Peter Sloman Chief Executive
Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading RG1 2LU 0118 937 3787
Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Cttee\Agendas\170717.doc To: Councillor Livingston (Chair) Your Ref: Councillors Brock, Duveen, Gavin, Hopper, Maskell, McKenna, Page, Pearce, Robinson, Direct: 0118 937 2303 Singh, Vickers, J Williams and R Williams e-mail: [email protected]
11 July 2017
Your contact is: Simon Hill – Committee Services
NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 19 JULY 2017
A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 19 July 2017 at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Reading. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below.
Please note that with regard to the planning applications, the order in which applications are considered will be at the Chair’s discretion, and applications on which members of the public have requested to speak are likely to be considered first.
AGENDA ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO 1. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING - 1 APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON 28 JUNE 2017 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -
3. QUESTIONS - - -
4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 4 COMMITTEE ITEMS 5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 7
6. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 11
7. REMOVAL OF PERMITTED DECISION REDLANDS 21 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION
CIVIC CENTRE EMERGENCY EVACUATION: If an alarm sounds, leave by the nearest fire exit quickly and calmly and assemble on the corner of Bridge Street and Fobney Street. You will be advised when it is safe to re-enter the building. www.reading.gov.uk SMS Text 81722 DX 40124 Reading (Castle Street) Planning Applications to be determined
Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page 8-12 DECISION ABBEY 29
13-14 DECISION KATESGROVE 127
15 DECISION MAPLEDURHAM 187
16 DECISION MINSTER 251
17 DECISION REDLANDS 269
18 DECISION SOUTHCOTE 277
19 DECISION WHITLEY 289
At this point, the following motion will be moved by the Chair:
“That, pursuant to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) members of the press and public be excluded during consideration of the following Item on the agenda, as it is likely that there will be disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act.”
ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO 20 PLANNING ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 337 QUARTERLY UPDATE
WEBCASTING NOTICE Please note that this meeting may be filmed for live and/or subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. At the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during a webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy. Members of the public seated in the public gallery will not ordinarily be filmed by the automated camera system. However, please be aware that by moving forward of the pillar, or in the unlikely event of a technical malfunction or other unforeseen circumstances, your image may be captured. Therefore, by entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.
Members of the public who participate in the meeting will be able to speak at an on-camera or off-camera microphone, according to their preference. Please speak to a member of staff if you have any queries or concerns.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 19 July 2017
Item: 8 Page No: 29 Ward: Abbey Application Number 170360 Application Type Advertisement Consent Applicant New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd Address 3-5 King Street, Reading Proposal Hanging sign on rear elevation Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 8 Page No: 29 Ward: Abbey Application Number 170359 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd Address 3-5 King Street, Reading Proposal Consent for location of external advert and lanterns Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 9 Page No: 45 Ward: Abbey Application Number 162345 Application Type Approval of Conditions Applicant Mr Mukhtar Ahmed Address 10 Baker Street, Reading, RG1 7XU Proposal Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 3 and 4 (materials) of planning permission ref. 151959. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 10 Page No: 56 Ward: Abbey Application Number 162166 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Lochailort Reading Ltd Address Former Cooper Reading Bmw, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, RG1 8BN Proposal Erection of a part 12 storey, part 23 storey building comprising 315 apartments in a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and 3-bedroom units; residents' lounges, tech-hub, dining room, and cinema room; various rooftop outdoor amenity spaces; concierge/reception with coffee meeting area; residents' storage facilities; postroom; ancillary back-of-house facilities; 315 secure cycle parking spaces; 49 car parking spaces; landscaping; and associated works. Demolition of existing multi-storey car park. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 19 July 2017
Item: 11 Page No: 101 Ward: Abbey Application Number 170251 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant TA Fisher Developments Ltd Address City Wall House, 26 West Street, Reading, RG1 1TZ Proposal Change of use of fourth and fifth floors from C1 (hotel) to 10 no. C3 (residential) apartments with minor internal alterations Recommendation Application Refused
Item: 12 Page No: 118 Ward: Abbey Application Number 170947 Application Type Householder Applicant Mrs B Tickner Address 18 Swansea Road, Reading, RG1 8EY Proposal Two single storey rear extensions Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 13 Page No: 127 Ward: Katesgrove Application Number 170685 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Chamberwell Investment Services Limited Address 79 Silver Street, Reading, RG1 2TN Proposal Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus basement level) building to provide 54 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated ancillary services and landscaping works. Recommendation Katesgrove
Item: 14 Page No: 151 Ward: Katesgrove Application Number 170794 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Thomas Homes Ltd Address 13-21 Crown Street and 22 Silver Street, Reading, RG1 2SE Proposal Residential development consisting of 80 no. dwellings (Class C3) with associated access and landscaping works. Demolition of existing buildings (amended description). Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 19 July 2017
Item: 15 Page No: 187 Ward: Mapledurham Application Number 170176 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Caversham Lawn Tennis Club Address Caversham Lawn Tennis Club, Queensborough Drive Proposal Erection of 9 no. floodlighting columns (6.7 metres high) supporting 10 no. luminaires (HiLux Match LED Gen 3) with LED lamps (overall height 7.0 metres) to provide lighting to Courts 3 and 4 for Recreational Tennis (BS12193-2007 Class III). Recommendation Application Refused
Item: 16 Page No: 251 Ward: Minster Application Number 170671 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Turner Estates & Mr Michael Bissell Address 8 Bath Road, Reading, RG1 6ND Proposal Proposed change of use from existing 12 bedroom private residential care home (C2 residential institution use) and one bedroom self contained flat (C3 use), to a 12 person House in Multiple Occupation (sui generis use) and one bedroom self contained flat (C3 use) with associated new car parking area to the rear of the site and suitable bin / cycle storage facilities. Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 17 Page No: 269 Ward: Redlands Application Number 170705 Application Type Householder Applicant Mrs Ranjit Singh Dhanda Address 83 Christchurch Road, Reading, RG2 7BD Proposal Proposed single storey flat roof rear and side extension resulting in an increase in the size of the C4 (Small HMO) from 4 to 5 bedrooms Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 17 Page No: 269 Ward: Redlands Application Number 170706 Application Type Householder Applicant Mrs Ranjit Singh Dhanda Address 83a Christchurch Road, Reading, RG2 7BD Proposal Proposed single storey flat roof rear and side extension resulting in an increase in the size of the C4 (Small HMO) from 4 to 5 bedrooms Recommendation Application Permitted
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOROUGH WIDE
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
Planning Applications Committee – 19 July 2017
Item: 18 Page No: 277 Ward: Southcote Application Number 170614 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mr H.S Walia Address 72-74 Bath Road, Reading, RG30 2BE Proposal Conversion of the approved 7 serviced flats into 13 studio flats plus additional parking spaces on the site Recommendation Application Permitted
Item: 19 Page No: 289 Ward: Whitley Application Number 162108 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Procter & Gamble Limited Address 452 Basingstoke Road, Reading, RG2 0QE Proposal Part retention and refurbishment of the existing Gillette building, erection of a two storey research and development building (Class B1/B8), with associated access, surface car parking, servicing, landscaping and engineering works. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement
KEY TO CODING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS
1. Planning application reference numbers are made up of 2 parts.
1.1 The number begins with the year e.g. 15
1.2 This is followed by a consecutive number, showing what number the application is in any year (e.g. 150128).
2. The following is a key to existing officers with their direct dial telephone numbers.
GF1 - Giorgio Framalicco 9372604 KAR - Kiaran Roughan 9374530 LEB - Lynette Baker 9372413 JW6 - Julie Williams 9372461 RJE - Richard Eatough 9373338 JPM - Johnathan Markwell 9372458 BFP - Ben Pratley 9372417 SDV - Steve Vigar 9372980 CR2 - Claire Ringwood 9374545 CJB - Christopher Beard 9372430 SGH - Stephen Hammond 9374424 MDW - Mark Worringham 9373337 AJA - Alison Amoah 9372286 SEH - Sarah Hanson 9372440 RSC - Ralph Chakadya 9372993 BXP - Boja Petkovic 9372352 MJB - Mathew Burns 9373625 JS3 - Jasmine Singh 9372418 HB3 - Heather Banks 9374175 EH1 - Ethne Humphreys 9374085 DM2 - Daniel Murkin 9374237 SKB - Sarah Burr 9374227 TRH - Tom Hughes 9374150 SFB - Susanna Bedford 9372023
Keytocoding Issue 05/07/2017 GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER and Permitted Changes of Use (England)
Use Classes Use Classes Description General Permitted (Amendment) Order 1972 Development Order 2005 (Amendment) Order 2005 A1 Class I • Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, Shops undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, dry cleaners, internet cafes, etc. • Pet shops, cat-meat shops, tripe shops, No permitted changes sandwich bars • Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors A2 Class II • Banks, building societies, estate and Permitted change to A1 Financial and employment agencies where a ground floor display Professional • Professional and financial services, betting window exists Services offices A3 Restaurants, snack bars, cafes Permitted change to A1 or A2 Restaurants and Cafes A4 Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or Drinking Establishments A3 A5 Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or Hot Food Take-Aways A3 Sui Generis Shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, laundrettes, taxi or No permitted change vehicle hire businesses, amusement centres, petrol filling stations B1 Class II (a) Offices, not within A2 Permitted change to B8 Business (b) Research and development, studios, where no more than 235m laboratories, high tech Class III (c) Light industry B2 Class IV-IX General industry Permitted change to B1 or B8 General industry B8 limited to no more than 235m B8 Class X Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, Permitted change to B1 Storage or Distribution repositories where no more than 235m Sui Generis Any work registrable under the Alkali, etc. Works No permitted change Regulation Act, 1906 C1 Class XI Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change Hotels C2 Class XII • Residential schools and colleges Residential Class XIV • Hospitals and convalescent/nursing homes No permitted change Institutions C2A Prisons, young offenders institutions, detention No permitted change Secure residential centres, secure training centres, custody centres, institutions short-term holding centres, secure hospitals, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks. C3 • Single occupancy or single households (in the Dwelling houses family sense); • No more than six residents living as a single household where care is provided; Permitted to change to C4 • No more than six residents living as a single household where the building is managed by a local housing authority, a registered social landlord, a police authority, a fire authority, or a health service body. C4 Use of a dwellinghouse by between three and six Houses in multiple residents, who do not form a single household (in Permitted to change to C3 occupation the family sense) and share basic facilities (toilet, bathroom or kitchen). Sui Generis • House in multiple occupation with more than six residents No permitted change • Hostel Keytocoding Issue 05/07/2017
D1 Class XIII • Places of worship, church halls Non- Class XV • Clinics, health centres, creches, day Residential nurseries, consulting rooms No permitted change Institutions Class XVI • Museums, public halls, libraries, art galleries, exhibition halls • Non-residential education and training centres D2 Class XVII • Cinemas, music and concert halls Assembly Class XVIII • Dance, sports halls, swimming baths, skating and Leisure rinks, gymnasiums No permitted change • Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, bingo halls, casinos Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change
Keytocoding Issue 05/07/2017
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 28 JUNE 2017
Present: Councillor Livingston (Chair);
Councillors Gavin, McKenna, Page, Pearce, Robinson, Singh, Vickers, J Williams and R Williams.
Apologies: Councillors Brock, Hopper and Maskell.
RESOLVED ITEMS
8. MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 May 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
9. SITE VISITS
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted, at the meeting, a schedule of applications to be considered at future meetings of the Committee to enable Councillors to decide which sites, if any, they wished to visit prior to determining the relevant applications.
Resolved -
That the under-mentioned application, together with any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services might consider appropriate, be the subject of an accompanied site visit:
170176 – CAVERSHAM LAWN TENNIS CLUB, QUEENSBOROUGH DRIVE, CAVERSHAM
Erection of 9 no. floodlighting columns (6.7 metres high) supporting 10 no. luminaires (HiLux Match LED Gen 3) with LED lamps (overall height 7.0 metres) to provide lighting to Courts 3 and 4 for Recreational Tennis (BS12193-2007 Class III).
10. PLANNING APPEALS
(i) New Appeals
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a schedule giving details of notification received from the Planning Inspectorate regarding four planning appeals, the method of determination for which she had already expressed a preference in accordance with delegated powers, which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.
(ii) Appeals Recently Determined
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted details of two decisions that had been made by the Secretary of State, or by an Inspector appointed for the purpose, which were attached as Appendix 2 to the report.
1 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 28 JUNE 2017
(iii) Report on Appeal Decisions
There were no reports on appeal decisions.
An update report was tabled at the meeting which had appended a response from the Planning Inspectorate to the Council’s letter of complaint regarding appeal decisions on applications at 26 Woods Road, Caversham and 153 Hemdean Road, Caversham, concerning the provision of Affordable Housing on Small Sites of ten or less dwellings. In the letter the Planning Inspectorate had admitted to failures in both approach and judgement in the two separate appeals.
The Committee agreed that the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport should bring the response from the Planning Inspectorate to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Planning, and inquire whether there was any process by which the decisions could be set aside.
Resolved –
(1) That the new appeals, as set out in Appendix 1, be noted;
(2) That the outcome of the recently determined appeals, as set out in Appendix 2, be noted;
(3) That the Council write to the Minister for Housing and Planning regarding the Planning Inspectorate’s admission of failures in the two appeal decisions concerning the provision of Affordable Housing on Small Sites of ten or less dwellings, and inquire whether there was any process by which the decisions could be set aside.
11. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL
The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 18 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of 14 applications for prior approval decided between 16 May and 14 June 2017.
Resolved – That the report be noted.
12. PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered reports by the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services.
Resolved –
(1) That, subject to the conditions now approved, permission be granted under planning legislation and, where appropriate, under the Advertisement Regulations, as follows:
170550/ADV – BROAD STREET (EAST)
Display of 1 advertising banner per column on existing infrastructure to 11 existing lamp columns along Broad Street (East).
Granted as recommended.
2 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 28 JUNE 2017
Conditional consent and informatives as recommended.
170366/FUL – 132-138 CAVERSHAM ROAD
Construction of a two storey rear extension and external alterations to the front and side elevations to create additional hotel rooms.
An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of amended layout plans that had been received and information on Building Regulation Standards. The amended plans were appended to the update report.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional consent and informatives as recommended, with Condition 7 amended to require all windows facing Thames Avenue to be fitted with obscure glazing, an additional condition to require that the main entrance to the hotel be from Caversham Road, and an additional condition to require the hotel to be staffed on site at all times.
The Car Parking Management Plan to be agreed in consultation with Ward Councillors.
Comments and objections received and considered.
170579/HOU – 1 MARLBOROUGH AVENUE
Single storey side extension, single storey rear extension, infilling of first floor rear window, alterations to access gates.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional consent and informatives as recommended, with an additional condition to require standard hours of construction, and an additional condition to require that any trees within the garden of 1 Marlborough Avenue removed in order to implement the consent be replaced with comparable trees, with details of the replacement(s), including location and species, to be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the extensions.
Comments and objections received and considered.
170215/FUL – UNIT 4, BRUNEL RETAIL PARK, ROSE KILN LANE
Works to Unit 4 including reconfiguration of existing mezzanine floorspace and insertion of additional mezzanine floorspace of 1,053sqm, the creation of an external display area of 465sqm and associated works including new fire doors.
Granted as recommended.
Conditional consent and informatives as recommended.
Comments received and considered.
(The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 7.13 pm).
3
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
Date: 19 JULY 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 4
TITLE: POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS
SERVICE: PLANNING WARDS: BOROUGH WIDE
AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN TEL: 0118 9374530
JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER E-MAIL: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 To identify those sites where, due to the sensitive or important nature of the proposals, Councillors are advised that a Site Visit might be appropriate before the meeting of the next Committee (or at a future date) and to confirm how the visit will be arranged.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 That you resolve to visit the sites which will be identified by officers in a paper in the update Agenda on the day of the forthcoming Planning Applications Committee and confirm if there are any other sites Councillors consider necessary to visit before reaching a decision on an application.
2.2 That you confirm how the site will be visited, unaccompanied or accompanied, and if accompanied agree the site visit date and time.
3. THE PROPOSAL
3.1 The potential list of agenda items submitted since the last meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be provided with the update Agenda on the day of forthcoming Planning Applications Committee. Where appropriate, I will identify those applications that I feel warrant a site visit by the Committee prior to formal consideration of the proposals.
3.2 Councillors may also request a site visit to other sites on that list if they consider it relevant to their ability to reach a decision on the application.
3.3 Officers may also recommend a site visit if they intend to report a normally delegated application to the Committee for a decision.
3.4 A site visit may also be proposed in connection with a planning enforcement issue which is before the Committee for consideration.
4
3.5 Site visits in the above circumstances should all take place in advance of a Committee decision and should only be used where the expected benefit is substantial. 3.6 A site visit is only likely to be necessary if the impact of the proposed development is difficult to visualise from the plans and any supporting material including photographs taken by officers (although, if this is the case, additional illustrative material should have been requested); or, there is a good reason why the comments of the applicant and objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; or, the proposal is particularly contentious.
3.7 Accompanied site visits consist of an arranged inspection by a viewing Committee, with officers in attendance and by arrangement with the applicant or their agent. Applicants and objectors however will have no right to speak but may observe the process and answer questions when asked. The visit is an information gathering opportunity and not a decision making forum.
3.8 Recently Councillors have expressed a preference to carry out unaccompanied site visits, where the site is easily viewable from public areas, to enable them to visit the site when convenient to them. In these instances the case officer will provide a briefing note on the application and the main issues to be considered by Councillors when visiting the site.
3.9 There may also be occasions where officers or Councillors request a post completion site visit in order to review the quality or impact of a particular development.
4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS
4.1 Planning services contribute to producing a sustainable environment and economy within the Borough and to meeting the 2015 -18 Corporate Plan objective for “Keeping the town clean, safe, green and active.” Under the heading, Neighbourhoods, the Corporate Plan aims to improve the physical environment – the cleanliness of our streets, places for children to play, green spaces, how we feel about our neighbourhood and whether we feel safe, have a sense of community and get on with our neighbours.
5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION
5.1 Statutory neighbour consultation takes place on planning applications.
6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 Officers when assessing an application and when making a recommendation to the Committee, will have regard to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
5
• foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 None arising from this report.
8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 The cost of site visits is met through the normal planning service budget.
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
Reading Borough Council Planning Code of Conduct.
Local Safety Practice 2013 Planning Applications Committee site visits.
6
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: 19 JULY 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 5
TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS
AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN TEL: 0118 9374530
JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER E-MAIL: [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 To report notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate on the status of various planning appeals.
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 That you note the appeals received and the method of determination as listed in Appendix 1 of this report.
2.2 That you note the appeals decided as listed in Appendix 2 of this report.
2.3 That you note the Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions provided in Appendix 3 of this report.
3. INFORMATION PROVIDED
3.1 Please see Appendix 1 of this report for new appeals lodged since the last committee.
3.2 Please see Appendix 2 of this report for new appeals decided since the last committee.
3.3 Please see Appendix 3 of this report for new Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions since the last committee.
4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS
4.1 Defending planning appeals made against planning decisions contributes to producing a sustainable environment and economy within the Borough and to meeting the 2015 -18 Corporate Plan objective for “Keeping the town clean, safe, green and active.”
7
5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION
5.1 Planning decisions are made in accordance with adopted local development plan policies, which have been adopted by the Council following public consultation. Statutory consultation also takes place on planning applications and appeals and this can have bearing on the decision reached by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors. Copies of appeal decisions are held on the public Planning Register.
6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
6.1 Where appropriate the Council will refer in its appeal case to matters connected to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Public Inquiries are normally the only types of appeal that involve the use of legal representation. Only applicants have the right to appeal against refusal or non-determination and there is no right for a third party to appeal a planning decision.
8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 Public Inquiries and Informal Hearings are more expensive in terms of officer and appellant time than the Written Representations method. Either party can be liable to awards of costs. Guidance is provided in Circular 03/2009 “Cost Awards in Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”.
9. BACKGROUND PAPERS
9.1 Planning Appeal Forms and letters from the Planning Inspectorate.
8
APPENDIX 1
Appeals Lodged:
WARD: CAVERSHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/17/3177861 CASE NO: 170524 ADDRESS: 121 Henley Road, Caversham PROPOSAL: 2 Storey side and single storey front extension following demolition of existing car port and utility room CASE OFFICER: Ethne Humphreys METHOD: Householder Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 29.06.2017
WARD: WHITLEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/17/3176746 CASE NO: 170231 ADDRESS: 85 Ambrook Road PROPOSAL: Sub division of 85 Ambrook Road and construction of new pair of two bed semi-detached units CASE OFFICER: Ralph Chakadya METHOD: Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 05.07.2017
APPENDIX 2
Appeals Decided:
WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/17/3170558 CASE NO: E15110 ADDRESS: 46 Watlington Street PROPOSAL: Enforcement notice against the erection of two storey rear extension and removal of chimneys to the principal elevation of the building without planning permission CASE OFFICER: Chris Beard METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD DATE DETERMINED: 03.07.2017
9
WARD: PARK APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/17/3170594 CASE NO: E15157 ADDRESS: 107 Cumberland Road PROPOSAL: Enforcement notice against the erection of a single storey side and rear extension without planning permission CASE OFFICER: Chris Beard METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: ENFORCEMENT NOTICE UPHELD DATE DETERMINED: 03.07.2017
WARD: CAVERSHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/17/3170558 CASE NO: 161597 ADDRESS: 27B Priest Hill PROPOSAL: First floor rear extension and second floor loft extension CASE OFFICER: Ethne Humpreys METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 05.07.2017
APPENDIX 3
Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions.
No reports available this time.
10
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: 19 July 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 6
TITLE: APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL
AUTHOR: LYNETTE BAKER & JULIE WILLIAMS
JOB TITLE: AREA TEAM LEADERS E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]
1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT
1.1 To advise Committee of new applications and decisions relating to applications for prior-approval under the amended Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (GPDO 2015).
2. RECOMMENDED ACTION
2.1 That you note the report.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 At your meeting on 29 May 2013 a report was presented which introduced new permitted development rights and additional requirements for prior approval from the local planning authority for certain categories of permitted development. It was agreed then that a report be bought to future meetings for information and to include details of applications received for prior approval, those pending a decision and those applications which have been decided since the last Committee date.
4 TYPES OF PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATIONS
4.1 The categories of development requiring prior approval under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 are summarised as follows:
• Householder development – single storey rear extensions. GPDO Part 1, Class A1(g-k). • Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial & professional, betting office, pay day loan shop or casino to A3 restaurants and cafes. GPDO Part 3 Class C. • Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial & professional, betting office or pay day loan shop to Class D2 assembly & leisure. GPDO Part 3 Class J. • Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial and professional or a mixed use of A1 or A2 with residential to Class C3 residential use. GPDO Part 3 Class M • Change of use from an amusement arcade or a casino to C3 residential & necessary works. GPDO Part 3 Class N • Change of use from B1 office to C3 residential. GPDO Part 3, Class O. • Change of use from B8 storage or distribution to C3 residential. GPDO Part 3, Class P.
11
• Change of use from agricultural buildings and land to Class C3 dwellinghouses and building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to the C3 use. GPDO Part 3 Class Q. • Change of use of 150 sq m or more of an agricultural building (and any land within its curtilage) to flexible use within classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2. GPDO Part 3 Class R. • Change of use from Agricultural buildings and land to state funded school or registered nursery D1. GPDO Part 3 Class S. • Change of use from B1 (business), C1 (hotels), C2 (residential institutions), C2A (secure residential institutions and D2 (assembly and leisure) to state funded school D1. GPDO Part 3 Class T. • Temporary use of buildings for film making for up to 9 months in any 27 month period. GPDO Part 4 Class E • Development under local or private Acts and Orders (e.g. Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845). GPDO Part 18. • Development by telecommunications code system operators. GPDO Part 16. • Demolition of buildings. GPDO Part 11.
4.2 Those applications for Prior Approval received and yet to be decided are set out in the appended Table 1 and those applications which have been decided are set out in the appended Table 2. The applications are grouped by type of prior approval application. Information on what the estimated equivalent planning application fees would be is provided.
4.3 It should be borne in mind that the planning considerations to be taken into account in deciding each of these types of application are specified in more detail in the GDPO. In some cases the LPA will first need to confirm whether or not prior approval is required before going on to decide the application on its planning merits where prior approval is required.
4.4 Details of any appeals on prior-approval decision will be included elsewhere in the agenda.
5. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS
5.1 Changes of use brought about through the prior approval process are beyond the control or influence of the Council’s adopted policies and Supplementary Planning Documents. Therefore it is not possible to confirm how or if these schemes will contribute to the strategic aims of the Council.
6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION
6.1 Statutory consultation takes place in connection with applications for prior-approval as specified in the Order discussed above.
7 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
7.1 Where appropriate the Council must have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
12
7.2 There are no direct implications arising from the proposals.
8. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
8.1 None arising from this Report.
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
9.1 Since the additional prior notifications were introduced in May 2013 in place of applications for full planning permission, the loss in fee income is estimated to be £826,357
(Office Prior Approvals - £762,346: Householder Prior Approvals - £51,256: Retail Prior Approvals - £5275: Demolition Prior Approval - £2135: Storage Prior Approvals - £5045: Shop to Restaurant Prior Approval - £300)
Figures since last report Office Prior Approvals - £2615: Householder Prior Approvals - £344
9.2 However it should be borne in mind that the prior notification application assessment process is simpler than would have been the case for full planning permission and the cost to the Council of determining applications for prior approval is therefore proportionately lower. It should also be noted that the fee for full planning applications varies by type and scale of development and does not necessarily equate to the cost of determining them.
10. BACKGROUND PAPERS
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.
13
Table 1 – Prior-approval applications pending @ 6 July 2017
Application type CLASS A - Householder
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Target Comments Equivalent type reference Received Determination planning number Date application fee Householder 170791 60 Prospect Street, Caversham Rear extension 17/05/2017 18/07/2017 £172 Prior Caversham, Reading, measuring 6.0m in Approval - RG4 8JN depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 2015 3.6m, and 2.95m in height to eaves level. Householder 170977 17 Blagdon Road, Church Rear extension 05/06/2017 16/07/2017 £172 Prior Reading, RG2 7NT measuring 6.0m in Approval - depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 2015 3.0m, and 3.0m in height to eaves level. Householder 171036 214 Wensley Road, Minster Rear extension 23/06/2017 03/08/2017 £172 Prior Reading, RG1 6DP measuring 3.3m in Approval - depth, with a Class A, Part maximum height of 1 GPDO 2015 2.6m, and 2.6m in height to eaves level.
14
Office to Residential Prior Approval applications pending
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Target Comments Equivalent type reference Received Determination planning number Date application fee Office use to 170839 Rear of, 128 Caversham Abbey Change of use of 24/05/2017 19/07/2017 £305 dwelling Road, Reading, RG1 8AY ground floor only house - Class from Class B1(a) O, Part 1 (offices) to C3 GPDO 2015 (dwelling houses) to comprise 2 one bedroom flats Office use to 170845 51 Southampton Street, Katesgrove Change of use of 24/05/2017 21/07/2017 £690 dwelling Reading, RG1 2QP ground, first and house - Class second floors from O, Part 1 Class B1(a) (offices) GPDO 2015 to C3 (dwellinghouse) to comprise 3 x 2-bed flats. Office use to 170905 Clarendon House, 59-75 Abbey Change of use of 05/06/2017 31/07/2017 £18400 dwelling Queens Road, Reading, building from Class house - Class RG1 4BN B1(a)(offices) to C3 O, Part 1 (dwelling houses) to GPDO 2015 comprise 49 residential units. Office use to 170772 29 Station Road, Abbey Change of use of 1st 16/05/2017 11/07/2017 £12240 dwelling Reading, RG1 1LG - 5th floors from house - Class Class B1(a) (offices) O, Part 1 to C3 (dwelling GPDO 2015 houses) to comprise of 33 1 bed flats. Office use to 170903 22-24 Cross Street, Abbey Change of use of 01/06/2017 01/08/2017 £1845 dwelling Reading first and second house - Class floors from Class O, Part 1 B1(a) (offices) to C3 GPDO 2015 (dwelling houses) to comprise 2 x 1 bed flats and 4 studios. 15
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Target Comments Equivalent type reference Received Determination planning number Date application fee Office use to 170979 Future House, 125 Abbey Change of use of 14/06/2017 14/08/2017 £2615 dwelling Chatham Street, building from Class house - Class Reading, RG1 7JG B1(a) (offices) to C3 O, Part 1 (dwellinghouses) to GPDO 2015 comprise 8 x 1 bed flats.
Telecommunications Prior Approval applications pending
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Target Comments type reference Received Determination number Date Telecommuni 170877 Lamppost opposite Peppard Replacement of 31/05/2017 27/07/2017 cations Buckingham Drive existing 12.5m Notification - Service Station, monopole with a Prior Buckingham Drive, 13m phase 4 Approval Emmer Green, Reading, monopole and 1 no. RG4 8RZ equipment cabinet
Retail Prior Approvals applications pending
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Target Comments Equivalent type reference Received Determination planning number Date application fee Retail Prior 170816 128 Caversham Road, Abbey Change of use of 22/05/2017 18/07/2017 £1075 Approval Reading, RG1 8AY Ground Floor from Class A1 (shops) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise 1X 2- bed flat and 2X 1- bed flats.
16
Shop to Restaurant Prior Approval applications pending – None
Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications pending – None
Prior Notification applications pending – None
Demolition Prior Approval applications pending - None
17
Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 14 June 2017 to 6 July 2017
Application type CLASS A – Householder
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision type reference Received Date number Householder 170754 79 Gosbrook Road, Caversham Rear extension 12/05/2017 22/06/2017 Prior Prior Caversham, Reading, measuring 3.73m Approval Approval - RG4 8BN in depth, with a NOT Class A, maximum height REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO of 3.41m, and 2015 3.0m in height to eaves level. Householder 170790 72 Cholmeley Road, Park Rear extensions 17/05/2017 28/06/2017 Prior Prior Reading, RG1 3NB measuring 4.2m Approval Approval - & 3.9m in depth, NOT Class A, with a maximum REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO height of 2.9m & 2015 3.0m, and 3m in height to eaves level. Householder 170693 80 Ashampstead Southcote Rear extension 02/05/2017 22/06/2017 Prior Prior Road, Reading, RG30 measuring 4 Approval Approval - 3LG metres in depth, Notification Class A, with a maximum - Approval Part 1 GPDO height of 3.3 2015 metres and 2.2 metres in height to eaves level. Householder 170842 225 Hartland Road, Church Rear flat roof 24/05/2017 03/07/2017 Application Prior Reading, RG2 8DN extension Withdrawn Approval - measuring 4.92m Class A, in depth, with a Part 1 GPDO maximum height 2015 of 3.5m. 18
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision type reference Received Date number Householder 170847 76 Rodway Road, Kentwood Rear extension 24/05/2017 22/06/2017 Prior Prior Tilehurst, Reading, measuring 5.0m Approval Approval - RG30 6DT in depth, with a NOT Class A, maximum height REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO of 3.2m, and 2015 3.0m in height to eaves level. Householder 170874 30 Stanhope Road, Church Rear extension 30/05/2017 29/06/2017 Prior Prior Reading, RG2 7HN measuring 6m in Approval Approval - depth, with a NOT Class A, maximum height REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO of 2.6m and 2.6m 2015 in height to eaves level. Householder 170885 90 Whitley Wood Church Rear extension 01/06/2017 29/06/2017 Prior Prior Lane, Reading, RG2 measuring 5.39m Approval Approval - 8PP in total depth, NOT Class A, with a maximum REQUIRED Part 1 GPDO height of 3m, 2015 and 2.75m in height to eaves level. Householder 170931 39 Hexham Road, Redlands Rear extension 07/06/2017 05/07/2017 Application Prior Reading, RG2 7UQ measuring 6.0m Withdrawn Approval - in depth, with a Class A, maximum height Part 1 GPDO of 2.8m, and 2015 3.2m in height to eaves level.
19
Office to Residential Prior Approval applications decided
Application Application Address Ward Proposal Date Decision Decision type reference Received Date number Office use 170714 78 London Street, Katesgrove Change of use of 05/05/2017 28/06/2017 Prior to dwelling Reading basement, Approval house - ground, first, Notification Class O, second and third - Approval Part 1 GPDO floors from Class 2015 B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 2 no. 1 bed (maisonette at basement and ground floor; flat at first floor) and 1 no. 2 bed (maisonette at second and third floor) flats.
Retail to Residential applications decided – None
Shop to Restaurant Prior Approval applications decided – None
Telecommunications Prior Approval applications decided – None
Demolition Prior Approval applications decided – None
Prior Notification applications decided – None
Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications decided – None
20
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Redlands
Address: 3 Craven Road, Reading, RG1 5LE
Proposal: Removal of Permitted Development Rights – Article 4 Direction
RECOMMENDATION
1. Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to serve an Immediate Article 4 Direction to remove Permitted Development Rights under Part 11, Schedule 2, Article 3 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for demolition of the locally listed building at 3 Craven Road, Reading, RG1 5LE.
2. Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Strategic Environment Planning and Transport and the Chair of Planning Applications Committee to serve an Immediate Article 4 direction to remove permitted development rights under Part 11, Schedule 2, Article 3 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for demolition of other locally listed buildings as appropriate.
