that the design of the resultant dwelling encompasses rural features appropriate to this area and would not contribute to an ‘urban’ character. Moreover the proposal is considered to reduce the urban character that exists at present, from the existing dwelling and neighbouring dwellings, by introducing variety in accordance with the first recommendation of the Village Design Statement for Basildon.

6.3.3 In respect of the AONB Management Plan, which seeks to resist intrusive and unsympathetic development within the AONB, the design of the proposed scheme is considered not to introduce an incongruous feature within the wider rural nature of the AONB.

6.3.2 As such the proposal is not considered to harm the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 42 6.4 The impact on the neighbouring amenity

6.4.1 The majority of the proposal would result in larger openings at ground floor level to the rear. Given the screening to the curtilage of the site no overlooking or loss of privacy will be introduced by this element of the proposal.

6.4.2 The first floor extension would introduce openings to the north elevation, across open fields, and to the east, west and south elevations. In respect of the openings on the south elevation these would be in excess of 25 metres from the side of the neighbouring dwelling to the south, Highbanks.

6.4.3 The openings on the first floor west elevation are in excess of 25 metres from those on the front elevation of the bungalow at Pambers Green and any view would be hindered by the tall mature trees along the western boundary. Furthermore one may afford a clearer view into these windows when standing on the road in the public realm.

6.4.4 The openings on the east elevation of the first floor extension would have a void below preventing persons from standing directly in front of the windows. However one could stand in the library area and look across the void, at an angle, to the rear of the neighbouring property to the east, Paddlehill. Whilst the distance would be approximately 20 metres from window to window, such a view would be at an angle and hindered by mature trees and vegetation along the rear boundary. Furthermore the relevant opening that one may afford a view to at the neighbouring property, Paddlehill, is conditioned to be obscure glazed under planning permission 01/00670/FUL. As such the openings at first floor level on the proposed extension would not afford views into the dwelling to the east, Paddlehill, nor the private garden area of the same neighbouring dwelling. Therefore the proposed extensions and alterations would not harm the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings in respect of loss of privacy.

6.4.5 The first floor extension of the proposed development is located to the north of the application site away from neighbouring properties. The distance between this element of the proposal and the neighbouring property to the east Paddlehill, at the closest point, is approximately 17 metres with tall mature vegetation and trees separating the two dwellings. The distance between this element of the proposal and the neighbouring property to the west, Pamber Green, at the closest point, is approximately 23 metres with a few tall mature trees and Blandys Lane separating the two dwellings. The distance between this element of the proposal and the neighbouring property to the south, Highbanks, at the closest point, is approximately 27 metres. Given the distance between the proposed first floor extension and the neighbouring properties no significant harm in terms of overbearing impact would be introduced by the proposal.

6.4.6 With regard to the letters of objection received the impact of the proposal on private views, rural or otherwise, of the countryside is not a material planning consideration. The proposed swimming pool is within the dwelling and would not require planning consent if the owner had constructed one without altering the external appearance of the dwelling. Furthermore the distance between the swimming pool and the neighbouring properties, together with its location inside the dwelling, is not considered to introduce any significant noise disturbance above and

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 43 beyond that of an inflated paddling pool erected in the garden without the need for planning permission. Should the proposed swimming pool introduce a harmful noise disturbance for the neighbours it can be controlled in accordance with law by the Public Protection Team.

6.5 Highways Matters

6.5.1 The proposal does not alter the existing parking arrangements for the site and sufficient off-road parking would be available for this dwelling. As such the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

6.6 Other Matters

6.6.1 Tree Matters A tree survey and arboricultural method statement has been submitted with the application detailing the impact of the development on the trees including the root protection areas. The Tree Officer has assessed the application in respect of the impact on the trees within the application site. The Tree Officer has noted that the proposal would not require the removal of trees and there will be some minor encroachment on the root protection area of some of the trees which can be managed. As such no objections have been raised subject to the attachment of conditions should the application be approved.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal is considered acceptable in respect of its impacts on the character of the area and AONB, neighbouring properties and highway safety. The design, scale and form of the dwelling are sympathetic with the rhythm and nature of the surrounding area. The application is therefore recommended for conditional approval.

8. Full Recommendation

8.1 The Head of Planning and Trading Standards be authorised to APPROVE planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives.

