EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE Wednesday 22nd DECEMBER 2010
ITEM FOR DECISION (1)
Application No. Proposal, Location and Applicant and Parish
To provide up to 750 dwellings; a healthcare centre; a 09/01432/OUTMAJ library and children’s library; a business and community forum; a nursery/crèche; up to 6 shops; a 40-bed hotel with spa and gym facilities; up to two restaurants and cafes; one drinking establishment; a primary school; open space and landscaping; three energy centres; new and improved accesses; parking for residents, staff and visitors; walking, fitness and jogging trails; ecology and wildlife corridors; up to four commercial offices and up to ten homeworking units
(i) Recommendation Summary: The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised not to pursue refusal reasons No 7 & 8 at the appeal resulting from the decision to refuse the above application made by the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 th February 2010
Ward Members: Councillors Joe Mooney, Tony Linden and Emma Webster.
Reason for Committee Determination: Consent is sought to vary the resolution made by Members at the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 th February 2010 in respect of application 09/01432.
Committee Site Visit: N/A
Contact Officer Details Name: Gordon Currie Job Title: Team Leader Tel No: (01635) 519318 E-mail Address: [email protected]
1. Site History
The site has some planning history but as application 09/01432 is a stand alone application it is the only application relevant in respect of this item for decision.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
2. Background Information
2.1. The report and update sheet considered by the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 th February 2010 are attached as Appendix A.
2.2. The above application was refused at the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 th February 2010.. Nine reasons for refusal were given. These are:
1. The application proposes inappropriate and unjustified development, on a greenfield site outside the current settlement boundary. Material considerations do not outweigh the general presumption against development in the countryside. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to advice in PPS3 ‘Housing’, PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’, Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies OVS1 and ENV18 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
2. The application proposes development within a Gap between Settlements. The proposed development would detract from the open and rural character of this area of land and would severely compromise the clear physical and visual separation between Theale and Tilehurst/Calcot. The proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the open rural character of the gap, not only on the site itself, but also on the overall gap. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Policy C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy ENV4 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
3. The proposed development is considered to undermine the achievement of the policy objectives of the emerging Core Strategy (at this stage West Berkshire’s Core Strategy Draft Submission) as the site is not allocated as a Strategic Site Allocation for residential development. Additionally the Council can demonstrate a 6.5 year housing land supply as of September 2009. Accordingly the application is considered to be premature and is contrary to guidance set out in PPS3 ‘Housing’.
4. The proposed development would have a direct adverse landscape and visual impact on that part of the site within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on the setting of the AONB along its boundary with Pincents Lane. Accordingly the proposal does not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and is therefore contrary to government guidance in PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’, Policy C3 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy ENV1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
5. The proposed development is not in keeping with and would materially harm the landscape character of the area. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the guidance contained within the North Wessex Downs
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 landscape Character Assessment 2002 and the Newbury District-wide Landscape Character Assessment 1993. Additionally the applicant has failed to provide sufficient information on the visual impact of the development, without which it is not possible for the Local Planning Authority to determine the impact of the development on views to the site or on local visual amenity. The proposed development is thus contrary to PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’, Policies CC1, CC6 and C4 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies OVS2 and ENV1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
6. The proposed development would have a cumulative adverse impact on road safety and the local transport infrastructure. The applicant has failed to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate that impact, contrary to Policy T1 of the South East Plan 2009, Policies OVS2, OVS3 and TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and PPG13 ‘Transport’.
7. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on TPO and non- TPO trees on site. Without the information to make this assessment, the Council’s Tree Officer cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on trees. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
8. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not sterilise mineral resources. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies 1 and 2 of the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire Saved Policies 2007, Policy M5 of the South East Plan 2009 and advice given in MPS1 ‘Planning and Minerals’.
9. The development fails to provide an appropriate scheme of on-site works and/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 financial contribution secured by a planning obligation. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice contained in Circular 05/05, Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as West Berkshire Council’s adopted SPG4/04 ‘Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development’.
2.3. The decision is now the subject of an appeal which is to be dealt with through a Public Inquiry in March 2011.
2.4. The Council’s Tree Officer has been consulted with regard to defending the seventh reason for refusal as above. The appellants have now submitted information requested at the time of the application and the Tree Officer is
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 satisfied that those details are satisfactory. He is of the view that reason 7 of the decision notice is no longer defensible and if pursued would be likely to result in the award of costs against this Authority.
2.6. It is therefore considered that reason for refusal No 7 cannot be defended and is likely to result in an award of costs against the Council should this reason be pursued.
2.7 The original mineral sterilisation objection and subsequent reason for refusal (No 8) to planning application 09/01432/OUTMAJ were ‘in-principle’ issues which stemmed from a lack of information from the applicant.
2.8. Subsequently the applicant has provided a report which demonstrates that the proposed development would not result in the sterilisation of any mineral deposit and as such would not be contrary to the mineral safeguarding policies in the Replacement Mineral Local Plan and Minerals Policy Statement 1.
2.9. Although the mineral deposit is small and of low quality, the applicant has suggested that it could be utilised as part of the on-site earthworks associated with the proposed development. This is considered to be a beneficial outcome and, subject to the imposition of a condition, details can be agreed at the reserved matters stage.
2.10. It is therefore considered that reason for refusal No 8 cannot be defended and is likely to result in an award of costs against the Council should this reason be pursued.
3. Conclusion
3.1. The Eastern Area Planning Committee is therefore requested to approve the following:
The Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised not to pursue refusal reasons No 7 & 8 of planning application 09/01432/OUTMAJ at the appeal resulting from the decision to refuse the above application made by the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 24 th February 2010 at the forthcoming appeal.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 APPENDIX A
Item Application 13 Week Date Proposal, Location and Applicant No No. and Parish
(1) 09/01432/OUT 23 rd October To provide up to 750 dwellings; a healthcare MAJ 2009 * 1 centre; a library and children’s library; a Tilehurst. business and community forum; a nursery/crèche; up to six shops; a 40-bed hotel with spa and gym facilities; up to two restaurants and cafes; one drinking establishment; a primary school; open space and landscaping; three energy centres; new and improved accesses; parking for residents, staff and visitors; walking, fitness and jogging trails; ecology and wildlife corridors; up to four commercial offices and up to ten homeworking units.
Land off Pincents Lane, Tilehurst, Berkshire.
Blue Living Ltd, Blue Living (Pincents Hill) Ltd, Alasdair Barron and Pricilla Platt.
*1 Note: This planning application is accompanied by a Planning Performance Agreement which removes it from the statutory time limits for determinations of planning applications set by Central Government.
*2 Note: This proposal is an application for outline planning permission. Only means of access is for consideration at this time, which leaves appearance, landscaping, layout and scale as reserved matters.
*3 Note: This planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement and has been advertised as such accordingly.
Recommendation Summary: The Head of Planning and Trading Standa rds be authorised to REFUSE outline planning permission. Ward Member(s): Councillor Webster Councillor Linden Councillor Mooney
Reason for Committee Due to the level of objection and comment. determination:
Committee Site Visit: 17 th February 2010
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
Contact Officer Details Name: Clive Inwards Job Title: Principal Planning Officer Tel No: (01635) 519111 E-mail Address: [email protected]
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 1. Site History
The application site has no recent planning history, however there have been previous planning applications at this site:
APP/G0310/A/87/77053 Appeal Reference: An appeal against refusal of permission for residential development with associated infrastructure and provision of public open space on 23.03 ha of land adjacent to Pincents Lane. The appeal was dismissed in January 1988. The appeal was recovered and considered by the Secretary of State. The original decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld on the 10 th November 1988.
139251: Application for a change of use of agricultural land to 9 hole pay and play golf course with kiosk, car parking and road widening to Pincents Lane. Planning permission granted on the 27 th January 1995.
2. Publicity of Application
Site Notice Expired: 18 th September 2009.
Press Notice Expired: 20 th August 2009.
Neighbour Notification Expired: 17 th August 2009.