3. Officers to write to DCLG requesting changes to exclude Part 11 (demolition) PD rights from compensation provisions.
SUMMARY
• Locally listed buildings are at risk of demolition due to Permitted Development Rights under Part 11 of the GPDO, subject to a Prior Approval process. 3 Craven Road is currently subject of an application for Prior Approval for demolition. • It is possible to make an Article 4 direction to remove these PD Rights. • Financial compensation may be payable to the landowner affected by removal of PD Rights. • The Government has so far chosen not to publish regulations excluding Part 11 (demolition) from compensation provisions.
1. Introduction
1.1 Under Part 11 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (‘the GPDO’), demolition of buildings is generally permitted development (Members will recall that the demolition of public houses has recently been excluded from these rights). This is subject to prior approval restrictions relating solely to the
21
method of demolition and the restoration of the site, but not the principle of demolition. The fact that a building is locally-listed has no bearing on the decision.
1.2 Arguably this is at odds with the Council’s aims for local listing and allows a developer to circumvent policy aims that would otherwise seek to retain all or part of a locally listed building within a redevelopment scheme.
1.3 Paragraph 13 of Historic England Advice Note 7 (2016) states: “Where changes do not require planning permission, an authority may consider whether the exercise of permitted development rights would undermine the aims for locally listed heritage assets. In cases where it would, authorities may consider the use of an Article 4 Direction (in tandem with the local listing process) to ensure any permitted development is given due consideration. Paragraph 200 of Government’s Planning Practice Guide gives guidance on the use of Article 4 Directions (Historic England Advice Note 1: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management also gives brief advice on Article 4 Directions).”
1.4 Prior approval for demolition of 3 Craven Road is currently being sought under application reference 170484/DEM. 3 Craven Road was subject of an unsuccessful planning application for a large retirement flat scheme under application reference 160355/FUL. This was withdrawn before a decision could be made although not before the report was published on the 27 April 2016 Planning Applications Committee Agenda.
2. Local Listing
2.1 Number 3 Craven Road was added to the List of Locally Important Buildings and Structures of Local Heritage Significance (“the Local List”) on 1 December 2015. The building is two storey mid-Victorian in a Gothic style. The plan form is L-shaped with slate roof and ogee turret roof at the rear angle. It was built primarily in red brick with yellow brick detailing forming the plinth, dentillated string course, quoins and levelling courses. It has a gabled roof with decorative fretted timberwork at the eaves, timber corbelling exposed at the eaves. Dressed stone exists around the windows heads and cills with keystones and yellow stock brick detailing around the windows. Windows are generally intact as eight pane sash windows. A decorative chimney with polychromatic brickwork exists to the southern wing.
2.2 Apart from a number of unsympathetic extensions to the rear and side including a wooden singles storey extension, separate flat roof port a cabin and access ramp, the Victorian building at No. 3 Craven Road is relatively intact. The 1879 OS mapping shows the building within its own extensive grounds.
2.3 The building makes use of brickwork which, although Victorian, is distinctively from Berkshire using clays found in the area, possibly at local kilns from areas such as Tilehurst.
2.4 The building retains virtuoso yellow stock brickwork forming the plinth, dentillated string course, quoins and levelling courses and forming the chimney stack. The decorative fretted timberwork at the gables is particularly impressive. Dressed stone around the windows heads and cills with keystones shows particular quality.
22
2.5 The building also has group value being associated with a number of large villas along Craven Road and the Berkshire Hospital.
2.6 The building is currently owned by the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust and used to provide children’s healthcare services.
3. Legal Advice
3.1 Legal advice has been sought from RBC Legal Services. Article 4 Directions are a tool available to LPA’s in responding to the particular needs of their area. They allow LPA’s to withdraw permitted development rights (with some exceptions that do not apply here) that would otherwise apply by virtue of the GPDO 2015 (as amended). An Article 4 Direction does not prevent the development to which it applies but instead requires that planning permission is first obtained from the LPA for that development.
3.2 When legal rights are withdrawn or restricted, compensation may be payable (see further below).
3.3 In procedural terms there are two types of Article 4 Directions:-
i) Non – Immediate Directions – where PD rights are only withdrawn upon confirmation of the LPA following local consultation, and
ii) Immediate Directions - where PD rights are withdrawn with immediate affect but must be confirmed by the LPA following local consultation within 6 months or else the direction will lapse.
3.4 Immediate Directions are intended to cover urgent matters but are limited to a small number of PD rights including the demolition of buildings, gates walls and fences under Part 11 Classes B and C. The others are Parts 1 to 4.
3.5 It is important to note that the LPA can be liable under Section 108 of the 1990 Act to pay compensation to those whose permitted development rights have been withdrawn, but only if, within 12 months of the effective date of the Article 4 Direction, it:
i. Refuses planning permission for development which would otherwise have been permitted development; or
ii. Grants planning permission subject to more limiting conditions than the General Permitted Development Order.
3.6 The grounds on which compensation can be claimed are limited to abortive expenditure or other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights. Abortive expenditure includes the preparation of plans for the purposes of the work and other similar preparatory matters but no more. ‘Other loss or damage directly attributable to the withdrawal of permitted development rights’ includes the depreciation in the value of the land.
23
4. Other Related Matters
4.1 It is considered appropriate to seek delegated authority for the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to serve an immediate Article 4 direction to remove Part 11 Permitted Development Rights for demolition of other locally listed buildings, in consultation with the Lead Member for Strategic Environment Planning and Transport and the Chair of Planning Applications Committee. This would allow the direction be served quickly in urgent cases whilst retaining an appropriate degree of oversight.
4.2 The procedures for making an Article 4 Direction are set out in Schedule 3, Article 4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended). These include procedures for serving notice on property owners, site notices and advertisement in a local newspaper. The Secretary of State must also be notified of the direction.
4.3 Leicester Council and Watford Borough Council are known to have recently withdrawn permitted development rights for demolition of locally listed buildings.
5. Conclusion
5.1 It is considered that serving an Immediate Article 4 Direction would be an appropriate and proportionate response within the context of the current proposal for demolition that would allow the Local Planning Authority to properly consider the impacts of development proposals on the historic significance of the building. Members are requested to be mindful of the compensation provisions associated with the removal of Permitted Development Rights when making a decision.
5.2 With regard to the Council’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular decision at this stage in the process.
24
Site Location Plan
Site Photograph
Case Officer: Steve Vigar
25
26 ABBEY
27 28
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19th July 2017
Ward: Abbey App No.: 170359 LBC and 170360 ADV Address: 3-5 King Street, Reading Proposal: Consent for location of external advert and lanterns and hanging sign on rear elevation Applicant: New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd Date valid: 8th March 2017 Agreed Extension date: 20th July 2017 26 week date: 6th September 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
GRANT Advertisement Consent 170360/ADV and GRANT Listed Building Consent 170359/LBC, subject to the prior signing of a completed S106 Legal Agreement to secure the undertaking of repair works to the King Street façade of the Listed Building. Repair works to be undertaken within two months of the issuing of these consents.
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 170359/LBC: CONDITIONS: 1. LBC Time limit – three years 2. Details of application of resin method repair to be adhered to 3. Maximum Illumination
INFORMATIVES: 1. Approved plans. Canopies and structures overhanging the highway 2. No other works approved 3. Terms and conditions of this consent 4. Positive and proactive
ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT 170360/ADV CONDITIONS: 1. Plans approved, including fixing details 2. Maximum illumination 3. Standard advertisement conditions
INFORMATIVES: 1. Terms and conditions of this consent 2. No other signage approved by this consent 3. Positive and proactive
29
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 These applications were deferred at your 31st May 2017 meeting so that full details of the proposed repair works to the King Street elevation offered by the applicant could be provided in advance of a decision being made.
1.2 A report from the applicant’s stonemason has now been provided, which sets out a schedule of proposed works for the proposed Ashlar stone repairs to the King Street elevation. The schedule has been agreed with the Council’s Conservation Consultant. The applicant has agreed to enter into a ‘freestanding’ s106 Legal Agreement to secure these works. It is recommended that the wording for this s106 Legal Agreement is completed prior to a decision being made on these applications and an Update Report will be provided to confirm that the details have been secured and the agreement has been signed. 1.3 The recommendation, therefore, is to grant applications 170359/LBC and 170360/ADV, subject to the satisfactory completion of the s106 Legal Agreement.
Case Officer: Ethne Humphreys
APPENDICES: Appendix 1: Report to 31st May 2017 Planning Applications Committee Appendix 2: Repair Works Report
30
APPENDIX 1
COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 31st May 2017
Ward: Abbey App No.: 170359 LBC and 170360 ADV Address: 3-5 King Street, Reading Proposal: Consent for location of external advert and lanterns and hanging sign on rear elevation Applicant: New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd Date valid: 08/03/2017 8-week target decision date: 03/05/2017 26-Week date: 06/09/2017
RECOMMENDATION :
Is to APPROVE Listed Building Consent 170359/LBC with the following conditions: 1. LBC Time 2. Details of Resin method 3. Schedule of Repairs 4. Illumination
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 1. Approved plans. Canopies and structures overhanging the highway 2. No other works approved 3. Terms and conditions of this consent
Is to APPROVE Advertisement Consent 170360/ADV with the following conditions 1. Plans approved, including fixing details 2. Illumination 3. Standard advertisement conditions
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 1. Terms and conditions of this consent 2. No other signage approved by this consent 3. Positive and proactive
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site, as illustrated on the location plan below, forms part of the building known as 3-5 King Street, which sits on the corner between King Street, High Street and Market Place and which used to be occupied by Barclays Bank.
1.2 The building is Grade II listed with listed frontages on King Street, High Street and Market Place and also sits within the Market Place/London Street Conservation Area. The current applications relate to the listed frontages on King Street and Market Place. The site is also located within a designated active frontage.
31
1.3 The current applications have been submitted following approval of a larger scheme to convert the ground floor of the property from Class A2 use to Class A3 (Restaurant and Café). The scheme allowed two units, one to the east and one to the west. These applications relate to the western unit, which is to be occupied by the restaurant ‘The Botanist’, and will be accessible from both Market Place and King Street.
1.4 The proposal is to be determined at Planning Applications Committee; it has been called in by Councillor Page due to concerns about the impact on the listed building and publicity of the application.
Location Plan (not to scale)
2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 Application 170359/LBC is for seven lanterns; five on the King Street elevation and two on the Market Place elevation. The lanterns would be located between each window at ground floor level and would be constructed of wrought iron with a black finish. The proposed lanterns would have a height of approximately 610mm and would project approximately 375mm from the wall
2.2 Application 170360/ADV is for a single, double sided hanging sign on the Market Place elevation. It would be positioned to the left of the main door. It would be constructed in timber set within a wrought iron framework and suspended from a wrought iron bracket. The bracket will also include two goose neck lights to illuminate both sides of the sign. They will have an illuminance level of 177 cd/m.
Method of fixing for the lanterns on the King Street elevation:
32
• Use the holes that have been drilled to secure the light fittings • Each light will be secured to a flat plate which will be designed to match the back plate of the light fitting and will fit flush with the stonework. No new holes are proposed for this element of the proposals. • The plate will be fastened to a hollow rod which will run the depth of the drilled hole and be secured with a resin bond for the full length, details of which will be secured by way of condition. • The electricity supply to the lights will be via a cable which will run through the hollow rod as indicated on drawing no. 1127-PDI-60a
Method of fixing for the lanterns on the Market Place elevation:
• It is proposed to secure the light fitting onto the rendered wall with two fixings, one at the top and one at the bottom. No extra holes are proposed for the cabling; two small holes are proposed to secure the light fitting however this will be into the render surface and not ashlar stonework. • The electricity supply will be via an external cable which will be secured within the recesses of the render as indicated on drawing no. 1127-PDI-48 rev F
Supporting Information
2.4 The applications are supported by the following documents and plans:
• Plans: Location Plan Received 7th March 2017 • Block Plan Received 8th March 2017
• Drawing No: 1127-PDI-48 Rev F Proposed Rear Signage Application Received 8th May 2017 • Drawing No: 1127-PDI-60a Proposed Front Lighting Application Option 2 Received 17th May 2017
• Planning Statement • Heritage Statement Received 7th March 2017
• Email received 16th May 2017 time 15:03 confirming fixing details • Letter from ‘Heritage Collective’ received 11th May 2017 reference 3445
3. PLANNING HISTORY
• 161755/ADV Display of externally illuminated hanging sign on south elevation. Permitted • 161756/LBC Works associated with display of externally illuminated hanging sign on south elevation. Permitted • 161896-VAR - Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission. (161274). In respect of the A3 use hereby permitted in respect of unit one (west), no customers shall be on the premises outside of the following times 0800 – 2330 (Sunday to Wednesday) and 0800 – 0030 (Thursday, Friday and Saturdays). Permitted
33
• 161806-APC - Application for approval of details reserved by condition. (150051 and 150203). Not discharged • 161804-LBC - Refurbishment of unit in connection with previously approved A3 use. Permitted • 161395-LBC - Minor internal works to existing banking hall to facilitate restaurant use as previous approval. Permitted • 161274-VAR - Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission. (160358). Permitted • 160358-VAR - Application to vary condition 12 of planning permission 150051 to allow the A3 (restaurant/cafe use) to open until 0030 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights (current approval is for closing at 2300 on these nights. Opening hours on other days unaffected at 0800-2300). Permitted • 150203-LBC - Listed Building Consent application to facilitate change of use at ground floor level from bank to restaurant/café with demolition and insertion of shopfront to corner of High Street/King Street. Permitted • 150051-FUL - Change of use at ground floor level from A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to A3(Restaurants and Cafés) and demolition and insertion of shopfront to corner of High Street/King Street. Permitted • 141187-LBC - External repairs and the installation of replacement bird deterrents. Permitted • 12-01493-VARIAT - Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) on ground floor, ancillary storage at basement and Class B1 (Business) use on 3 upper floors without complying with conditions 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 of planning permission 09/01931/FUL. Withdrawn • 12-00817-FUL and 12-00818-LBC - Change of use of first, second and third floors from A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to A3 (Restaurant and Cafe). Withdrawn • 11-00854-LBC - Internal alterations to include; refurbishment of existing lift car; installation of two lobbies; blocking of two doorways and separation of the mechanical and electrical services to create two demises. Permitted • 11-00391-TELE - Prior Approval for installation of equipment cabinet measuring height 1200mm x width 1200mm x depth 315mm. Refused • 09-01932-LBC - Listed building application for a change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) on ground floor, ancillary storage at basement and Class B1 (Business) use on 3 upper floors; together with external and internal alterations with respect to the strip out and de-branding of the Barclays Bank premises. Permitted • 09-01931-FUL - Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to Class A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) on ground floor, ancillary storage at basement and Class B1 (Business) use on 3 upper floors. Permitted • 09-01063-PREAPP - Pre-application advice for proposed change of use from A2 (Financial and Professional) to A3 (Restaurants and cafes) and A4 (Drinking establishments) use of the basement and ground floors with class B1 (Business) on the three upper floors.
3-5 King Street Unit 2 (adjacent to the application site)
• 170636/FUL Change of use of Ground and Basement floors to Restaurant (A3). Pending Consideration • 170637/FUL External alterations and installation of new signage. Pending Consideration • 170368/ADV 3no. fascia signs and 3no. projecting signs. Pending Consideration
34
• 170639/LBC Listed building consent for proposed internal and external alterations and new signage. Pending Consideration
4. CONSULTATIONS
Statutory 4.1 None
Non-statutory
4.2 RBC – Heritage Consultant – Raised serious concern to the original proposal. Further to a meeting and discussions with the applicant and case officer to find a suitable solution, no objection subject to conditions.
4.7 RBC Transport Strategy – No objection.
5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION
The applications were advertised in the local press as the proposal is a Listed Building within a Conservation Area. Two site notices were posted by the officer - one on King Street and one on Market Place.
2 responses objecting to the scheme were received, one from the Reading Civic Society and one from the Conservation Area Advisory Committee, objecting on the following grounds:
• Procedure • Unauthorised works • Scale/Design of Lanterns
6 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
National and Local Policy • National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) • National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008 • Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) • Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • CS20: Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy • Policy CS33 (Protection of the Historic Environment)
Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (SDPD), Adopted 2012 Revised 2015 • Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) • Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) • Policy DM22 (Advertisements)
Reading Central Area Action Plan (RCAAP) (adopted 2009)
• RC5 Design in the centre • RC10 Active Frontages
35
LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.
Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 requires the Local Planning Authority to exercise its powers under these regulations in the interests of amenity and public safety taking into account the provisions of the development plan, so far as they are material; and any other relevant factors. Regulation 3 states that factors relevant to amenity include the general characteristics of the locality, including the presence of any feature of historic, architectural, cultural, or similar interest.
Factors relevant to public safety include highway safety and whether the advert would hinder security or surveillance devices, including speed cameras.
7 APPRAISAL The main issues in consideration of this application are:
• Design and Appearance / Heritage Impact • Residential Amenity of Existing Residents and Future Occupiers • Impact on Highways • Signage • Other matters
Heritage Impact / Design and Appearance
7.1 Seven lanterns are proposed in total, two on the Market Place elevation and five on the King Street elevation. It was noted on the initial site visit that works had taken place on the King Street elevation; namely, that five holes had been drilled into the Ashlar stonework to provide the electricity supply to the proposed light fittings. Without listed building consent these works are unauthorised. Further to this, it is considered that this method of connecting the lights to the electricity supply would not have been considered acceptable to gain listed building consent. This is clearly an unfortunate situation, and the Council’s serious concerns were relayed to the applicants who were not aware that such works had taken place until brought to their attention.
7.2 Notwithstanding the above, the proposed lanterns were originally considered unacceptable in size, at nearly 1m in height, which was considered to be overly bulky and dominant on both the front and rear elevations.
7.3 Further to this, a meeting was held with the case officer, the Council’s Heritage Consultant and the applicants. After some discussion it was considered that on this specific occasion, to prevent further damage to the Ashlar stonework, the most beneficial solution would be to allow the holes to be used for the electrical supply to the lights but to also include a method of fixing the light to the front so that no new holes for fixings would be required on the face of the building. The amended
36
smaller designed lanterns themselves would also cover the holes. In addition the applicant stated that they would undertake works of repair to the stonework elsewhere on the façade to improve the appearance and longevity of the building.
7.4 In terms of the design of the lanterns themselves, revised plans have been submitted which show the lanterns reduced in height by 349mm (from 959mm to 612mm) and with a reduced projection of 152mm from the wall (from 527mm to 375mm). As a consequence, the proposed revised lanterns are not considered to result in any adverse harm to the visual amenities of the listed building, character or appearance of the conservation area of the wider street scene.
7.5 The Council’s Heritage Officer considers that further to the revised plans, the proposed lanterns on the Market Place elevation would be acceptable, subject to acceptable electric runs and methods of fixing to the exterior of the building. This detailing has been provided and whilst involves drilling two small holes into the façade, it would be into the rendered surface and would not affect the ashlar stonework which is acceptable. The proposed wiring run would re-use an existing CCTV run which is therefore acceptable.
7.6 In light of the above, the proposals are considered to be acceptable subject to conditions requiring the submission of further details of the resin method of attaching the light fitting plate within the existing hole created for the wiring, and submission of a schedule of repairs to the exterior of the building.
7.7 It is considered that, on balance, the above would be the right approach under the circumstances as there would be no additional drilled fixings required to the front of the building for the lights and there would be a ‘heritage benefit’ from the proposed works to repair damage previously caused to the exterior façade over past tenancies.
7.8 Given that the damage to the stonework is to be repaired and hidden, and the design of the lanterns themselves is now considered acceptable, the development is, on balance, considered to comply with the requirements of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area Act) 1990 and Reading Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policies CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) and CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
Residential amenity of Existing residents and Future occupiers 7.9 Due to the nature, scale and position of the proposed lanterns there would be no loss of amenity to any neighbouring property in terms of loss of light, privacy, overbearing impact or light pollution nuisance.
Impact on Highways
7.10 The Lanterns fronting King Street will be elevated 3m above the public highway and the lanterns fronting Market Place a minimum of 2.8m. These dimensions are in excess of the requirements for fixtures over hanging the public highway and therefore are deemed acceptable. Transport do not have any objections to this proposal subject to informatives.
Signage
37
7.11 A separate application is made for advertisement consent for the hanging sign on the rear elevation fronting Market Place. The relevant factors to consider are effects on amenity and public safety.
i) Amenity
7.12 As set out in the NPPF paragraph 67, poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment. Paragraph 132 of the NPPF details that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset great weight should be given the assets conservation. The more important the asset the greater the weight should be and any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. In this instance, the Market Place/London Street Conservation Area and the building’s Listed Building status are the heritage assets.
7.13 The proposed double sided hanging sign on the Market Place elevation is identical in design terms as that recently approved on the King Street elevation, under planning applications reference 161755/ADV and 161756/LBC. Given this, the size, design and material of the proposed projecting sign is considered in keeping with the design and historic character of the building and signage approved elsewhere. It is considered that the restrained advertising (consisting of a single hanging sign) and external (rather than internal) illumination of the sign would also respect and protect the character of this heritage asset.
ii) Public Safety
7.14 Due to the nature and location of the proposed signage, it would not result in any obstruction or distraction to members of the public using the highway. The Highways Officer has confirmed that the illumination level of the proposed signage is acceptable and there are no transport objections.
7.15 In this specific instance, the applicant has stated that they would undertake works of repair to the stonework elsewhere on the façade to improve the appearance and longevity of the building. This is welcomed.
7.16 Given the above, the proposed sign is considered to be suitable in terms of public amenity and no concerns are raised in terms of public safety and, accordingly, is considered to be acceptable in terms of Policy CS33: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) (Altered 2015), Policy DM22: Advertisements of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) and Policy DM12: Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015).
Other matters 7.17 Reading Borough Council have complied with the publicity and public consultation requirements for these types of applications.
Equality 7.18 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the
38
current application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
7.19 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
8. Conclusion 8.1 The recommendation is to approve the listed building and advertisement consents as revised, subject to conditions, for the reasons given above.
Plans • Drawing No: 1127-PDI-60a Proposed Front Lighting Application Option 2 Received 17th May 2017
• Drawing No: 1127-PDI-48 Rev F Proposed Rear Signage Application Received 8th May 2017
39
Case Officer: Ethne Humphreys
40 e I Specialists in Natural Stone LhD {ik Zr1pL'&
lèL 0118 957 3537 Fax: 0118 957 4334 Email: [email protected] www.afjones.co.uk New World Trading Company 2 Malt St Knutsford WA16 6ES
Attn. John Walkup
19th June 2017
Re: 000912, The Botanist, Reading
Dear Sirs
Further to our meeting on 15th June to discuss the repairs to the Bath stone façade.
The low level repairs noted on the attached anote photos represent a minimal intervention repair philosophy using like for like materials.
The repair type at low level should be a tamper proof robust method that stands up to many hands running along the stone.
We have also chosen a method of repair that is following on from other previous repairs that have shown to be successful.
We have included for pavement barriers, RAMMS and project management in general.
Please don't hesitate to ring and discuss anything in particular regarding this quote.
Please see attached costings
Yours faithfully
A G JONES
A.F. Jones Stonemasons Limited, 33 Bedford Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 7EX. Registered Office as above. Registered in England No. 7112560 VAT Registration No. 992 1355 05 41 NEW WORLD TRADING
Q00912 THE BOTANIST, READING
Stone piecings Cut out, take moulds, sizes, sections to enable the workshop to cut and carve replacements. Return to fix the new 'piecings in place pinning back with stainless steel dowels and pointing using lime mortar as necessary. Rub in all moulds. A 450 x 350 x 100 moulded rusticated ashlar £ 515.12 B1 250 x 75 x 100 moulded top section course 2 £ 145.50 B2 600 x 75 x 100 moulded top section course 2 £ 289.50 Cl 600 x 75 x 100 moulded top section course 1 £ 289.50 C2 300 x 75 x 100 moulded top section course 1 £ 145.50 D1 750 x 100 x 350 plinth £ 367.87 D2 750 x 100 x 350 plinth £ 367.87 D3 500 x 100 x 350 plinth £ 295.60 El 400 x 100 x 100 moulded bottom section course 2 £ 312.10 E2 450 x 100 x 100 moulded bottom section course 2 £ 312.10 F 600 x 75 x 100moulded bottom section course 2 £ 289.50 RR Render repair to soft bed at high level behiind sign £ 98.00 T Replace 300mm of curved band course £ 505.00 Note Tower scaffold and pavement disruption over 2No. Half day periods seperated by 3-4 weeks. Tower scaffold, erect 2 days £ 900.00 Pavement barriers erect/dismantle over 1-2 week period c 4 nnn
Total works £ 5,293.16
42 33 Bedford Road Reading RG1 7EX Tel: 0118 957 3537 www.afjones.co.uk
JOB Tt-t rWu
NAME
STONES
DRAWING No.
: DATE SCALE
43 4Ø Cou, 2i -r
owl r
44
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Abbey Application No.: 162345/APPCON Address: 10 Baker Street Proposal: Application for approval of details reserved by conditions 3 and 4 (materials) of planning permission ref. 151959 Applicant: Mr Mukhtar Ahmed Date Valid: 28 February 2016 Application target decision date: 24th July 2017 (extension of time)
RECOMMENDATION
Discharge Conditions 3 (Materials) and 4 (Roof lights) of planning permission 151959.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site comprises an existing vacant Class A1 use shop unit on the north side of Baker Street.
1.2 The building is red brick and of two storeys with a shallow pitched gable roof. The building fronts directly onto Baker Street with the shop front façade still in place. The existing plans show the first floor accommodation as a single residential flat, however there is no planning history for use of this part of the building as residential and the lawful use is considered to be ancillary storage to the shop. To the east of the property is a private gated access to the rear of 8 and 8a Baker Street. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly of terraced residential properties.
1.3 The site is located within the Russell Street/Castel Hill conservation area. The Conservation Area Appraisal Document for this part of the conservation area details that the area is characterised by tall terraces of late Georgian houses (Russell Street, Baker Street) and similar, mid or late-19th century houses, also in a terraced form (Waylen Street, Zinzan Street, Carey Street, Jesse Terrace). The buildings have small front gardens or areas, with little obvious planting or trees apart from in Jesse Terrace and the western end of Baker Street. Uses are mainly residential, with a small shop (the application site) and small community centre at what used to the Oasis public house in Baker Street. Jesse Terrace retains more original features than the other streets of unlisted buildings such as Waylen Street or Zinzan Street.
1.4 Planning permission was granted on 9th September 2016 (reference 151959) for conversion of the shop into 3 apartments, two-one bedroom apartments on ground floor and one-two bedroom apartment on first floor. Externally the changes to the
45
building approved included removal of the existing shop front and replacement with ground and first floor front windows, insertion of an additional front roof light (to make three in total) and three rear facing roof lights (one at single storey level) together with replacement front entrance doors (in same position as existing doors). Addition of a pitched roof to an existing single storey rear flat roof projection on the eastern boundary of the site was also approved.
2. PROPOSALS
2.1 Conditions no. 3 and 4 of planning permission 151959 sought details of materials and roof lights to be submitted prior to commencement of the development. This approval of details application seeks to discharge both of these conditions.
2.4 During the course of the application revised and additional details and documents have been submitted by the applicant, following officer feedback.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 900241 – Single storey extension to shop - Granted
3.2 071149 – First floor pitched roof extension – Withdrawn
46
3.3 080615 - First floor pitched roof extension (Resubmission of 07/01378/FUL) – Granted
3.4 151959 - Conversion of two storey Local shop into 3 apartments, two-one bedroom apartments on ground floor and one-two bedroom apartment on first floor – Granted
4. CONSULTATIONS
Public Consultation
4.14 There is no statutory requirement concerning public consultation for approval of conditions applications, however the Reading Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CAAC) and the Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association (BSANA) have been notified of the application.
Comments have been received from BSANA and are summarised below:
Brick - Concern regarding the quality of brick proposed and appearance of the infill brick work to replace windows and doors – consider the property should instead be re-faced. - Seek confirmation as to the second brick proposed. - Seeks confirmation of the brick proposed for the string course line to the front elevation.
Sills and Window/Door Detailing - Stone sills would be expected, or consider concrete painted in tan could also be appropriate. - Concerns regarding the quality of the arch detailing above the windows and doors. The ‘cut down’ wedges proposed are considered a poor quality method. - Concern regarding the composite timber effect door proposed – consider genuine timber door only would be in keeping with character of the conservation area. - Recommend use of timber sash windows or high quality uPVC. - Concern regarding the sill set back proposed – consider this insufficient and out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area – seek a comparison document to ensure an appropriate sill depth.
Roof Slate - Concern that potential shiny and plastic looking faux slate may be used.
Roof Lights - Conservation style roof lights proposed should be flush fitting.
5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
47
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2 The application has been assessed against the following policies:
5.3 National National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance
5.4 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008)
CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment
5.8 Other relevant documentation
Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area Appraisal (2004)
6. APPRAISAL
i) Condition 3 (Materials)
6.1 Condition 3 states:
The development hereby approved shall not be commenced, until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development, including replacement brickwork, window reveals, window frames and window detailing, doors and roof tiles have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the buildings, in accordance with Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (altered 2015).
6.2 In this regard the applicant has submitted either samples or specification details of the materials referred to in the condition.
Brick 6.3 A red ‘Tudor’ brick sample was originally submitted as part of the application to be used to infill the existing brick work following removal of existing shop front and insertion of new windows and doors. However, officers raised concerns with how it would integrate with the existing brick work to the building, it appearing too dark and too textured, mirroring similar concerns raised in the comments from BSANA.
48
6.4 Officer concerns related to the existing appearance of the building where there is a notable difference in the colouring and texture of the brickwork from ground to first floor level. This is likely to be as a result of the first floor extension added to the property under planning permission ref. 080615. The brick to the lower parts of the building appears lighter in colour and smoother, whilst the brick to the upper parts is darker, more textured and has a slight white hue/film visible across the brick work. It is acknowledged that the lighter colouring and less textured appearance to some of the brick work to the lower levels is likely to be as a result of weathering with the upper floor brickwork being a more recent addition. However, there is a notable difference in the appearance of the brick to the upper floors which does not appear to be an accurate match to the appearance of the brick to the lower levels of the building. Planning records indicate that a ‘red London brick’ was approved under the 2008 permission for the first floor extension.
6.5 Following the officer concerns outlined above, a further brick sample has been submitted: ‘Carlton Brick – 65mm Brodsworth Mixture’, which features distinctive pockmarks. This brick is considered to be more reflective of the appearance of the lower parts of the building where the replacement brickwork is needed as part of the works under the approved planning permission. The brick is lighter in tone and also slightly less textured than the originally proposed Tudor brick.
6.6 The comments from BSANA are noted with regard to concern regard to the appearance of the front elevation from infilling of brickwork; however officers are now satisfied that the amended brick type submitted would integrate satisfactorily with the brickwork at the lower level of the building. Comments regarding BSANA’s preference for re-facing the building are also noted however this is not what planning permission was sought for or given under the original application and is therefore not considered possible to consider such works to be undertaken as part of an approval of details under condition application. The original planning permission relates to conversion of the existing building and minor alterations to facilitate its occupation as three residential flats. The condition relates to replacement brickwork to allow for insertion of new windows and doors. The Carlton brick is considered to be a suitable brick to integrate with the existing brickwork at the lower parts of the building.
6.7 The officer report for the original permission noted that ‘the development must be considered in the context of the current application which is for change of use of the existing building and conversion to residential use. Further re-working of the front façade or new detailing could enhance the appearance of the building; however much of this is an existing situation. In providing new fenestration to enable the conversion to residential use the applicant has attempted to pick up on architectural detailing of surrounding buildings. Whilst more wholesale changes could further enhance the appearance of the building they are not proposed as part of the current application….The currently proposed alterations, with new fenestration and doors, resulting in a more residential style frontage, is considered to enhance the appearance of the existing building within the street-
49
scene. The changes proposed are considered reasonable in the context of the application for conversion of an existing property and in doing so it is considered that the proposal would preserve the character of the conservation area in bringing an existing vacant and dilapidated building back into use’.
6.8 The applicant has also submitted a smoother red/orange ‘Chelmer’ brick sample to be used for the string line brick course detailing (to imitate a ‘rubbed’ brick, a characteristic of Victorian/Edwardian buildings) which is considered a suitable complement to the main façade brickwork.
Windows, window detailing and doors 6.9 Drawings have been submitted showing timber sliding sash windows. The use of timber and the style of the windows are considered appropriate for the context of the existing building and setting of the surrounding conservation area.
6.10 Drawings have also been submitted showing details of the proposed window arch detailing. Officers raised concern with the agent regarding the proposed arch detailing which showed a ‘cut down’ style of arch with triangular sections of brick used to form the arches, similar concerns were also raised in the comments from BSANA. Amended drawings have now been submitted of the arch detailing showing more regular brick sections forming the arches above the windows and doors. The arches are to be formed from the ‘Chelmer’ brick also proposed to be used for the string line brick course, a sample of which has been submitted. The design of the arches would reflect that of the buildings opposite the site at no.s 23-31 Baker Street and is considered to be of suitable appearance to integrate with and enhance the appearance of the host building and reflect the character of the surrounding conservation area.