8.2 Conditions

Time limit

1. The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007 should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Approved Plans

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out strictly in accordance with drawing title numbers 1 Rev a, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 received on 29th March

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 44 2010, and the ‘Arboricultural Method Statement for Proposed Construction at Brickfields, Blandys Lane, Upper Basildon’ produced by Simon Holmes on 17th March 2010 received on 22nd March 2010 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against National, Regional and Local Planning Policy.

Samples of materials

3. No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

Arboricultural Watching Brief

4. No development, site works or demolition shall commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Policy OVS 2.

Tree protection

5. No development shall commence (including any preparatory works) until the protective fencing detailed in drawing title number 2 received on 29th March has been erected. At least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Note: The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 9 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2005.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy OVS2 of West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 45 Landscaping

6. No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment. The scheme shall ensure;

a) Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development.

b) Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Reason; To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies C3 and C4 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policies OVS2 (a & b) and OVS 3 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

Temporary parking area

7. Upon commencement of development the gravelled parking area and turning space to the west of the dwelling shall be made available at all times and used for parking by all employees, contractors and operatives or other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site until the development has been completed.

Reason: In accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 to ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities during the construction period, in order to minimise the incidence of off site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users or long term inconvenience to local residents.

Parking

8. The extensions hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning space has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking and turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would be a danger to other road users in accordance with Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 46 No additions or extensions

9. Irrespective of the provisions of the current Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no additions or extensions to the dwelling shall be built or ancillary buildings or structures erected within the curtilage, unless permission in writing has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose.

Reason: To prevent the over-development of the site and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

Hours of work

10. The hours of work for all contractors for the duration of the site development shall, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing, be limited to:

7.30am to 6.00pm on Mondays to Fridays 7.30am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 - 2006 Saved Policies 2007.

8.3 Informatives

1. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service or the Council website.

3. All bats are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (WCA) and the Conservation (Natural Habitat, &c.) Regulations 1994. Should you find bats during development, all work must stop until advice has been sought from Natural England. Their local contact number is 0118 9581222.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Agenda Item 4.(2)

Item Application No. 8/13 Week Date Proposal, Location and Applicant No and Parish

(2) 10/00631/HOUSE 12th May 2010 Retrospective – Wall to front of garden

Holybrook 6 Charrington Road Calcot Reading Berkshire RG31 7AW

Recommendation Summary: The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant retrospective planning permission subject to conditions and informatives

Ward Member(s): Councillor Argyle Councillor Bedwell Councillor Gopal

Reason for Committee Called to Committee by Councillor Bedwell due to determination: concerns raised by objectors regarding the visual impact of the development and the precedent it would set.

Committee Site Visit: n/a

Contact Officer Details Name: Kirstin Gray Job Title: Assistant Planning Officer Tel No: (01635) 519111 E-mail Address: [email protected]

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 49 10/00631/HOUSE

6 Charrington Road, Calcot

Map Centre Coordinates : 465911.06 , 171557.24 Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation West Berkshire Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2003. Department Environment Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Date 04 June 2010

SLA Number 100015913

Page 50 1. Site History

110183 : Residential Housing Estate – Granted 31.12.1979

112297: Residential Development Phase 2 – Granted 26.11.1980

04/02896/HOUSE: Conservatory – Granted 10.01.2005

2. Publicity of Application

Site Notice Expired : 22nd April 2010

Neighbour Notification Expired: 21st April 2010

3.Consultations and Representations

Parish Council: The Parish Council Objects for the following reasons: • The application is retrospective – planning permission should have been sought before construction. • The council understands that local covenants prohibit any walls being built at the front of properties on this estate. • Other similar applications have been rejected in the past.

Highways: • No objection the wall is set back from the highway. Condition recommended.