3. Consultations and Representations
Parish Council: Objects on the grounds that the plans are only an outline plan designed to get Pincents Farm accepted as a development site, the plan is for development outside the settlement boundary on a greenfield site and infringes the aspect from the AONB, the plan uses AONB land, the plan uses land in public ownership, the planned density of housing is excessive, the design of the houses is not in keeping with the area, the need for a hotel on the site is not proven, the highway proposals and the access to the major road network are inadequate, the site is not as sustainable as claimed, the development would severely affect local wildlife and the proposal would result in the loss of the green wedge between Tilehurst and Theale. Adjacent Parish: Object on the grounds that the proposal is in direct conflict with the (Holybrook) Kennet and Thames Vision, contrary to advice in PPS7, the local infrastructure would not support a further 2,000 people, the trunk road network and the local highway network are currently saturated, unacceptable impact during construction, concern over where s106 contributions would be used and contrary to the Core Strategy option.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Adjacent Parish: No objection in principle but concerned over the possible increase in traffic from the north west access point of the development using (Tidmarsh with Sulham Hill and Mill Lane as a route to the M4 Junction 12. Sulham Parish) Adjacent Parish: Object on the grounds that the development would be outside of the settlement boundary, it would have a considerable visual (Theale) impact on the area, it is a greenfield site and it forms part of the strategic gap between Tilehurst and Theale. Additionally a major upgrade of the roundabouts at Junction 12 and Sainsbury’s would be required before development commenced. Highways: The proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the highway and travel network. Insufficient information has been provided that demonstrates that this impact can be successfully mitigated. It is therefore considered that the application should be refused because the proposal would have a cumulative adverse impact on road safety and/or the use of local transport infrastructure. Highways Agency: Recommend refusal as a result of insufficient information being available to construct conditions for required highway mitigation in the vicinity of the M4 Junction 12. Housing Officer: The developer’s approach to affordable housing, which is higher than the minimum requirement, is welcomed and the development would make a significant contribution towards meeting the district’s affordable housing needs. Thames Water: ‘Grampian’ style conditions to be imposed in relation to waste water infrastructure and water supply infrastructure. Also an informative to be attached relating to the minimum pressure provided. Natural England: No objection but recommend that the planning authority takes note of Natural England’s advice and consult further should there be any changes. *NB a further response received 16.09.09 – Natural England advises the LPA to direct the applicant to commission a further badger survey of the site prior to determination of the application. Wildlife Trust: Does not object in principle to the development but sets out some aspects that should be improved. Minerals and Waste: The application fails to adequately address the matter of mineral sterilisation and is contrary to the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. Archaeology: The bulk of the proposed development site is of little archaeological interest but the area at the top of Pincents Hill does contain some archaeological features that will require further investigation, recording, analysis and publication should development proceed. Condition to be attached.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Reading Borough Object to the application as insufficient information has been Council: submitted with the planning application to enable the highways, traffic and transportation implications of the proposed development to be fully assessed. Additionally notwithstanding the fact that the application is in outline, insufficient detail on the nature and specifics of the proposal has been provided to allow full consideration and assessment of the application. South East England It is for the Council to determine how to meet its strategic housing Partnership Board: requirement in its Core Strategy. The Council will need to be satisfied that release of this site on the edge of the urban area is necessary and the most appropriate location to meet local housing needs and that it will not prejudice the emerging Core Strategy. It will also need to be satisfied that there is a need for office floorspace and a hotel of this size, that the site represents the most appropriate location and that any effects of the scheme on the setting of the AONB can be appropriately mitigated. The provision of new infrastructure will need to be closely related to the scale and phasing of development. Environment No objection providing conditions as detailed are attached. Agency: Transport Policy: The Travel Plan includes some excellent measures which would have a positive impact on the travel activity associated with the site as well as benefits for the wider area. However some amendments and further information required and the Travel Plan is not yet in an agreed form. Planning Policy: While the scheme incorporates an ambitious and in many areas commendable masterplan in terms of the range of community facilities, sustainability measures and affordable housing provision, this does not outweigh the concern from a Planning Policy perspective that the proposal is contrary to the adopted Development Plan in terms of development outside of settlement and within a designated gap. CABE While the aspirations of the team are commended, CABE think further work is needed to realise the ambitious vision set. CABE are not convinced that the development will be the sustainable exemplar intended, unless the concerns raised can be addressed. It is important that these issues are resolved at the outline planning stage, particularly in relation to connectivity. Crime Prevention ‘Flags up’ a number of issues to be addressed at the detailed Design Adviser: design stage. It is not the position of Thames Valley Police to comment on the advisability or acceptability of any planning submission but simply to ensure that any proposal addresses the policy and good practice of ‘safer places’ to deliver crime free environments.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Tree Officer: The proposed development will clearly have an impact on the TPO trees on the site, but the level of the impact cannot be determined from the information submitted. Further information required. Landscape The proposed development will have a direct adverse landscape Consultant: and visual impact on part of the AONB and on the setting of the AONB along Pincents Lane. The proposed buffer to the AONB is of insufficient width to conserve and enhance the AONB and the proposed changes to Pincents Lane are likely to significantly erode the existing setting. Additionally the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the open rural character of the gap, not only on the site itself but also on the overall gap and its close link to the AONB. Rights of Way: Object to the plans for Footpath 13 Tilehurst as proposed. Also require a new definitive footpath to be created, s106 contributions (£46,500) and a diversion order also required. Ramblers Wishes to oppose the application because of its adverse effect on Association: recreational walking in Tilehurst. Primary Care Trust: Either a new facility to meet the GP’s requirements to be provided on site or a monetary contribution of £118,574. Education: £1,816,832 requested to meet the impact of the development on the secondary catchment school. The Local Authority may consider deviating from its formulaic approach in light of the interest in providing a new primary school building on the development site. Libraries: £176,238 requested towards the provision of stock items and all other service improvements for use in West Berkshire libraries. Adult Social Care: £412,932 requested to meet the impact of the development on adult social care provision. Royal Berkshire Domestic sprinklers should be considered and possible requirement for fire hydrant provision on this site. Fire and Rescue Service: Thames Valley No objection subject to a developer contribution of £201,911.80 Police: being provided. Ecology: The bio-diversity issues can be covered by conditions. Conditions and a developer contribution required.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Open Spaces: In accordance with Topic Paper 7, an off site contribution for public open space provision cannot be justified given the level of on site provision. Any legal agreement will require the developer to submit plans and specifications to the Council for approval by the Head of Planning and Trading Standards for the setting out of playing fields at Tilehurst Recreation Ground to the south of the development site. This recreation ground is owned by the Parish Council and so the specifications, layouts etc would have to be shared with that Council prior to agreement. Permission to implement the plans would also be required from the Parish. Public Protection: Conditions required relating to noise, a construction management plan, hours of work, contaminated land and air quality monitoring to be included in any s106 agreement. Access Panel: List a number of items for consideration, many of which have since been addressed by the applicant. CPRE Bradfield: Request refusal due to the proposal being out of settlement, in a gap between settlements, undermining of the LDF process, it is in the wrong place, traffic congestion is already a major concern, water supply is a problem and there are potentially other more suitable sites to support the Reading Growth Area. SPOKES: Taking into account the strategic location of the Pincents Hill site in relation to the M4/A4 and the potential for the south western urban extension of Reading, the proposed access strategy for the site is very disappointing particularly if taken with a view to promoting sustainable travel and cycling. However, a series of recommendations provided. Conservation and The scheme should be subject to Building for Life appraisal. Design Officer: North Wessex Objects to the application as it is premature, it would be likely to Downs AONB: compromise the setting and character of the AONB and it would exacerbate wider pressure on already fragile lanes and landscape. Health and Safety HSE would not advise against development beyond the Outer Executive: Zone from AWE Burghfield.