6.11 A window sill detail (section) drawing has also been submitted. Officers raised concern with regard to the depth of the proposed sills and siting of the glazing, which was proposed to be set too far forward within the frame. Amended plans have now been submitted which have increased the depth of the proposed sills – from 50mm to 70mm from the front elevation and these have also set the glazing further back in the frame, increasing the window reveal relative to outer face of the external wall. The amended sill set back and window placement is considered more reflective of the sills at surrounding properties and in the context of the conversion of the existing property is considered to result in a significant enhancement to its appearance and to suitably reflect the character of the surrounding conservation area; particularly given the existing shop front which does not contribute positively to the setting of the conservation area.
6.12 The sills are proposed to be finished in buff colour ‘Forticrete’ cast stone of which a sample has been submitted and is considered of suitable quality for the proposed conversion works. The buff colour would reflect the appearance of detailing of no. 63 Waylen Street to which no. 10 Baker Street adjoins.
6.13 A specification of the proposed doors has also been submitted. A timber effect composite door was initially proposed, however following officer concerns (similar
50
concerns also raised in the comments from BSANA) details of a solid painted timber door have since been submitted (the Cotswood ‘Kew Gardens Victorian’ door) which is considered to be of suitable quality for the conservation area location. The comments from BSANA reference a passible fan light window whilst the proposed door has two panel windows in the main body of the door. There are a range of door types in the surrounding area and that proposed is considered of suitable style and quality such that it would contribute to the preservation of the conservation area.
Roof 6.14 With regard to the roof, details are required to be submitted of the materials for the small pitched roof to be added to the existing single storey flat roof side projection. The application proposes a ‘Marley Eternit’ type slate to match the existing main roof of the building and is considered appropriate to ensure a consistent appearance with the existing building. Whilst a genuine natural slate would be a preference in the conservation area, in this instance as a conversion and modest alteration to an existing building it is considered that reflecting the materials used and to be retained to the existing building is the appropriate approach to take. Such cementious/fibrous slates are in any case common within the conservation area and are a suitable material for unlisted buildings.
6.15 It is considered that sufficient information has been submitted to discharge this condition.
ii) Condition 4 (Roof lights)
Condition 4 states that:
The development hereby approved shall not be commenced, until details and specification of the proposed conservation roof lights have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the visual appearance of the buildings, in accordance with Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (altered 2015).
6.16 A specification of conservation style roof lights (Velux GGL SD5N2 CK04) has been submitted. These are shown to have a single glazing bar and to be flush fitting. There are existing roof lights to the main roof and those proposed are considered to integrate satisfactorily with the host dwelling and to be appropriate in the context of the surrounding conservation area.
6.17 It is considered that sufficient information has been submitted to discharge this condition.
iii) Equality
51
6.18 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular approval of conditions application.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed details are considered to be acceptable in the context of national and local planning policy and other material considerations as set out in this report. As such conditions 3 (Materials) and 4 (Roof lights) are recommended to be discharged.
Case Officer: Matt Burns
52
Window and arch detailing
53
Window sill reveal section
54
Approved drawing from original planning permission (151959)
55
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 31 May 2017
Ward: Abbey App No.: 162166 Address: Former Reading Cooper BMW site, Kings Meadow Road Proposal: Erection of a part 12 storey, part 23 storey building comprising 315 apartments in a mix of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and 3-bedroom units; residents' lounges, tech-hub, dining room, and cinema room; various rooftop outdoor amenity spaces; concierge/reception with coffee meeting area; residents' storage facilities; postroom; ancillary back-of-house facilities; 315 secure cycle parking spaces; 49 car parking spaces; landscaping; and associated works. Demolition of existing multi- storey car park. Applicant: Lochailort Reading Ltd. Date received: 6 December 2016 Major Application PPA date: 19 November 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the satisfactory completion of a s106 legal agreement by 19 November 2017 to secure the following Heads of Terms, delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services (HPDRS) to GRANT planning permission. If the s106 legal agreement is not completed by 19 November 2017, delegate to the HPDRS to REFUSE planning permission.
Summary of Heads of Terms in relation to Affordable Housing:
• A Commuted Sum of £4m index-linked from completion of the S106 agreement with payment due on first occupation; • As part of their £4m contribution above, the applicant will additionally use reasonable endeavours to work with the LPA and a nominated delivery partner/provider to identify and enter into a contract to secure a Surrogate Site for the provision of a minimum of 25 dwellings, obtain a suitable planning permission for a residential development and transfer the site under the S106 as soon as practically possible; • Any Surrogate Site would be required under the S106 to deliver 100% affordable housing. Any site would be transferred to the nominated delivery provider for £NIL consideration (which could include the Council as a Local Housing Authority); • The cost of securing a Surrogate Site would be delivered from within the above £4m commuted sum and the transaction would be subject to an independent valuation to confirm market value. Any residual amount including index linking from the transaction will be paid as a commuted sum; • If a Surrogate Site has not been identified within two years of the signing of the agreement, the obligation will cascade into a payment of the above commuted sum in full; • Whole building must be retained in single ownership (by an institution) as a “Build for Rent” development for a minimum number of years following occupation (20 years);
56
• Three deferred contribution/default payment mechanisms:
1. A deferred contribution as the result of a performance review within 1 year of 1st occupation to assess any additional profit generated from the scheme based on actual costs & values; and 2. A deferred contribution linked to any uplift in value relating to a change of use of any part of the building to open market sales units within a minimum specified period (20 years from first occupation); and 3. A deferred contribution linked to the sale of any part of the building units within the minimum specified period (20 years from first occupation).
Summary of other Heads of Terms:
1. Submission, approval and undertaking of a construction period Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) by the developer, or otherwise the payment of amount in lieu, in accordance with the calculation as per the Council’s adopted Employment, Training and Skills SPD towards RBC/Reading UK CIC and its partner organisations in delivering training places elsewhere (Policies: CS9, CS13 DM3).
2. A contribution of £100,000 for the submission, approval and implementation of an environmental improvement scheme to the Vastern Road railway underpass index-linked from the date of planning permission and payable prior to first occupation of the development (Policies: CS9, DM3, RC14).
3. £120,000 towards improvements towards path upgrades and associated works in Kings Meadow, index-linked from the date of planning permission and payable prior to first occupation of the development. (Policies: CS9, DM3).
4. Provision of land to an agreed standard within the development of part of the safeguarded route for Phase 2 of the East Reading Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Route, as per plan agreed with the Council. (Policies: CS9, DM3, CS21, DM12).
5. £86,700 towards the delivery a new signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing index- linked from the date of planning permission and payable prior to first occupation of the development (layout as shown on approved Drawing 5277.027 Rev C.) (Policies: CS9, DM3, CS21, DM12)
6. The establishment of an on-site car club for three vehicles, via an agreed car club provider to the value of not less than £46,915, index-linked form the date of planning permission and payable prior to first occupation of the development. Commitment to a three vehicle car club, initially, rising to a four-vehicle car club if demand requires/exists (Policies: CS9, DM3, CS23)
7. Provision and operation of a residential travel plan no later than first occupation of the first residential unit. (Policies: CS9, DM3, CS23).
(N.B. the CIL liability for this development has been calculated at £3.4m)
Conditions to include:
1. TL1 std three years 2. Approved plans 3. Submission of materials on site prior to commencement of development above slab
57
level 4. Submission of details of laminated glass 5. Submission of details of secure glazing prior to commencement above slab level 6. Contaminated land 1: site characterisation report 7. Contaminated land 2: submission of remediation scheme 8. Contaminated land 3: implementation of approved remediation scheme 9. Contaminated land 4: reporting of any unexpected contamination 10. Land gas 1: site investigation 11. Land gas 2: remediation scheme to be submitted 12. Land gas 3: implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme 13. No development involving piling to commence before details submitted 14. No development to commence before wastewater and water supply details submitted 15. Archaeological written scheme of investigation (WSI) 16. No development to commence before Construction Method Statement submitted and approved 17. Hours of working (standard) 18. No commencement of landscaped areas before external lighting submitted/approved 19. No commencement above slab level before submission and approval of heating and ventilation systems 20. Landscaping 1: submission of landscaping scheme for all areas 21. Landscaping 2: implementation of scheme 22. Landscaping 3: maintenance strategy 23. Landscaping 4: replacement if failure within five years 24. No occupation before installation of ecological enhancements 25. Delivery of safeguarded route to highway standards 26. Provision of parking/access/circulation area before occupation and retention thereafter 27. Maximum on-site provision of 49 car parking spaces 28. Retention of cycle parking and all facilities before occupation and retention thereafter 29. Retention of disabled/accessible/car club parking and all circulation areas 30. Servicing of the development to be in accordance with servicing strategy 31. Parking permits 1: no parking permits to be issued 32. Parking permits 2: information to residents about no parking permits before occupation 33. Implementation of approved noise mitigation scheme in accordance with acoustic assessment 34. Provision of 1.6m high parapet on south-west terrace for wind mitigation 35. Submission of comprehensive security strategy 36. No bonfires 37. No installation of noise –generating plant before noise assessment submitted and approved 38. No occupation before flood risk measures submitted 39. Implementation in accordance with energy/sustainability strategies 40. Provision and retention of lifts in working order 41. Provision and retention of adaptable units 42. No installation of building maintenance units (BMUs)
Informatives to include:
• Positive and proactive requirement • Terms and conditions • Notes on conditions discharging
58
• No parking permits • Building Regulations informative • EA informative: ongoing pollution remediation incident • TW waste comments informative • TW easements • TW groundwater risk management permits • TW foul water information needed • Aviation warning lighting likely to be required
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site extends to 0.45 hectares and consists of a narrow site adjacent to the north embankment of the Bristol-Paddington railway line at the edge of Central Reading. The site is currently in use as a temporary public car park, but from the late 1980s until 2016 it was a car dealership. The car showroom was demolished in 2016 to make way for surface car parking but the former one/two storey car park building which formed part of the car dealership remains and is part of the public car park. To the west is the short north-south section of Vastern Road which continues under the railway bridge and the roundabout which links that road with Vastern Road, George Street (Caversham) and Kings Meadow Road. To the north is Reading Bridge House and Kings Meadow House (the Environment Agency building), and beyond that, on the banks of the Thames, is a residential development, Kingfisher Court. To the north-east of the site is a residential dwelling, ‘The Lodge’ and Kings Meadow, one of the town’s Thames Parks. The park contains the Kings Meadow Baths (Listed Grade II), which is nearing the end of an extensive refurbishment and extension project. To the east of the site is a two storey office development in a series of three blocks, known as Napier Court. Further away lie Clearwater Court, (the Thames Water building), Luscinia View (the residential development with the blue roofs at the eastern end of Kings Meadow), the Reading Central development on Forbury Road and the First Great Western multi-storey car park on the opposite side of the roundabout.
1.2 The application site is identified site in the Reading Central Area Action Plan (the RCAAP, 2009) as Site RC1h (Napier Road Junction) for a single landmark building for residential use, B1 office use, or a mixed use for both.
59
Location plan (not to scale)
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 This is a full planning application to demolish the present car park building and remove all infrastructure associated with the car park and the associated trees and erect a dense, residential development. This would consist of a long residential block rising to 10-12 storeys, with the western end housing a single 23-storey residential tower. The lower areas of the development would house the servicing and communal areas for the residential use and the top of the podium and at various other levels there would be communal amenity spaces for the residents of the flats. The development leaves an area to the north and west frontages of the application site for landscaping/public realm and to help accommodate highway improvements at the end of Kings Meadow Road. The design of the building is contemporary, with a mixed palette of colours and materials to help to assimilate this residential development into the area, which is largely made up of commercial buildings.
60
2.2 As set out in the Relevant Planning History section below, this application has been submitted by the same applicant involved with the refused ‘Swan Heights’ application (ref. 150120) in April/May 2015, which proposed three very tall residential towers rising out of a tall podium. Those towers were proposed in a Neo-Classical style and were nearly identical, until the top floors, where there was a variation on a theme, with the towers having slightly different rustications and different domed roofs. The three towers were to step down slightly, with the tallest tower being 28 storeys (overall equivalent height), the middle one 26 storeys and the lowest, 24 storeys. That application was refused for 12 reasons in May 2015 and each shall be referred to, where relevant, in the Appraisal section below.
2.3 Supporting information supported with the planning application is as follows:
• Design and Access Statement (DAS) • Planning Statement • Economic appraisal report • Transport assessment (TA) • Framework residential travel plan • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Sustainable Drainage Strategy • Statement of community involvement (SCI) • Air quality assessment • Overview of site contamination report • Energy Statement • Sustainability Statement • Noise assessment report • Utilities and drainage report • Lighting design feasibility report (since withdrawn, as external lighting of the building is now not proposed). • Accurate Visual Representations (AVR) study (CGIs) • AVR study: computer generated illustrations • Townscape/landscape and visual impact assessment (report) • Archaeological desk-based assessment (DBA) • Heritage Setting Statement • Heritage statement • Ecological impact assessment report and update, November 2016 • Affordable housing viability report (received 24/1/17) • S.106 Heads of Terms letter • Affordable housing statement • Viability appraisal and report • PRS (Private Rented Sector) Market Report • Daylighting, sunlight and overshadowing report • Wind microclimate study • Kitchen extract strategy??? • Superfast broadband statement Officer comment: the applicant confirms that this has been investigated and speeds in excess of 24Mbps will be available to residents. • Fire strategy
2.4 This planning application is being reported to the Committee as this is a Major planning application.
61
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There is various planning history related to the car dealership, but this is not relevant to the current planning application. Relevant planning history since 2014 is as follows:
140700 Request for a Two initial scoping meetings were held with the pre-application applicant in late 2013 and early 2014. Following scoping meeting the second scoping meeting, officers produced a note for the developer, advising of locations for views analysis to be undertaken. In the same note, concerns were raised for the inconsistency of the emerging proposal with adopted planning policy and officer advice at that time was that a development of circa. 15 storeys would be more appropriate. 141815 Screening opinion Opinion provided 8 ecember D 2014, advising that request the development would not be subject to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations. 150120 Full planningDemolition of all existing onsite buildings and application structures, including remediation, 352 new homes in a mix f o sizes in three new buildings up to 28 storeys in height, reception, concierge, library, clubroom, community rooms, business centre, residents’ fitness centre, residents’ storage and associated other ancillary community uses, Up to 523 sqm of commercial loorspacef (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1 orD1) in 2 units, 308 cycle parking spaces, 118 car parking spacesincluding four car- club spaces and private residents’ storage, access and service access, outdoor amenity space and landscaping. REFUSED 22 May 2015 for 12 reasons 160012 Demolition prior Application for prior notification of proposed approval demolition (of car showroom). PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED 15 April 2016 160236 Full planningPart retrospective change of use to public car park application for temporary three year period. PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED 24 May 2016 Temporary permission until 24 May 2019. Implemented
3.2 Following the refusal of planning application 150120 and lasting from July 2015 until October 2016, the applicant entered into an extensive period of pre- application negotiation with your officers, which for the majority of the time, centred on attempting to achieve officer support for a development mass/building envelope. It should be noted that despite officer advice to do so, no information on the tenure or viability of the development was presented during these discussions.
4. CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory:
62
Environment Agency: no objections, subject to conditions and informatives being applied, which principally relate to contaminated land.
(ii) Non-statutory:
RBC Transport Strategy: general layout of the site in access, parking and servicing terms is suitable. Issues raised with regard to the alignment and safeguarding of the proposed MRT route, whilst also providing suitable pedestrian and cycle access, have now been resolved. Satisfied in terms of vehicle trips to be generated on the transport network. Parking provision at 0.16 spaces per unit is considered to be acceptable given the acceptability of the site and parking controls in the area will ensure additional on-street parking will not be a concern. Four car club spaces (three vehicles initially) is appropriate. 315 cycle parking spaces (one per flat) is acceptable. Travel plan required. CMS required. No objection to the application proposal, subject to conditions, s106 obligations and informatives.
RBC Environmental Protection (EP) raise a number of issues: • A noise mitigation scheme to the flats must be undertaken • A noise assessment is required from plant • Air quality to the development is considered to be acceptable • The site is known to be contaminated and at risk of land gas. Conditions recommended. • Construction-related conditions are required.
RBC Housing Development: advises that the scheme should comply with the Council’s adopted policies for delivering affordable housing. RBC Valuers have assisted officers in examining the submitted viability assessment and affordable housing offer. RBC Leisure has been involved in the s106 contribution towards leisure facilities in Kings Meadow RBC Planning (Natural Environment) (Tree Officer): has raised concerns regarding the landscaping scheme in relation to species and placement, discussed further below. RBC Ecologist has no objections, subject to a condition for wildlife mitigation and for the Tree Officer’s queries to be addressed RBC Sustainability Team: has reviewed the energy and sustainability strategies produced and concurs with the approach undertaken. Berkshire Archaeology: advises that the site is within the Area of Archaeological Potential and that a Written Scheme of Investigation is required. Historic England: the application should be assessed against National and local policy guidance and on the basis of Reading’s own specialist conservation advice. RBC Conservation Consultant: most settings of Heritage Assets which would be affected are to the south of the railway line and are therefore screened by intervening buildings. Considers that there would be less than substantial harm caused to the setting of the Kings Meadow Baths (Grade II), in Kings Meadow. This harm should, however, be weighed against the wider public benefits of the scheme. Emergency Planning Manager: risk of the building itself being a target for terrorist attack is low, but proximity to bomb blast of the Station is a risk. Suggests laminated glass for areas facing the station. Officer comment: noted and this could be a condition of any approval. Civil Aviation Authority: no response Wokingham Borough Council: no response South Oxfordshire District Council: no response
63
Reading Civic Society: no response Crime Prevention Design Advisor (Thames Valley Police): has a number of concerns with this complicated development, but advises that a comprehensive security strategy (secured by condition) could overcome this. Network Rail: has responded to the application, but the majority of their concerns relate to the safe functioning of the railway. The applicant is aware of these points, which in any event could form an informative of any permission. Crossrail: no response Caversham GLOBE: no response Reading UK CIC: no response Waste Manager: notes that there will be on-site management for towing bins to the correct places for presenting on collection day. No objections. Thames Water suggests informatives, but also request that two conditions be attached to any planning permission. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) has assessed the development in terms of daylight and sunlight impacts and wind/microclimate effects for the Council. No major concerns are highlighted and the Appraisal discusses this further.
The Caversham and District Residents Association (CADRA) has supplied detailed comments on the application. In summary, their points are:
o Welcomes rented accommodation, but part of it should be for key workers (i.e. affordable) o Welcome corridor for the MRT and the improvements to the railway underpass; not clear on the cycle route over to Caversham, though o The application makes its own interpretation of the RBC policy on tall buildings and uses that to justify placing 350 units on a relatively small site. In the developer’s diagram in the DAS, the curve showing acceptable heights diminishes less markedly than in the RBC diagram. If the RBC curve is superimposed on the developer’s diagram, Thames Quarter rises above the curve more significantly. o Because the sections are two-dimensional, north-south sections viewed from the east, Thames Tower seems to take its reasonable place among a cluster of tall buildings around the station, as advocated by the tall buildings policy. This is deceptive: the site actually lies considerably to the east of this cluster, as an east-west section would show. As a result, the proposal would introduce a single, isolated tower at 112m AOD into an area which is consistently and satisfactorily developed at 70-80m AOD. This is considered to be a fringe site to the tall buildings area. o Does not agree that the visual effect on such vantage-points such as Balmore Park will be positive. The result is a height and density of development which is overwhelming and which consequently impacts adversely, both on its immediate surroundings and from further afield o Also has concern for the visual impact of the development from a distance, particularly the isolated nature of the tower and its impact on views from north of the river. The point is well-illustrated in the excellent CGI images submitted with the application: we refer to numbers 11,12, 13 and 27. View 13 is particularly telling, showing the huge impact on the precious view down the river from Caversham Bridge, where the tower doubles the pretty uniform height of existing development. CADRA views this with particular concern and urges reconsideration. Why is the Thames Environs not covered in the Heritage Assessment? Officer comment: this view is not of itself, a ‘heritage asset’ although merits clear assessment against Policy CS8 (Waterspaces).
64
o The developer’s interpretation of the tall buildings policy seems to be the only justification for the quantum of development on the site, which we feel exceeds its capacity. For this to be justified, it needs to based in on fuller evidence: for example, of the minimum number of units needed to sustain the communal facilities in the project, or a financial appraisal which demonstrates that 350 units are needed to make the scheme viable in terms of costs, land values, returns and normal developer profit. o A narrow landscaping strip will be insufficient to mitigate the impact of the development. Architecture is not outstanding and will not compensate for this visual intrusion. Ground floor not sufficiently animated. o Overall, does not agree that reasons for refusal 3 and 4 of previous refusal 150120 (massing, views) have been overcome. o Support limited parking, but this will only work if there is some means of restricting car ownership by residents: otherwise, fly parking or the occupation of much-needed parking space nearby will nullify this desirable aim.
Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce supports the development, as it is felt that this will benefit the local economy. Comments that although the PRS tenure is unlikely to address the challenge of affordable homes provision, it does offer a financially accessible route for working professionals in Reading to live and work. It is also considered that it also supports regeneration in Reading town centre and delivers a credible solution for the town’s housing needs.
Thames Lido (owner/developer of Kings Meadow Baths) supports the application and considers that the development will significantly benefit local business and the city as a whole, although suggests that some of the more interesting design elements of the 2015 scheme should be incorporated.
McKay Securities considers that this is a gateway site into Reading, and the scheme proposed will provide a striking entry and exit for those on the railway. It provides sustainable accommodation in close proximity to the station, and when delivered will represent significant investment in the town and continue to enhance its regional status as the benefits of the Elizabeth Line become increasingly apparent. It is important that the detail of the design and materials used are of sufficiently high quality to compliment the status of the site.
Urban Design Reviews
An urban design review of an earlier version of the pre-application scheme was assessed by the Berkshire Panel of Design:South East in November 2015.
During the consideration of the current planning application, the advice of the Reading Design Review Panel (DRP) was sought in relation to the façade treatment of the building.
These reviews will be discussed in the design section below.
Public consultation
A number of site notices were erected in the vicinity of the site, including several outside Luscinia View, Napier Road Letters were also sent to the following addresses: All properties in Napier Court
65
All properties in Kingfisher Place
Five letters of support have been received. Four letters of objection have been received, raising the following issues:
• Putting to one side the growth in height of developments and the associated increase in population density that has occurred in Reading over the last decade without significant infrastructure improvements, it is bordering on negligence to allow this development to be built with only 49 car parking spaces. Considers that it would be a marketing error to assume that most potential typical residents would want to live in this development considering the limited onsite parking and scarce availability of on road parking. Officer comment: the marketability of these units is a matter for the applicant/developer. • In proportion to the number of flats, the number of parking spaces is just under half even what it was in the proposal rejected two years ago. Concerned that people will just go and park in Caversham. There is no visitor parking. Officer comment: inadequate car parking was not a reason for refusal of the 2015 scheme and this scheme shall be considered on its merits. • The height of the proposed structure will have a very imposing effect on domestic properties nearby and may be out of keeping. • Delivery vans will simply cause an obstruction as they have nowhere to park. • I note that the current public car parking (which is well used) is to disappear. Where will this go? • The development is inappropriate for the site due to high density of homes on a relatively small site. • It seems likely that a high proportion of these flats will be occupied by those unable to afford housing in London taking advantage of improved rail links thus increasing the population of Reading. What is being put in place to ensure homes in this site are occupied by the existing population of Reading and thereby reduce the pressure on the existing housing stock? Officer comment: the Council cannot dictate where potential occupiers originate from, although affordability is a legitimate planning consideration, see the Appraisal below. • Is there any provision to ensure a proportion of these properties are either owner occupied or if Let are done so on a long term basis? Concerned that there is an ever increasing transient population in Reading which seem to be less likely to contribute to the local community or care about the local area. • Is there provision for additional GPs? What extra funding will be given to RBH to cater for the increase in population? Officer comment: this is the ultimately the responsibility of the health authorities. • What school catchment will these tower blocks be in? How does the Council propose to find the space within these school(s) to accommodate these additional children? Officer comment: the LEA will consider the delivery of school provision and contributions from this development, were permission to be issued, would be required by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
(i) Applicant’s public consultation
The applicant has provided a detailed Statement of Community Involvement and details of this will be summarised in the Update Report.
5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay
66
special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
5.2 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the Local Planning Authority shall have ‘special regard’ to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
5.3 In terms of impact of development on the setting of a scheduled monument, securing the preservation of the monument ‘within an appropriate setting’ as required by national policy is solely a matter for the planning system. Whether any particular development within the setting of a scheduled monument will have an adverse impact on its significance is a matter of professional judgement. It will depend upon such variables as the nature, extent and design of the development proposed, the characteristics of the monument in question, its relationship to other monuments in the vicinity, its current landscape setting and its contribution to our understanding and appreciation of the monument.
5.4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.5 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)
The following NPPF chapters are relevant:
4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
5.6 Other Government Guidance which is a material consideration
Historic England Advice Note 4: Tall Buildings (2015) DCLG: Accelerating Housing Supply and Increasing Tenant Choice in the Private Rented Sector: A Build to Rent Guide for Local Authorities (2015) Government National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) suite
5.7 Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (January 2008) (as amended 2015)
CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) CS2 (Waste Minimisation) CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS8 (Waterspaces) CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) CS10 (Location of Employment Development) CS11 (Use of Land for Alternative Uses)
67
CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 (Affordable Housing) including update to policy, 2015 CS20 (Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011)) CS21 (Major Transport Projects) CS22 (Transport Assessments) CS23 (Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS25 (Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development) CS26 (Network and Hierarchy of Centres) CS29 (Provision of Open Space) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) CS35 (Flooding) CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) CS37 (Major Landscape Features and Strategic Open Space) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
5.8 Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Reading Central Area Action Plan (RCAAP) (2009)
RC1 (Development in the Station/River Major Opportunity Area). The site is identified in the RCAAP as site RC1h Napier Road Junction RC5 (Design in the Centre) RC6 (Definition of the Centre) RC9 (Living in the Centre) RC10 (Active Frontages) RC13 (Tall Buildings) (the site is at the eastern extremity of the RC13a Station Area Cluster) RC14 (Public Realm)
5.9 Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (as amended 2015)
SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM1 (Adaptation to Climate Change) DM2 (Decentralised Energy) DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) DM18 (Tree Planting) DM19 (Air Quality)
5.10 Supplementary Planning Documents
Reading Station Area Framework (RSAF) (2010) Sustainable Design and Construction (July 2011) Parking Standards and Design (October 2011) Employment, Skills and Training (April 2013) Affordable Housing (July 2013) Planning Obligations under S.106 (April 2015)
5.11 Other Reading Borough Council corporate documents
Reading Open Space Strategy (2007)
68
Reading Tree Strategy 2010 Local Transport Plan 3: Strategy 2011-2026 (2011)
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 Members may recall the previous ‘Swan Heights’ proposal, where planning permission was refused for 12 reasons at your meeting on 29 April 2015. This appraisal will also provide commentary on the differences between the two schemes, for comparison. The main issues raised by this current planning application are:
(i) Principle and land use (ii) Provision of MRT route, parking and servicing (iii) Assessment against policy requirements for tall buildings (iv) The PRS ‘Build-for Rent’ tenure, the viability of the scheme and the ability to deliver affordable housing (v) Residential scheme layout and design (vi) Other S.106 requirements
(i) Principle and land use
6.2 The site was formerly in use as a car dealership, a sui generis (unique) planning use. The officer report for application 150120 did not identify a policy conflict with the loss of that use. The site is currently in use for temporary public car parking (which will need to cease on or before 24 May 2019) and this was considered to be a suitable interim use of the site. On cessation of public car parking, the site will have a nil planning use. Whilst car parking is considered to be a satisfactory temporary use, it is not compatible with the RCAAP allocation nor the RSAF, which seek intensive development of this site at a Medium-High Density and also falls within the outer limits of the Station Area Tall Building Cluster.
Proposed uses
6.3 The RCAAP identifies sites within the Station/River Major Opportunity Area. This site is proposed on the edge of that area, as Policy RC1h as follows:
“RC1h, NAPIER ROAD JUNCTION: A landmark building, containing residential and/or offices is appropriate for this site, which may contain an active commercial use on the ground floor. An acceptable dry access scheme must be part of any development on this site”.
6.4 The proposal is residential, although the proposal contains a large amount of supporting facilities, including a café lobby, concierge/parcel store, cinema, dining-rooms, etc. However, these are all ancillary to the C3 use and these for the use of residents or their guests only.
6.5 Reason for refusal 9 of application 150120 related to the failure to undertake a retail sequential test for the retail units then proposed. None are proposed in this current application. In summary, the proposed land use (C3 residential, with facilities which are ancillary to the dwellings) is in accordance with RCAAP Policy RC1h. Fuller commentary on the precise tenure proposed is supplied in Section (v) below.
69
(ii) Provision of MRT route, parking and servicing
MRT
6.6 The NPPF requires development plans to set out opportunities for ensuring modal shift to more sustainable travel modes and protecting land for strategic transport projects (paragraphs 35 and 41). In relation to this site, this is reflected in Core Strategy policies CS20 which requires implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy, CS21 which seeks the realisation of major transport projects and RCAAP Policy RC1 which requires land to be safeguarded for mass rapid transit infrastructure. The RCAAP plan (Figure 6.2) shows the site on the MRT route, with a transit stop. Furthermore, point iv) of Policy RC1 requires that development in the Station/River Major Opportunity Area will safeguard land which is needed for mass rapid transit (MRT) routes and stops. The tall buildings policy, RC13, includes reference to such developments coming forward in a ‘coordinated manner’, which indicates the strategic transport requirements applicable to the realisation of these sites.
6.7 Reason for refusal 1 of the previous scheme related to inadequate provision being given over to the planned MRT route. This issue has been considered in detail in pre-application negotiations with the applicant over the past 18 months or so and these discussions have continued into the consideration of this planning application. The layout of the application has been adjusted to provide land within the application site to allow an additional lane for the MRT and a land swap has now been separately been formally agreed with the Council (as landowner). The proposal allows for a pedestrian crossing of Kings Meadow Road and the provision of an adjusted pedestrian route, segregated from the main highway. The MRT route itself is becoming a closer reality, with the necessary funding in place and designs for the route underway. The park and ride car park, which the MRT would connect to, was granted planning permission by Wokingham Borough Council in 2016 and at the time of writing, a planning application for the East Reading MRT to link Napier Road with Thames Valley Park has been submitted (but not agreed as being valid). Officers have considered the option of the developer providing the finalised MRT surface in the northern part of the site within this application, but it is not considered that this is able to be achieved within the policy requirements above. Therefore the design which has been agreed with the Highway Authority allows for the route to be inserted and suitable cycle and pedestrian access across the north-west and western edges of the site to be achieved.
Parking
6.8 Some objectors are concerned for the parking level for the proposal which is low: 49 spaces for the 315 flats, a ratio of 0.156 spaces per unit. This is a reduction from the originally-submitted design, which featured some 100 spaces, but this car parking deck was later removed from the plans. Notwithstanding, given the highly accessible nature of the site, the parking level is considered to be acceptable. The usual conditions that no parking permits will be issued to residents can be applied. The site is very accessible to the north station entrance and the town centre. Cycle parking has been given considerable thought and the 1:1 cycle parking spaces include not only lockers but also a range of storage types, depending on the nature of the cycle use. The site is also a good candidate site for a car club and the applicant has signalled a willingness to provide this.
70
6.9 Objectors’ concerns for the lack of car parking are noted, but this is a highly accessible site and there are considered to be sufficient on-street parking controls in the area (CPZs) to ensure that residents would not own cars and attempt to park them locally. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the approach above and raises no conflict with the parking policy or the Council’s adopted parking standards.
Servicing
6.10 An objector is concerned that small delivery vehicles will have nowhere to park/unload and will cause an obstruction. Indeed, the previous scheme included the service entrance on the northern side of the development, which would have obstructed the MRT route and formed reason for refusal 7. This application has sought to move the covered service entrance/bay to the east side, which is accessed over a private road, presumably with the necessary rights in place to do so. The Highway Authority is content that this arrangement overcomes the previous concerns.
6.11 Overall, officers are satisfied that the development is suitable in terms of the way it has been designed to accommodate the wider strategic requirements of the MRT route, the maintenance of pedestrian ‘desirelines’ and safety, adequate parking with careful thought given to sustainable modes of transport and suitable servicing. The application is therefore compliant with policies CS4, CS20-2, Policy DM12 and the Parking and Design SPD, as well as the Council’s broader stated aspirations for MRT and public parking.
(iii) Assessment against policy requirements for tall buildings
6.12 The 2015 Swan Heights scheme was considered to be unacceptable in terms of its visual and townscape impact. Reason for refusal 3 was the failure of the design to respond to its local context due to bulk/scale/massing and reason 4 was the generally poor impact of the presence of the three tall towers in views within the Borough and beyond.
Overview of relevant policy
6.13 The site is currently in car parking use, comprising of a cleared site and a separate three deck parking block. The use and the design of the present block appears reasonable in its context, but rather commercial in appearance and given the general height of the buildings around (typically 5-6 storeys, with Reading Bridge House at 11 commercial storeys), it appears somewhat squat, although the office complex to the east (Napier Court) has more of a low-density business park character and is only two storeys high. In any event, the RC1h designation envisages a much denser, higher development and this is also proposed to be carried forward in the new draft local plan, which shows an indicative development potential for this site of 200-300 dwellings, plus some commercial. Napier Court is also identified in the draft plan for higher density redevelopment. Therefore, the removal of the present building and the redevelopment of the site more intensively is acceptable in principle. The Development Plan and supplementary guidance in the Reading Station Area Framework (RSAF) guide how intensive that redevelopment should be.