Correspondence: Two letters of objection received citing concerns to include: Material Planning Considerations: • Highways Safety: views along pavements and road when reversing out of driveway are obscured by the wall. Obstruction of cycle path. • Site of fatal accident a few years ago • An approval will set a precedent for the area. • Other recent retrospective applications for ‘enclosing front gardens’ on Beansheaf have been refused. .Other matters raised: • Failure of council to enforce rejected applications • Height of previous shrub, replaced by wall, allowed views of the road. • Wall will not prevent vandalism and crime • Two documents received which include a Reserved Matters notice of decision and a HM Land Registry extract.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 51 4. Policy Considerations:

Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development. The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy, 2009 – Policies CC6 and BE1 West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2008 – Policy OVS2 (Core Policy) Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extension 2004. Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Design

5. Description of Development

5.1 This application seeks retrospective permission for the erection of a brick wall to the front of the garden. The wall measures approximately 1.3m in height with intermittent brick piers measuring approximately 1.53m in height. The Pier located at the eastern end of the wall measures approximately 1.57m in height. The difference between this height and the other 4 piers is not obvious when viewing the wall and appears to be a result of the uneven levels of the ground.

6. Consideration of the Proposal

This application the main issues to consider are:

1. The Principle of the Development; 2. The Impact on Character of the Area; 3. The Impacts on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties; 4. Highways Matters

6.1 The Principle of the Development

6.1.1 The application site lies within a defined settlement boundary and within a built up residential are. The proposed development is within the residential curtilage of the property and is considered acceptable in principle.

6.1.2 It should be noted that under Schedule 2, Part 2 Minor Operations of the Town and Country (General) Permitted Development Order the applicant may erect a wall up to 1m in height. The erection of a wall up to 1m is therefore accepted. As such the proposal essentially seeks planning permission for a wall that is 30cm higher than what would be permitted under permitted development.

6.1.3 The original planning permission on the estate, application no 112297 placed a similar restriction as condition 3 states ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General permitted Development Order 1977, no wall, gate, fence or other means of enclosure greater than 1m in height shall be erected or planted beyond the forwardmost part of any dwelling or existing fence line’.

6.1.4 Two documents were submitted by an objector which included a Reserved Matters notice of decision and a HM Land Registry extract. The second document a HM Land Registry extract is not a material planning consideration and therefore does not affect the consideration and determination of this application

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 52 6.1.5 The Reserved Matters Notice of Decision submitted, application number 112296, appears to be for Phase 1 of the development at Beansheaf Farm, Calcot, Theale (Res Mat) and as such it is unclear whether the property in question falls within Phase 1 or Phase 2.

6.1.6 Notwithstanding the above, the Reserved Matters Notice of Decision for application number 112297 (Res Mat) which covers Phase 2 of the Residential Development at Beansheaf Farm, Calcot, Theale has been referred to in the Committee report under 6.1.3. The conditions relating to walls, gates, fences or means of enclosure in relation to permitted development and the erection of buildings, walls, fences, hedges, trees and shrubs in relation to site lines are imposed on both applications 112296 and 112297 and as such the considerations set out on the report continue to apply.

6.2 The Impact on the Character of the Area.

6.2.1 No.6 Charrington Road is a detached dwelling located on the main road through a high density residential estate. The surrounding estate is predominantly open plan with open front gardens and driveways. However there are a number of existing brick walls within immediate proximity to the site, which enclose rear gardens, and flank elevations of dwellings sited adjacent to Charrington Road.

6.2.2 The wall is to the front (northern boundary) and adjoins the pavement. As such the brick wall is highly visible from public vantage points. Given the low height of the brick wall at 1.3m in height, with intermittent piers at 1.53m (approx), it is still viewed against the backdrop of the dwelling and is not considered to create a harsh visual barrier between the dwelling and the highway. It is also considered that the open feel of the frontage is still retained.

6.2.3 The brick wall is considered to be sympathetic to the materials used for No.6 Charrington Road and for other existing brick walls and dwellings in the proximity. The overall design of the wall is considered to be attractive with piers and brick detail as opposed to a blank façade. As such the development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the character of the area.

6.3 The Impacts on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

6.3.3 Given the siting and height of the wall it considered to have nominal impact on neighbouring amenities.

6.4 Highways Safety

6.4.1 The highways officer has raised no objections to the application subject to the imposition of a condition relating to the erection of gates. However it is recognised that some concerns have been raised with regards to impact of the proposal on highway safety. These concerns primarily relate to the obstruction of views along the highway and pavement caused by the wall for the occupiers of No.6, when reversing out of the driveway. However, further advice has been sought from the

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 53 highways officer who confirms that the highway boundary is the back edge of the footway and therefore the wall does not encroach onto the public highway.