Correspondence: 1415 letters of objection have been received, including from the Governing Body of Little Heath School, the Save Calcot Action Group, Animal Aid, the Calcot Hotel and the Local Ward Members. Grounds of objection can be summarised as:
• Any development on this site would disturb wildlife and particularly in relation to Oliver’s Copse and Withy Copse;
• Pincents Hill is a strategic gap which clearly sets apart Tilehurst from Calcot and Theale and the application,
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 which would be completely out of character for the area, breaches the Council’s existing policies which seek to retain current settlement patterns and boundaries;
• Local roads, especially approach roads to the site, are already heavily congested the proposal would result in at least 1,000 to 1,500 extra cars on the roads stretching the road infrastructure to breaking point and taking it well above capacity. The extra traffic will also severely compromise the safety of school children;
• The site has been used for many years by local residents as a recreational space and any development will lead to a loss of this valuable public amenity;
• The site provides a home for wildlife and any development will have a major negative impact on the environment, bio-diversity and the wildlife with the loss of an important habitat. Much of the area has been recognised as part of the West Reading Woodlands Conservation Target Area which have been incorporated in the South East Biodiversity Strategy;
• Current public services in the area are already under pressure and local secondary schools over-subscribed. Any major increase in the local population will lead to a significant worsening of this situation;
• The proposal would have a negative impact on the AONB;
• Insufficient parking is proposed on the site;
• An outline application is too vague and allows too much room to change the details;
• Chaos and disruption during the construction period;
• The application is flawed and inaccurate;
• The area is unsuitable for development and prone to flooding;
• The viewpoint looking south and west would be destroyed and there would be a loss of the view from Calcot North up towards the top of the hill;
• The development is not needed to meet Structure Plan housing objectives;
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 • The highway structure is insufficient;
• The proposal is contrary to Policy;
• The proposal would be detrimental to the country lane that is Pincents Lane;
• The site is not sustainable;
• The density of the proposal is too high and represents an overdevelopment of the site;
• There is no need for another hotel, drinking establishment, restaurants or cafes;
• Detrimental impact on the listed Pincents Manor and Pincents Kiln SSSI;
• Severe lack of hospital places;
• Possible flooding of raw sewage;
• There is no need for further housing development in the current difficult economic climate;
• The site is not brownfield as the developer claims;
• The proposed layout would form a ‘rat-run’ between the A4/Sainsbury’s roundabout and western Tilehurst;
• Alternative modes of transport would not be realistic due to the topography of the site, the stations are too far away and local bus services have recently been cut;
• Lack of activity for teenagers proposed;
• Loss of a landmark;
• The proposal would be detrimental to air quality;
• There is a specific concern relating to badgers as it is known that there is large badger population on site;
• Previous applications by Charles Church for housing on this site were refused;
• Detrimental impact on trees on the site;
• Detrimental impact on the Rights of Way though and near to the site;
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 • The existing size and layout of Pincents Lane to the south of the site is not suitable as the sole access point during construction, nor for the significant increase in traffic that would result; and
• The development is not necessary. There are other more sustainable sites for housing development.
The above has attempted to summarise the points that have been raised by the numerous objectors to the application. However, all objection letters received are available on the Council’s website and will also be available to view prior to the Committee meeting.
Additionally two letters of support have been received. It is stated that the plans look great and it is just what is needed in the community to bring things up to date.
4. Policy Considerations
Planning Policy Statement 1 2005 - Delivering Sustainable Development. (PPS1) Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change 2007. Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. Planning Policy Statement 3 2006 - Housing. (PPS3) Better Places to Live by Design: A Companion Guide to PPG3 2006. By Design 2000. Planning Policy Statement 4: 2009 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. (PPS4) Planning for Town Centres: Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach. Planning Policy Statement 7 2004 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. (PPS7) Planning Policy Statement 9 2005 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. (PPS9) Planning Policy Statement 10 2005 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. (PPS10) Planning Policy Statement 12 2008 – Local Spatial Planning. (PPS12) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 2001 - Transport. (PPG13) Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 1994 - Planning and the Historic Environment. (PPG15) Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 1990 - Archaeology and Planning. (PPG16)Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 2002 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) Planning Policy Statement 22 2004 - Renewable Energy. (PPS22) Planning Policy Statement 4: 2009 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth. (PPS4) Planning for Town Centres: Practice Guidance on Need, Impact and the Sequential Approach. Planning Policy Statement 7 2004 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas. (PPS7) Planning Policy Statement 9 2005 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. (PPS9)
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Planning Policy Statement 10 2005 - Planning for Sustainable Waste Management. (PPS10) Planning Policy Statement 12 2008 – Local Spatial Planning. (PPS12) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 2001 - Transport. (PPG13) Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 1994 - Planning and the Historic Environment. (PPG15) Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 1990 - Archaeology and Planning. (PPG16)Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 2002 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) Planning Policy Statement 22 2004 - Renewable Energy. (PPS22) The South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England 2009 . – Policies SP3 (Urban Focus and Urban Renaissance), CC1 (Sustainable Development), CC2 (Climate Change), CC3 (Resource Use), CC4 (Sustainable Design and Construction), CC6 (Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment), CC7 (Infrastructure and Implementation), H3 (Affordable Housing), H4 (Type and Size of New Housing), H5 (Housing Design and Density), NRM1 (Sustainable Water Resources and Groundwater Quality), NRM5 (Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity), NRM9 (Air Quality), NRM11 (Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), NRM12 (Combined Heat and Power), C3 (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty), C4 (Landscape and Countryside Management), C5 (Managing the Rural-Urban Fringe), C6 (Countryside Access and Rights of Way Management), BE1 (Management for an Urban Renaissance) and S6 (Community Infrastructure).
Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (Saved Policies 2007 ) – Policies 1 (Husbanding Resources), (Policies 2 (Prevention of Sterilisation) and 2A (Extraction to Prevent Sterilisation).
West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 - Policies OVS1 (Overall Strategy), OVS2 (Core Policy), OVS3 (Planning and Community Benefits), OVS5 (Environmental Nuisance and Pollution Control), OVS6 (Noise Pollution), OVS10 (Energy Efficiency), OVS11 (Planning to Reduce the Opportunity for Crime), ENV1 (The Wider Countryside), ENV4 (Gaps Between Settlements), ENV8 (Active Nature Conservation Measures), ENV9 (Nature Conservation Sites), ENV14 (River Corridors and Nature Conservation), ENV18 (Control of Development in the Countryside), ENV31 (Important Open Space), HSG8 (Housing to Meet the Needs of Disabled People), HSG9 (Affordable Housing), ECON2A (Employment Schemes on Non-Protected Sites), SHOP5 (The Encouragement of Local and Village Shops), TRANS1 (Meeting the Transport Needs of New Development), RL1 (Public Open Space in Residential Development Schemes), RL2 (Provision of Public Open Space Methods) and RL3 (The Selection of Public Open Space and Recreation Sites). Options for the Future – West Berkshire’s Core Strategy 2009. West Berkshire Core Strategy Draft Submission.
5. Description of Development
5.1. This proposal seeks outline planning permission for the development of land at Pincents Hill to provided up to 750 dwellings; a healthcare centre; a library and children’s library; a business and community forum; a nursery/crèche; up to six shops; a 40-bed hotel with spa and gym facilities; up to two restaurants
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 and cafes; one drinking establishment; a primary school; open space and landscaping; three energy centres; new and improved accesses; parking for residents, staff and visitors; walking, fitness and jogging trails; ecology and wildlife corridors; up to four commercial offices and up to ten homeworking units. Only means of access is for consideration at this time, with details of layout, appearance, scale and landscaping to be reserved matters.
5.2. The total area of the site extends to some 19.4 hectares. A schedule of housing types has been provided which sets out 20 no. 1 bed apartments, 184 no. 2 bed apartments, 8 no. 3 bed apartments, 26 no. 4+ bed apartments, 155 no. 2 bed houses, 239 no. 3 bed houses, 108 no. 4+ bed houses and 10 no. live-work units. For the purposes of clarity, 750 dwellings is the maximum number of dwellings that could be provided on site and the developer contributions have been worked out on the basis of 750 dwellings.
5.3 The applicant has indicated that the residential element of the proposal would be provided as a range of dwelling types, including terraces, townhouses, semi-detached and detached houses, corner units, mews, apartments, duplexes and triplexes. It is stated that these would be distributed across the site making the best use of access, slope and maximising residential amenity.
6. Consideration of the Proposal
6.1. The main issues in consideration of this proposal relate to assessment against Development Plan Policy, having specific regard to residential development outside of the settlement boundary and within a Gap between Settlements. The report will also address issues relating to prematurity and housing supply. Finally the report will consider the landscape impact, highways issues and technical issues relating to ecology, archaeology, minerals and trees.