6.14 CADRA has raised concerns for how the tall buildings are being presented in the scheme and considers that the effect on views within the Borough will be greater
71
than suggested in the DAS. The application needs to be considered in the context of the actual wording of the Development Plan (relevant policies of the Core Strategy, the RCAAP and the SDPD) and then the guidance contained in the RSAF.
6.15 The RBC Tall Buildings Strategy (2006) (a background paper to the RCAAP) identified a cluster of tall buildings around the station where the tallest buildings are intended to command the dominant position in the cluster for the Reading skyline. The eastern and western tall building zones identify point makers, such as The Blade and Kings Point in the east and Fountain House and Chatham Place in the west. In this way, the skyline of the town is balanced and the appropriate scale or build-up of scale can be attributed to the locations of the greatest importance and sustainability. This is related to the increased densities for the central area, as set out in the RCAAP.
6.16 In the RSAF, the aspirations for heights are set out in Chapter 6 entitled, Density, Mass and Height. The application site is indicated for “Medium-High Density” (Figure 6.7) (as opposed to “Very High” for the more central sites in the tall building cluster around the Station) and suitable for a “Local Landmark” building (Figure 6.8) (as opposed to other sites which are identified as suitable for a “District Landmark”). Therefore the RSAF provides more specific advice on the exact function of the landmark. Figure 6.10 of the SPD is the suggested height isochrones in the central area (entitled “tall building location guidance”) and indicates that a lower overall height would be appropriate for this site, which is at the eastern extremity of the RSAF area. The RSAF is clear, then, in indicating that in height and density terms, this site is to be developed at a significantly smaller scale than the tallest buildings which would be sited immediately adjacent to the station. These various figures will be shown at your meeting.
6.17 Whilst exceptions to the general reduction away from the station area are possible, these would need to be carefully controlled. Paragraph 6.26 of the RSAF states that:
“Landmark buildings may exceptionally ‘puncture’ the benchmark heights [8 storeys on this site, as set out in the RSAF, Figure 6.8] and the general ‘dome’ massing pattern in order to create emphasis and to mark important places. It is not envisaged that every potential landmark location in Figure 6.9 will necessarily provide a landmark building”.
6.18 From the brief policy examination above, therefore, the development opportunity of this site is considered to be for a single local landmark building which will need to show deference/subservience to the height of the buildings at the centre of the Station Area Cluster. It should nevertheless be capable of functioning as a gateway building, or in the words of the RSAF, a ‘local landmark’.
Design reviews
6.19 The pre-application proposal was reviewed in 2016 by Design: South East, when a previous architect was working on the scheme. This review established several principles: that there should be one tower; that the overall height was suitable; and that light levels and outlooks to the various building elements should be considered closely. That review was used to inform the general building envelope of the current scheme which has been developed. The application was
72
then later looked at in detail by the Reading Design Review Panel (DRP) in March 2017, discussed further in the section below.
Policy RC13 (Tall Buildings)
6.20 Both the tower element and the lower element of the development are ‘tall buildings’ in terms of Policy RC13. Policy RC13 is the Council’s tall buildings policy, contained within the adopted RCAAP. The sections below review the application scheme in terms of the various requirements of the policy, where relevant.
Creation of a tall building cluster, which is ‘coherent’ and sustainable next to the station.
6.21 The height of the proposed tower is arguably the most significant and obvious attribute of this proposal, so it would be useful to set out the height proposed against recent tall building proposals in the central area.
6.22 Station Hill 3 (permission 130436) was granted outline planning permission in January 2015. An extension to this outline area and a Reserved Matters application have also subsequently been approved (151426).
6.23 The upper and lower height parameters for the tallest building in the permitted SH3 scheme, Plot C, are approximately 22-28 commercial storeys. If built, Plot C (on the basis of the current planning permissions) would be the tallest building in Reading. The table below offers a brief comparison, with the application site sitting within the height table, which is in descending order of height.
6.24 A core concern of the previous Swan Heights scheme was the way in which it would have dwarfed its surroundings, as it would have been able to have been seen from long distances and at the medium range, it would have caused it to be confused with the centre of the tall building massing dome, rather than the edge.
Site Height (max.) Comment/status
Plot C, Station Hill 3 109-128m AOD OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION, not commenced. (the height is a range due to the parameters set by the outline planning permission) 29-35 Station Road 112.6m AOD Lapsed 2014 Thames Quarter 111.7 AOD Royal Mail site 103.4m AOD OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION, with height parameters Lapsed 2017 Thames Tower 103.3m AOD PERMISSION, completed (with roof extension) Chatham Place 102.5m AOD PERMISSION, completed Kings Point 89.4m AOD PERMISSION, under construction
6.25 The table above suggests that there could be concern for the overall height of the tower. The height when seen purely from above ordnance datum (rather than immediately how the building will be experienced from natural ground
73
level), puts the height in between the former scheme for the Station Road residential tower and the Royal Mail B1 tower. Both of these permissions have now lapsed, but the likelihood at this point in time is that at some point, new applications will be submitted and officers advise that the emerging replacement Local Plan in draft form is not recommending any major alterations in policy. However, consideration should be given to the RCAAP and RSAF’s indications that there may exceptionally be cases where a taller building should be allowed to ‘puncture’ the massing dome. Officers agree that this site is one of those instances. The inclusion of the site within the edge of the Station Area tall building cluster is an indication that this is capable of accommodating a tall building. Further, the purpose of this must be to form a relationship with the other tall buildings in the cluster and add legibility to the edge of the cluster. The site is sufficiently divorced from the Eastern Grouping such that in general, there is considered to be no concerns for the heights competing with that cluster. Therefore, in general policy terms, the height proposed is considered, on balance, to be acceptable, subject to satisfactory impacts on views, townscape, skyline and heritage assets.
Avoiding bulky/over-dominant massing and contribution to high quality views (distant, middle, local).
6.26 Pre-application discussions during 2015 and 2016 focused largely on alternative options for bulk and massing on the site. The Swan Heights proposal was considered to be capable of harm to a range of views and settings in the Borough at all distances. The main issues in the assessment of that application included harm to Heritage Assets (and failure to correctly quantify that harm), impact on long-range views and in particular the Thames Valley environs and the extent to which the three towers would have upset the tall building ‘massing dome’, by confusing the development with the centre of Reading.
6.27 This scheme now has one tall tower at the western end of the site, rather than three. This is an acknowledgment of the policy requirement for a Local Landmark. However, this is still not to necessarily be equated with a tall building and the architecture proposed must be of exceptional quality.
6.28 The applicant’s DAS describes the design envelope in terms which echo the RSAF, in that there is a ‘landmark building’ (the tower) and a ‘benchmark building’ (the lower element). The North-West corner is identified as the location for the tower and given the location of the railway and the centre of the tall building cluster, this is considered to be the best location for the taller element of the scheme. The benchmark building is the lower building and its height has been primarily dictated by the prevailing heights of the surrounding built form, for instance the Forbury Place development. In proportion, the tower is roughly twice the height of the tower and in your officers’ opinion – as has also been voiced in design reviews – anything less would appear proportionally to be too squat. Therefore, the design proposes a benchmark height ‘city-block’ building and this surrounds the tower. The architectural detail, discussed further below, seeks to distinguish the two distinct design elements. Officers are therefore content that the massing complies with the RC1h designation for the site as amplified by the RSAF, which require a single tall building.
6.29 The development would be evident in the majority of views affected, but of course, the effects would be much-reduced over the previous Swan heights proposal. In the near and middle-range distances, the development has two roles: to become a component part of the townscape and to announce the
74
gateway of the town centre from the north and east and especially when approaching by rail from London.
6.30 The impact on Kings Meadow needs careful consideration. Kings Meadow is one of the Thames Parks and an important open space in the central area. The Swan Heights proposal caused overbearing and overshadowing to this space and this impact formed part of reason for refusal 3 of the application. The current application has a much more pleasing relationship with the park and the relative heights allow for much more harmonious integration into the townscape.
6.31 The majority of views are much less adversely affected than with the Swan Heights scheme. This is a function of the single tower and more careful attention to the prevailing architecture in the locality. However, not all views are positive; for instance from Balmore Park the tower completely obscures The Blade, which is unfortunate, because The Blade should be able to be recognised as the primary building in the Eastern (tall building) Grouping. But it should be remembered that this is just from this one vantage-point and the development of the Kings Point proposal will re-establish the presence of the Eastern Grouping. From Caversham Bridge, the development appears to be somewhat distant from the Station and this is correctly expressing its location as this outlier/gateway location to the central area. The overall height is similar to the (now lapsed) planning permissions which existed for the tallest buildings on the Royal Mail sorting office site on Caversham Road and 29-35 Station Road; but these slight variations in height are unlikely to be immediately identifiable.
6.32 Overall, despite what appears as a slightly overly-extended massing, the form of the tall tower is considered to be elegant and any harm that may occur is considered to be comparatively limited. On balance, the scale, form and massing, when considered in the context of views and townscape is considered to be supportable via policies CS7, RC5 and RC13.
Enhancing Reading’s skyline, through a distinctive profile and careful attention to the upper and middle sections of the building.
6.33 Swan Heights proposed an aggressive and dominant assertion of tall building forms on the skyline. The Thames Quarter application seeks a more measured addition to the built form of the central area at higher levels. The recent DRP review has resulted in a number of design improvements to the building at middle and upper levels. The building materials have been simplified, so that the tower would be composed of large, natural clay off-white panels, the originally proposed integrating lighting has been removed, attached balconies have been omitted and the crown of the building has been reduced. In addition, there are now subtle delineations, from which the base, middle and top of the building can be discerned. Whilst not proposing to be a dramatic structure, officers are satisfied that the tower would be a positive addition to the central Reading skyline.
Provision of space between tall buildings, so tall buildings can be read individually.
6.34 A major failing of the Swan heights scheme was that the towers, from many angles, would appear to close up, and a solid building mass would have been created. With only one tower, this issue is resolved and there are considered to be no other logical tall building sites in close proximity where this may become an issue in the foreseeable future.
75
Responding to context (urban grain, streetscape, built form, local styles)
6.35 Policy RC13 requires excellent design and architectural quality for tall building proposals. The EH Guidance on tall buildings contains criteria and guidance which are echoed in Policy RC13. The guide places emphasis not just on the architectural quality but also on the credibility of the design (both technically and financially).
6.36 Policy CS7 is the Core Strategy design policy and requires that all development must be of high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. The components of urban form are identified as layout, landscape, density and mix, scale and architectural detail. The policy then advises that all of these aspects will be assessed to ensure that the development makes a positive contribution to the urban design objectives of character; continuity/enclosure; a quality public realm; permeability; legibility; adaptability; and diversity. The applicant’s DAS responds to each of these requirements (at Section 3.6).
6.37 The immediate environs are a generally a mix of structures and commercial buildings, with residential slightly further away. To the west is the short north- south section of Vastern Road which continues under the railway bridge and the roundabout which links that road with Vastern Road, George Street and Kings Meadow Road.
6.38 To the north is Reading Bridge House (11 storeys from Kings Meadow Road level). This is a long 1960s office building, in buff brick and concrete with greenish spandrel panels between windows, which has been refurbished, with its main entrance accessed from a bridge link to Reading Bridge. To its east Kings Meadow House (occupied by the Environment Agency) is a brick-built 1980s/1990s five storey block in orange/pink brick with slightly reflective arched windows. Beyond these buildings, on the banks of the Thames, is a brick-built residential development known as Kingfisher Court, in mottled buff/orange/red brick, imitation slate roofs of mostly three storeys which appears to date from the 1980s. It occupies quite a secluded location in this part of Kings Meadow Road, which is a cul-de-sac.
6.39 Beyond the north-east of the site is a residential dwelling, known as ‘The Lodge’, 22 Kings Meadow Road, which is a pretty, detached property in brick and stone with mock Tudor gable, circa.1900. This is a Council-owned property, occupied as a ‘tied’ property by a former park keeper. Further to the north-east is King’s Meadow, one of the town’s linear parks. The eastern end of the Meadow is open playing field surrounded by trees, except for a small car park. The Meadow contains the Kings Meadow Baths (Listed Grade II, built 1902), which is nearing its completion into its renovation and conversion into the Thames Lido. At the eastern end of Napier Road lies Luscinia View (the six residential blocks with the curved blue roofs) in pale blue and white render and buff brick, of varying heights, the maximum being 10 residential storeys.
6.40 To the east of the site is a two storey office development in a series of three blocks, known as Napier Court. This is a low-rise (two storey) buff-brick development with traditional pitched roofs on a linear site with tinted windows and appears to be circa. early 1990s. It has the look of a low-density ‘business park’ type development. Unlike the RCAAP, this site is an identified site in the
76
draft Local Plan (Policy CR11i Napier Court) and envisages 180-260 dwellings coming forward on this site.
6.41 To the south, the application site abuts the main line railway embankment and beyond that is The Forbury Square development (11 storeys). These are three contemporary office buildings, running along the north side of the western end of Forbury Road. The railway bridge next the westernmost one was widened as part of the station upgrade and is a functional structure constructed of sectional cast iron. Beyond this, to the south-west, is Apex Plaza, the late 1980s/early 1990s office complex in pink-coloured cladding, a maximum of eight storeys. To the west on the opposite side of the roundabout is the First Great Western multi- storey car park. This is a 1980s building in concrete with buff brick, arches and red brick stair cores and a pronounced concrete car circulation ramp full height at its north-eastern side, near the railway bridge/embankment. Beyond is the Northern Station Entrance, now completed, although the square appears somewhat incomplete, with the fencing on its northern and western sides, where redevelopment proposals have yet to come forward to ‘front’ the square.
6.42 To the north-west of the application site next to Reading Bridge lies Clearwater Court (the Thames Water offices) which is approximately five storeys. This is a round building with a central courtyard opening up to the Thames, in reconstituted stone and quite traditional windows with intricate balcony-type bars and a curving slate-effect roof. The overall effect is a Scottish-style ‘Mackintosh’-inspired building. To the west of Clearwater Court lies 2 Norman Place, a large four storey office building in buff/light brown brick, stone lintels and a traditional slate-effect gabled and pitched roof.
6.43 To summarise the character of the immediate area, it is mostly comprised of fairly low-key commercial buildings, with a pocket of residential - Kingfisher Court – due to its scale and intimacy is at odds with the scale of the surrounding commercial buildings. A challenge to the application’s design is therefore how to integrate with the generally commercial atmosphere of the buildings, yet gently indicate through its architecture and contribution to urban form and public realm, that this is a residential development and one that helps to soften the austerity which is prevalent. The building must attract people to its edge, contribute to easing the destination through to Kings Meadow and through its design, present a more human building form, especially at ground level, in order to mesh together all the competing design elements at this junction site.
6.44 In terms of height, buildings vary from two storeys to a maximum of 11 storeys but about 5-6 storeys is the prevailing height of the ‘urban grain’. Some of these developments utilise their sites intensively, so that sometimes, even a five storey building is perceived as a dense development and most work at designs which seek to reduce the bulk and massing (roof set-backs, for instance). Reading Bridge House at 11 storeys is clearly a ‘tall building’ in this area and arguably not reflective of the prevailing scale of buildings and is not a sensitive building in relation to the Thames environment. Most of these developments have suitable open spaces within them and at their edges, such as planted car parks, as the present development on the application site has.
6.45 The application proposal is much more sensitive to its local context than the Swan Heights scheme and the DAS explains the urban design rationale at Section 3.2 (Developing the Layout):
77
Establishing an urban strategy Active frontage Create a landmark tower Building to the streetedge Creating the public realm
6.46 These principles build on the design aims set out in Policy CS7. In summary, the general aims of the development needing to respond positively to the urban grain are met and this part of Policy RC13 complied with. Sections below will discuss these matters in further detail.
Use of high quality materials and finishes
6.47 The Historic England Guide and Policy RC13 require tall building proposals to exhibit the highest architectural standards.
6.48 In terms of external materials, the building is proposed to be constructed as follows:
-The lower levels of the development will use a grey brick finish and aluminium windows. There will be large expanses of glazing at the corner entrance and the northerly bike entrance -The tower would be clad in large off-white terracotta tiles, stacked vertically -The benchmark (lower) building would be generally red-brick in appearance (using red brick-slips) and the lower and upper levels of the building would be grey. -Both building elements would feature windows with marked ‘reveals’ to help accentuate the window openings.
6.49 The recent design improvements - the outcome of the recent Design Review Panel meeting - have led to a simpler, clearer architectural expression. As originally submitted, there were some confusing building elements and a failure to correctly distance the tower from the remainder of the development. Sample materials will be available at your meeting and officers also advise that mock-up building elements are produced and approved on site before construction commences, to ensure that the architecture delivered is exemplary.
6.50 The massing of the proposal is now composed of two discrete elements: a single tower on the North-Westerly corner and a lower block. These are primarily distinguished from each other by their colouring: the tower would be clad in large, off-white natural terracotta panels and the lower block would be clad in red-brick, brick slips: so essentially, it would have the appearance of a more regular town centre building. Via the recent Design Review Panel (DRP) review, improvements have been made to these façade details. Focus has been placed on the materials themselves, the window details and surrounds and the way that both building elements are divided in having a discernible ‘base’, ‘middle’, and ‘top’.
6.51 The lower levels of the building are suitably animated, with a welcoming entrance lobby on the corner and a very accessible bike entrance on the north side, and this will be a busy secondary entrance. The previous retail uses as shown on the 2015 scheme have been removed and this is largely as a result of a realisation by the applicant that this is outside of a defined retail centre and unlikely to be sufficiently attractive a retail location. Therefore the key unit,
78
which was to have been a café, has been modified to be a café space as part of the residential lobby in order to maintain a semblance of active frontage.
6.52 Recent alterations to the façades have resulted in bands dividing the three sections of both building elements. The lower floors of both the tower and the lower block are now shown in grey brick, which is considered to be a smart alternative colouring at the lower level, providing continuity across the development at ground level, whilst allowing the elements above to express themselves individually.
Providing a human scale streetscape, with rich architecture which reflects local surroundings through the definition of any upper storey setback
6.53 The Council’s Tall Building Strategy generally advocates the principle of a podium and slender towers atop for tall buildings. Although this is not always appropriate, the principle of a lower building and then a taller element is considered to be suitable here. The benchmark building has a slight set-back at its roof levels. The architecture alters at the lower levels (as described above) and with the improvements to the public realm at the front of the site, the sufficient deference to the human level street is considered to be achieved.
Create safe, pleasant and attractive spaces, and avoid detrimental impacts on the existing public realm and production of high quality public realm. Locate parking within or below the development
6.54 The site has a number of on-site environmental considerations to address in order to ensure its suitability for a predominantly residential development. The development itself also raises issues in terms of the quality of the living environment for residents and its environmental effects beyond the site.
External public realm
6.55 This will be a large and dense development and there is a need for a detailed and deliverable landscaping scheme to help to mitigate the impact of the proposal. The site at present contains a number of trees and all are to be removed. Reason for refusal 2 of the Swan Heights development related to the insufficient and compromised area that would be left for the development, were the MRT route to be delivered.
6.56 Chapter 6 of the DAS presents the landscaping strategy. External planted amenity landscaped areas are shown on the Vastern Road and Kings Meadow Road frontages and it is important that in this area of the Borough where there is less than 10% canopy coverage, all developments address this shortfall via additional tree canopy provision.
6.57 The DAS describes the principle and the finish as contemporary but restrained. The layout plan displays a series of design improvements over the existing situation. The principle of providing public realm on the ‘outside’ of the building footprint only in this instance is seen as appropriate, as anything else would not allow a sufficient development density to come forward. It is also suitable in terms of enclosure, permeability and legibility. The urban design study (as set out in the DAS) also identifies the heavy footfall from under the railway bridge to Kings Meadow and the landscaping responds to this, by integrating a relocated pedestrian/cycleway and separating this from the carriageway edge via a landscaped strip. This landscaped strip would essentially be low-level shrubs and
79
this would seek to reflect the planting on the opposite side of the road fronting Kings Meadow House, to soften the entrance to Kings Meadow Road/Napier Road. Level improvements and landscaping improvements would occur on the western edge of the site. The design shown will be delivered with a series of land swaps and licences, which have been agreed in principle with the Council’s Valuer/the Highway Authority and the applicant.
6.58 Additional trees would be planted in the ground (where underground services allow). For instance, unlike the Swan Heights scheme, trees are now able to be provided in the ground to frame the secondary residential (bike store) entrance and the north-east edge of the building, where the developer proposes to raise the ground level into a mound and plant trees on top, in order to avoid the services which are underneath. It will also be necessary to provide trees on the western area to frame the front entrance where the level changes for the steps and ramps are shown. This will be a complicated area to achieve and the underground services may hamper trees rooting into the ground, in which case, the new terracing will need to include integrated planters.
6.59 Recent reconsultation with the Tree Officer indicates that the general landscaping arrangement showing the finalised MRT safeguarded route is now acceptable. However, her original concerns are that there was an over- concentration on one species (and therefore risk of failure from disease spread) and the general lack of detail of a final scheme, still remain.
6.60 Accordingly, the applicant has been asked to re-visit these aspects and has supplied a sketch of proposed alternative species and covering email. Alternative species are shown on the sketch plan attached at the end of this report. For the amenity terraces, a field maple is offered as a possible alternative to the originally proposed variety of birch tree. This is not a full scheme, however.
6.61 Specifications of the hard landscaping are not known but are indicatively shown as being high quality, using rectangular paving in grey and sand/gold colours, using a ‘brick bond’ which would echo the building itself.
6.62 Although details are lacking at this stage, the applicant has provided further clarity of species, etc. Details are missing on stock sizes, maintenance, etc. CADRA’s concern is that the trees will never fully mitigate the impact of this large development and CADRA is right; but a balance needs to be struck between the aims of policies which seek to improve landscaping in urban areas and those which encourage the dense redevelopment of accessible brownfield sites such as this. Notwithstanding, officers are now generally confident that a comprehensive landscaping solution is deliverable, both in terms of a suitable visual mitigation/amenity and highways considerations and subject to conditions for a detailed scheme, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of the various policies for providing improvements to public realm and greening/landscaping of the urban environment: RC1, RC14, RC13, CS7, CS38, DM18 and the Council’s Tree Strategy. The ecologist’s requirements for biodiversity enhancements could be secured by condition.
6.63 External lighting for the building has now been omitted from the scheme and there is no indication of any lighting (although additional/replacement lighting under the railway bridge is possible). A condition is recommended.
80
External roof gardens
6.64 Policy RC9 (Living in the Centre), criterion 2, is concerned for new residential units in central areas, which by their nature can present potentially harsh living environments in terms of noise and air quality. The policy requires that mitigation is presented in proposals, where necessary. Furthermore, it states that residential development should not be located next to existing town centre uses where the noise levels would give rise to unacceptable levels of disturbance. Whilst the site is allocated for an option for residential use, this policy requirement nevertheless needs to be satisfied.
6.65 It is recognised that the application site is heavily constrained in noise and air quality terms, being sited next to a major railway line on its south side, the IDR on its west side and Kings Meadow Road/Napier Road on its North Side. The development is also likely to experience vibration from passing trains. The development needs to demonstrate suitability in terms of providing a safe and pleasant environment for its residents.
6.66 The Swan Heights scheme was considered to be unacceptable in terms of the way in which the poor air quality associated with the railway would be hemmed in by the shape of the building form and the ability to deliver suitable external air quality to the space had not been demonstrated.
6.67 The design of the development appears to have similar potential concerns in these respects. The elevated communal amenity spaces face the railway and are enclosed on three sides, as the flat block separates them, as the block shape is a capital ‘E’. Also, there are some flat block windows which are near to the railway line, although as they are now in the side of the blocks, not the end, the relationship is not so direct. There are noted elevated concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, however, in this instance, the applicant has demonstrated to the Council’s Environmental Protection Team’s satisfaction that the areas will be suitable in terms of air quality.
6.68 In terms of these terraced areas, most are open to all residents to use and this gives a flexibility to use the spaces which may be the most attractive at the time in terms of sun, weather protection, etc. The main areas are on levels 3 and 10. Level 3 features two square-ish spaces oriented south, framed by the flats around them and they are for the use of those flats and there would be some private screening to prevent direct overlooking and a defensible space. On level 10 is a long, linear space which looks northwards out over Kings Meadow and is open to all, as is a further smaller terrace on the south. There are two smaller private terraces on levels 12 and 22.
6.69 Overall, these terraces would provide a high standard of communal amenity space for the residents, subject to controls on the standard of finish. The centralised method of control for the PRS development will ensure close management of such areas for the maximum benefit of residents. Officers are satisfied that the aims of Policy DM10 are met in this application.
6.70 The development takes the opportunity to incorporate limited car parking near the railway embankment, as sub-surface parking is not possible with the extent of underground services.
Preserve/enhance settings/views in relation Heritage Assets
81
6.71 Officers have considered the effects on all Heritage Assets which may be adversely affected by the application. Historic England advises that the Local Planning Authority can assess this and does not wish to comment. The application has been considered by the Council’s Conservation Consultant.
6.72 There are many listed buildings whose settings could potentially be affected, but most are too distant from the application site. The nearest Listed Building is the Kings Meadow Baths (Grade II) and although an additional building mass will be presented to the Baths, creating some significant overshadowing very near to it. However, given that the development is some 100 metres away and there are mature trees which screen for most of the year, the development will not overshadow the baths and the general setting within Kings Meadow will remain (albeit it will be altered by the presence of the development), overall, officers are satisfied that the harm to the setting of the Baths which may occur is low and not sufficient to cause significant harm within the terms of Policy CS33 and the NPPF’s guidance on such effects on Heritage Assets.
6.73 Given the reduced height when compared to the Swan Heights scheme, impacts are lessened on many assets further South. This is largely due to the completion of the Forbury Square scheme, which shields the development from the prison (Grade II) the Abbey Ruins (Scheduled Ancient Monument) and the Forbury Gardens (a Registered Garden). Clear views from both Forbury Gardens and Caversham Court Gardens (again Registered) are not possible, due to tree cover and the lessened bulk at height, when compared to the previous Swan Heights Scheme. Whilst the development will be seen from views from St. Lawrence’ s Church (Grade I), there will be a limited impact on its setting, given that the tower would just be visible over the lower eastern element of the church. Views out of the Market Place (Conservation Area) would be largely unaltered, although the presence of the tower would be discernible.
6.74 Overall, officers are satisfied that impacts on heritage assets are reasonable and that impacts on their settings and views would not be so significant as to override the policy aims which seek a dense development on this site, which incorporates a ‘district landmark’.
Mitigation of wind speed/turbulence
6.75 The application has been supplied with a wind/microclimate study to support the submitted design. This document has been thoroughly reviewed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) on behalf of the Council. Officers had concerns for the usability and attractiveness of some of the external amenity areas with the Swan Heights proposal and these areas have again been the focus of concern with this current application.
6.76 Concerns were raised by the BRE on the assessment criteria used by the applicant, as these did not accurately correlate with the acceptable Lawson (comfort) Criteria. Importantly, the BRE and officers were concerned that the applicant’s assessment only considered suitability in the summer months. Queries were raised about the measurement locations undertaken. A second assessment was then undertaken. Following a meeting between the various consultants and officers, the BRE was able to advise that the proposed wind conditions would be safe within the whole of the development (street level and on the elevated terraces) and appeared to be suitable for the intended usage of the site, subject to various caveats.
82
6.77 There will be opportunities to use the roof terraces at all times of the year for at least short periods and a significant amount of the terraces will be suitable for longer periods of sitting throughout the year. It was agreed at the meeting that for reasons of comfort, the South-Western terrace on Level 12 should have its parapet height increased to 1.6m and this should be set out in a planning condition.
6.78 In summary, whilst there has been a difference of approach in how the BRE regard that this issue has been assessed, the BRE is at a position where they are able to agree that the wind study has been undertaken to an acceptable standard. There will at times we windy and uncomfortable terraced areas, but the options available to residents are varied and the ground conditions suitable. Officers therefore advise that a generally comfortable environment for the intended purpose of each space will result and this complies with policies CS7, RC5, RC9, CS13, CS34, DM4 and DM10, and paragraphs 56 and 59 of the NPPF, which seek to achieve good quality public spaces which are inviting.
Suitable levels of daylighting and sunlighting are able to reach buildings and spaces within the development and no harm caused beyond the site
6.79 Although the policy criterion is only concerned with the development itself, other policies (for instance SDPS Policy DM4: Safeguarding Amenity) are concerned for effects beyond the site. The BRE was also instructed to examine the applicant’s light analysis report.
6.80 The Swan Heights scheme produced some poor light levels due to the proximity of the towers to one another and this and impacts on further properties led to a reason for refusal. The BRE advises that the compliance rate for daylight provision to the proposed flats is considered to be high, compared to the majority of flats in urban areas. Obstructions to light entering the flats is minimal due to the avoidance (and removal) of balconies and the most obstructed flats are the lower flats in the Level 03 courtyards.
6.81 The Swan Heights proposal also neglected to survey light impacts on surrounding residential. This has been suitably modelled in this scheme and no significant issues of overbearing, glare, etc. are identified. Although impacts on Kings Meadow have not been modelled, the BRE does not raise any concerns for this. Given the above, although there will be limited instances where light penetration to flats is not substantial, the scheme is considered to be acceptable by your officers and indicates no conflict is identified with policies RC1, RC5, RC13 and DM4.
RC13 summary
6.82 In summary, the application is considered to meet the vast majority of the criteria in the Council’s tall buildings policy. The section below examines scheme-specific layout and amenity considerations.
(iv) The PRS ‘Build-for Rent’ tenure, viability of the scheme and the ability to deliver affordable housing
Planning policy
83
6.83 The achievement of affordable housing provision is outside the remit of CIL. Policy CS16 (Affordable Housing) as revised, sets a requirement that 30% of all housing within relevant major developments shall be affordable. This requirement is also supported by the Council’s adopted SPD, ‘Affordable Housing’. Reason for refusal 8 of the 2015 scheme was the lack of an affordable housing offer.
Affordable housing package: overview
6.84 The initial offer from the applicant on the basis of the viability assessment which was undertaken was for zero affordable housing to be provided with the application. As a result of on-going discussions regarding the form of the development, the applicant has accepted officers’ advice that PRS is not an affordable tenure (in terms of RBC’s policies) and affordable housing provision is required. As a result of these discussions, and based on the specific economics of the “Build to Rent” model development being promoted, the applicant put forward an initial proposal. This offered to make 10% of the apartments (32 units) available which would have consisted of 60% one-beds and 40% two-beds, pepper-potted within the scheme, at 80% of the building’s open market rent plus any service charge. They would be offered on a priority and preferential basis, to Key Workers.
6.85 Officers confirmed that this did not constitute housing that would be affordable by those identified as in need of affordable housing in Reading. An alternative affordable housing offer has now been put forward as described below.
6.86 A ‘one-off’ contribution of £4m. This would be payable on, or before, first occupation of the development. As part of this offer, the applicant has undertaken to use reasonable endeavours in seeking to purchase a ‘surrogate’ site close to the central area of Reading to accommodate a minimum of 20 dwellings, which will be passed on immediately to a registered provider for the provision of 100% affordable housing. The remainder of the £4m offered - after paying the market price and associated costs - would be paid in the form of a financial contribution in lieu, to fund affordable housing in the Borough.
6.87 The applicant, Lochailort, is proposing the development of a purpose-built “Build to Rent” Scheme. “Build to Rent” is a form of housing provision bought, operated and managed by a single large financial institution as a long-term investment vehicle. It is a model that is well-established in the United States and in parts of continental Europe. The government is now encouraging it in England as a way of diversifying the market, bringing in different players as developers and achieving higher levels of housing provision. Over the last 2 or 3 years, there have been a number of such schemes in cities such as Manchester, Newcastle and London. Coopers BMW would be the first scheme in Reading.
6.88 All commentators agree that “Build to Rent” has different viability characteristics to other forms of housing provision. Returns are based solely on rental income rather than sales so it has much slower short-term returns and a very much longer payback period. It cannot therefore be valued in the same way as a standard build for sale scheme. Lochailort have submitted an independent viability appraisal for the scheme which advises that in viability terms the development cannot afford to provide any affordable housing. Notwithstanding that, the Council’s Valuer, assisted by consultants with some experience of such schemes, has accepted that the offer of £4 million pounds is an appropriate level of mitigation for the scheme as proposed.
84
6.89 The American model of “Build to Rent” involves high quality accommodation with substantial communal spaces (large entrance area, roof top gardens, cinema, meeting and dining rooms) and other services and facilities. This means that there is a low net to gross floorspace ratio in the residential accommodation (the application only provides 64% given over to the residential units themselves, compared with an expected usage of around 80% in a standard build for sale scheme). It does therefore have relatively high costs which have to be set against returns provided by long term rental income. In these schemes, long– term tenancies are advantageous for the owning institution. The high specification facilities are designed to attract tenants to stay long term (typically three or more years) thus reducing running costs.