6.4.2 In addition to the condition quoted in paragraph 6.1.3, it is noted that the original permission application number 112297 has a condition attached which states that ‘No wall, fence, hedge, tree or shrub shall be erected or planted on the land lying in front of the sight lines’. In relation to this application (10/00631) Highways have appended a condition which states that any gates added must be set back 5 meters from the highway, confirming the position on this.

6.4.3 The Highways Officer has also confirmed that the accident data statistics, held by the Council’s Road Safety Team, at the above location show no recorded pedestrian accidents and that there is traffic calming situated close to the above location to reduce vehicle speeds. Highways have found no record of the fatality claimed to have occurred by an objector.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposal is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the street scene when viewed against the existing development at the site. The wall is considered to respect the character and appearance of the area in terms of design and materials. Furthermore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the guidelines set out in West Berkshire Council’s SPG ‘House Extension’, having no detrimental impact on neighbouring amenities. As such the development complies with PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, Policies CC6 and BE1 of the South East Plan RSS 2009, Policy OVS.2 (Core Policy) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2006 and Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘House Extensions (2004).

8. Full Recommendation

Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans which accurately detail the height of the wall, to DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to GRANT RETROSPECTIVE PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the following conditions and informatives:

Conditions:

1. The development hereby approved shall be maintained in accordance with drawings titled Land Registry Plan, Block plan/ Location plan, Front elevation and 2 Sections of Garden Wall at 6 Charrington Road (revised plans details to be inserted) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details assessed against Policies CC6 and BE1 of the Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

2. Any gates to be provided at the access where vehicles will enter or leave the site shall open away from the adjoining highway and be set back a distance of at least 5 metres from the edge of the highway.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 54 Reason: To ensure that vehicles can be driven off the highway before the gates are opened, in the interest of road safety in accordance with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006.

Informatives:

1. This planning permission is granted in accordance with Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken because the development is in accordance with the development plan and would have no significant impact on the character and appearance of the area or the residential amenities of the occupants of the adjacent dwellings. This informative is only intended as a summary of the reason for the grant of planning permission. For further details on the decision please see the application report which is available from the Planning Service or the Council website.

West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 16th June 2010 Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 56 Agenda Item 5.

APPEAL DECISIONS EASTERN AREA-COMMITTEE

Parish and Location and Proposal Officer Decision Application No Appellant Recommendation Inspectorate’s Ref BASILDON Basildon Service 2 internally Delegated Refusal Dismissed 09/01259 Station, Reading illuminated free 27.5.10 Road, Lower standing single Pins Ref 2115790 Basildon sided display Primesight Ltd units – retrospective 1 Old Rectory Construction of a Delegated Refusal Dismissed 09/01997 Cottages, School 2 bed detached 3.6.10 Road, Burghfield house and double Pins Ref 2119564 Mr C Clifford garage

Page 57 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 58 BURGHFIELD 1 Old Rectory Construction of a Delegated Refusal Dismissed 09/01997 Cottages, School 2 bed detached 3.6.10 Road, Burghfield house and double Pins Ref 2119564 Mr C Clifford garage

The Inspector considered the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the local physical and social infrastructure. The Inspector considered the Council’s evidence demonstrating that the proposal would increase pressure on the local transport, education, public open space, libraries, health care and adult social care. The Inspector was satisfied that the Council’s requirements in this case are necessary and do fairly and reasonably relate to the proposal. As no agreement to mitigate the proposal was completed, nor any unilateral undertaking submitted, the appeal was dismissed.

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 60 Agenda Item 6.

Plans and drawings relevant to reports submitted to Eastern Area Planning Committee 16 June 2010 at 6.30pm at the Calcot Centre, Highview (off Royal Avenue), Calcot

[to be read in conjunction with the main agenda]

Please note:

• All drawings are copied at A4 and consequently are not scalable

• Most relevant plans have been included – however, in some cases, it may be necessary for the case officer to make a selection

• All drawings are available to view at www.westberks.gov.uk

• The application files will be available for half an hour before the meeting

Page 61

10/00556/HOUSE 10/00556/HOUSE Brickfields Lane Blandys UpperBasildon

Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68

10/00631/HOUSE 10/00631/HOUSE Road Charrington 6 Calcot

Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 76