6.2. Assessment against Development Plan Policy – Residential Development outside of the Settlement Boundary
6.2.1 The application site covers a site known as Pincents Hill and totals 19.4 hectares in area. The whole site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary, which is drawn tightly around the existing built up area of Tilehurst and Calcot. The site is also designated as a Gap between Settlements where Policy ENV4 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 (WBDLP) applies. At its most northerly point the application site also includes land that is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Immediately to the south of the site is the Sainsbury’s Savacentre complex which is a designated Retail and Warehousing Area, where Policy SHOP3 of the WBDLP applies. Finally, adjacent to the most easterly part of the site lies Oliver’s Copse and Withy Copse that are designated as Important Open Space areas within the WBDLP and where Policy ENV31 applies. As stated above the whole site falls outside of a defined settlement boundary and is thus considered to be within the open countryside in planning policy terms. Within PPS7, the South East Plan and the saved policies within the Local Plan there is considered to be a
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 presumption against residential development within the countryside and accordingly this issue has to be considered in depth.
6.2.2 Many of the representation letters received have also objected to the application specifically in relation to this issue.
Residential Development Outside of the Settlement Boundary:
6.2.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that “if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the Planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.” It has been shown above that the whole of the application site is outside of the settlement boundary where the Development Plan is restrictive of new residential development. Accordingly it has to be assessed if material considerations outweigh this usual presumption against residential development in this instance.
Material Considerations: Previously Developed Land
6.2.4 During the course of the application, the applicant has submitted additional information in which it is contended that at least part of the site forms previously developed land. It is accepted that the residential dwelling within the application site and its associated curtilage can be considered to be previously developed land. However, this only constitutes a small part of the application site in the north west of the site. The definition of previously developed land is given in Annex B to PPS3 and it states ‘previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure’. Aside from the existing dwelling, there are not or have not been permanent structures on this site. The majority of the application site is therefore not considered to be previously developed land.
Material Considerations: The Sustainability Credentials of the Application
6.2.5 The applicant has produced a significant amount of evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would achieve a very high overall level of sustainability and a low carbon lifestyle, perhaps in excess of what is normally achieved in new development. The sustainability credentials of the proposal underpin the application and are evidenced in many aspects of the application. These include the mixed use nature of the proposal, a commitment to pedestrian and cycle movement through and into the site, a reduction in demand for energy use coupled with energy supply to be provided through a community heat and power distribution network, specific features such as roof-mounted photovoltaics and extensive and intensive green and brown roofs for habitat creation, water retention and local food production and waste minimisation. Additionally for an edge of settlement location, the site is approximately 4 miles from the centre of Reading, it is considered that the location of the site itself is fairly sustainable. The site benefits from being in close proximity to
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 existing facilities such as shops, employment areas, schools and community and leisure facilities. Additionally the site is again fairly well served by public transport provision, predominantly through the bus network. Access to the rail network is not immediate; Theale Station is approximately 2km from the site and Tilehurst Station 3.5km. From the closest part of the site, the application documents demonstrate that Theale Station is a 20 minute walk, however this is just on the threshold for walking distance set out within PPG13 and is well within the cycling distance (5km). The sustainability credentials of the application, some of which have been set out above but this list is by no means exhaustive, and the fairly sustainable location of the site certainly weigh in favour of the application.
Material Considerations: The Contribution of the Application Site to the Open Countryside
6.2.6 It has been shown in the site history section that planning permission was granted for a nine hole golf course on the application site in 1995. There is also evidence to demonstrate that it was used as such and that this use ceased in approximately 1997. However since this time it would appear that the site has been left in a natural state and there is now hardly any evidence of this former use. Given the natural condition and appearance of the site it is considered that it does make a significant contribution to the open countryside. The Council’s Landscape Consultant has also raised some significant concerns with regard to an adverse impact on the AONB and strategic gap and these issues will be covered later in the report.
Material Considerations: Affordable Housing
6.2.7 The application Masterplan sets out that the affordable housing component of the housing provision is 35%. This equates to 262 dwellings. The figure of 35% affordable housing is in excess of the figure of 30% set out in the supporting text to Policy HSG9 of the WBDLP. The figure of 35% affordable housing is also in line with the Council’s emerging Core Strategy which seeks an overall target of 35% of all new housing to be affordable and Policy H3 of the South East Plan. Finally the Council’s Housing Strategy Manager has stated that the developer’s approach to affordable housing, which is higher than the minimum requirement, is welcomed and would make a significant contribution towards meeting the district’s affordable housing needs. The provision of affordable housing above the current minimum requirement is considered to weigh in favour of the application.
Summary of the Issue of Developing Outside of the Settlement Boundary:
6.2.8 With regard to the issue of developing outside of the settlement boundary it is considered that there must be strong material considerations to outweigh the presumption against development. The above section of the report has summarised some of the key material considerations in assessing this application. The provision of affordable housing above the minimum requirement and the sustainability credentials of the application are very
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 positive aspects of the application. However, the majority of the application site is not previously developed land and currently this site does make a significant contribution to the open countryside and landscape character of the area. In this instance the positive aspects of the application are not considered to be sufficient to outweigh the presumption against development in this countryside location and accordingly the proposal is considered to be contrary to Development Plan Policy and Government guidance in the form of PPS7. PPS7 advises that “new building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.” Additionally, through the further sections of this report it will be demonstrated that the proposal does result in material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside.
6.3 Gaps between Settlements
6.3.1 As set out in paragraph 6.2.1 above, almost the entire application site lies within a Gap between Settlements where Policy ENV4 of the WBDLP applies. Only a small finger of land at the northern most point of the application site lies outside of this designation and instead is within the North Wessex Downs AONB. Policy ENV4 of the WBDLP states that “the Council will not permit development which would detract from the open or rural character of areas of land identified on the Proposals Maps essential to the maintenance of a clear physical and visual separation between distinct settlements. The locations to which the policy will be applied are inter alia (c) land between Theale and Tilehurst/Calcot.” The proposal would obviously detract from the open and rural character of this area of land and would significantly diminish the physical and visual separation between Theale and Tilehurst/Calcot. However, given the adoption of the South East Plan in May 2009 which moves away from blanket designations preventing development to a criteria based approach, there does need to be some consideration of the weight to be attached to Policy ENV4.
6.3.2 As set out above the South East Plan has moved away from rigid local designations to criteria based policies to ensure that all development respects and enhances local landscape character, which follows guidance set out in paragraph 24 of PPS7. Whilst then Policy ENV4 is somewhat out of step with this approach having been adopted before the South East Plan and PPS7, the Policy was ‘saved’ as recently as 2007 and therefore should still be afforded some weight. Additionally until work is completed on the criteria based approach to local landscape designation that is being undertaken through the LDF process and has been through an independent examination, Policy ENV4 should still be relied upon as part of the Development Plan to protect the relevant areas from harmful development. As the proposal is clearly contrary to Policy ENV4, this adds further weight to the view that the application is unacceptable.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 6.4 Prematurity and Housing Supply
6.4.1 The Council’s Planning Policy team has stated that major developments on greenfield land should be brought forward through the plan-led system in their consultation response. It is noted that paragraph 72 of Planning Policy Statement 3 ‘Housing’ (PPS3) states that “Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of prematurity”. This issue of prematurity is discussed below.
6.4.2 Firstly it should be noted that planning applications have to be considered against the policy framework at the time of determination and should not be unnecessarily delayed until plans are adopted. The plan-led system is not intended to harm the prospects of businesses, or to hold back sustainable or high-quality development. 6.4.3 Secondly it needs to be considered if the application would prejudice the outcome of the Local Development Framework process. It is recognised that this is a significant planning application and if planning permission was granted, would provide approximately 7% of the 10,500 new dwellings required in West Berkshire over the period 2006 to 2026 as set out in the South East Plan.
6.4.4 It is noted that the Pincents Hill site has not been designated as a Strategic Site Allocation in the Draft Submission version of the emerging Core Strategy. Although the Draft Submission has now been agreed by the Council and will shortly go out for a final round of consultation, it is recognised that limited weight should be attached to this until such time as it has been independently examined. As the Pincents Hill site has not been designated as a Strategic Site Allocation and that Policy CS2 relating to housing distribution simply states that “in the region of 1,500 dwellings to be provided in the Eastern Area (Tilehurst, Calcot, Purley on Thames, Theale and Pangbourne)”, there is concern that the proposal is not in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy document and that the approval of the application could undermine the Local Development Framework process.