6.90 The applicant has provided a “PRS Market Report” as part of the application submissions. Based on this, the applicant is of the view that the development will have particular benefits to Reading: it will bring high quality rental accommodation that satisfies a growing market in a transient and mobile employment market; it will have significant benefits for the Reading economy; it provides a different ownership model to most private rented accommodation that currently exists; it will provide longer tenancies; and it is likely to lead to the early provision of additional housing in what is now an uncertain housing market. This is also considered to be a high quality scheme which has had considerable input from architects and different design review panels.
6.91 There are also other specific benefits arising from the development. The applicant has agreed to a land swap to facilitate the MRT route along Napier Road. Furthermore, the offer includes:
• £120,000 towards improvements to Kings Meadow park; • £100,000 towards improvements to the Vastern Road railway underpass • £86,700 towards a new signalised pedestrian crossing on Kings Meadow Road • £46,915 to establish an on-site car club.
6.92 The development is also liable for £3.4m in CIL payments contributing to the future provision of local infrastructure.
85
Existing and Emerging Policy on Build to Rent
6.93 Government Policy is set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG accompanies the NPPF) as follows:
“How should different development types be treated in decision-taking?
The viability of individual development types, both commercial and residential, should be considered. Relevant factors will vary from one land use type to another.
For residential schemes, viability will vary with housing type, including housing for sale or rent.
Identifying the viability issues for certain types of housing is discussed below in more detail.
The private rented sector Some privately rented homes can come from purpose built schemes held in single ownership which are intended for long term rental. The economics of such schemes differ from build to sale and should be determined on a case by case basis. To help ensure these schemes remain viable while improving the diversity of housing to meet local needs, local planning authorities should consider the appropriate level of planning obligations, including for affordable housing, and when these payments are required. So these homes remain available to rent only, local planning authorities may choose to explore using planning obligations to secure these schemes for a minimum period of time. Local planning authorities should enforce these planning obligations in the usual way…..”
6.94 The NPPG therefore indicates a need for local authorities to be flexible in their planning obligation requirements. More recently, as part of the Housing White Paper Consultation, the Government published a separate consultation specifically on Build to Rent. This makes it clear that the government wishes to support institutional involvement as part of its objectives to increase the supply of homes and to diversify the market.
6.95 It is clear that the emerging Government policy sees significant benefits in Build to Rent in terms of boosting the supply of new housing by bringing in new investment, improving quality and choice in the private rented sector and by contributing to economic growth through speeding up development. Support has also been given to this tenure by the Mayor of London and various London Boroughs, again in emerging local policy. The Mayor believes that such developments can make a contribution to increasing housing supply and attracting new investment into the housing market. It can also accelerate the delivery of sites. For tenants it can offer longer-term tenancies and thus more transparency and certainty. Such housing provides better management standards and much higher quality than mainstream private rented accommodation. The Mayor hopes that it will contribute to raising standards in the rented sector generally. The Mayor recognises that while benefitting the market through diversification, such housing has different economics compared to build for sale housing. It depends on rental income growth over the long term and means that it is difficult for such schemes to compete with build for sale on land costs.
86
6.96 In order to differentiate Build to Rent from other forms (tenures) of housing, emerging Government guidance and the Mayor’s Draft Guidance advise the use of specific controls over ownership of the development with requirements to retain the completed development in single ownership and private rental use for a minimum period. The applicant’s own PRS Market Report, which was submitted as part of the application, provides a useful commentary on this and other matters at pages 36 and following. These controls are made through a restrictive covenant within the Section 106 agreement to recognise the distinct economics and viability of “Build to Rent” schemes. Both documents refer to a minimum period of at least 15 years. However, it is suggested that this period could be longer (LB Southwark currently has a draft policy proposal that states 30 years). Other commentators suggest a cautious approach until more is known about how such schemes work in the market.
6.97 This emerging national policy and local policy in London on Build to Rent supports the provision of affordable housing as part of such schemes, albeit with an element of flexibility. Differing affordable housing products are being considered – Affordable Private Rent or Discounted Market Rent. Both of these appear similar to an Affordable Rent dwelling as they refer to being let at 80% of local market rents. The main difference is that these do not need to be sold to a registered provider. The assumption is that the institution will manage them as part of its single ownership.
Detailed affordable housing offer
6.98 Following considerable discussion, the applicant is offering the following package in relation to affordable housing provision, as follows:
• The provision of a Commuted Sum. A sum of £4m index-linked from completion of the S106 agreement with payment due on first occupation; • In lieu of provision on-site, the applicant has been exploring the possibility of providing a Surrogate Site as part of their £4m contribution. As a consequence, the applicant will use reasonable endeavours to work with the LPA and a nominated delivery partner/provider to identify and enter into a contract to secure a Surrogate Site for the provision of a minimum of 25 dwellings, obtain a suitable planning permission for a residential development and transfer the site under the S106 as soon as practically possible; • Any Surrogate Site would be required under the S106 to deliver 100% affordable housing. Any site would be transferred to the nominated delivery provider for £NIL consideration (which could include the Council as a Local Housing Authority); • The cost of securing a Surrogate Site would be delivered from within the above £4m commuted sum and the transaction would be subject to an independent valuation to confirm market value. Any residual amount including index linking from the transaction will be paid as a commuted sum (plus indexation); • If a Surrogate Site has not been identified within two years of the signing of the agreement, the obligation will cascade into a payment of the above commuted sum in full; • The Agreement will include restrictive covenants requiring that the whole building must be retained in single ownership (by an institution) as a
87
“Build for Rent” development for a minimum number of years following occupation (20 years);
• The S106 will include three deferred contribution/default payment mechanisms:
1. A deferred contribution as the result of a performance review within 1 year of 1st occupation to assess any additional profit generated from the scheme based on actual costs & values; and 2. A deferred contribution linked to any uplift in value relating to a change of use of any part of the building to open market sales units within a minimum specified period (20 years from first occupation); and 3. A deferred contribution should linked to the sale of any part of the building units within the minimum specified period (20 years from first occupation).
6.99 Officers advise that these specific circumstances and deferred/default payment arrangements in the Section 106 agreement will ensure that the lower level of affordable housing provision does not set an inappropriate benchmark for other schemes.
6.100 It should be remembered that the current Reading Local Plan – as with the majority of other LPAs in England - has no policy specifically in relation to the “Build to Rent” tenure. The application has therefore to be considered as an application for normal C3 open market housing and considered on its merits against adopted development plan policies. The applicant proposes a “Build to Rent” development, and has agreed to controls over ownership and use for a period of years to ensure that what is provided remains and is operated in such use for a reasonable period.
Affordable housing package: summary
6.101 This is a high quality scheme. The applicant points to the benefits that it will bring to the local area. The findings of the viability submission have been confirmed as accurate and reasonable by the Council’s Valuer supported by consultant advice. Nevertheless, the applicant is making an offer of a contribution of £4m that would equate to somewhere in the region of 12% affordable housing provision. As part of this the offer, the applicant is seeking to provide a surrogate site that he will give to a registered provider for the provision of 100%.
6.102 As part of the planning assessment of the acceptability this tenure, officers have explored with the applicants whether, in view of the accepted high need for affordable housing in Reading, Build to Rent is an appropriate form of housing for Reading at the current time. Detailed consideration has been given to the high costs associated with the communal facilities; the indication that a normal build for sale could deliver a higher level of affordable housing and thereby a more mixed and socially-balanced development; and whether provision can be made on-site for some form of affordable housing provision even if it is only on the lines outlined in the emerging national guidance or the draft guidance published by the Mayor of London. The applicant disagrees with officers’ opinion that the application proposes a very low net to gross ratio and is keen to develop a build to rent scheme specifically to attract the institutional investment that he is seeking in order to fund the project.
88
6.103 Officers advise that the opportunity for on-site provision has been explored in detail as part of the affordable housing provision package, but after extended examination of the suitability of such within this single-tenure model (viability, design, management and maintenance, which will inevitably result in high service charges) agree that the specific economics of the tenure preclude a viable social housing element on site. The rents which the applicant would be able to offer would be at the high end of the market in Reading and would not be affordable to those that the Council is looking to house (i.e. those identified as in need of affordable housing). In Reading, there is always a preference for provision of affordable housing on-site, and the reasons given for not providing affordable housing on-site are not normally acceptable to the Council. However, in this case, the applicant is including an offer of affordable housing despite the results of their viability assessment indicating that such provision is not viable with the tenure model being presented.
6.104 Regarding a more preferable alternative proposal, a Local Planning Authority has to consider the application before it against the relevant policy framework. In this case, there is no local policy specifically on Build for Rent. The application is for a form of C3 housing development which will meet the Borough need for housing units under Policy CS14. Policy CS16 on the provision of affordable housing is relevant but considered against this policy - and based on a robust viability assessment - it has been found that the viability of the development does not support the provision of affordable housing. The inference is therefore that the development meets the policy framework and should not be refused as contrary to policy. Therefore while there is an argument that an alternative form of development could produce a better level of affordable housing provision this option is not before the Council.
6.105 “Build to Rent” is a comparatively new form of housing in the UK and there are relatively few schemes developed or with planning permission and those that have been realised are mainly in London and other large cities. Consequently there is little experience of its workings in the UK. Potentially, the tenure offers benefits to a part of the housing market. But is a different product to build for sale housing and its viability is very different. While in this case, it is extremely disappointing that a lower level of affordable housing is achievable when compared with what might have been provided under an alternative build for sale scheme, the application is being determined in accordance with policy. The various requirements for restrictive covenants and the deferred/default obligation arrangements set out in the Recommendation will ensure that this will remain a “Build to Rent” scheme as currently defined and that an approval does not set a benchmark for future applications.
(v) Residential scheme layout and design
The PRS-led approach
6.106 The applicant advises that the PRS build-to-rent model requires a high standard of services and residential layout to retain residents on 3-4 tenancies (typically). This extends to quite detailed aspects from excellent security, through to such facilities as chilled cabinets for grocery storage before residents arrive home, to a dedicated larger lift specifically to assist residents when they come to move in or out of the development.
Residential mix
89
6.107 Reason for refusal 11 of the Swan Heights scheme related to the failure of the mix of units to accord with RCAAP Policy RC9. The supporting text to RC9 states that the aim of the policy is to make sure that housing in the centre is not unnecessarily limited, hence the minimum percentages set out in the Policy. These major developments must contribute to providing choice of housing unit sizes and thereby mixed communities in the town centre.
6.108 When originally submitted, the current planning application included a mix which was not compliant with the guidelines in RC9 due to an over-concentration on one-bed and studio units and officers advise that this is likely to have formed a reason for refusal of the application. However, during the course of the application, the mix/layout has been slightly adjusted so that the minimum levels for two and three bedroom properties are exceeded. The mix now complies with Policy RC9.
6.109 This is a complicated and dense residential scheme, with potential for some 700 or so inhabitants. The Police’s security advisor has raised a number of issues with the scheme, but mostly these will relate to how access and security control and management are undertaken. A security strategy is recommended via condition.
Residential utlook
6.110 Outlooks from the dwellings are generally good, with many units having two aspects. The easterly elevation includes side windows overlooking Napier Court. Whilst this is not an issue at present (these proposed windows are nearly 30 metres from the flank wall of the nearest offices) Napier Court is identified as a residential proposal site in the draft Local Plan, but at the moment, can be afforded very limited policy weight. The Napier Court allocation is separated by its access road and there is mature landscaping at this entry point. This and the very long nature of the site indicates that this allocation ought to be able to be achieved without a material loss of overlooking occurring. On balance, although not an ideal relationship, officers do not consider that this aspect of the proposals is harmful enough to warrant a refusal of permission as causing conflict with Policy DM4.
Air and noise quality to flats
6.111 The air quality assessment submitted with the application shows that at some heights, the air quality is above national objective levels for Nitrogen Dioxide and this is primarily due to proximity to the railway line.
6.112 The mitigation proposed to protect future occupants in internal spaces is for Mechanical Ventilation and Heat Recovery (MVHR) units to be installed with the intakes at a sufficient height to provide clean air and a condition is recommended. All windows would also be openable. The noise assessment submitted shows that the recommended standard for internal noise can be met, if the recommendations from the assessment are incorporated into the design. It is recommended that a condition be attached to consent to ensure that the glazing (and ventilation) recommendations of the noise assessment will be followed, to comply with policies RC9, CS34 and DM4.
(vi) Other S.106 requirements
90
6.113 There is a broad level of agreement between the applicant and your officers on the remaining contributions and obligations required to deliver this scheme. In summary, these are as follows:
1. An employment and skills plan. The applicant intends to run the construction phase ESP. 2. Improvements to the Vastern Road railway underpass (contribution). The applicant has provided initial thoughts on how this could be progressed and this includes lighting, art, hard surfacing improvements, etc. 3. A contribution towards leisure improvements specifically to upgrade Kings Meadow. The development’s occupiers will rely heavily on the Meadow for their public open space needs. 4. Suitable provision of an agreed alignment for the MRT safeguarded route to the north/west of the site and provision of associated hard and soft landscaping treatment. 5. Provision of a signalised pedestrian crossing of Kings Meadow Road. This acknowledges the increased footfall generated from the site. 6. Car club provision. A necessary addition to this scheme, where car parking is very low. The applicant wishes to fund the club directly 7. Travel plan. The aim will be to give residents the fullest information about accessing their sustainable travel options.
6.114 Tall buildings policy also advises the encouragement of seeking managed public access to upper floors, but this is considered to be unrealistic with a single use residential scheme. In summary, the obligations above have sought in accordance with the policies indicated in brackets in the Recommendation and are consistent with National advice for such as set out in National Planning Practice Guidance.
Other issues
Flooding
6.115 The RC1h site in the RCAAP requires that an acceptable dry access scheme must be part of any development on this site. The site was also included in the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).
6.116 The Environment Agency advises only that their Standing Advice should apply, so it is taken that the development is acceptable in terms of technical flood risk. However, in determining this application, the Council must ensure that the sequential test is satisfied. Government advice in the NPPF is that development should generally be steered away from areas which are at risk of flooding. Core Strategy Policy CS35 does not permit developments within areas at high risk of flooding, where flood storage capacity would be reduced, or there would be increased risk to life or property.
6.117 The site lies within Flood Zone 2, near the Thames. The application has been submitted with a Flood Risk Assessment and this identifies that the site is at a potential risk from fluvial flooding but is not part of the ‘functional floodplain’. There is also a culvert within the site, but there is no record of flooding from this watercourse. In terms of flood flow, there is limited additional site coverage as a result of the development (when compared with the existing situation) within Zone 2.
91
6.118 The NPPG on Flooding has been assessed. This is a major development and the additional risk involved is due to the nature and the number of occupants (likely to be in the region of 700 residents). Residential is a ‘more vulnerable’ use and is suitable in Zones 1 and 2.
6.119 The Environment Agency considers this to be a ‘low risk’ development proposal and has directed officers and the applicant to the EA’s Flood Risk ‘Standing Advice’ (FRSA), which sets out emergency practices and procedures and an FRSA form is supplied within the FRA. It should also be noted that this underlying exposure to flood risk was accepted when identifying development sites in the Development Plan (the RCAAP and the Sites and Detailed Policies Document), which was informed by the Council’s SFRA.
6.120 With the confirmation of flood safe access and other usual good practice flooding controls, officers are satisfied that the development poses no additional flooding risks and is in conformity with the NPPF and Core Strategy Policy CS35.
6.121 Reason for refusal 12 of the Swan Heights scheme related to the failure to submit a SUDS strategy, which had become a National mandatory requirement. A SUDS strategy accompanies the current planning application and the Council’s SUDS Manager is content with it.
Ground conditions
6.122 The site was for many years in car-related uses and prior to that industrial/railway-related use. The applicant’s contamination report acknowledges that there is further remediation required in relation to an incident in 2013 where an oil tank was overfilled and there was contamination of watercourses including the Thames. The report also advises that there may be other historic pollutants present. The Council’s EP Team is confident that the site can be made suitable for the proposed development, but further investigations into the extent of historic contamination of the site and any remediation as necessary are required before the development takes place. The EP Team recommends that all the contaminated land conditions and a multi-part land gas condition is also required in order to comply with Policy CS34.
6.123 The Environment Agency’s suggested conditions are broadly similar, with their concerns focused on possible pollution to watercourses. They additionally require a condition for no penetrative piling to take place, due to the risk of mobilising contaminants from the site. The EA suggests a lengthy informative, reminding the applicant/developer that remediation of the 2013 incident is still on-going. These conditions and informatives should be applied to any permission.
6.124 Thames Water has requested a condition that there be no piling works until full details of the proposal are submitted, the issue being the presence of subsurface sewerage infrastructure. Given the risk of pollution to soil, groundwater and/or watercourse which could occur, this condition should be applied to any permission.
6.125 Unusually, Thames Water also requests a pre-commencement or ‘Grampian’ condition in relation to inadequate water supply and wastewater infrastructure in the vicinity, which will cause an issue for this development. The precise wording
92
of this condition would need to be discussed with Thames Water, were permission to be granted, but it is considered to be suitable in principle and has been necessary when the Statutory Undertaker has had to accommodate other large-scale developments on their networks.
Noise generation from the development
6.126 This major development is likely to include noise-generating plant. An acoustic assessment would need to be submitted for such, carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology. Noise impacts during construction would be managed with a Construction Method Statement. Conditions are recommended to cover these matters.
Sustainability and energy
6.127 The Council’s adopted suite of sustainability policies is CS1, DM1 and DM2 and the Council’s revised SPD on Sustainable Design and Construction. Whilst the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) was withdrawn in 2015, the development should demonstrate the highest standards of sustainability and Policy RC13 requires that tall buildings should be exemplary in all aspects of energy conservation and efficiency. Whilst there were questions over whether the Swan Heights Scheme could meet the (then) applicable CSH standard, officers did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to form a defensible reason for refusal on the issue.
6.128 The Council’s Sustainability Team has assessed the supporting studies submitted with this application. The energy statement recommends energy efficient measures for the building envelope and the use of an on-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant to reduce emissions by 25% over a Part L compliant building. The baseline energy requirements and resulting CO2 emissions have been estimated as well as the impact of energy emissions measures and feasible renewable technologies. At this stage, the calculation has aggregated all domestic and non-domestic uses. When detail design is available more detailed calculations should be encouraged to assess CO2 performance and compliance. The above all indicates that the energy strategy is sound, but will need attention to:
• ‘lean’ fabric and service installation • all units being connected to the community heating CHP and accessing it correctly • tall buildings have specific energy-hungry attributes, such as long lift runs; the delivery of water at height; and systems must handle the removal of high concentrations of waste. These elements have not been explicitly covered in the documents.
6.129 The applicant has been able to respond to officers’ concerns over the potential risk of unwanted overheating to a number of flats. Summer sun, railway noise meaning closed windows and long hot water runs are all capable of creating significant overheating, which could worsen with climate change. Information has been provided on thermal massing, glazing control and ventilation systems.
6.130 Overall, the Council’s Sustainability Team is now satisfied that the development is capable of meeting and exceeding the Building Regulations and is being
93
designed with energy considerations in mind. It is advised that any permission should be subject to a condition to seek that the build takes place in accordance with the energy/sustainability statements and supplementary letter supplied, in order to meet the policy and SPD objectives.
Building maintenance arrangements
6.131 The application includes a building management framework report which indicates that upper floors will be cleaned via abseil and not building maintenance units (BMUs). This will ensure that there will be no unslightly cleaning apparatus on the roof of the building and a condition can confirm this. This addresses one of the criteria of Policy RC13.
Fire safety
6.132 During the latter stages of this application and following the Grenfell Tower fire in North Kensington, the applicant has submitted a fire safety overview statement to accompany the application and wishes this information to be relayed to the Committee. Although fire safety is not a material planning consideration, the following should be noted.
• Occupants will have a ‘stay put’ strategy, except if the fire is in the occupants’ individual flat. Communal areas would be evacuated. • Protected corridors lead to protected stairwells • All parts of the development would have smoke and heat detectors • All elements of the structure will be designed to have 120 minutes’ fire resistance. The cladding panels (terracotta panels and brick-slip systems) are limited or non-combustible masonry items • Floors separating apartments will be compartmentalised for fire resistance • Automatic smoke vents will be fitted to corridors and stairwells • Sprinklers are proposed throughout • The two service cores will be served by a separate fire main system.
Equalities Act and accessibility for all
6.133 The application explains the approach to accessibility in the DAS. Inclusive design is to be part of the brief to all designers involved in the scheme. This includes:
• setting out suitable levels and gradients across the site • relating the building to local transport infrastructure • access to the landscaping, architecture and the accommodation provided with all areas of external paving having a smooth, walkable surface. • considerations of the Building Regulations Part M, BS 8300 and best practice. • designated disabled parking bays will be located in close proximity to the main core from within the car park. • the main lobby will have disabled access toilets and a concierge desk designed in accordance with Part M. • designated flats will be wheelchair adaptable to meet the specific requirements of residents. • passenger lifts are sized for wheelchair users and stairs are suitable for ambulant disabled people and corridors and doorways are widened.
94
6.134 Attention will need to be paid to the external elements under consideration of hard landscaping details via conditions. A further condition should be added for the retention/provision of adaptable units, in order to meet Policy CS5. As with all taller building proposals, it is important that all lifts function at all times and this should also be subject to a condition.
6.135 In determining this application, the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 This application is considered to be supportable in the following respects:
• A residential redevelopment at the density shown is considered to be a suitable use of the site which is consistent with the RCAAP Policy RC1h allocation • The design has overcome the previous reasons for refusal of the 2015 scheme in relation to safeguarding the line for the MRT route, servicing and associated landscaped areas • In terms of massing, height and responding to local context, the application proposal is much-improved over the 2015 scheme. This has been due to a combination of the long process at pre-application stage to try to modulate the bulk of a large, high-density development for the site, but also latterly at application stage, where the applicant has been asked to look more closely at the design detail. Impacts on townscape and heritage assets are considered to be acceptable • The detailed residential layout and mix are acceptable • The PRS development and the affordable housing offer (options) is considered to be supportable by officers • There is an acceptable package of other s106 requirements.
7.2 Subject to any clarifications which may need to be set out in the Update Report (as required), the officer recommendation is to GRANT planning permission, subject to satisfactory completion of the s106 agreement.
Case Officer: Richard Eatough
Plans: full schedule of plans to approve to be set out in Update Report
95
96
97
98
Sketch plan of tree species
99
100 COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Abbey App No.: 170251 Address: City Wall House, 26-30 West Street, Reading Proposal: Change of use of fourth and fifth floors from C1 (hotel) to 10 no. C3 (residential) apartments with minor internal alterations Applicant: TA Fisher Developments Ltd. Date received: 24 May 2017 Major Application 13 week target decision date: 23 August 2017
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE planning permission.
Reasons:
1. The proposal would result in the creation of substandard accommodation through cramped dwellings and the failure to provide a mix of accommodation. The accommodation provided is essentially only largely considered to be suitable for single-person occupancy and the two-bedroom unit, due to the size of bedrooms and awkward layout, would not produce a unit suitable for a family. Furthermore, the communal areas of the accommodation would fail to provide for a reasonable level of amenities, storage or other necessary facilities to facilitate the conversion. The introduction of ten residential units within this constrained building which already houses a large retail unit and 21 retained serviced apartments would result in poor arrangements for security/surveillance, storage and overall produce an unsatisfactory intensification of development. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy (2008, as amended 2015); Policy RC9 (Living in the Centre) of the Reading Borough LDF Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009); and Policies DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) and DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, as amended 2015).
2. The application proposes no lift access to the fifth floor accommodation and there is no opportunity to provide one within the development proposal. This major application would therefore produce a large area of the proposed development which will not provide equality of access and thereby fails to provide a development which enhances social inclusion and provide suitable access for occupants and visitors. As such, the application is considered to be contrary to Policies CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) and CS5 (Inclusive Access) of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy (2008, as amended 2015).
3. The application has failed to secure a Section 106 planning agreement to ensure that through the subdivision of units or through the conversion of further apart- hotel accommodation, the need for an affordable housing contribution would not be triggered. The application has therefore failed to indicate its suitability in terms of the need to supply affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough, contrary
101 to Policies CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) and CS16 (Affordable Housing) of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy (2008, as amended 2015); Policy RC9 (Living in the Centre) of the Reading Borough LDF Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009); and policies DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) and DM6 (Affordable Housing) of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, as amended 2015); and the Council’s adopted SPD, ‘Affordable Housing’ (2015).
Informatives:
1. Plans refused 2. No pre-application submission 3. The principle of the s106 agreement was otherwise agreed with the applicant and it is confirmed that were a suitable s106 agreement (or unilateral undertaking) signed, this would remove reason for refusal 3 above.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site is Nos. 26-30 West Street, in central Reading and concerns part of the ground floor of the property and the fourth and fifth floors. The building lies in the heart of the commercial shopping area and the ground floor is currently a wide frontage shop unit in use as an A1 use discount shop (Sam’s 99p store). The first to the fifth floors above are currently in use as an apart-hotel known as ‘City Wall House’, accessed from a doorway and lobby to the left (south) of the shop unit.
1.2 The building appears to have been originally constructed as an office building circa. 1972 with retail below and was converted to its current use around 2002. It has also undergone recent refurbishment, including new windows and cladding. The western side of West Street generally has a four to five storey commercial appearance, with the fourth floor of this building aligning with the parapet height of the former Primark department store to the North and the TSB bank building to the South. The East side of the street has a more traditional Victorian character with generally three storey brick buildings. As can be seen from the photo below, the House of Fisher serviced apartments are evident in the street from the entrance and signage to the left of the shop unit, the matching grey materials which rise up the building and the flags at second floor level. There is a long, narrow yard at the rear, which appears to only be accessible from the rear of the shop unit.
102 Location plan (not to scale)
103
2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 This planning application seeks to change the use of the fourth and fifth floors from their present apart-hotel use (C1) to residential (C3). There would only be minor internal alterations required to achieve this and in general, the serviced apartment suites would remain ‘as existing’. The current layout of the rooms is that they are functioning serviced apartment rooms and all have their own kitchenettes. They are at present uncontrolled in terms of occupancy restrictions, as they were permitted before the Council’s usual controls were applied to such uses. These floors would be accessed from the lift and lobby entrance at the south end of the building and there is a separate fire escape stairs at the north end of the building, with a single door to the street. The first, second and third floors would remain in apart-hotel use and it is anticipated that the building in its entirety would continue to be owned and managed by the applicant/owner.
2.2 Supporting information submitted with the application consists of:
• Planning statement • Covering letter • One-page letter from applicant • Noise and air quality report • Supplemental letter from applicant dated 30 June 2017 • Sustainable drainage report
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has a very long planning history and only the most pertinent planning history is set out below:
104
Reference Description Decision/comment
18444 Shops & offices PERMISSION 7/5/71 19728 Shops & offices PERMISSION 24/3/72 020573 Change of use of st 1to 5th PERMISSION with s106 floors with ground flooragreement 2/5/02. entrance and fire exit from Contributions secured and paid office to apart hotel towards transport infrastructure (RUAP). 020122 Erection of top floor (at rear PERMISSION 7/10/02 only) for administrativeCondition 3 requires the offices offices ancillary to the apart to remain ancillary hotel Condition 4 requires the installation of a rlift stai between floors 4 and 5. 021360 Curved stainless steel boxADVERTISEMENT CONSENT canopy with etched lettering 4/12/02 and lighting 030642 Vertical sign in brushedADVERTISEMENT CONSENT stainless steel lettering on12/6/03 blue background, up lit 150495 Replacement fascia sign and ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT re-clad existing vertical11/8/15 projecting sign. It should be noted that 4x fabric flag ‘banner’ signs were removed from this application, however, such flags appear to have been subsequently installed without consent.
151233 Alterations to front elevation PERMISSION 11/8/15
170250 Change of use from existing APPLICATION RETURNED A1 to A3 13/4/17. Ground floor.
3.2 A nearby site within the Reading Central Area gained planning permission for a similar part conversion from apart-hotel to residential use earlier in 2017:
100 Kings Road – 161449 - Change of use at fourth and fifth floors from 9 apart- hotel suites (Class C1) to 9 (2xstudio, 1x1, 3x2 & 3x3-bed) residential units (Class C3). Granted following completion of Section 106 Legal Agreement (regarding securing affordable housing on any subsequent planning permission at the site for additional residential units) 23/01/17.
4. CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory:
None.
(ii) Non-statutory:
105 4.1 RBC Transport Strategy: this is an accessible site within the Primary Shopping Area. A car-free development is acceptable in this location and residents should be advised that a parking permit will not be issued. Bin storage arrangements should be subject to conditions. Considers that as a cycle parking area is shown to be provided and none is provided at present, cannot object to the minimal provision shown.
4.2 RBC Waste Operations Manager: advises that RBC presently operates a trade waste service to the apart-hotel.
4.3 RBC Environmental Protection: has reviewed the noise/air quality assessment. The noise assessment submitted shows that the recommended standard for internal noise can be met, if the recommendations from the assessment are incorporated into the design. It is recommended that a condition be attached to any consent to ensure that the glazing (and ventilation) recommendations of the noise assessment, and air quality assessment, will be followed, or that alternative but equally or more effective glazing and ventilation will be used. EP therefore does not object to the application, subject to conditions and informatives.
4.4 RBC SUDS Manager: no external works, therefore no objections, as there is no change to the surface water run-off.
4.5 RBC Sustainability Team: no response received to date
4.6 Reading UK CIC: no response received to date
4.7 Crime Prevention Design Advisor (Thames Valley Police): objects to the application on safety and security grounds. In summary: • The plans show a reception/concierge desk, but given front door has a code lock, it would not appear to be operated all the time • This concierge would not be able to survey activity and movements through and between the apart-hotel and residential floors above • Key pad number locks, as proposed, are not secure, as codes can be passed from person to person • Requests physical security and access control measures prior to any decision being taken • There are multiple areas for entrance and escape. This is a high-density, mixed activity transient development in the town centre where individuals may try to access areas where they have no right to be • Requests that the proposed development be redesigned to physically separate residential and hotel access. • Concern for the location and use of letterboxes, location, how they are to be managed, etc. Letterboxes for flat developments are a contentious issues and can lead to the security of the flats being undermined. Best practice is for one of three options, but given the site constraints, none of these look to be feasible in this development. • Concern that the ‘cycle store’ is in a corridor to a kitchen, this would become blocked and is generally problematic. Risk of cycles being taken upstairs and causing neighbour disputes • Concerned that the bin store areas will be used by hotel, commercial and residential uses (again, a potential security issue).
Public consultation
106 4.8 Two site notices were displayed on West Street and a press notice was published. Letters were sent to the following addresses: West Street: 17, 18, 19, 19a McIlroy’s Building, Oxford Road: 2, 4. No responses received.
5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2 National and Local Policy
National Planning Policy Guidance suite (NPPG) National Planning Policy Framework (2012): Section on town centres is relevant
5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008
CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) CS2 (Waste Minimisation) CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) CS14 (Provision of Housing) CS16 (Affordable Housing) CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) CS22 (Transport Assessments) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS25 (Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development) CS26 (Network and Hierarchy of Centres) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
5.4 Reading Central Area Action Plan, 2009
RC6 (Definition of the Centre) RC7 (Leisure, Culture and Tourism in the Centre) RC9 (Living in the Centre)
5.5 Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (SDPD), Adopted 2012 amended 2015
DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) DM2 (Decentralised Energy) DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM6 (Affordable Housing) DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) DM19 (Air Quality)
5.6 Relevant Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)
Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)
107 Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Residential Conversions (2013) Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (2015)
5.7 The Council introduced the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), on planning decisions made on or after 1 April 2015. This partially replaced the Section 106 system, under which tariff-based payments were sought, often subject to a process of negotiation. CIL has no such scope for negotiation and is a levy per sq m of floorspace with the Council’s CIL Charges approved at Council on 27 January 2015. The role of Section 106 is now restricted to securing affordable housing (dealt with in the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD) and dealing with site-specific infrastructure requirements. There is no new floorspace proposed with this application, therefore the charge is nil.
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues to consider are:
(i) Principle of the use; (ii) Layout and amenity; (iii) Access for all; and (iv) Affordable housing
(i) Principle of the use
6.2 The proposal involves the change of use of the present apart-hotel rooms (suites) at fourth and fifth floors only to nine one-bed flats and one two-bed flat. The operator advises that these units do not let well, primarily due to the western part of town not being seen as a prime location for such units and as a consequence, they are seeking to convert the upper two floors to residential.
6.3 The top floor of the building was a later ‘top hat’ addition, constructed around 2002/3. This was approved, with planning permission, as ancillary offices for the apart-hotel, but it does not appear to have been used as offices and instead, was laid out as three additional apart-hotel suites. The RBC Business Rates section advises that the building has been paying business rates as an apart hotel since 2005, therefore it is considered highly likely that the top floor use is an established use and therefore immune from any enforcement action. The seven fourth floor suites would be retained/converted to seven flats.
6.4 There are no specific policies in the Development Plan which protect apart- hotel/serviced apartments and therefore there is no in-principle policy conflict with the loss of these units. Provision of housing is welcomed, providing the development is suitable in terms of layout, amenity, etc. requirements.
6.5 Therefore, subject to a suitable mix/unit sizes being presented and an appropriate layout, this proposed change of use is not considered to result in any in principle policy conflicts (policies CS25, CS6, CS14, RC6 or RC7).