6.4.5 Given that earlier in the report it has been demonstrated that the proposal is contrary to current Development Plan Policy in that it is outside of the settlement boundary and proposes development within a Gap between Settlements, the Local Planning Authority would not be refusing the application solely on the grounds of prematurity. However, as there is concern that the proposal, if approved, could undermine the LDF process, it is considered that the issue of prematurity is an additional valid reason for refusal.
6.4.6 Finally the current housing land supply position needs to be detailed. The Local Planning Authority is currently able to demonstrate 6.5 years of housing land supply as at September 2009, so in excess of the five year supply figure set out in PPS3. Accordingly there is no pressing need to grant planning permission for further housing, particularly when the granting of planning permission would undermine both current Development Plan policy and policies within the emerging Core Strategy.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
6.5 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area including the Landscape Impact:
6.5.1 This application is obviously a significant application which incorporates a number of different elements. In addition to the residential element of the proposal, the application also includes significant mixed uses such as shops, offices, restaurants and cafes, a hotel and a primary school etc. This section focuses on the impact of these proposed developments on the character and appearance of the area, having specific regard to the impact on the landscape character.
6.5.2 As set out in paragraph 6.2.1 above, the northern most part of the application is within the North Wessex Downs AONB. Additionally the western edge of the application site is adjacent to the AONB and from the WBDLP Proposals Map it is evident that Pincents Lane is the eastern boundary of the AONB in this location. Policy C3 of the South East Plan states that “high priority will be given to conservation and enhancement of natural beauty in the region’s Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and planning decisions should have regard to their setting”. Additionally PPS7 advises that AONBs have been confirmed by the Government as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.
6.5.3 In relation to this issue the Council’s Landscape Consultant has advised that the proposed development will have a direct adverse landscape and visual impact on part of the AONB and on the setting of the AONB along Pincents Lane. It is also stated that the proposed buffer to the AONB is of insufficient width to conserve and enhance the AONB and the proposed changes to Pincents Lane are likely to significantly erode the existing setting. Additionally it is noted that the North Wessex Downs AONB organisation object to this application. The grounds of objection relate to the application being premature, given the current state of preparation of local development documents; it would be likely to compromise the setting and character of the AONB; and it would exacerbate wider pressure on already fragile lanes and landscape. Given these responses, in its current form the application is not considered to conserve or enhance natural beauty within the AONB and would also adversely affect its setting. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy C3 of the South East Plan and Government guidance contained in PPS7.
6.5.4 In addition to this the Council’s Landscape Consultant also advises that the proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the open rural character of the strategic gap, not only on the site itself but also on the overall gap and its close link to the AONB. This reinforces the view that some weight should be afforded to Policy ENV4 of the WBDLP and that the detrimental impact on the Gap between Settlements should constitute a reason for refusal.
6.5.5 Finally the Council’s Landscape Consultant has advised that the development will result in the loss of multi-functional open space which provides landscape, ecological, recreational and connectivity with the wider landscape in its present form. It is stated that the proposed park and linear corridors are
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 welcomed but their small scale will limit their contribution to green infrastructure objectives. Apart from the main proposals on the perimeter, the internal open space is considered to be very constrained and is unlikely to be deliverable as shown given the proposed housing density and type and parking proposals.
Density:
6.5.6 In relation to the specific density itself, the application proposes 750 dwellings on a site of 19.4 hectares. This equates to a gross dwelling density of 38.7 dwellings per hectare, which is almost in accordance with the overall regional target of 40 dwellings per hectare set out in Policy H5 of the South East Plan. When the integral areas of open space such as the community park, the linear woodland park and the two squares are removed from the area of the site (as advised by Annex B of PPS3), the net dwelling density would increase above the target figure of 40 dwellings per hectare. The actual density itself is therefore considered to be appropriate for this location and in accordance with Development Plan policy.
6.5.7 Notwithstanding the issue of density set out above, the impact on the character and appearance of the area is considered to be harmful due to both adverse direct impacts on the AONB and the strategic gap and also on the setting of the AONB and the strategic gap. The application is considered to be contrary to Policy in this respect.
6.6 Mixed Uses:
6.6.1 As set out in the description of development the application proposes a number of mixed uses on the site to complement the residential element and to assist in achieving the highest levels of sustainability and low carbon lifestyles. It is not considered that any of these elements result in specific problems and the argument put forward to complement the residential element is accepted. Further discussion would be necessary between the Local Authority and the developer with regard to both the provision of a primary school on site and library facilities. Similarly further discussion would be necessary with the Primary Care Trust with regard to the provision of a health centre. No objection from the relevant services/PCT has been received in principle, however these items would require further detailed discussions. In relation to the provision of a hotel, it is noted that the floor area proposed (1,950m2) would fall under the threshold of 2,500m2 where an Impact Assessment would be required by Policies EC14 and EC16 of PPS4.
6.6.2 Notwithstanding the fact that the mixed uses proposed would not in themselves result in specific issues and have sustainability advantages, these advantages do not outweigh the in principle objection to developing this site outside of the settlement boundary.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 6.7 Highways and Transport Issues:
6.7.1 The impact on the highway network and movement issues associated with the development are obviously key issues in the determination of this application. Accordingly discussions have taken place with the applicant over a number of months. In relation to this issue the full consultation response of the Highways Development Control Team Leader is provided below.
ACCESS
Vehicles
6.7.2 Vehicular access to the proposed residential development is from Pincents Lane to the south and Pincents Lane to the north where it connects onto Little Heath and City Road. A north to south through route is proposed through the site. The route has been carefully designed to meander through the site to provide a possible but limited alternative north to south route to Langley Hill.
6.7.3 Most of Pincents Lane through the site will remain untouched by the scheme with the lane being used for local access and as a pedestrian / cycle route.
6.7.4 The layout of the site consists of a grid pattern in line with guidance set out in Central Government’s Manual for Streets (MfS).
Pedestrian and Cycle Routes
6.7.5 Pedestrian and cycle routes are proposed alongside the proposed north to south route through the site through the site, as well as the existing Pincents Lane.
6.7.6 Footpath 14 Tilehurst passes north to south along the eastern edge of the site from Starlings Drive to Royal Avenue.
6.7.7 Footpath 13 Tilehurst passes south west to north east through the southern part of the site from across the M4 footbridge and Theale to connect to Footpath 14 on the eastern edge of the site.
6.7.8 Footpath 15 passes along the north eastern edge of the site from Footpath 14 to Farm Drive.
6.7.9 It is proposed to upgrade these routes and divert Footpath 13 as it passes through the site when necessary.
6.7.10 Other new routes are proposed southwards towards the playing fields and the Sainsbury’s superstore.
6.7.11 Precise details of pedestrian / cycle routes and any upgrading have not been resolved in detail at this stage.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Public Transport
6.7.12 A public transport hub exists fronting Sainsbury’s with direct access onto the A4 with services provided to a number of destinations including Reading town centre. Bus services also exist within the southern area of Tilehurst. Public transport provision has not been discussed in detail at this stage, but Highway and Transport Officers consider it essential that a route is provided through the site from an early stage.
ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT STATISTICS
6.7.13 From a review undertaken of the Road Traffic Accident statistics, there does not seem to be significant safety issues on the highways in the vicinity of the development site. However, City Road has a higher than expected annual accident rate, possibly due to the high number of minor junctions along the road and the presence of the nearby school. There is also a slight issue on Langley Hill in the vicinity of the junction with Yew Tree Rise, where the road layout and a slippery road were listed as causation factors for three accidents. However, it is not anticipated that much, if any, of the traffic from the proposal will use Langley Hill on a regular basis.
6.7.14 The above has not been discussed in detail at this stage; however Highways and Transport Officers will want to view City Road in more detail.
TRAFFIC GENERATION
Existing
6.7.15 Very limited levels of traffic are generated by the few existing properties located along Pincents Lane that access to and from the north. Pincents Lane itself is closed on the southern edge of the site within the vicinity of the Pincents Manor Hotel.
Construction
6.7.16 This has not been discussed in detail at this stage, however there will be a preference for construction traffic to pass to and from the A4 rather than the residential areas of southern Tilehurst. It is proposed that the first phases of the development would be on the northern side. This will require that the north to south route through also being within the first phases.
Proposed
6.7.17 To project the likely traffic generation for the proposed residential uses, the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) has been used. TRICS is a reputable and widely used national database of traffic surveys of many different land uses including residential and commercial. For example:
For the AM (08.00 to 09.00) peak, a trip rate of 0.616 vehicle movements per dwelling is projected.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
For the PM (17.00 to 18.00) peak, a trip rate of 0.466 vehicle movements per dwelling is projected.
6.7.18 Highway and Transport Officers consider these rates to be quite robust along with the rates for the commercial uses. Using the trip rates, the following table can be produced showing the projected traffic flows to and from the site during peak travel periods:
AM (08 .00 to 09.00) PM (17.00 to 18.00) Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Residential dwellings 750 145 317 213 136 Offices (1,800 sqm) 28 4 3 24 Hotel and restaurant (40 bedrooms) 6 18 27 10 Health Centre (240sqm) 11 4 4 10 Spa and gymnasium (500 sqm) 2 4 7 4 Total 192 347 254 208
Projected traffic flows to and from the site during peak travel periods
6.7.19 Initially when the planning application was submitted, the developer forwarded two levels of reduction of the trip rates:
• A 26 % reduction on the basis of limiting the proposed car parking within the site to an average of around one space per residential unit.
• An 11 % reduction on the basis of the Travel Plan.
6.7.20 Highways and Transport Officers were doubtful on whether a 26 % reduction could be achieved on the basis of lower car parking provision. There was also concern regarding the proposed car parking levels, especially as Census 2001 data revealed that the average rate of car ownership per house in the Birch Copse and Calcot wards was around 1.5 cars per household. The developer now seems to have moved away from such low car parking provision.
6.7.21 Highway and Transport Officers consider that the reduction of 11 % with the Travel Plan is realistic on the basis of the recent Department of Transport paper ‘Smarter Choices – Changing the way Travel’ . The Travel Plan will be mentioned in detail later in the report.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
6.7.22 Traffic distribution to and from the site has been distributed with reference to journey to work data from the Census 2001 data from the Birch Copse and Calcot wards within the vicinity. This is a commonly used and robust approach to ascertain the origin and destination of traffic generated by the site. The following diagram illustrates the distribution:
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
Heath Little Drive Hildens Lane Park
6 36 13 10 20 10
32 24 56 City Road 6
Application site Hill Langley lane Pincents
M4 the to west 19 Sainsbury Avenue Royal
161 9 97 6 4 87 10 6 13 A4 90 81 A4 42 A4
34 Way Dorking 54 24 Charrington Road 103 5 6
London to M4 57
Traffic flow diagram for projected additional traffic flows during the AM peak upon completion
From the traffic distribution the extent of the traffic impact can be observed and this determines the extent of junctions that need to be assessed in detail with regards to capacity.
TRAFFIC IMPACT
Junctions Assessed
South Junctions:
6.7.23 All junctions were assessed for existing traffic levels from traffic surveys undertaken during 2008 and projected levels for 2014 and 2020. To consider background traffic growth, appropriate growth factors were used to project traffic levels in 2014 and 2019 with consented developments such as 350 residential units Lakeside South in Theale also included.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 6.7.24 The capacity of the following junctions to the south of the proposed development was assessed using the VISSIM and LINSIG modelling software programmes:
• M4 Junction 12 • A4 Bath Road / Pincents Lane / Dorking Way Roundabout (Sainsbury’s) • A4 Bath Road / Royal Avenue / Charrington Road roundabout • A4 Bath Road / Old Bath Road / Charrington Road signalised junction (Langley Hill).
VISSIM - is a reputable computer software package that can be used for modelling traffic flows and delays within an area of junctions. The results are shown in a visual display. LINSIG - is a reputable computer software package that can be used for the assessment of traffic flows and delays within traffic signal junctions.
North Junctions:
6.7.25 The capacity of the following junctions to the north of the proposed development was assessed using the ARCADY modelling software programme:
• Park Lane / City Road mini roundabout • Pincents Lane / City Road / Little Heath Road mini roundabout • Chapel Hill / Elmstone Drive / Hildens Drive double mini roundabout.
6.7.26 The capacity of the following junctions to the north of the proposed development was assessed using the PICADY modelling software programme:
• Little Heath Road / Sulham Hill / Chapel Hill priority junction.
# ARCADY - Assessment of Roundabout Capacity And Dela Y. This software, produced by the Transport Research Laboratory provides information on traffic flow and delays at roundabouts.
# PICADY Priority Intersection Capacity And Dela Y. This software, produced by the Transport Research Laboratory provides information on traffic flow and delays at T junctions.
Use of Modelling Software
6.7.27 There is a protocol for the use of modelling software that Highway and Transport Officers are keen to be adhered to by the developer’s consultants WSP. Highway and Transport Officers have checked the traffic modelling with assistance from consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff who have provided independent checks on all of the traffic models submitted so far. Parsons Brinckerhoff are also consultants that work on behalf of the Highways Agency and therefore West Berkshire Council and the Highways Agency have pooled resources in engaging with Parsons Brinckerhoff in assessing this application.
6.7.28 The Highways Agency is responsible for the M4 and the slip roads up to and from Junction 12. All remaining public highway within West Berkshire is the responsibility of West Berkshire Council.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
6.7.29 The protocol involves detailed surveys of all junctions assessed including geometry, traffic levels and length of traffic queues. For traffic signal junctions, the cycle, phasing and length of green times should be surveyed.
6.7.30 From all the survey information obtained a base traffic model of the junction is created using the appropriate software package. The model must be an accurate reflection as possible of the survey results. When this is achieved, the model is considered as validated and completed.
2009 Base Traffic Models
6.7.31 None of the base traffic models on existing traffic flow conditions have yet to be validated and therefore, at the time of writing, the base model is not yet completed satisfactorily.
South Junctions:
6.7.32 A major issue that has yet to be resolved is uncertainty regarding the traffic signal timings on M4 Junction 12. Parsons Brinckerhoff has obtained contradictory details of the signal timings from Reading Borough Council and the company Siemens. Observations made on site by Parsons Brinckerhoff have revealed signal timings that are even more complicated than revealed by RBC or Siemens, as the signal timings seem to self adjust due to the presence of Ramp Metering or even MOVA. Further investigations are ongoing by Parsons Brinckerhoff to ascertain what exactly is installed at this junction, although this really should have done by the developer’s consultants. The base models will then need to be resubmitted with an accurate representation of the signals at M4 Junction 12.
# MOVA - Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Activation is an adaptive system at traffic signal junctions that responds automatically to fluctuations in traffic flow through the use of on-street detectors embedded in the road. Often best used at single isolated junctions and for off peak times.
# Ramp Metering – is also an adaptive system for the traffic signals on the slip roads onto and the M4 that regulate traffic flows onto the M4. It would seem that the signals on the roundabout at junction 12 have been linked into the ramp metering.
6.7.33 There is uncertainty regarding the gap distances used between vehicles when queuing. It is unclear whether gap timings have been observed for both the AM and PM peak models.
6.7.34 There is concern that driver behaviour within the model at the A4 Bath Road / Royal Avenue / Charrington Road roundabout is not realistic with vehicles giving way when they are not obliged to do so.
North Junctions:
6.7.35 Until the major junctions to the south are validated, no work has been undertaken to validate the north junctions. The ARCADY traffic models will be checked in house by Highway and Transport Officers.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
Future Year Traffic Models
6.7.36 When there is a validated base traffic model, future year base models can then be produced with background traffic growth and committed development traffic included. Final models are then produced with the proposed development traffic added that ascertain the actual impact of the development. Further models can then be produced to measure the effect of proposed mitigation measures.
6.7.37 As the 2009 Base Traffic Models on existing traffic flows have yet to completed satisfactorily, limited progress has been made on checking them. In conjunction with the Highways Agency, Highway and Transport Officers consider that the future year models should be: • 2014 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development, existing road network, signals not optimised;
• 2014 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development, existing road network, signals optimised;
• 2014 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development, existing road network, signals optimised with partial redevelopment (% to be confirmed) worst case;
• 2014 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development, signals optimised with partial redevelopment (% tbc) with all 2014 required road improvements;
• 2020 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development, signals optimised with full development worst case with all 2014 required road improvements;
• 2020 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development and signals optimised with full development worst case with 11% reduction from Travel Plan with all 2014 required road improvements;
• 2020 (AM and PM) – Forecast Base model including background growth plus committed development and signals optimised with full development worst case with all road improvements.