(ii) Layout and amenity
108 Introduction
6.6 A vertical split of uses within buildings is usually encouraged in planning policies, such as Policy CS4. However, this is a 1970s office building and a central consideration is the intensification of accommodation within the building fabric and whether the uses can all be successfully accommodated satisfactorily within the building.
Unit size and mix
6.7 The suites range from approximately 30 sq.m. to about 53 sq.m. Although not adopted by this Authority, the DCLG’s space standards (‘Technical Housing Standards – nationally described space standard’ 2015) shall be used as a guide. The Standards require that one bed (single person) flats are no less than 37 sq.m. where there is a shower-room rather than a bathroom, and larger one-bed flats suitable for two people should be a minimum of 50 sq.m. The Standards make no separate allowance for studio flats, where there is a more flexible arrangement of accommodation which could allow a slightly smaller unit for a single person. A two-bed flat suitable for three people should be a minimum of 61 sq.m.
6.8 The accommodation proposed is ten flat units as follows:
Flat Floor Comment Suitability area/description 1 32.7 sq.m. one- Bedroom can accommodate a doubleUndersized bed flat bed, but unit is an odd shape, which reduces useable space 2 40.9 sq.m. one- Bedroom is 8.1 sq.m., therefore not aSuitable for one bed flat suitable double bedroom (SPD) person only 3 39.1 sq.m one- Bedroom is 11.44 sq.m., so couldConsidered to be bed flat accommodate a double bed accordingsmall, but suitable to the SPD. However, this would be a a for one person only long way short of the NTS and would result in a very cramped unit for o tw persons 4 53.3 sq.m. two- No suitable two bedroomunit is Undersized and a bed flat therefore provided with thisconvoluted layout application. 5 29.8 sq.m studio Narrow living space, small bedroom Undersized 6 34.2 sq.m studio Small bedroom Undersized 7 41.0 sq.m. one- Does not meet NTS standards, Suitable but for one to bed flat reasonably pleasant size and layout two people 8 29.4 sq.m. one- Cramped Undersized bed flat 9 31.5 sq.m. one- Cramped Undersized bed flat 10 34.2 sq.m. one- Cramped Undersized bed flat
6.9 Were this a conversion of a residential property to flats or HMO, the minimum room sizes in the Council’s adopted House Conversions Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (SPD) would come into play and these are often referred to in
109 non-applicable applications such as this by your officers, as a guide. Appendix 1 of that document refers to a minimum bedroom size of 6.5 sq.m. for a one person room and 10.5 sq.m. for a two person room. Many of the rooms have a floorspace of only 7.5 sq.m., which indicates that this is suitable for a single person only.
6.10 The floorspaces shown indicate that these suites would generally convert to one- bedroom dwellings, which are only suitable to accommodate one person each. The two-bed unit is not large, not laid out particularly efficiently and would make the usual arrangement of a double and a single room very difficult, so it would probably not be suitable as a family unit. Whilst the present suites appear reasonable for short-term living, this is partially due to the sparsity of furniture. No units would have access to amenity spaces, terraces or balconies. The fifth floor units have a corridor with outlook over the east-facing flat roof but this is not proposed as an amenity area.
6.11 Policy RC9 (Living in the Centre) requires that all residential development in the central area will be required to contribute towards a mix of different sized units within the development, with a reference to the number of bedrooms and ideally a mix of one, two and three bedroom units. In this instance, this Major planning application would provide no mix of accommodation, as all units supplied would be effectively one person studios or flats suitable for one person. The one two- bedroom unit is really only capable of allowing two single beds in the separate rooms. This is not an acceptable mix and this is largely due to the applicant’s desire to largely use the existing apart-hotel rooms, but from the analysis above, these are considered to be too small for C3 habitable use.
Residential amenity
6.12 Policies DM4 concerns the protection and maintenance of residential amenity. It is considered that a reasonable level of amenity should be enjoyed in the town centre, accepting of course that there will be greater constraints on achieving such within the town centre environment. The outlooks from the present suites would not change. They would all be single-aspect, either east or west (bar one) but pleasant enough and private. To the rear, the units would look over service areas and rooftops, but this is not a particularly unusual arrangement, although ideally, a dual outlook would be preferable. Officers had raised concerns with the present location of two existing air conditioning units, located externally near to one of the proposed fifth floor flats, but the Environmental Protection team concurs with the noise report that amenity can be maintained by a condition if necessary, to ensure window and ventilation, etc. meets certain levels. The site is within the Air Quality Management Area and West Street is a busy street with two-way buses and taxis. The building appears to be covered by a modern air conditioning system and all windows are openable, so a satisfactory level of noise, air quality and outlook could be achieved. Officers need to check whether there is a residual concern from the EP team regarding the external noise created by any further plant equipment and their answer will be reported to your meeting.
Amenities, storage and security considerations
110 6.13 Policy DM10 advises that dwellings are to be provided with functional private or communal open space that allows for sitting-out areas, children’s play, home food production, composting and refuse storage. In central Reading, it is recognised that some proposals in the densest locations may not be able to provide only some of these facilities. However, this development appears not to be able to meet any of these amenity aims. The units are small and further, they would have no access to any amenity or other communal space, or even balconies.
6.14 Officers have raised concerns for the security situation which may be created, with a mix of hotel guests and flat dwellers in the same building, sharing common communal areas. The applicant has responded by advising that they intend to retain ownership of all accommodation and the 21 retained apart-hotel suites on the First to Fifth floors will only have electronic key-fob access to their floors only.
6.15 As can be seen from the Police CPDA’s responses in the Consultations section above, a wide range of concerns for this proposal are raised and Reading centre is a target for crime, particularly from individuals attempting unauthorised access into what may be perceived as insecure developments. Usually, such concerns can be adequately controlled, particularly in new-build developments, where the necessary security arrangements can be correctly designed in from the start. However, in this case, some fundamental concerns are raised which are not considered to be easy, or even possible to resolve with the proposed layout. This reflects and amplifies a number of your officers’ concerns about how the various uses could co-exist.
6.16 Bins for the apart-hotel are currently emptied by the Council’s trade waste system and collection frequency could be increased, but there is no storage system within the remainder of the development (chutes, etc.). Given the location of the bin store, this severely compromises the view into the entrance lobby from the street. The ownership of a bike is not an unreasonable expectation in a major residential development, but the plans show two cycle spaces ‘in the way’ in part of a corridor on the ground floor. The Highway Authority does not feel it can sustain an objection on this basis, but this is clearly unsatisfactory and cycle ownership would no doubt take place anyway and cause obstruction elsewhere. Part of the reason the present bin storage area is so restricted is that the arrangement is not as laid out in the 2002 permission, where a much larger area was shown (and of course, cycle storage for hotel usage is much less of a concern).
6.17 To respond to several of the security and operational related matters: the likelihood of a concierge is not considered to be viable, as the location shown does not mean the doorway would be in view, negating part of its purpose. In reducing the number of apart-hotel suites, the operator is unlikely to wish to have a manned concierge (there is not one at the moment, this area is a small lounge area only). This lobby area is actually very restricted, with the area marked ‘reception/concierge’ up a large step. The permeability and access issue is going to be very difficult to control in practice and there could be multiple ways of escape/uncontrolled entry and exit. There does not appear to be spare room for mail and storage and the cycle issue is a concern, with no ground floor space, no communal space, a small lift and small flats. Communal areas (i.e. the hallways)
111 are therefore likely to be used for storing cycles – as well as other items - with cycles being brought up the stairs.
6.18 Regard has been given to the fact that office prior approval (OPA) schemes can result in very small units and it is true that some aspects of this proposed conversion may be better than some of the recent OPAs which officers have had no choice but to grant. But this was originally built as an office building, with retail below and it has not been in office use since around 2002/3 and the established use is as a C1 apart-hotel. Therefore, officers maintain the long-held principle that where the LPA has control, it should exercise it, by determining applications against relevant policies and refuse where there is considered to be conflict.
Layout and amenity: summary
6.19 Whilst the principle of including Class C3 residential may be suitable it is not considered acceptable to introduce another use successfully into this development as proposed. Suitable unit mix and sizes will not be produced, but also, there appears to be serious compatibility issues of the intensification of use and this is partly due to the already dense use of space in the building (some of which was not authorised in this way and for good reason). This application is thus seeking to cram further uses into the building, with no allowance for the additional amenity, servicing and breathing space which would be needed to allow that to happen successfully. Controlling conditions or obligations could not mitigate these concerns. For the above reasons, conflict is identified with a range of adopted polices, including CS24, RC9 and DM10 and forms a reason for refusal of this application.
(iii) Access for all
6.20 The 2002 planning permission which approved ancillary offices on the fifth floor (now in use as three serviced apartments) also included a condition for details of a stair-lift to be submitted, approved and installed, because the existing lift did not (and still does not) serve the roof level. The stair-lift would have allowed staff to access the fourth floor of the building, walk along the corridor and then if they had mobility difficulties, they could then use the stair-lift to access the staff offices and facilities. This was considered to be an acceptable design solution in respect of accessing a workplace.
6.21 The condition was not discharged and no stair-lift was installed. However, the period for seeking compliance with this condition (10 years) may have passed and this unsatisfactory situation is highly likely to now be immune from planning control. This current application now seeks to use these three suites as dwellings. This means that those with mobility difficulties would need to access the small existing lift at the southern end of the building, go along the corridor and then manage the stairs at the northern end of the building, if indeed they are able to. In reality, this would lead to these fifth floor flats not being available to not just those in wheelchairs, but people with other mobility issues, or those with buggies/pushchairs, etc. This may also lead to the corridors areas being blocked with such items and the corridors are comparatively narrow.
6.22 This arrangement is poor and would result in the fifth floor being unattractive for potential occupants or even mobility-impaired visitors. A stair-lift to access residential in this instance would not be appropriate as these are going to be
112 difficult to negotiate with shopping, children, flat-pack furniture, etc. Therefore, officers are of the view that it is unacceptable for this major application to produce a large area of the proposed development which does not provide equality of access, and this is considered to raise conflict with policies CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) and CS5 (Inclusive Access). This should form a second reason for refusal of the application.
(iv) Affordable housing
6.23 As the Committee will be aware, the current policy is that conversion developments of ten or less dwellings are considered to be exempt from contributions towards affordable housing. Therefore given the present application of Policy DM6, a contribution to affordable housing is not required in this specific instance. However, based on this proposal falling just below the capacity threshold (in terms of number of units and floorspace), it would be necessary to secure via legal agreement a means to prevent a succession of related proposals that fall just below the capacity threshold being submitted in the future at the site.
6.24 There is also the possibility that the applicant may seek to convert the remaining floors of the building to residential use in the future, or extend the building (for instance on the remainder of the top floor) in order to create further residential units. With this context in mind, officers therefore consider it necessary to secure via legal agreement a mechanism to ensure that each future part of any future proposal makes an appropriate contribution to affordable housing, having regard to the contribution that would arise from a single assessment across all components. In practice, the legal agreement would ensure that the affordable housing contribution is triggered by the proposal which brings the cumulative Class C3 units at the site to more than 10 units or 1000 sq.m., and increases in accordance with the final cumulative housing total after a specified period. Typically this would take the form of a financial contribution to affordable housing elsewhere in the borough, given the likely practical difficulties of incorporating on-site provision in this instance.
6.25 Whilst the applicant has agreed in-principle to the proposed s106 agreement on this basis, the other issues highlighted within this report have meant that the agreement has not been progressed. Accordingly, without this being secured the application is considered to be contrary to policies CS9, CS16, DM3, DM6, RC9 and the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD.
Other matters
Other s106 matters
6.26 The present accommodation is not subject to an occupancy condition or obligation. Although technically a major application, there are no construction or occupancy issues which would result in the need for an Employment and Skills Plan (ESP) under Policy CS11. As such, in this specific instance an ESP is not sought to be secured.
Sustainability
6.27 Although technically a major application, this is in effect a change of use application with no notable internal or external works to be carried out. Given this, officers advise that in this case, it would be inappropriate to insist that the
113 accommodation is adapted to achieve enhanced energy conservation/generation standards and are content that the development is suitable in terms of policies CS1, DM1, DM2 and the adopted Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. However, the development would still constitute a change of use under the Building Regulations and any such improvements as may be required would then be secured under the Regulations.
SUDs
6.28 With no external alterations, there is no change in surface water run-off and no issues to attend to or other mitigation required.
Equalities Act
6.29 In determining this planning application, the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development. However, in this case, the discussion in the Appraisal above regarding access for all set out various concerns for the scheme and this has resulted in the reason for refusal indicated.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Whilst this change of use is considered to be acceptable in principle, in detailed terms, there are considered to be unacceptable shortcomings with this application:
• The accommodation to be provided is considered to be substandard and overall, due to the number of units proposed, this is a cramped development and unfortunately, although a mix of uses is normally welcomed in buildings, this would result in an overdevelopment, in your officers’ opinion; • The fifth floor of accommodation would not be suitable for either mobility- impaired occupants or visitors and this is failing to provide equality of access to all members of society; and • The failure to enter a s106 agreement towards future affordable housing forms a third reason for refusal in this case.
7.2 This application is being presented as if the residential expectations for living for a temporary period in a serviced apartment and living in it as your home are the same, when they are not. Officers consider that there are a range of basic amenities which are absent from this scheme which would mean that in reality, the accommodation would only be suitable to a very narrow section of the population (transient single people). This does not meet the Council’s policies for the mix and suitability of dwellings and is a strong indication that these floors of accommodation should not be used in the manner proposed.
114 Case Officer: Richard Eatough
Plans:
12424-111 Rev A Location Plan 12424-111 Rev A (Existing and Proposed) Ground Floor Plan 12424-112 Rev C Existing and Proposed Fourth Floor Plan 12424-113 Rev C Existing and Proposed Fifth Floor Plan 12424-114 Rev C Existing Front Elevation 12424-115 Rev A Existing Rear Elevation
115 Fourth floor
116 Fifth floor
117
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Abbey App No.: 170947/HOU Address: 18 Swansea Road, Reading Proposal: Single storey rear extension Applicant: Mrs Tickner Date valid: 9th June 2017 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date : 4th August 2017
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT Full Planning Permission subject to conditions to include:
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE
1. The standard time limit 2. The standard approved plans 3. The standard materials to be as specified
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE
1. Standard terms and conditions informative 2. Standard building regulations informative 3. Standard construction/environmental health law informative 4. Standard encroachment informative. 5. Standard positive and proactive informative.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site comprises a mid-terraced dwelling located on the south east side of Swansea Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.
1.2 The site is within Flood Zone 2 as designated by the Environment Agency.
1.3 This application, which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers, is reported to Planning Applications Committee as the applicant is a Ward Councillor.
118
Site Location
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal is for two single storey rear extensions. The proposed extension projecting from the rearmost elevation (two storey gable/single storey offshoot) would have an overall depth of 4.5m and overall width of 2.5m. The roof would be flat, with a height of 2.6m. (Parapet wall height of 2.7m) The extension projecting from the main dwelling would have a depth of 2.5m and width of 1.5m. The roof would be flat, with a height of 2.6m.
2.2 The materials would match those of the main dwelling.
2.3 Plans Submitted: Block and Location Plans 35216-05B Existing Ground Flood Plan 35216-01 Existing Elevations 35216-03 Proposed Ground Floor Plan 35216-02 B Proposed Elevations 35216-04 B Received 9th June 2017
Flood Risk Assessment and Additional Flood Prevention Received 6th July 2017
3. PLANNING HISTORY
170675 Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.6m, and 2.3m in height to eaves level. Notification of construction of an extension under class A Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015. Withdrawn 07/06/2017
170370 Rear extension measuring 6.55m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.6m, and 2.3m in height to eaves level. Notification of the construction of
119
an extension under class A Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2010. Not validated, closed 03/04/2017
162383 Single storey rear extension. Withdrawn 10/3/2017
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Statutory:
• No statutory consultations were required given the nature of the application.
4.2 Non-statutory:
• None.
4.3 Public consultation:
Neighbour letters sent to 16 and 20 Swansea Road and a site notice was displayed. The statutory 21 day neighbour consultation period ends 5th July 2017. No letters of representation received at the time of writing this report (5th July 2017).
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012
5.2 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy
CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS35 (Flooding)
5.4 Sites and Detailed Policies Document
SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM9 (House Extensions and Ancillary Accommodation)
5.5 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance
A Design Guide to House Extensions (Supplementary Planning Guidance).
120
6. APPRAISAL
Main Issues
6.1 The main issues are: i. Design, Impact on the Host Property and Character of the Street Scene ii. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity iii. Impact on Flood Risk
Design, Impact on the Host Property and Character of the Street Scene
6.2 Due to their single storey nature, the proposed extensions would be subservient to the host dwelling with materials to match, which is considered acceptable. Although the garden is relatively narrow in width, it is long and a garden depth of 12-16m is retained; and as such the proposals are not considered to result in overdevelopment of the site or a cramped appearance. Whilst flat roofs are not usually advocated as they generally fail to improve the appearance of a building, the extensions would be located at the rear of the property and not be readily visible from the public domain. Therefore, in this instance, the design and appearance of the proposals are not considered to result in any adverse effect on either the character of the host property or the visual amenities of the street scene.
Impact on Neighbour Amenity
6.3 The neighbouring properties potentially affected by the proposals are No’s 16 and 20 Swansea Road, located to the south and north of the site respectively.
6.4 In relation to No.16, the proposal would extend approximately 2.4m past the rearmost elevation of this property, which features French doors on this elevation. Whilst the extension may have some impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight enjoyed by the occupiers of this property, due to the orientation of dwellings it is not considered to reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight to such a significant degree to warrant a refusal. No windows are proposed on the flank elevation and whilst visible, the roof would be flat which would minimise the impact. Given the above, the proposed extension is not considered to result in any significant material loss of amenity in terms of loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact.
6.5 In relation to No.20, the proposed extension closest to the common boundary would project approximately 2.5m from the main rear elevation. Whilst the extension would breach a 45 degree line to the nearest habitable room window, it is recognised that this extension would be considered to be permitted development. The roof would be flat which would minimise the impact and the extension would protrude less than 3m from the rear elevation, compliant with the Council’s Design Guidance SPD. As such, whilst visible, it not considered to result in any significant material loss of light or overbearing impact.
6.6 The proposed extension from the two storey gable/single storey element of the host property would be deep projecting approximately 7m from the main rear elevation of No.20. However, this element of the proposals would
121
be stepped away from the boundary, at a distance of approximately 1.5m, and would be located approximately 2.5m from the dwelling itself. The roof would be flat to minimise the impact and it was noted on the site visit that the rear addition of No.20 features French doors and a window on the flank elevation. Whilst visible, given the flat roof and distance, the proposals are not considered to result in any significant material loss of light or overbearing impact.
6.7 No windows are proposed on either flank elevation facing this property and as such there would be no material loss of privacy. Given the above, the proposed extensions are not considered to result in any significant material loss of amenity in terms of loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact.
Impact on Flood Risk
6.8 The site is located within Flood Zone 2 and is classed as a minor extension (household extensions or non-domestic extensions less than 250m2) in flood zone 2 or 3. The agent has submitted the standard Environment Agency householder form to state that the proposed floor levels would be set no lower than the existing floor levels. The agent has also stated that a water butt to harvest rain water will be employed to add to a more sustainable development. Whilst there would be some increase in surface water run-off as a result of the proposals, the agent does not consider this to be appreciable.
6.9 The proposal itself would extend a family home and would not significantly increase the number of people in this area. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard. It should be noted that the Council’s local planning policy CS35 does not apply to small-scale householder developments (para 11.20).
7. Equalities impact assessment
7.1 In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application.
7.2 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan Policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to suitable conditions.
Case Officer: Ethne Humphreys
122
123
124 KATESGROVE
125 126
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017 ITEM NO.13
Ward: Katesgrove App No.: 170685/FUL Address: 79 Silver Street Reading Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus basement level) building to provide 54 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated ancillary services and landscaping works.
Applicant: Chamberwell Investment Services Limited Date received: 2 May 2017 Major Application 13 week target decision date: 8 August 2017.
RECOMMENDATION Subject to the landscape concerns being addressed Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to i) GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement, or ii) REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 8 August 2017 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure:
1. An Employment Skills and Training Plan to meet the requirements of the Council’s Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013) relating to the construction phase of the development or a financial contribution towards delivering a package of training and skills outcomes for local people. The EST plan to be submitted to the Council at least a month before works commencing.
2. To restrict the use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation only (including postgraduates)
3. A Travel Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before first occupation of any of the units of student accommodation. To include the appointment of a Travel Plan co-ordinator funded for 5 years after first occupation; provision of travel network information to residents; restrictions in tenancy agreement for ownership of cars in Reading; student travel surveys and monitoring of cycle parking provision.
Conditions to include:
1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Approved drawings 3. Construction Method Statement to include highways matters, noise, dust and bonfire control 4. Development in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement submitted 5. Standard hours of construction and demolition 6. Scheme for control of noise & dust during the construction period 7. No burning of waste materials (construction period) 8. Details and Samples of all external materials
127
9. Details of hard and soft landscaping (to include new tree pit specifications on site frontage). Hard surfacing to be designed using SuDS principles 10. No external plant other than in accordance with a BS4142 noise assessment 11. Implementation of archaeological works in accordance with written scheme of investigation 12. Details of air quality mitigation measures to include glazing and ventilation system 13. External noise assessment in accordance with BS8233 14. Servicing, delivery and waste management plan to be submitted prior to occupation 15. Landscaping maintenance/aftercare details – replacement planting within 5 years 16. Sound insulation to be provided in accordance with external noise assessment – prior to occupation 17. Existing vehicle crossover to be widened 18. Implementation and continued use of the approved Student Accommodation Management Plan 19. Implementation of approved soft landscaping in first planting season following completion 20. Windows to south facing elevations to be permanently fitted with privacy film as approved (or other obscure glazing to be approved) 21. Secure cycle parking in accordance with approved plans 22. Provision of refuse stores 23. Refuse/recycling bins transferred to collection point prior to arrival of collection vehicle
Informatives (to include):
1. Terms and conditions 2. Building Regulations approval required. 3. Section 106 Agreement relates to this permission. 4. Environmental Protection information regarding control of nuisance during construction. 5. Positive and proactive approach 6. Waste/recycling bin capacities 7. Environmental Protection (various)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site comprises of an office building (McQueen House) with a retail furniture outlet at ground floor set back from Silver Street behind a small forecourt. There is an access to the side leading to a car park at the rear. The lawful uses of the building, which has been vacated on the upper floors, is as Class B1 offices and A1 retail.
1.2 Adjoining to the north is Windsor Square, a business centre of 2/3 storey units arranged either side of a cul-de-sac and beyond these are flats in Stirling House, Jubilee Square and Quadrant Court (3-6 storeys). On the south boundary is the residential terraced row of Mount Pleasant, the gardens of which run parallel to the same depth as the site.
128
1.3 The opposite side of Silver Street, a busy one-way thoroughfare leading away from the town centre off the A4 London Road, is a mixture of residential flats (3 storeys) and vacant business premises plus the Rising Sun Arts Centre (a listed former public house). To the rear of the site beyond the east boundary are the gardens of residential properties in Kendrick Road.
Site location plan
1.4 The site lies within easy walking or cycling distance of both the town centre and railway station (10-15 mins.) whilst Reading University’s Whiteknights and London Road campuses (10 mins.) are on the same side of the A4. It is just outside of the Reading Central Core boundary and adjoins the western edge of the Kendrick Road Conservation Area to the rear (east) boundary which includes adjacent TPO trees.
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 Permission is sought for demolition of the existing three storey office block and construction of a part 3/4 storey (plus basement) privately operated student accommodation building to provide 54 studio rooms. The proposals also include a reception area, gymnasium-cinema room and laundry facilities. Around the
129
buildings would be a landscaped inner courtyard alongside the south boundary at lower ground level with individual studio gardens and refuse bin/cycle storage areas to the rear.
2.2 The previous application on this site, which proposed a similar development for 65 student rooms (Ref. 161805) was refused at this committee for the following reasons:
1. The proposed building by reason of its scale, height, rearward massing and proximity to the boundary with No. 1 Mount Pleasant would create an over dominant relationship and thus is likely to result in a reduction of outlook, daylight and privacy plus associated noise disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of residential properties to the south. As such, it is contrary to Policy DM4 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015).
2. The proposed layout fails to demonstrate that it complies with the Local Planning Authority’s standards in respect of vehicle parking. This could result in on-street parking movements on Silver Street, adversely affecting road safety and the flow of traffic in conflict with Policy CS24 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and Policy DM12 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Polices Document 2012 (Altered 2015).
3. The applicant has not included adequate provision for waste collection facilities within the site in accordance with the requirements of Department for Transport/DCLG Document “The Manual for Streets”. The development if permitted would therefore be likely to lead to the stationing of waste collection vehicles on the access way causing an obstruction, the collection of waste on verges and carriageway and waste collection vehicles reversing onto or off of the highway to the detriment of public and highway safety contrary to Policy CS20 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and Policy DM12 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Polices Document 2012 (Altered 2015).
4. The proposed canopy reduction works to the Lime and Sycamore tree adjacent to the rear boundary and regular ongoing maintenance required to address nuisance will lead to pressure for heavier reduction or removal in the future. This is contrary to Policy CS38 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and also to Objective 2 of the adopted Tree Strategy for Reading which seeks to protect trees as important landscape features where these preserve the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.
5. In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan and use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation (Sui Generis) only, the proposal will not mitigate its impact on the social and economic infrastructure of the Borough, contrary to Policies CS3 and CS9 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015), Policy DM3 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Employment, Skills & Training (2013) and Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015).
2.3 The principle differences with the current proposal are summarised as follows:
130
• the rear block and the rear half of the ‘link’ block have been lowered by one storey • the number of student rooms has been reduced from 65 to 54 • the retail unit at ground floor has been deleted • three parking bays to be provided within a paved/landscaped forecourt (incl. trees) for alternate use by service vehicles, deliveries and at the start and end of terms as pre-booked spaces for the loading and unloading of student’s belongings • refuse/recycling bin collection holding area to side
2.4 In support of the proposals the applicant has described the development as a high specification purpose built student studio accommodation in response to market trends. The connectivity of the site and its separation from other student accommodation (eg. Saxon Court, Kendrick Halls, Queens Court, Central Studios, Fawley Bridge & Windsor Hall) is seen as beneficial in reducing the cumulative effects on the local area.
2.5 Externally the building would be finished in a grey multi coloured brick with recessed windows, aluminium dark grey/brown windows and doors and metallic zinc cladding to the dormer roofs. The windows on the south facing elevation would be fitted with directional and translucent privacy film (2nd Floor) with overlooking from the floor below restricted by a 1200mm trellis fence section fitted on top of the existing boundary wall (with No. 1 Mount Pleasant).
2.6 In the current proposal therefore the applicant seeks to address the reasons for refusal on 161805 and the significance of the changes made are considered under the relevant section headings of the Report below. The application is being reported to your meeting both as a Major Application and at the request of Councillor Livingston.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 081152 Certificate of lawfulness for existing use PER 22.12.2008 classes: Ground floor A1 and B1, First Floor B1, Third Floor B1 (Certificate of Lawfulness Application)
151742 Demolition and rebuild of McQueen OBS SENT House to comprise circa 60 student units 6.11.2015 with approx.3,000 sqm GIFA in total. Proposals would also include an active retail frontage of the development (Pre-Application Enquiry)
152093 Demolition and rebuild of McQueen House NO OBS (Pre-Application Enquiry)
161805 Demolition of existing building and REF 9.3.2017 erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus basement level) building to provide 65 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated support services, street frontage retail unit (A1, A2 or A3 use class), and landscaping works.
131
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Statutory:
None.
4.2 Non-statutory:
RBC Natural Environment (Trees/Landscape): Objection (under 161805) stands with further comments as follows:
There has been no change to the position of the proposed building in relation to the 2no. trees at the rear of site. The position of the building is unacceptably close to the trees and would provide an unusable garden space to residents.When such problems such as proximity, reduction of daylight/sunlight and debris can be foreseen then they should be avoided whenever possible.
With regard to the amended landscape layout 101F, I note the inclusion of additional trees, but as stated in previous comments, the tree species is not acceptable (thus) justification for requiring new trees of a higher amenity value. Given that the site is within a 10% or less canopy cover area (as defined in the tree strategy) and on a main route out of town (a ‘treed corridor’ as defined in the tree strategy), tree planting needs to be meaningful. As a new build, there is ability to provide sufficient space on the frontage for trees. At the very least, space should be provided for trees to complement the street tree planting just south of the site which I believe are a fastigiate form of Field maple. Further serious consideration should be given to a greater green frontage to allow for larger trees.
If minded to approve the application as it currently stands, recommends conditions regarding the following:
- pre-commencement submission and approval of an arboricultural method statement. - pre-commencement submission and approval of hard and soft landscape – standard condition but please ensure tree pit specifications are required. - pre-occupation submission and approval of a scheme of landscape maintenance and aftercare to cover a minimum of 5 years - development in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement - implementation of approved soft landscaping in the first planting season (Nov- Mar) following or at the time of completion, whichever is soonest. - replacement planting for anything that dies within 5 years of planting.
AMENDED PLAN 201 Rev G(Received 12th June 2017) – comments requested and will be reported in an Update Report.
RBC Transport Strategy: Has raised an objection in respect of the size of the 3no. parking spaces to the frontage with the following comments otherwise recommends conditions and Informatives plus a S106 agreement to include the Travel Plan.
The application site is outside the town centre area but is within close proximity to frequent premier bus routes that run to and from the town centre and Reading University. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links, town centre services and employment areas. Silver Street is part of the “A” road network carrying
132
between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles a day. Any proposals must comply with the Council’s Geometric Design Guidance for Accesses onto Classified Roads.
Parking Provision The site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area, of the Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD. This zone directly surrounds the Central Core Area and extends to walking distances of 2 kilometres from the centre of Reading. The parking standards set for Halls of Residence located in this zone are 1 space per FTE member of staff and no requirements for students, however, there are no adopted parking standards for student accommodation which are provided “off campus” and operate as independent providers of higher education accommodation. Therefore, an application of this type is likely to be considered on its own merits considering local circumstances including access to public transport provisions and the availability of parking and on-street regulations.
The site is proposed to be car-free and no students will be permitted to bring cars to the site under the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The A327 Silver Street has “No Waiting” parking restrictions preventing on-street parking and peak hour loading bans between 8.15-9.15am and 4.00-6.15pm. Therefore, any overflow in parking would not affect follow of traffic on the classified road network. The residential roads (adopted roads) surrounding the site consists of a mixture of double yellow lines and permit holder only parking bays.
Considering the proximity of the site to the town centre and given that Silver Street has extensive parking restrictions which are enforced by Reading Borough Council, the non- provision of student parking spaces is acceptable. However, three parking spaces at the front of the property will be available for loading / unloading on move in and move out days, which is discussed later in the report.
The site will be managed by a 24/7 management team consisting of 1 full time member of staff and 2 part time members of staff. In accordance with the Council’s adopted standards, parking provision for staff parking should be made within the site. Therefore, the three parking spaces at the front of the property could be available for staff use outside of the moving in and out periods.
In terms of layout, the standard length of a parking space is 4.8m long and the 3 parking spaces appear to be shorter than the required standard. This will result in parked vehicles projecting over the footway which is not acceptable. The applicant is requested to address this concern before the application is determined as the provision of functional parking spaces is fundamental to this application.
Access & Servicing: There is an existing dropped footway crossover into the site. However, it will be necessary to widen the existing dropped footway crossover across the site frontage to facilitate the three parking spaces at the front of the property. This has not been indicated on the submitted drawings but can be secured by condition. The applicant should be aware that the existing sign post will have to be relocated in order to accommodate the dropped crossing.
On-street refuse collection will occur and bins will be collected weekly on a contract with a private or council operated refuse collection. The refuse store is located to the side of the site, approximately 45m from the highway. The management team will bring the bins to a secure holding area at the front of the site on collection days to ensure easy collection by the refuse collectors. Once the bins have been collected they will be
133
returned to the secure bin store at the rear of the site by the management team. This arrangement is acceptable.
The full management details should be combined into a waste management plan secured by condition. This will ensure the future occupiers/management of the site are party to what is in the waste management plan so that that they comply with the agreed processes
Arrival & Departure: Given that students will be prohibited from bringing vehicles to the site, the proposed uses would attract very little in the way of vehicular movements. However, the peak demand for parking spaces will be during the arrival and departure periods when students are moving into and departing from the site.
A Student Management Plan has been submitted with this application which outlines the move in process at the start and end of term times. Student arrivals will be a managed process over two weekends each academic year. Students arriving by car would be advised of a date a time to take up occupancy of their room.
The three available parking spaces at the front of the property will be available for loading/unloading on move in and move out days. A pre-booked timeslot approach will be implemented by the management team to use the parking spaces at the front of the site during the moving in period to facilitate the process and minimise the highway impact. A full Arrival/Departure Management Plan should be submitted for approval prior to full occupation of the development.
Sustainable Travel Travel plans are used to initiate modal shift away from the private car and towards a more sustainable modes. A framework for the Travel Plan has been included within the Student Management Plan which should be formalised prior to occupation.