# Signals Optimised – there is always the likelihood that between the present date and 2014 and 2020, that traffic signals will be adjusted as traffic flows increase on the network. MITIGATION MEASURES
6.7.38 Due to the limited progress on the checking of the traffic models described above, detailed discussions on highway mitigation measures have not taken
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 place. Without completed traffic models, the extent of required mitigation, and whether mitigation is possible is currently unknown.
6.7.39 The following mitigation measures were originally proposed when the planning application was originally submitted:
Vehicles
6.7.40 The only significant mitigation measure forwarded by the developer at this stage is to replace the A4 Bath Road / Pincents Lane / Dorking Way Roundabout (Sainsbury’s) with a three armed traffic signal junction with the closure of Dorking Way. This design is based on a design originally produced by the Royal County of Berkshire during the late 1990’s. The view of your current Highway and Transport Officers is that the closure of Dorking Way should be avoided, unless it became absolutely essential. Without completed traffic models, the effectiveness of this proposal is unknown.
6.7.41 Highway and Transport Officers have also requested that expansion of the current cramped bus interchange be considered.
6.7.42 There are currently no mitigation proposals for the M4 Junction 12, or the A4 Bath Road / Royal Avenue / Charrington Road roundabout, or the A4 Bath Road / Old Bath Road / Charrington Road signalised junction (Langley Hill). Future year traffic models will reveal whether mitigation is required at these junctions and what form it should take.
6.7.43 The Park Lane / City Road mini roundabout is proposed to be widened on City Road as it approaches the mini roundabout. Highway and Transport Officers have expressed doubts on whether this will significantly reduce any congestion. It would also widen the expanse of carriageway that pedestrians would need to cross. Highway and Transport Officers will need to check the traffic model and view the proposals in more detail.
Pedestrian Routes
6.7.44 Precise details of potential routes and any upgrading has not been resolved in detail at this stage.
Cycle Routes
6.7.45 Precise details of these routes and any upgrading has not been resolved in detail at this stage.
Bus Travel
6.7.46 Precise details of bus services to serve the site have not been resolved in detail at this stage.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Travel Plan
6.7.47 Whilst the Travel Plan has not reached a stage where officers are comfortable agreeing it, the Travel Plan does have the potential to be developed into a good plan to support the development. There are a number of loose ends still to be resolved prior to the plan being of a standard officers could approve.
6.7.48 It is considered necessary to secure regular liaison meetings between WBC Officers, the developer and consultants if the scheme progresses.
6.7.49 It is proposed that the Travel Plan will contain a set of goals and targets aimed at reducing car trips and increasing the mode share of sustainable modes. The effectiveness of the Travel Plan would need to be monitored by annual data submitted that can then be discussed at liaison meetings with West Berkshire Council. Adjustments to the Travel Plan with new measures and interventions, and timing of highway works would then be necessary. The following summarises some of the key elements of the proposed Travel Plan.
6.7.50 It is proposed to employ a Travel Plan Co-ordinator by the onsite Management Company to establish, promote and maintain the Travel Plan and liaise with residents and other organisations including Highway and Transport Officers from West Berkshire Council.
6.7.51 It is proposed that travel marketing measures will be provided that will provide travel information to residents, especially new residents throughout the development.
6.7.52 A calendar of Travel Awareness days along with a web site with all the travel information will also be provided and maintained.
6.7.53 A Travel Information Pack is proposed for all new residents with up to date detail on travel options and incentives to encourage sustainable travel.
6.7.54 There are proposed incentives to provide residents with discounts on public transport.
6.7.55 It is proposed that all residents will receive discounts for the purchasing of cycles.
6.7.56 A car club for residents and other users within the site is proposed to enable the low cost hire of a vehicle.
6.7.57 A car sharing scheme will be operated through a website to allow residents to share journeys.
6.7.58 Further information is required on the items proposed above and the setting of targets within the necessary Travel Plan for use of more sustainable modes of travel.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
HIGHWAYS CONCLUSION
6.7.59 It is considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the highway and travel network. At the time of writing only limited progress has been made on the computer traffic models that will determine the anticipated level of impact of the development. Therefore the possibilities of potential mitigation measures from junction/highway improvements or the Travel Plan have not been determined. It is therefore considered that the application should be refused because it will have a cumulative adverse impact on road safety and/or the use of local transport infrastructure and the applicant has failed to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that appropriate measures have been/will be taken to mitigate that impact. The development is therefore contrary to Policies OVS3 and TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.
6.7.60 In addition, as reported in section 3 of this report, the Highways Agency also recommends refusal of the application as a result of insufficient information being available to construct conditions which would secure the required highway mitigation in the vicinity of M4 Junction 12.
6.8 Impact on Residential Amenity:
6.8.1 Firstly, it has to be stated that the application is in outline form with only access to be a detailed consideration at this stage. Therefore while the locations and siting of buildings have been shown in the illustrative drawings, the exact locations of buildings would be set through the reserved matters submissions. Notwithstanding this, a general assessment based on the illustrative drawings can be made at this stage to assess if the amount of development proposed can be accommodated on this site.
6.8.2 It is considered that the application drawings demonstrate that detrimental impacts to neighbouring occupiers’ amenity could be avoided. This is primarily due to the location of the proposed built form and the distance to existing dwellings and due to the amount of open space and landscaping located at the boundaries of the site. It is recognised that for many residents their outlook of this site would change. However, it is established in planning law that there is no right to a view. It is considered that the proposal could be developed in a way that would safeguard neighbouring amenity.
6.9 Ecology:
6.9.1 Given the significant extent and location of the development proposed, Natural England, the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust and the Council’s own Principal Ecologist have all been consulted on this application. Whilst Natural England did not originally object to the application, subject to conditions and advice to be taken into account, a revised response was received on the 16 th September 2009 requesting the applicant to commission a further badger study prior to determination. Additionally BBOWT did not object to the application in principle but set out some detailed
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 comments and areas where the application could be improved from a biodiversity point of view.
6.9.2 A significant amount of work has been undertaken by the applicant in conjunction with the Council’s Principal Ecologist to seek to resolve the biodiversity issues that have been raised and particularly to resolve the issue relating to the badger survey information. Sufficient information has now been provided such that the Council’s Principal Ecologist is satisfied that the biodiversity issues can be covered through the use of conditions and s106 developer contributions for management improvements to Pincents Kiln SSSI and management/interpretation of Withy Copse. This contribution would total £12,000.
6.9.3 In summary, it is considered that the application and Environmental Statement demonstrate that the ecological impacts of the proposal can be mitigated effectively. Specifically with detailed mitigation plans to be provided through conditions the impact on bats, badgers, dormice and reptiles can be successfully addressed. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with policy ENV 9 of the WBDLP. Additionally a net gain for biodiversity can be achieved in accordance with PPS9 through the provision of developer contributions for management of Withy Copse.
6.10 Archaeology:
6.10.1 In response to a request from the Council’s Archaeological Officer the applicant commissioned an archaeological field evaluation of the application site. This has demonstrated that much of the site, in particular where the former golf course was located, has been subject to significant amounts of earth moving and landscaping, which has significantly impacted upon the archaeological potential. Little of archaeological interest was found in this area. However, at the top of the hill, in an area currently used as horse paddocks, a number of archaeological features were found associated with pottery of late Iron Age/early Roman date. The Council’s Archaeological Officer has stated that this area requires further investigation, recording, analysis and publication should development proceed. Accordingly a condition should be attached to any planning permission relating to the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.
6.11 Mineral Sterilisation
6.11.1 In relation to the mineral sterilisation issue, it is noted that approximately 60% of the application site lies within a Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA). Accordingly the Council’s Senior Minerals and Waste Planning Officer requested further details be provided in respect of potential mineral deposits. To date no further information has been provided.
6.11.2 Whilst there is anecdotal evidence that mineral has previously been removed from this site and it is known that earthworks were undertaken to create the golf course, in the absence of any information to prove otherwise, it must be assumed that the proposed development would result in the sterilisation of
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 minerals as it lies within the MSA. Paragraph 3.2 of the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire (RMLP) states that “local planning authorities consider that the responsibility for demonstrating that mineral resources will not be sterilised by a proposed development rests with the prospective developer”. In the absence of such information it is considered that the application is contrary to saved policies 1 and 2 of the RMLP.
6.12 Trees:
6.12.1 Trees both within and adjacent to the site form a key consideration in assessment of this application. The Council’s Tree Officer has commented that although only an outline application, a site of this size and complexity requires more tree information than has been submitted due to the importance and number of TPO and none TPO trees on and adjacent to the site. This should include a Tree Survey in accordance with BS5837:2005 including root protection areas, a tree constraints plan and existing and proposed site levels. It is stated that this information is required to be able to determine whether the proposal is feasible in relation to the trees on site. To date this information has not been provided.
6.12.2 As this information has not been provided the level of impact on the TPO trees on site cannot be determined. The absence of this information constitutes a further reason for refusal.
6.13 The Water Environment and Related Issues:
6.13.1 The Environment Agency has assessed the submitted information in relation to these issues and has confirmed that there is no objection subject to conditions.
6.13.2 Additionally Thames Water has assessed the application in relation to waste water infrastructure and water supply infrastructure. In both instances the issues raised can be covered by use of ‘Grampian’ conditions.
6.14 Rights of Way:
6.14.1 The proposal affects a number of Rights of Way running through the site or that are in close proximity. The Council’s Rights of Way Officer has objected to the plans for Footpath 13 as currently proposed as there is concern that the footpath would effectively be subsumed into the network of footpaths and pavements that would be provided through the development and would be realigned alongside primary and secondary vehicular routes. However, it is considered that a scheme could be provided to find an alternative route for this Right of Way that would be acceptable to the Rights of Way Officer. As this issue could be addressed through conditions or a legal agreement, it is not considered sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal.
6.14.2 The Council’s Rights of Way Officer has requested a developer contribution of £46,500 for improvements to the Rights of Way network in the vicinity of the application site.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010
6.15 Open Space:
6.15.1 With regard to open space, the Council’s Grounds Maintenance Manager has advised that an off site contribution for public open space provision cannot be justified given the level of on site provision proposed. However improvements to the playing fields to the south, with the possible provision of changing rooms, are considered to be required. It is noted that this recreation ground is owned by the Parish Council and so the specifications and layouts etc would have to be shared with the Parish Council and permission to implement them would also be required from the Parish Council.
6.16 Infrastructure Provision:
6.16.1 Many of the letters of objection have cited the impact of the proposal on existing services and infrastructure as grounds of objection. For clarity the developer contributions and other benefits that have been requested by the various Council services are:
• £176,238 for library service provision of stock items and all other service improvements for use in West Berkshire libraries or an on-site facility; • £412,932 to meet the impact of the development on adult social care provision; • £118,574 to build in the capacity required to accommodate the additional patients or a healthcare facility to be provided on site; • £46,500 for improvements to the Rights of Way Network in the vicinity of the site; • Continuous air quality monitoring at agreed locations around the site; • £1,816,832 to meet the impact of the development on the secondary catchment school and either the provision of a primary school on site or a standard developer contribution in accordance with the formulaic approach; • £12,000 for management improvements to Pincents Kiln SSSI and better wardening, management and interpretation of Withy Copse; and • 35% of the dwellings to be affordable housing.
6.16.2 With regard to a highways/transportation contribution, until the base models have been agreed and the development traffic added to these models, it is not known what mitigation measures would be necessary. Accordingly no figure can be generated as yet.
6.16.3 In addition to the contribution requests detailed above from internal Council services, the Local Planning Authority has also received a contribution request from Thames Valley Police as detailed below:
• Thames Valley Police has requested a financial contribution of £201,911.80.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 6.16.4 Although the application is recommended for refusal, it is important to clarify what contributions are sought and are made necessary by the proposal. This will then inform the standard s106 reason for refusal and can by used by the applicant in any subsequent unilateral undertaking.
7. Conclusion:
7.1 This proposal is a significant application which includes a number of different elements and raises a number of issues which have been addressed through this Report. The significant issues raised through this application are summarised below.
7.2 In relation to Development Plan Policy, it is considered that the material considerations that exist in favour of the application do not outweigh the fact that the application site lies outside of the settlement boundary. The application site is not considered to be previously developed land and currently the site makes a positive contribution to the countryside. Additionally the site is located within a Gap between Settlements and would detract from the open character of this area of land, contrary to Policy ENV4 of the WBDLP.
7.3 With regard to the issue of this application being considered in advance of the Council’s Core Strategy, it has been considered that this application would undermine achievement of key policy objectives both in terms of existing Development Plan policy and also emerging Policy within the Draft Submission version of the Core Strategy. Additionally the Council can currently demonstrate a 6.5 year housing land supply.
7.4 In relation to detailed technical issues raised, objections to the proposal have been received from the Council’s Landscape Consultant, the North Wessex Downs AONB organisation, the Council’s Tree Officer and the Minerals and Waste Team. Accordingly it is considered that reasons for refusal are necessary with regard to the landscape impact of the proposal, particularly with regard to the impact on the AONB, minerals sterilisation and a lack of information with regard to tree related issues. Additionally objections have been received from both the Local Highway Authority and the Highways Agency as again insufficient information has been provided to enable consideration to be given to highway mitigation on both the local highway network and the strategic highway network. The application cannot be approved in its current form.
7.5 Further in recommending refusal, although some progress has been made with regard to a draft s106 agreement, a standard s106 reason for refusal is necessary to ensure the relevant developer contributions are sought at any planning appeal.
This proposal seeks outline planning permission for the development of land at Pincents Hill to provided up to 750 dwellings; a healthcare centre; a library and children’s library; a business and community forum; a nursery/crèche; up to six
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 shops; a 40-bed hotel with spa and gym facilities; up to two restaurants and cafes; one drinking establishment; a primary school; open space.
7.6 The application includes a number of positive elements particularly in relation to the integration of sustainability throughout the proposal and the level of affordable housing offered. However, this is not sufficient to overcome the in principle objection to developing outside of the settlement boundary and in a Gap between Settlements without material justification. Additionally the proposal is considered to have a harmful impact on the landscape character of the area. Finally without resolution of highways issues, tree issues and mineral sterilisation issues the proposal is not in an acceptable form.
7.7 In conclusion, the proposal is not considered to be acceptable and is thus recommended for refusal.
8. Full Recommendation
8.1. Delegate to the Head of Planning and Trading Standards to REFUSE outline planning permission for the following reasons:-
1. The application proposes inappropriate and unjustified development, on a greenfield site outside of the current settlement boundary. Material considerations do not outweigh the general presumption against development in the countryside. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to advice in PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’, Policy SP3 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy ENV18 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
2. The application proposes development within a Gap between Settlements. The proposed development would detract from the open and rural character of this area of land and would severely compromise the clear physical and visual separation between Theale and Tilehurst/Calcot. The proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the open rural character of the gap, not only on the site itself, but also on the overall gap. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to Policy ENV4 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
3. The proposed development is considered to undermine the achievement of the policy objectives of the emerging Core Strategy (at this stage West Berkshire’s Core Strategy Draft Submission) as the site is not allocated as a Strategic Site Allocation for residential development. Additionally the Council can demonstrate a 6.5 year housing land supply as of September 2009. Accordingly the application is considered to be premature and is contrary to guidance set out in PPS3 ‘Housing’.
4. The proposed development would have a direct adverse landscape and visual impact on that part of the site within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and on the setting of the AONB along its boundary with Pincents Lane. Accordingly the proposal does not conserve or enhance the natural beauty of the AONB and is therefore contrary to
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010 Government guidance in PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ and Policy C3 of the South East Plan 2009.
5. The proposed development would have a cumulative adverse impact on road safety and/or the local transport infrastructure. The applicant has failed to satisfy the Local Planning Authority and the Highways Agency that appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate that impact, contrary to Policies OVS3 and TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007 and PPG13 ‘Transport’.
6. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on TPO and non-TPO trees on site. Without the information to make this assessment, the Council’s Tree Officer cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on trees. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.
7. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not sterilise mineral resources. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies 1 and 2 of the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire Saved Policies 2007, Policy M5 of the South East Plan 2009 and advice given in MPS1 ‘Planning and Minerals’.
8. The development fails to provide an appropriate scheme of on-site works and/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 financial contribution secured by a planning obligation. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice contained in Circular 05/05, Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policies OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as West Berkshire Council’s adopted SPG4/04 ‘Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development.
West Berkshire Council Eastern Area Planning Committee 22nd December 2010