The travel plan measures include: The appointment of a travel Plan co-ordinator which will be funded for a period of five years after first occupation of the site; Provision of sustainable travel packs to all residents including bus network and cycle network maps; Restrictions in tenancy agreement for ownership of car in Reading; Student travel surveys; Monitoring of cycle parking provisions
In accordance with the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide 1 cycle parking space per 3 staff and 1 space per 5 students. The proposed cycle storage will be located within a covered area to the rear of the site and equipped with ‘Sheffield’ type stands. The proposed cycle storage provision complies with the Council’s adopted standards and is acceptable.
Construction: The applicant should be aware that there would be significant transport implications constructing the proposed building in this prominent location. Any full application would be conditioned to ensure a Construction Method Statement is submitted and approved before any works commence on-site.
SuDs: The application is submitted with a Sustainable Drainage application (the same drainage scheme assessed under application 161805). The proposed drainage scheme is acceptable.
RBC Waste Minimisation & Recycling Officer: No comments received. Previous comments (on 161805) were as follows:
134
No objection - makes the following comments regarding waste management and storage strategy with capacities based on a fortnightly collection service:
If as stated for studio student rooms a ratio of 72 litres per room for the 65 rooms would equate to the following with regards to bin capacities: 65 x 72 litres - 4680 litres of waste thus would require space for 5 x 1100 grey general waste bins and 5 x 1100 green recycling bins emptied on alternate weeks.
RBC Environmental Health (Protection & Nuisance): No objection subject to conditions including an external noise assessment, glazing and ventilation specifications, control of noise & dust/hours of working/no burning of waste during construction period with the following comments:
A noise assessment should be submitted in support of applications for new residential proposed in noisy areas. The noise assessment will be assessed against the recommendations for internal noise levels within dwellings and external noise levels within gardens / balconies in accordance with BS 8233:2014 and WHO guidelines for Community Noise. The report should identify any mitigation measures that are necessary to ensure that the recommended standard is met. Where appropriate, the noise assessment data should also include noise events (LAMax) and the design should aim to prevent noise levels from noise events exceeding 45dB within bedrooms at night. Noise levels above 45dB are linked with sleep disturbance.
As a noise assessment has not been submitted and the proposed development is by a busy road thus recommend a condition is attached to any consent requiring a noise assessment to be submitted prior to commencement of development and any approved mitigation measures implemented prior to occupation to show that recommended noise levels in the table above can be met. The noise assessment will need to identify the external noise levels impacting on the proposed site.
Noise mitigation is likely to focus on the weak point in the structure: glazing. Given that the acoustic integrity would be compromised should the windows be opened, ventilation details must also be provided, where mitigation relies on closed windows. Ventilation measures should be selected which do not allow unacceptable noise ingress and should provide sufficient ventilation to avoid the need to open windows in hot weather, however non-openable windows are not considered an acceptable solution due to the impact on living standards.
Applications which include noise generating plant when there are nearby noise sensitive receptors should be accompanied by an acoustic assessment carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology.
Concerns about potential noise, dust and bonfires associated with the construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses). Fires during construction and demolition can impact on air quality and cause harm to residential amenity. Burning of waste on site could be considered to be harmful to the aims of environmental sustainability.
RBC Education/RBC Sustainability No comments received.
135
Berkshire Archaeology No objection subject to a condition requiring approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation is attached to any planning permission granted with the following comments:
Confirm that there are potential archaeological issues associated with the proposed development as the site is located just to the south of the Civil War defences. Elements of the defences have previously been recorded less than 50m to the north where Stirling House now stands and also running southwest-northeast through the current locations of Aveley House and Rimaud House.
Activity dating to the 17th and 18th centuries was recorded at 32-38 Silver Street, with some of the features possibly associated with the Civil War defences. Given the proximity of the site to these features there is the potential that the site may contain archaeological deposits or features associated with the Civil War period in Reading. Although there is an existing building which will have caused some disturbance on site, the proposals include a basement which has the potential to impact any archaeological buried remains that may be present below the depth of the existing impact of the building.
In the first instance recommend a small amount of trial trenching, following demolition of the existing building, to evaluate the archaeological potential of the site.
Neighbour Notification: Properties at Nos. 1-31 (All) Alpha House Flats (Kendrick Road); Nos. 26, 26A & 28 Kendrick Road; Nos. 1-16 (All) Hieatt Close, Mount Pleasant (Silver Street); Nos. 1, 3, 5 & 9 Mount Pleasant (Silver Street); Nos. 5-8 (All) Windsor Square (Silver Street); 29 Castle Street and Nos. 62-68 Silver Street* (*Returned – no such address) were consulted on 16th May 2017.
In total there have been 5 objections received with the following comments and issues raised:
Scale, design & layout: -ground area of new building is a huge increase over the existing building/would dwarf neighbouring buildings -new building would be overbearing (increase in layout and density) -proposal to build where there is an access road between the current building and house (No. 1 Mount Pleasant) would make any further maintenance impossible
Impact on character of area: -new building is in excess of what is in keeping with the area -large number of people in a small space (even more than if converted to flats)
Impact on residential amenities: -Silver Street is already very noisy (student flats will increase this) due to passing traffic/people -potential direct overlooking into the row of gardens along the adjacent terraced houses from two stories of windows -loss of privacy compared to that enjoyed outside office hours at present with some rooms being occupied at all times -increase in noise/litter disturbance -reduction in sunlight to gardens and rooms of the terrace
136
-loss of peace/quiet from continued shouting and music (question the quality of the “24 hour security” claimed if by a private company)
Traffic, highway & car/cycle parking issues: -does not take in to account parking requirements/parking in the area is a big problem with local residents abusing the parking in Windsor Square and Silver Street -Silver Street is the main thoroughfare from town to south Reading and very busy road (this will exacerbate the situation) -potential road danger for pedestrians during the development phase -lack of on-site parking for the students and visitors -potential huge increase in traffic on an already busy ‘A’ road/blocking emergency vehicles
Other issues: - wall to be demolished and new one built would leave (No.1 Mount Pleasant) temporarily exposed/destroy garden in the process and is attached to the gable end (thus potential damage may be caused by its removal) - would effectively make No. 1 Mount Pleasant into a mid-terrace (decreasing the value) - enough student places already available - existing shop is valuable community resource providing services that RBC cannot provide
5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. However the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making (NPPF paragraph 12).
5.2 In this regard, the NPPF states that due weight should be given to the adopted policies of the Local Development Framework (LDF) (Core Strategy and Sites and Detailed Policies Document) according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan are to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given.
5.3 In Paragraph 7, the NPPF defines sustainable development and the social role of the planning system in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. In Section 6: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes local planning authorities are advised to boost significantly the supply of housing and that applications for such should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
5.4 Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework and the following development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance are relevant:
Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS4 Accessibility and the intensity of development
137
CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car/Cycle Parking CS26 Network and Hierarchy of Centres CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodland
Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters DM13 Vitality and Viability of Smaller Centres DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality SA14 Cycle Routes
Supplementary Planning Guidance Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013)
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues to be considered are:
a) Principle of use/location b) Design, scale & impact on character of the surrounding area c) Impact on amenities of adjoining occupiers d) Highways and transport issues e) Infrastructure (S106, CIL) f) Other (trees, noise, drainage) g) Matters raised in representations a) Principle of use/location
6.2 The existing office building is of low architectural quality and its retention and conversion is no longer considered as being a realistic viable option given the cost of bringing it back into habitable condition.
6.3 The site is located within a transitional mixed use area where business, commercial (including retail) and community uses are juxtaposed with old and newer
138
residential development. It is an accessible location on the edge of the town centre with its many facilities, shops and public transport options.
6.4 Policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses) of the Core Strategy considers in assessing proposals outside of the Core Employment Areas that would result in loss of employment land whether a site is accessible by a choice of means of transport, if continued employment use is viable or detrimental to the amenity and character of the area whilst the need for alternative uses may also be stronger than its retention.
6.5 Given the two vacant sites with obsolete buildings situated on opposite side of Silver Street it is evident that the immediate locality is in a period of transition and that residential use of these redundant employment sites is likely to be an acceptable alternative. Furthermore, there is no specific policy relating to the location or provision of student accommodation whilst the Council’s wider policy objectives to locate office development in the central area would not seem to justify the application site’s long term retention in such use.
6.6 Policy CS26 (Network and Hierarchy of Centres) identifies the main shopping and service centres in the Borough whilst Policy DM13 (Vitality and Viability of Smaller Centres) seeks to protect the key frontages of the district and local centres from a loss of retail (Class A1), too many takeaways (Class A5) or an increase of “non- centre uses” at ground floor level.
6.7 The application site does not fall within an identified local shopping centre and therefore the loss of an existing retail unit in this proposal would not conflict with the aims of these policies and thus is acceptable in principle.
6.8 As has been done with other recent student accommodation schemes in the Borough, it is considered necessary and reasonable to restrict the use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation only, to be secured via a legal agreement rather than a condition. The applicant has confirmed that they are willing to enter into such an agreement.
b) Design, scale & impact on character of the surrounding area
6.9 Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) of the Reading LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) relates to both new buildings and the refurbishment of existing buildings. Proposals are acceptable where the design of buildings and site layouts use energy, water, minerals, materials and other natural resources appropriately, efficiently and with care.
6.10 Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development is of a high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. Among the urban design objectives of the policy are that this should make a positive contribution to the character, continuity and quality of the public realm.
6.11 Policy CS33 confirms that historic features and areas of historic importance and other elements of the historic environment, including Conservation Areas and their settings, will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. All proposals will be expected to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located.
139
6.12 The proposed student accommodation building would provide a high standard of living accommodation with facilities including a gymnasium/cinema room and launderette (on the lower ground floor Level -1) and a secure entrance from the street in a managed and landscaped setting. An analysis of the visual impact of the new building in the street, its scale, massing, form and detailed appearance taking into account conclusions about the very similar previous scheme by the Architects’ Design Review Panel (DRP), is made here.
6.13 The proposals would reinforce the prevailing building line in Silver Street, a welcome improvement over the current condition. The improvements identified by the DRP as needed to create a more active/positive building forecourt has been achieved in the current proposal with 3no. parking bays and trees plus hedge planters in the street frontage. This should be more in keeping with the general streetscape which includes wider footpaths with trees and the small front gardens of the adjacent pre-war terraces in Mount Pleasant.
6.14 The DRP was of the view that the general footprint of the proposals was right in the surrounding context and that the sunken courtyard is a positive feature that could provide a pleasant amenity space for occupants. In this regard, more definition of defensible semi-private spaces next to studio rooms has been retained in the landscaping for the courtyard with this current proposal.
6.15 Turning to issues of the scale and massing, as before the scheme is constituted of three main blocks, one part addressing Silver Street (Block A), a central element (Block B) and a third across the rear of the plot (Block C). Block A was considered by DRP to mediate well between the scale of the terraced houses and larger buildings to the north. The design of the section on the front roof (first floor level) where it would abut the end of terrace property, No. 1 Mount Pleasant and match the front building line at first floor though awkward looking and carried slightly above the eaves level, was considered to create an acceptable relationship in the overall streetscape.
6.16 Block B, the centre block proposed alongside the north boundary, which is abutted by Windsor Square, has been reduced in height by one storey for half of its length and articulated by corridor windows to the Level 3 (third floor) studios. The mono- pitched gable end roof to the rear Block C has also been pushed back and reduced in height in the current scheme.
6.17 In summary, the DRP concluded that Blocks B & C needed to be scaled down to reduce any detrimental effect to the neighbouring properties from an increase in height compared to the existing building. This appears to have been achieved by the reduced height to 3 storeys across the rear half of the new building. The proposed building would have a three storey height (to part of Block B plus Block C) of 9 metres and Block B would be set in from the south boundary by approximately 8.5 metres. In terms of the perceived bulk and proximity this would be very comparable to that of the existing retail/offices building on the site which has an 7.5m high two storey rear section to the same depth as Block B in the proposal that is positioned much closer (at 4m) to that boundary.
6.18 The reduced scale has also resulted in a simpler/more unified appearance to the design that is less ad-hoc than the previous scheme as sought by the DRP. The plan arrangement would increase the footprint of building on the site but still relates well to the neighbouring buildings in terms of its overall massing.
140
c) Impact on amenities of adjoining occupiers
6.19 Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) states that development should not cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties in terms of privacy and overlooking, access to sunlight and daylight, visual dominance and overbearing, noise and disturbance, artificial lighting, crime and safety etc.
6.20 As described above the scheme is essentially constituted of three main blocks. Block B represents an increase in massing from the existing building and this additional bulk and height on the current proposal will therefore have a different visible impact from the gardens to the south whilst Block C would be a new element on the site compared to the existing building footprint.
6.21 Accordingly, Blocks B & C have been reduced in scale to reduce any detrimental effect to the neighbouring properties to what officers consider to be an acceptable level. In particular Block C, which covers most of the width of the plot, would present a 3 storey high gable wall to the immediate neighbour where there is currently no building. However, the reduced height, mono-pitched asymmetrical roofs and stepped in return of this Block where the site widens out to the rear of No.1 Mount Pleasant, whilst undoubtedly creating a new relationship, is not considered to be oppressive in terms of outlook or likely to have a detrimental effect on daylight or sunlight - with No. 79 Silver Street being situated to the north.
6.22 Overlooking of the adjacent gardens from terraces to the uppermost floors was identified as a concern at the DRP. The current proposal is reduced by one storey to the rear of the neighbouring property. This has reduced the likelihood of direct overlooking across the proposed trellis fence line on top of the boundary wall with the neighbouring property (No. 1 Mount Pleasant), the overall height of which would be about 3.5 above metres above garden level.
6.23 There is potential for noise disturbance as a consequence of the greater number of residents, their transient nature and longer hours of occupation on the site (ie. 24 hours/7 days a week) when compared to the current lawful use as offices, which are vacated during the evenings and weekends. Whilst some student behaviour is unpredictable, occasional intrusions from music and late night congregations with loud talking/smoking (etc.) may be expected which are not possible to control by planning conditions. The courtyard element although welcomed in design terms may tend to encourage outdoor socialising however well this is being monitored.
6.24 With this specific issue in mind, the applicant has submitted a Student Accommodation Management Plan, which sets out how the whole site would be monitored by passive surveillance and installation of CCTV cameras (details of locations not specified). There would be a communal entrance including colour screen access phones plus fob and key code access to all rooms. A property manager would be present during office hours (Mondays to Fridays) and security plus other maintenance and cleaning staff outside of these times connected to a 24/7 management help desk to deal with any reported incidents of anti-social behaviour. Some rooms will be occupied by resident wardens and all on site issues relating to repairs, health & safety (including fire management) suitably reported and dealt with.
141
6.25 In principle this is welcomed and considered necessary as the change of use on this site from the previous office and retail uses could potentially lead to amenity concerns and cause harm to the character of the local/wider area. d) Highways and transport Issues
6.26 Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) of the Core Strategy relates the scale and density of development to its level of accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport to a range of services and facilities with sites assessed in terms of their accessibility to a defined district or local centre. A good level of accessibility is considered to be that within 400m of a defined centre with a good range of facilities and within 400m by pedestrian routes of a bus stop served frequently (ie. one bus every 20 minutes in each direction between 0700-1900).
6.27 Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) of the Core Strategy considers the contribution that proposals make to a balanced transport network whilst Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) applies the maximum car/cycle parking standards applicable in relation to the accessibility of locations within the Borough to sustainable transport facilities, particularly public transport.
6.28 Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) considers various implications including the additional trip generation of proposals, which are permitted where there is no detrimental impact on the functioning of the transport network or to the safety of users including pedestrians and cyclists.
6.29 The site in Silver Street is within walking distance of Reading Central Area and its full range of shops and other facilities served by regular public transport and thus considered accessible. This would suit the nature of the proposed use for students who would arrive by car on average once at the beginning of each term.
6.30 In the previous application (161805) the Council’s Transport Strategy Development Control Advisor raised an objection in particular relating to the deficiency in staff parking provision which were considered impractical for the proposed 24 hour presence and the management of student arrivals due to the potential for obstructing the highway. These concerns have been addressed in the current proposals by the provision for 3no. staff parking bays within the forecourt to be made available for students only at the start and end of terms. The length of these spaces shown does not meet the standard in this regard thus the applicant has been given the opportunity to amend the site layout plan in order for the proposals to comply, the outcome of which will be recorded in an update report.
6.31 However, in all other highways and transport related matters – no provision for student parking, a Travel Plan, cycle storage and management of the site (student arrivals/refuse bin collections) – all of which can be ensured or controlled through appropriate conditions and/or as part of the S106, the proposals would comply with Policies CS24 and DM12. e) Infrastructure
6.32 Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) of the Reading Borough Council LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) states that proposals will not be permitted unless the Council is satisfied that infrastructure, services, resources, amenities or other assets lost or impacted upon as a result of the development will be re-provided. Policy DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) of the
142
Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) confirms that appropriate provision for infrastructure, services, resources and amenities will be made through planning obligations and/or the Community Infrastructure Levy as relevant. Student accommodation is liable to make payments towards identified infrastructure projects through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL.
6.33 In accordance with the SPD, an Employment, Skills and Training Plan (construction phase) would be required to be secured via a S106 legal agreement should planning permission be granted to which the applicant has agreed.
6.34 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and in that they would be necessary, reasonable and related to the development in planning terms. The application development is also liable for CIL payments. An informative to this effect can be added to the decision and under the CIL regulations such payments would be due on commencement and occupation of the development. f) Other
6.35 Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodland) of the Core strategy seeks to protect individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodland from damage or removal. Policy DM18 (Tree Planting) of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document states that provision for new tree planting shall be made within development sites to enhance the character and appearance of the area.
6.36 The Council’s Natural Environment Officer has raised concerns about the impact of the new building on the long term health of two off-site trees just beyond the rear boundary of the site (one with protected status being in a conservation area). Their canopies extend across the site and both trees have been clearly pruned back over the years and could continue to be maintained. Furthermore, the hard paved parking area at the rear of No. 79 Silver Street would be replaced in the proposals by soft landscaping and the rear wall of the new building would be over 8m from existing trees.
6.37 Accordingly, the application contains specific proposals for tree canopy management including trimming as necessary to allow safe clearance (3m) for construction works (including scaffolding etc). When built, the levels of daylight and sunlight reaching the large windows of rooms on the east elevation should be adequate and the amenity areas under and near the trees will add positively to the student living experience. The long term amenity value of these trees can be safeguarded by conditions and as such there is no overriding conflict with the wider objectives of Policy CS38 sufficient on which to justify a refusal.
6.38 With regard to the revised planting in the form of additional frontage trees the applicant has commented that the trees to the south of the site in Mount Pleasant were planted by the Council on extended highway areas (as build out pavements) and there is no such build out in front of the application site where the carriageway edge acts as the approach to a bus stop. The proposal is thus to plant trees at the front edge of the site ownership and within the applicant’s control as the best option in terms of reinforcing the ‘boulevard’.
6.39 With these points in mind, the Council’s Natural Environment Officer has been requested to comment further on the revised planting proposals for the frontage.
143
The other landscape proposals for the inner courtyard and rear of the site (behind Block C) are otherwise considered acceptable.
6.40 Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) of the Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air, land, noise or light pollution whilst ground and surface water quality would be preserved and water, sewerage and waste treatment infrastructure are adequate.
6.41 The applicant has submitted a drainage strategy that confirms the proposed discharge of surface water into the main system in Silver Street and on site drainage (not soakaways) capacity designed to cope with a 1 in 30 year storm and climate change events (+30%). The site is not liable to flooding at present or within the 1:100 Flood Zone) and permeable paving to reduce run off would be included where possible within the site. Accordingly, there are no objections or concerns raised on this issue.
g) Matters raised in representation
6.42 The above comments broadly address the comments raised in representations. However, the boundary wall ownership is currently being disputed between the applicant and neighbouring occupier (at No. 1 Mount Pleasant) and there may be historical evidence to support both claims. However, this is essentially a private non-planning matter that does not have any bearing on officer’s consideration of the planning issues arising from the proposals to redevelop the site at No. 79 Silver Street.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposal for a student residence is considered acceptable in principle in terms of its general location in the town with proximity to town centre facilities and attractions, public transport and Reading University campus buildings. Furthermore a very high standard of student living accommodation would be created with all necessary on-site amenities for the future residents and staff in an accessible location by public transport that is not wholly dependent on parking.
7.2 The significant concerns that arose with the previous proposal in particular the potential impacts on residential amenities and with parking and highways related issues have to a large extent been satisfactorily addressed in seeking various design (including scale/height) and site layout improvements.
7.3 The potential impacts on neighbouring occupiers and effect on the character of the street and area as a whole have been considered. The relationship of the proposed building, in particular the height and proximity of the blocks that would extend rearwards of the residential properties to the south is now considered acceptable. In particular, there is no demonstrable harm as a result of reduction in outlook, daylight and privacy generally for the occupants.
7.4 The deficiency in the on-site parking provision of the previous proposal has been resolved and the arrangements to be put in place for student arrivals would avoid impact on the highway traffic flows. The refuse collection arrangements within the site are also sufficient to prevent problems of obstruction and inconvenience on the public highway in Silver Street.
144
7.5 Additional concerns relating to the potential impact on trees to the rear of the site, within and adjacent to a conservation area have been considered but are not likely to be to the detriment of their long term retention and health
7.6 The concerns arising from the appraisal and in consultations have been considered against all other relevant material considerations. Accordingly, for these reasons within the context of national and local planning policies, it is recommended that planning application be granted.
Plans: 1609_PL_001: Location Plan 1609_PL_002: Proposed Site Plan
1609_PL_100 Rev C: Level -1 1609_PL_101: Level 0 1609_PL_102: Level 1 1609_PL_103 Rev C: Level 2 1609_PL_104 Rev B: Level 3 1609_PL_106 Rev B: Roof Plan 1609_PL_107: Existing Floor Plans 1609_PL_200: Existing Elevations
1609_PL_201 Rev C: Proposed Elevations - Sheet 1 1609_PL_202 Rev C: Proposed Elevations – Sheet 2 1609_PL_203 Rev B: Proposed Elevations – Sheet 3 1609_PL_204 Rev C: Proposed Elevations – Sheet 4 1609_PL_205: Building Context Elevations
1609_PL_300 Rev A: Section AA and BB 1609_PL_301 Rev A: Section CC 1609_PL_303: Section DD and EE 1609_PL_307: Neighbouring Garden Elevation
101 Rev F: Landscape Layout 1609_PL_206: GIA Schedule 1609_PL_308: Boundary 1609_PL_310: 20m Radius Received on 2nd May 2017
201 Rev G: Planting Plan Received on 12th June 2017
Supporting Documents: Design and Access Statement by O’Connell East Architects (May 2017) Planning and Heritage Statement by GW Planning (April 2017) Purpose Built Student Accommodation Management Plan by Morlet Properties Ltd (April 2017) Landscape Design Statement (Issue 7) by TPM Landscape (orig. May 2016) Arboricultural Method Statement (April 2017) Arboricultural Impact Report Appendix 1 by TPM Landscape (April 2017) Drainage Strategy by Westlakes Consulting (August 2016); Desktop Daylight and Sunlight Review by Delva Patman Redler (March 2017) Case Officer: Daniel Murkin
145
PROPOSED SILVER STREET ELEVATION
PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT
146
LEVEL 0 (GROUND FLOOR) PLAN
COURTYARD (SOUTH) ELEVATION
VIEW FROM NEIGHBOURS GARDEN
147
COURTYARD FROM STUDIO (BLOCK C)
PROPOSED FROM NEIGHBOURS GARDEN
LANDSCAPE LAYOUT (INCL. LEVEL -1)
148
LEVEL -1 (BASEMENT) FLOOR PLAN
LEVEL 2 (SECOND FLOOR) PLAN
LEVEL 3 (THIRD FLOOR) PLAN
149
SECTION & VIEW TO COURTYARD
ROOF PLAN
EXISTING STREET VIEWS
150
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Katesgrove App No: 170794/FUL Address: 13-21 Crown Street and 22 Silver Street, Reading, RG1 2SE Proposal: Residential development consisting of 80 no. dwellings (Class C3) with associated access and landscaping works. Demolition of existing buildings (amended description). Applicant: Thomas Homes Ltd Date received: 19 May 2017 Application target decision date: 18 August 2017 26 week date: 17 November 2017
RECOMMENDATION
Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to (i) GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement, or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 18 August 2017 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement).
The legal agreement to secure:
i) Affordable Housing
To secure the following as Affordable Housing, as shown on the submitted drawings:
24 Affordable units, 12 no. 1-bed, 12 no. 2-bed
of which 18 no. Affordable Rent tenure (9 no. 1-bed, 9 no. 2-bed)
and 6 no. Intermediate tenure (3 no. 1-bed, 3 no. 2-bed)
To be provided prior to first occupation of the fourteenth market housing unit.
ii) Employment Skills and Training To secure an Employment Skills and Training Plan to meet the requirements of the Council’s Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013) relating to the construction phase of the development. The plan to be submitted to the Council at least one month before works commencing.
Or, equivalent financial contribution towards Employment Skills and Training of £12,263 (construction phase)). Payment to be index-linked and made at least one month before works commencing.
iii) Refuse Storage and Collection Strategy To secure a plan, to be submitted to the Council for Approval, setting out measures and/or procedures for the management of the disposal of all refuse waste produced
151
by the development in accordance with the following principles:
(a) all refuse from the development to be deposited in refuse bins to be located in the Disposal Area (bin store) to be identified on a plan. (b) no refuse bins refuse bags or other receptacles or containers containing refuse and no loose refuse from the development to be deposited on the highways known as Silver St, Crown St, Newark St, London Street, London Road, Upper Crown Street, or Jubilee Square at any time. (c) a contract to be entered into with a registered private disposal refuse collector for the regular collection of all refuse from the Disposal Area and such a contract thereafter to be in place at all times for the lifetime of the Development unless otherwise agree in writing by the Council. (d) vehicles involved in the waste collection shall not stop on the public highway. (e) details of appropriate enforcement measures to ensure all residents and staff of the development comply with these principles. (f) Annual review of the Refuse Disposal Management Plan as required.
The S106 to be subject to such terms and conditions that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services considers appropriate and in the best interests of the Council.
AND subject to conditions, to include:
1. Time limit – 3 Year
2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings.
3. Details and samples of all materials to be used externally, including window frames and details of window reveals, in accordance with details submitted with application. Prior to commencement.
4. Submission of Construction Management Statement (highways, noise, dust) prior to commencement.
5. No development shall take place until full technical details of a sustainable drainage system for all surface water within the site, in accordance with the submitted strategy and including details of its implementation and future maintenance, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall give priority to infiltration measures where possible. The approved scheme shall be provided in full prior to first occupation and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.
6. Details of proposed and existing functional services above and below ground and tree pit design details (including soil volume) to be submitted prior to commencement. Development and associated landscaping to be carried out in accordance with approved details.
7. Hard and soft landscaping to be in accordance with the details set out in approved landscaping plans and schedule.
8. Implementation of approved landscaping – hard landscaping prior to first occupation. Soft landscaping within first planting season following first occupation.
9. Maintenance of hard and soft landscaping (replacement of trees or plants that die, are damaged, or diseased within 5 years of planting.
10. Landscaping Management Plan, including management of open spaces. Prior to first
152
occupation.
11. Full details of boundary treatments, including security measures and measures to allow wildlife to pass through the site. Prior to first occupation
12. Contaminated Land - The remediation scheme (report ref: 28957-R02 (01)) shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A verification report (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority following completion of the earthworks phase of the development and prior to construction of new buildings as set out in 6.2.8 of report 28957-R02 (01)
13. Contaminated Land – Unexpected contamination, reporting and remediation.
14. Air Pollution Mitigation – mechanical ventilation to be provided in accordance with submitted Air Quality Assessment, prior to first occupation.
15. External Lighting – no external lighting at any time other than in accordance with details to be submitted (residential amenity).
16. No external plant other than in accordance with a BS4142 noise assessment to be submitted and approved prior to first installation.
17. Provision of obscure glazing and privacy window designs in accordance with approved drawings. Obscure panes to be non-opening below 1.7m above finished floor level. Prior to first occupation.
18. Biodiversity Enhancements, details including swift bricks to be submitted prior to occupation, provision prior to first occupation.
19. Provision of parking and vehicle circulation areas in accordance with approved plans prior to first occupation.
20. Provision of secure cycle storage prior to occupation in location shown on approved plans, prior to first occupation.
21. Provision of refuse stores in accordance with approved drawings, prior to first occupation.
22. Vehicle access provided in accordance with approved plans, prior to first occupation.
23. Stopping up of existing vehicular access from Crown Street and disused access on Silver Street, reinstatement of kerbs and footways. Prior to first occupation.
24. No gates across vehicle entrance at any time (highway safety and congestion)
25. No parking permits – Addresses
26. No parking permits – Information
27. Archaeology –Implementation in accordance with agreed Written Scheme of Investigation, to include any additional phases as required.
28. Evidence demonstrating that 50% of the dwellings hereby permitted have achieved a minimum of a 19% improvement in the dwelling emission rate over the target emission rate, as defined in The Building Regulations for England Approved Document L1A: Conservation of Fuel and Power in New Dwellings (2013 edition). Such evidence
153
shall be in the form of a Design Stage Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) Assessment, produced by an accredited energy assessor. To be submitted and approved prior to first occupation.
29. Details of security measures prior to occupation - to include provision of access shutter to basement car park and CCTV coverage to parking court and basement.
30. Access shall be provided to each dwelling hereby approved via the main entrance and foyer for all occupiers of the dwellings hereby approved prior to first occupation and maintained at all times thereafter.
31. Full details of entrance canopy, access lift, steps and associated features shown on the approved drawings to be submitted for approval prior to first occupation. Provision prior to first occupation.
32. Hours of demolition and construction restriction no works outside hours of 8am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. No works on Sundays or Bank Holidays without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.
Informatives
1. Positive and Proactive Approach
2. Parking permits restriction
3. Environmental Protection advice
4. Building Regulation approval would be required for works. The Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service recommend domestic sprinklers be included in the development as part of the Building Regulations submission.
5. s278 agreement required for works affecting Highway.
6. A S106 legal agreement relates to this development.
7. CIL Liability Informative
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The site is located at the southern edge of the town centre, and within the Reading Central Area. The site is allocated for residential development of between 50 and 85 dwellings under site reference RC4l in the Reading Central Area Action Plan.
1.2 The site itself is relatively level although Silver Street slopes steeply upwards away from the site to the south with London Street sloping downward towards the town centre.
1.3 Terraced buildings formerly on the corner of Crown Street and Silver Street have been demolished previously and the site is currently occupied by a number of single storey commercial buildings, and equipment associated with a hand car wash.
1.4 The site is not covered by any heritage designations although it lies immediately to the south of the edge of the Market Place London Street Conservation Area. The site forms part of the setting of Grade II listed buildings at 3 and 5 London Road and 30 Silver Street (former Rising Sun Temperance Tavern).
154
1.5 A significant proportion of the site was owned by Reading Borough Council until recently and is now owned by the applicant
Site location plan – not to scale
155
Site Photograph – from London Street looking south towards site
2. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
910338/FUL Renewal of time limited permission for car parking (86/TP/635)
911078/FUL - Temporary use of land for vehicle hire business and ancillary office accommodation. Approved
091559/FUL - Retrospective application for the use of part of site for car wash/valeting with associated advertising.
101134 (old style ref. 10/00432/FUL) - Change of use from storage and parking to car wash and parking - Withdrawn
101072//FUL - Change of use from storage and parking to car wash and parking (Resubmission of 10/00432/FUL) – Approved.
111240/VAR - Change of use from storage and parking to car wash and parking without complying with condition 5 of planning consent 10/00978/FUL – Withdrawn.
141769/PRE – Pre-application enquiry for Residential Institution (Use Class C2) comprising 37 x 1-bedroomed assisted living units, 26 x 2-bedroomed assisted living units and 60 bed nursing home.
151702/OUT - Outline Application for residential institution within Class C2 comprising 86 no 1 bed and 10 no 2 bed assisted living units (Landscaping reserved for future consideration) (amended description). Approved subject to S106. – Committee resolution to grant - Withdrawn by applicant as S106 not completed.
156
160868/FUL Residential institution (Class C2) comprising 74 no 1 bed and 10 no 2 bed assisted living units (resubmission of application 151702) (Access, Appearance, Layout and Scale only). Approved
170182/FUL - Pre-application advice for proposed residential development comprising 80no. apartments (amended description). Observations sent.
3. PROPOSALS
3.1 Full Planning Permission is sought for a single block containing 80 residential flats (Use Class C3). It is proposed that 28 would be 1-bed, 39 2-bed and 7 3-bed.
3.2 The applicant proposes that 24 of the flats would be Affordable Housing, with 18 under Affordable Rent tenure and the remaining 6 being Intermediate tenure (e.g. Shared Ownership). The units would be split evenly between 1 and 2 bedroom sizes.
3.3 The development would consist of a single L-shaped building with two wings fronting Crown Street and Silver Street. The proposed building ranges in height between four storeys at the outer edges, stepping upwards to six storeys at the corner above the main pedestrian entrance.
3.4 Vehicular access to the site is proposed adjacent to 22 Silver Street with a parking and turning area within the site and additional parking in a basement beneath the building. 54 spaces are proposed.
3.5 The proposals have been amended during the course of the application to include changes to the main entrance and corner detailing, changes to access arrangements (with the main entrance now shared by all flats), the addition of one flat (previously 79), changes to windows on western façade, changes to the form of the building at roof level, changes to landscaping and changes to bin store design.
3.6 Information Submitted with the Application:
Drawings
Existing Plans: Site Survey. Dated March 2011
Proposed Plans: 977.01, Site Location Plan, dated January 2017 977.02 Rev.B, Block Plan, dated 27 June 2017 977.03 Rev.B, Ground Floor Plan, dated 27 June 2017 977.04 Rev.B, Basement & First to Third Floor Plans, dated 27 June 2017 977.05 Rev.B, Fourth & Fifth Floor Plans, dated 27 June 2017
Proposed Elevations: 977.07 Rev.B, Proposed Elevations (1of2) dated 27 June 2017 977.08 Rev.B, Proposed Elevations (2of2) dated 27 June 2017 977.09 Rev.B, Proposed Elevations (compared with approved outline) dated 27 June 2017 977.10 Rev.B, Proposed Cross Sections, dated 27 June 2017 977.11 Rev.B, Proposed Street Elevations, dated 27 June 2017
157
977.12 Rev.B, Bin Store: Plan and Elevations, dated 27 June 2017
Section and Detail Drawings: 977.13 Rev.A, Part Section-Oriel windows with controlled aspect dated 27 June 2017
Landscape: D2493 L.200 Rev.07 Detailed Hard Landscape General Arrangement Plan dated 29 June
2017 D2493 L.300 Rev.06 Detailed Soft Landscape General Arrangement Plan dated 28 June 2017
Documents D2493 L.001 Rev.03 - Detailed Plant Schedule and Specification to be read with L300, dated 28 June 2017
Transport Statement, Glanville, Ref: TR8170238/MB/DW/006, Issue 3, dated 13 June 2017
Ecology Report, Windrush Ecology ref. W1619_rep_Crown Street, Reading_20-06-15 dated 20 June 2015
Remediation Action Plan ref. 28957-R02 (01) dated May 2017 (contaminated land) Noise Assessment Report, John Waring, Issue 1, dated 4 May 2017
Air Quality Assessment, Peter Brett Associates, Ref: 40556/3001 dated May 2017
BRE Report [daylight/sunlight], GVA, , dated May 2017
Planning Statement, JPPC dated June2017
Sustainability Statement, Proport, ver 1.2 dated 11 May 2017
Design and Access Statement, Woodfield Brady Architects, dated June 2017.
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Statement Infrastruct CS Ltd ICS-2488.07.001 Rev A dated May 2017
Written Scheme of Investigation for an Archaeological Evaluation CgMs, ref. 770573, dated June 2017, received 3 July 2017
Superfast Broadband Statement, Thomas Homes, May 2017
CIL Information Form
4. CONSULTATIONS i) RBC Transport Development Control
4.1 The application is for a residential development comprising 80 no. apartments on the corner of Crown Street and Silver Street. London Street and Silver Street (A327) run one way from north to south (London Street with a northbound contraflow bus lane) and London Road and Crown Street run one way from east to west (London Road with an eastbound contraflow bus lane).
4.2 The development proposals comprise of 31 one bedroom flats, 42 two bedroom flats and 7 three bed flats. A large proportion of the former buildings on the site
158
have been demolished and the site is semi derelict. The site is within a 10 minute walk of the town centre and 15 walk of Reading Railway Station. The nearest bus stops are located on London Street approximately 80 metres to the north of the site. The application is supported with a Transport Statement which addresses the sustainability of the site in more detail.
4.3 The development will provide 54 car parking spaces and 44 cycle parking spaces.
Access 4.4 The site is located on the corner of Crown Street and Silver Street, and until recently was used as a hand car wash and a car park. There are currently two points of access to the site from Silver Street and Crown Street. A third dropped access exists just north of the existing Silver Street access points although it is disused at present.
4.5 Silver Street is part of the “A” road network carrying between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles a day and is one of the main routes out of central Reading to the south. Therefore, any proposals need to comply with the Council’s adopted Design Guidance for Residential Accesses on to Classified Roads.
4.6 The vehicular access to the site will be formed approximately 1.5m south of the location of the existing vehicle access onto Silver Street as shown on Drwg no. 977.03 Rev A. A 4.8m wide access road will be provided within the site. It is a positive move to see the access on to Crown Street removed which complies with the adopted policy. The existing disused access onto Silver Street will be stopped up and the footway reinstated to line and level. Visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 70 metres are demonstrated to the left of access given the one-way status of Silver Street.
4.7 The main pedestrian entrance at the corner of Silver Street provides a shared entrance for the market and affordable units.
Parking 4.8 The site is located within the Zone 2, the primary core area but on the periphery of the central core area which lies at the heart of Reading Borough, consisting primarily of retail and commercial office developments with good transport hubs. In accordance with the adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide a parking provision of 1 space per unit and 1 space per 10 units for visitor parking. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document also states that fewer spaces would be acceptable for residential schemes providing there is no detriment to highway safety and where the development has a high level of public transport accessibility.
4.9 The application plans illustrate 9 external parking spaces at surface level and 45 parking spaces at basement level equating to 0.68 spaces per unit.
4.10 The A327 Silver Street and A4 Crown Street have “No Waiting” parking restrictions preventing on-street parking and peak hour loading bans between 8.15-9.15am and 4.00-5.45pm. Therefore, any overflow in parking would not affect flow of traffic on the classified road network. The residential roads surrounding the site consist of a mixture of double yellow lines and permit holder only parking bays.
4.11 Considering the proximity of the site to the town centre and given that Silver Street and Crown Street both have extensive parking restrictions, which are enforced by Reading Borough Council, it is concluded that the parking aspects of the proposed development would not unacceptably prejudice the safety of other highway users. However, the future occupants of the flats should be aware that
159
they would not be eligible for any residents parking permits. This will ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area.
4.12 The majority of the parking is provided within the basement area. The proposed parking layout is acceptable with 6.0m aisle widths and clearance spaces at the end of the aisles.
Traffic Generation 4.13 The site has planning permission for 84 assisted living homes with associated car parking which was granted in May 2016. It was agreed that the assisted living homes would generate in the region of 19 vehicular movements in the morning peak and 13 vehicular movements in the evening peak, and in the region of 229 vehicular trips per day.
4.14 The trip generation for the proposed development has been calculated from vehicle trip rates from the TRICS database. The detailed analysis has shown that the proposed residential development will generate in the region of 22 vehicular trips and 24 vehicular trips in the AM and PM peak hours respectively (0800-0900 and 1700-1800), and in the region of 210 trips daily trips.
4.15 The development will result in a small increase in vehicular traffic during the peak hours (equating to less than one vehicle every two minutes on average), and less over the course of the day. Given that the current use of the site is as a hand car wash and a car park, it is anticipated that the net trip generation of the development proposals will be lower.
4.16 Given that Silver Street is part of the “A” road network carrying between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles a day, an increase of 22 vehicular movements in the morning peak and 24 vehicular movements in the evening peak is not a material increase and within the daily fluctuations on the network.
Refuse collection 4.17 Refuse collection at the development will be undertaken by a private contractor and provisions have been made for off-street servicing to take place within the site. Bin stores are provided at ground level adjacent to the 9 external parking spaces. In principle, the proposed bin storage area is acceptable, however, can the applicant confirm that the refuse and recycling collections will take place on a weekly basis as the bin storage area is not large enough for a fortnightly collection.
Cycle Storage 4.18 The development proposes 44 secure cycle parking spaces which complies with the Council’s standards of 0.5 spaces per 1/2 bedroom flat and 1 space per 3 bedroom flat. The cycle store is accessed from Silver Street via the 4.8m wide access road and is located within the basement of the building.
Construction 4.19 A condition securing a Construction Method Statement is recommended, to be approved before any works commence on-site. Any works affecting the highway would have to comply with the Borough’s Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway. Before any planning consent is implemented, an agreement under Section 278 of the Highways Act, 1980 will be required, with respect to works affecting the existing highway. The applicants should contact the Transport Development Control to discuss arrangements for this prior to commencement on site.
160
SuDS 4.20 The application is submitted with a Sustainable Drainage application. The proposed drainage scheme is acceptable subject to the conditions below.
4.21 Suggested conditions on any consent • DC1 Vehicle parking space provided in accordance with approved plans • DC2 Vehicle access provided in accordance with approved plans • DC3 Bicycle parking space provided in accordance with approved plans • DC6 Bin storage • DC7 Parking permits 1 • DC8 Parking permits 2 • CO2 Construction Method Statement • Sustainable Drainage – Provision and maintenance • No gates shall be provided on the access/vehicle entrance. • The existing access to the site shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the new access has been brought into use. The footway(s) and verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
ii) RBC Environmental Protection
Noise impact 4.22 The noise assessment submitted shows that the recommended standard for internal noise in line with BS8233:2014 can be met, if the recommendations from the assessment are incorporated into the design. It is recommended that a condition be attached to consent to ensure that the glazing (and ventilation) recommendations of the noise assessment (and air quality assessment, where relevant) will be followed, or that alternative but equally or more effective glazing and ventilation will be used.
4.23 Applications which include noise generating plant when there are nearby noise sensitive receptors should be accompanied by an acoustic assessment carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology.
4.24 There will need to be ventilation serving the apartments due to the high external noise. There may be other noise generating plant. The acoustic assessment does not appear to cover these issues, only traffic noise. As noise generating plant is likely and there is no information submitted with regards this. A condition is recommended to ensure that noise generating plant is appropriately selected and located within the development to ensure that disturbance to future residents and neighbouring residents does not occur.
Air Quality - Increased exposure 4.25 The proposed development is located within an air quality management area that has been identified with monitoring as being a pollution hot-spot (likely to breach the EU limit value for NO2) and introduces new exposure / receptors. An assessment and/or mitigation measures should be provided as part of the application.
161
4.26 Environmental Protection are satisfied that the air pollution mitigation measures proposed should be sufficient to protect future occupants.
4.27 If the design includes appropriate ventilation as recommended, EP has no objections to the application on the grounds of air pollution.
Contaminated Land 4.28 A contaminated land remediation strategy (report ref: 28957-R02 (01)) has been submitted which confirms that the investigation at the site did not identify any significant contamination, but recommends a number of remedial measures. A condition is recommended requiring implementation the remediation scheme in accordance with the approved timetable of works and submission of a validation report for approval (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) - both prior to construction of the development.
Construction and demolition phases 4.29 EP has concerns about potential noise, dust and bonfires associated with the construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses).
4.30 Fires during construction and demolition can impact on air quality and cause harm to residential amenity. Burning of waste on site could be considered to be harmful to the aims of environmental sustainability. It is recommended that these should be controlled with a Construction Method Statement condition and an hours of working restriction condition. iii) Berkshire Archaeology
4.31 There are potential implications associated with this proposal due to its location within an area of archaeological potential. The site is located on the edge of the medieval town, with London Road to the north being medieval in origin. Excavations to the east at Jubilee Square revealed medieval and post medieval features, including a medieval tile kiln and a section of a ditch thought to be part of the Civil War defences. To the south at 32-38 Silver Street further evidence for the Civil War defences were recorded as well as a group of rubbish pits, the earliest dating to the 17th century.
4.32 There is therefore the potential that similar archaeological deposits and features could be present within the site, and have the potential to provide valuable information relating to the medieval and post-medieval periods of Reading, including the Civil War.
4.33 The applicant has submitted a WSI for an archaeological evaluation, which has been revised during the course of the application and is now accetable. It is therefore recommended that a condition requiring implementation of the archaeological investigation is attached to any planning permission granted. iv) RBC Natural Environment (NE)
4.34 Being mindful of the development approved under 160868/OUT, the application is acceptable. The amount of planting, particularly trees, has increased noticeably compared to that on Landscape plans approved under 160868 which is a positive step. Generally the proposed planting is acceptable with a good mix of species and the inclusion of a large canopy tree (Sweet chestnut) within the garden area.
4.35 Tree pits details can be secured via condition as recommended below. Recommend:
162
• Condition securing the submitted hard and soft landscaping details. • Condition requiring submission of underground services and tree pit details. • Condition requiring implementation in first planting season following first occupation • Condition requiring replacement of any trees or plants that die, are severely damaged or seriously diseased within 5 years of planting. • Condition securing landscape management plan. v) RBC Ecologist
4.36 The site has now been cleared and as such there are no ecological constraints. A condition should be included to secure provision of swift bricks in the new building (see Condition 8 of the previous application). vi) RBC Emergency Planner
4.37 No response received – (confirmed no objection to 151702/OUT) vii) Thames Valley Police Design Advisor
4.38 No comments received. viii) RBC Adult Social Care 4.39 Request that some of the units be made available for supported living nomination. ix) RBC Housing 4.40 Confirm no objection to the percentage of units offered as it is policy compliant (30%) and the mix of shared ownership and Affordable Rent (25%: 75%). The mix of 1 and 2 beds does not quite reflect the wider scheme, but I see the benefits of having a discrete block. On that note however, RBC housing would expect the entrance of the affordable block to be comparable in terms of size and quality of finish to that of the market sale block. Equally the tenants need to have comparable access routes to the bin stores/ parking etc. [Officer note: the entrances and routes have now been amended as discussed elsewhere in the report]
4.41 Housing confirm that if Adult Social Care clients do get nominated to these units it would be as a general needs tenant with a care package in place and no specific allocation is needed at Planning stage. This is an arrangement which happens in a number of blocks throughout the town, and is controlled via the RBC choice-based lettings scheme.
x) Thames Water 4.42 Comments awaited. Any comments received will be reported to Committee in an Update Report. xi) Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service 4.43 Confirm no additional fire hydrants are required.
4.44 Confirm that the layout plans have not been reviewed for fire safety provisions as this is the responsibility of Local Authority Building Control or Approved Inspector, in consultation with RBFRS as part of a Building Regulations application.
4.45 Recommend that domestic sprinklers be made a requirement for this development. [Officer note: this point has been discussed further with RBFRS. It
163
was agreed that this is a matter to be addressed at Building Regulations approval stage. It does however seem reasonable to include an informative on any planning decision notice advising the developer of the RBFRS advice]. xii) Public Consultation 4.46 All properties adjoining the site were consulted. Three site notices were displayed adjacent to the site; one on Silver Street adjacent to number 22, one on the corner and the other on Crown Street at the junction with Newark Street. A second round of consultation has been carried out in response to the revised proposals. The deadline for comments is 11 July 2017.
4.47 Six letters of representation have been received to date in response to the initial consultation summarised below. Any further representations received prior to the Committee meeting will be reported in an Update Report:
• Unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight to Quadrant Court - As indicated in my objection to application number 160868 previously I believe that the loss of light to residents on the lower floors of Quadrant Court is far too large. The exact details of this objection can be found in my previous objection. • Increased traffic near a busy junction - There are over 50 parking spaces proposed in this new plan. Many if not all of the residents will have at least one person working and so many will be wanting to leave the property at a similar time. The likely time will be similar to a lot of other traffic in the area near what is already a busy junction. • Parking Issues - While there are over 50 parking spaces there are significantly fewer parking spaces than there are apartments. This may well lead to more people wanting to use the already sparse parking in the area and potentially either increase illegal parking (either on public roads or on private property) or lead to pressure to ease parking restrictions in the area… Previously the parking facilities were not as large and with the previous plan being for elderly residents the usage pattern would have been different as they would be unlikely to be leaving during rush hour or at similar times. • In addition, if planning permission is eventually granted, can I point out that the area is residential and request that consideration is given to restrictions on when work can be carried out. Especially as it is well known that builders like to start early and finish early and developments that run late make use of weekend working. I would imagine that many residents would object to being woken at 7am. Especially on a Saturday or Sunday. • I am concerned that there are shades of 'upstairs downstairs' in that the affordable housing has a segregated entrance. While the Market housing has a lift and 2 staircases, the Affordable block only appears to have a staircase and no alternative fire escape. Couldn't these safety facilities be shared? • This part of Reading (and the town centre in general) does not have the infrastructure to cope with more flats being built. Please reject the application • It appears that it is envisaged to provide 54 parking spaces on site for the 79 dwellings. Those living in the new development could not reasonably be allocated residents parking permits for the surrounding streets, as this would place additional pressure on what is already a strained parking situation in the neighbouring streets, particularly in the evenings and overnight, and would mean that there would be simply nowhere to park in the immediate vicinity of the properties in Newark Street. • As with the previous application for the site, I am concerned by the height of the proposed development and the number of storeys in the design submitted. It would seem that although the development rises to six storeys in places, the building would stand four storeys high immediately to the east of my property [Newark St]. The addition of a four-floor building about 24 metres from the rear wall of my house would clearly have appreciable effects on the sunlight and
164
daylight reaching the rooms to the rear of my home, which include a bedroom and the dining room but, more importantly, the kitchen, and the office (from which I work for around eight hours per day). It is essential that a significant amount of daylight is not taken away from my working environment, for obvious reasons. At present, the nearest buildings to the east are the four-storey flats on the far side of Silver Street, which are approximately 48 metres away (twice the distance of the proposed new building). Only a basic geometrical calculation is needed to see how much sky I would lose if the new development rose to that same height, with ensuing effects in terms of sunlight and daylight. • Whilst the total height of the proposed buildings may be in keeping with the multistorey sites on Crown Street and Silver Street, it is certainly not commensurate with the terraced residential properties on Newark Street. This is highlighted by an image from the Design and Access Statement which, although it does not show the precise final design, does illustrate how the houses on Newark Street would be completely overwhelmed by the new development. • My property at 9 Newark Street is overlooked by numerous flats. It will also reduce the light to my property. • The design of the block will add no life to Crown Street as the street level is entirely ventilation for the ‘underground’ car park. • The driveway from the rear of my property to Crown Street appears to be encroached upon by the current plans narrowing it considerably and eliminating the existing turning area next to my back gate. This will result in my tenants having to reverse into Crown Street, a fairly dangerous move for them as well as cyclists and pedestrians on the pavement. The plans also reduce the visibility for vehicles emerging from the driveway. This is a very serious concern at the moment, as the developers have erected a tall fence on the driveway itself completely obscuring the sight lines to Crown Street road and pavement traffic. • The parking provision for the new housing is considerably less than the number of planned flats. This will put increased pressure on existing adjacent parking areas. I would like to know what steps can be taken to prevent people from parking in the driveway between 9 Newark Street and Crown Street. • Some of the drawings indicate that the site of the old Crown Pub on the Corner of Crown Street and Newark Street will be landscaped, yet this plot (which is currently scruffy wasteland) is not covered by the Planning Application. I feel this is quite misleading. • The site that they wish to build on has lain vacant for almost ten years. This is a site that is 5 minutes walk from the Oracle, 5 minutes walk from the Royal Berkshire hospital, and 15 minutes walk from Reading University Whiteknights campus. It is also 2 minutes walk from the South Street and Rising Sun arts centres. Yet it lies unused, an eyesore. • While I appreciate that Reading council has certain policy objectives, I have to question whether they are being realistic in their planning decisions when no- one can be persuaded to build on such a well-situated plot of land, despite a housing shortage.
5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.
165
5.3 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.
5.4 Accordingly this application has been assessed against the following policies:
National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2008) (Altered 2015)
CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS20 Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS24 Car / Cycle parking CS29 Provision of Open Space CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands
Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) RC4l Other Opportunity Sites – Corner of Crown Street & Silver Street RC5 Design in the Centre RC6 Definition of the Centre
Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaption to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality
Supplementary Planning Documents
Sustainable Construction and Design 2011 Revised Parking Standards and Design 2011 Employment Skills and Training SPD 2013 Affordable Housing SPD 2013
166
6. APPRAISAL i) Proposed Use 6.1 The site is allocated as site RC4l in the Reading Central Area Action Plan for between 50 and 85 dwellings. The development currently proposed is for Class C3 dwellings. It would be within the 50-85 dwelling range and is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the general principle of the use and amount. ii) Character and Appearance 6.2 The scale and form of the building is broadly the same as that approved under reference 160868. The current application should therefore be considered in light of this. The appearance is somewhat different however due to the design of the façades.
6.3 Viewed from the conservation area to the north, Silver Street has a less urban appearance with lower, traditional buildings, and the Rising Sun listed building appearing as a prominent feature. As with the previous approval, the proposed building steps down to four storeys adjacent to 22 Silver Street. This would be higher than the adjacent house at 22 Silver Street but lower than the ridge height of the Rising Sun. Overall it is considered that the proposed scale of building would be appropriate within Silver Street and would address the transition from larger town centre buildings to more domestic scale buildings further along Silver Street in a reasonable manner and would preserve the setting of the listed Rising Sun building.
6.4 At the corner of Crown Street and Silver Street the building would broadly match the heights of the Quadrant Court building to the east and the student accommodation fronting Crown Street to the north and this is considered to be an appropriate response to the existing character of the area.
6.5 As with approval reference 160868, the building currently proposed would step down to a height of four storeys at its western end with a significant gap between this building and the three storey office building to the west across Newark Street. Although the proposals would leave an undeveloped gap to the corner, it is not considered that this would be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal, and would not prejudice some form of development on the remaining land in the future in terms of overall appearance and impact on the character of the area.
6.6 As with the previous proposal it is considered that the scale of building would not be so great as to harm the setting of listed buildings at 3 and 5 London Road as the new building would be a similar height and mass to those already existing around the crossroads and would be separated by a wide street that is dominated visually by highways infrastructure.
6.7 For these reasons, and as determined previously under 160868, although the change in scale would be stark compared to the existing small buildings within the site, it is not considered to be inappropriate within the existing setting which includes large buildings fronting the main roads. The stepping down to the south and west edges of the development would serve to reduce the contrast with lower buildings in Newark Street and Silver Street.
6.8 Although large, it is considered that the mass of the building and its apparent bulk has been successfully reduced by separating the long, unbroken elevations into more discrete vertical sections using articulation within the façade (including recessed balconies) and changes in the external finish.
167
6.9 The applicant has provided details of the types of material to be used externally; precise details of which are recommended to be secured by condition. The use of Orange blend brickwork as the main façade material is considered to reflect the locally distinctive brickwork within the Borough. The use of fibre cement cladding provides a reasonable contrast and avoids large unbroken expanses of brickwork. The applicant has submitted details that are considered to demonstrate that the Marley Equitone (Natura) brand of cladding is of sufficient visual quality for this context.
6.10 The detailing of the entrance and corner has been subject to discussions with officers. It is considered that the revised entrance and corner detailing would now provide a suitable focal point in key views southwards from London Street, having regard to the conservation area and listed buildings in the vicinity.
6.11 It is considered that the proposal would appear acceptable within its context and would not be harmful to the setting of nearby conservation areas and listed buildings. As such the proposal complies with Policies CS33 and CS7 of the Core Strategy, Policy RC5 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan and Policy DM7 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012. iii) Effect on Residential Amenity
Neighbours 6.12 It is considered that the separation distance of approximately 39 metres between the closest windows within the southern wing of the development looking west towards the rear windows and gardens of houses in Newark Street would be an acceptable distance, well in excess of the 20 metre privacy distance within Policy DM4 but acknowledging that some additional distance is needed to mitigate the effects of the taller building. This distance has increased slightly from 36 metres in parts of the building under approved scheme 160868. The current proposals do now include balconies, which have the potential to increase the perception of overlooking. However in this case the balconies are recessed within the facades, i.e. more enclosed and no closer to neighbours than the windows. It is considered that this arrangement would maintain privacy at an acceptable level.
6.13 As with approval 160868 the end of the building closest these gardens could overlook these gardens if not suitably mitigated. Angled privacy windows are proposed, which include a solid (opaque) element angled towards these neighbouring gardens with a clear pane at right angles to the opaque element looking eastwards into the centre of the site and away from Newark Street. As before, it is considered that although this may still allow some limited views towards Newark Street, the overall effect would be to direct the view of occupiers away from the neighbours. It is considered that this would reduce direct overlooking to an acceptable degree and, importantly, the perception of overlooking to Newark Street would also be reduced. A condition requiring this window arrangement to be provided is recommended.
6.14 Views across Crown Street and Silver Street to residential accommodation to the north and east would result in some intervisibility between dwellings. However this would be at a distance of around 20 metres and is across a public street and between the public facades of each building. As determined previously, it is considered reasonable to accept a lesser degree of privacy in these situations especially within a densely urban setting such as this.
6.15 The objections received in respect of the effect on daylight received by Quadrant Court flats and Newark Street houses are noted. It is apparent that the effect of
168
the current proposal would be comparable to that of approved scheme 160868 as the layout, height and massing is almost identical. As there have been no material changes in the built environment since this approval, it is considered that the extant permission is a material consideration that should be given significant weight when considering the current proposal.
6.16 The applicant has submitted an updated Daylight and Sunlight Assessment using the guidance set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines – Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice (2011). The submitted report suggests that where daylight levels fall slightly below BRE standards this is an inevitable consequence of developing what is currently a relatively open site with only low level buildings.
6.17 As determined previously under 160868, taking into account the submitted daylight report’s findings and based on a qualitative assessment of the character of the area, it is considered reasonable to expect some reduction in daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties where new development is proposed in densely urban locations such as this. It is considered that the submitted assessment provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this reduction in sunlight and daylight, whilst it would occur, would not be sufficiently harmful to amenity to warrant refusal.
6.18 In terms of overbearing effects, it is considered that the change from the relatively undeveloped site to a site containing a building of significant height and mass would inevitably result in a marked change in the built environment around neighbouring buildings. Although the change would be significant it is considered that the buildings would be sufficiently distant from neighbouring buildings to avoid the height and massing being overbearing.
6.19 As stated under 160868, the new building would inevitably alter the wind environment within the street by enclosing the street. However it is considered that the proposal does not include an unusually tall building and that the relationship across the street is not uncommon within central Reading. On this basis it is considered that further studies that may be required for very tall buildings are not required for this building.
6.20 The recommended Construction Management Statement and hours of work condition would limit the impact of construction works on the amenity of neighbours.
6.21 Outdoor lights fixed on the building or within the grounds could result in harm to neighbouring residents due to brightness or glare. As with the previous approval it is considered necessary to use a condition to restrict outdoor lighting and to require details of all lighting to be submitted for approval.
Future Occupiers 6.22 It is considered that all the proposed flats would be of a reasonable size and would receive reasonable levels of daylight.
6.23 Outlook from most windows would be reasonable. Four windows within the southern flank wall are proposed serving second bedrooms to four flats. These are obscure glazed and non-opening below 1.7m above floor level to protect the privacy of 22 Silver Street. It is considered that this arrangement is acceptable as good daylight will be received, some outlook will be allowed above 1.7 metres and the flats as a whole have a good standard of outlook so as to avoid a sense of being overly enclosed.
169
6.24 Similarly four windows to four flats are proposed in the western flank wall. These serve the third bedroom to these flats. Originally two bedrooms were served by windows in this flank wall but the flats have been re-arranged to avoid this. It is considered that these windows would not prejudice the development potential of the adjacent land at the corner of Crown Street and Newark Street and sufficient space remains for some form of additional development whilst allowing sufficient daylight and outlook to the bedrooms. The good quality of daylight and outlook available throughout the remainder of each of the flats affected is also a consideration.
6.25 The communal garden area proposed is a good size considering the town centre location. The proposed layout includes good quality tree and shrub planting with seating. The garden is a useable shape and would be well lit during the afternoon and evening due to its south westerly aspect. Each flat also benefits from a small amount of private outdoor space in the form of a balcony. It is considered that the outdoor amenity areas would be of sufficient size and quality to meet the needs of future occupiers.
6.26 The proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies CS34, DM4 and DM10 on this basis. iv) Highway and Transport Matters 6.27 The advice of the Council’s Transport section is set out in detail in section 4 of this report. This advice concludes that the development would be acceptable in terms of the traffic generated, and the safety of the access for vehicles and pedestrians. The number of parking spaces has been assessed and is considered to be acceptable for the type of development proposed.
6.28 The submitted transport statement advises that waste will be collected by a private contractor, as with the previous approval. A refuse collection plan can be secured through the S106 legal agreement as has been agreed on other constrained town centre sites.
6.29 The recommended conditions are considered necessary to minimise congestion within the car park and any subsequent effects on the public highway at both construction and operational stages.
6.30 Concerns have been expressed by an objector regarding visibility to the east when exiting onto Crown Street from the existing access serving the rear of Newark Street properties. Although the new building would have an effect on views to the east, the proposals would be an improvement on the existing situation where boundary treatments are set on the back edge of the pavement. By comparison the proposed building would be set back from the site boundary with the pavement with lower boundary treatments. The proposals would also remove the potential conflict between vehicles using the existing two adjacent accesses as the existing car wash access is to be stopped up. The applicant has provided title information confirming ownership of the land to which the application relates. Any concerns from neighbours regarding rights to use land for parking or turning, informally or formally, is a civil matter to be resolved between landowners.
6.31 As such, based on the advice of the Council’s Transport section, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policy CS20 (Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy) and Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters). v) Trees, Ecology and Landscaping
170
6.32 Detailed landscaping and ecology comments are provided in Section 4 above. As with 160868 it is considered that sufficient space and flexibility exists for suitable tree species to be provided. The increase in the number of trees compared to 160868 is welcome and the proposed Sweet Chestnut with seating around it will provide a focal point to the garden. More trees and shrubs are now proposed to the public fronting parts of the building which will improve the streetscene and soften any visual deadening effects of the semi-basement car park.
6.33 It is considered that the proposal addresses the requirements of Policies CS38 and DM18 to a reasonable degree. A condition is recommended requiring the Landscaping to be in accordance with the details set out in the current landscaping proposals with additional requirements for tree pit and underground services to be submitted. These are required as pre-commencement as their location needs to be agreed prior to groundworks taking place. Conditions are also recommended to secure the future landscaping of the site and ongoing maintenance. vi) Sustainability 6.34 Policy CS1 requires at least half of the development to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 with the remainder Level 3. Code for Sustainable Homes has been withdrawn and superseded by Building Regulations with the exception of energy use equivalent to Level 4. This equates to an energy efficiency improvement of 19% over the Target Emission Rate (TER) as determined by the Part L Building Regulations 2010. The submitted Sustainability Assessment confirms that the proposed building will exceed this requirement. A condition is recommended to secure submission of certification to confirm that the building meets the required standard once built.
6.35 Policy DM1 requires measures to be incorporated within the building to minimise the effects of climate change. In this instance the site is heavily constrained and the existing road layout dictates orientation of buildings to a great extent. The proposed tree planting and sustainable drainage system will be the main benefits in this regard. vii) Sustainable Drainage 6.36 The applicant has submitted a drainage strategy proposing that the principal method of surface water disposal will be to ground soakage. The geology beneath the site is gravel over chalk which lends itself to infiltration methods. Runoff from the buildings will be routed to a cellular soakaway within the communal open space. The site access road will drain via gullies, and discharge to soakaway. Parking bays will be constructed as permeable block paving, and runoff discharge to the permeable sub-base below.
6.37 The Council’s Highways section, acting as Lead Flood Authority, has been consulted. It has confirmed that the arrangements for drainage are satisfactory at this stage. Full technical details are required and a condition is recommended to secure this. These are required pre-commencement as the SuDS scheme is closely associated with groundworks under and around the new building. A condition is also recommended to secure details of future maintenance and adoption arrangements, in accordance with national guidance.
6.38 On this basis it is considered that the scheme demonstrates that it would minimise the amount and rate of surface water runoff from the site, in order to minimise surface water flood risk from overloading of sewers in the locality and to reduce the risk of river flooding downstream, in accordance with Policies DM1, CS35 and national policy and guidance. viii) Contaminated Land
171
6.39 The former use of the land as a car wash and other uses in the past, means that there is the potential for contaminated land at the site. The Council’s Environmental Protection team confirm that the on-site investigation carried out by the applicant did not identify any significant contamination, but a number of remedial measures have been recommended. A condition is recommended to secure this. It is considered that this approach is in accordance with Policy CS34. ix) Air Quality 6.40 Policy RC4l identifies air quality as a key issue to be addressed on this site. The proposed development is located within an air quality management area. The minimal increase in vehicle traffic associated with the development suggests that there is not a need to mitigate the effects of the development itself on air quality. However it will be necessary to protect occupiers of the residential use from the effects of poor air quality. The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer advises that the use of mechanical ventilation, which draws cleaner air from the rear or roof of the building as identified in the submitted Air Quality Assessment, would be appropriate mitigation in accordance with Policies CS34 and DM19 x) Security 6.41 The Police Crime Prevention and Design Advisor commented on the previous, approved, scheme. As with 160868, it is considered reasonable to include a condition requiring details of a roller shutter to the basement car park and CCTV to the basement and ground level parking court, which were identified as being vulnerable areas for crime and anti-social behaviour. On this basis it is considered that the proposals would comply with Policy CS7 in terms of the safety and security of the site. xi) Archaeology 6.42 The comments of Berkshire Archaeology are set out in section 4 above. The submitted Written Scheme of Investigation is acceptable and a condition is recommended to secure this. xii) Affordable Housing, S106 and Community Infrastructure Levy
Affordable Housing 6.43 The proposal includes 24 Affordable Housing units, equating to 30% of the total. This complies with Policy CS16 in terms of the amount of Affordable Housing.
6.44 Of these, 12 are to be one bed and 12 two bed dwellings. This mix is considered to be acceptable in terms of meeting housing need, in consultation with the Council’s Housing department.
6.45 The tenure is proposed to be 75% (18no.) Affordable Rent and the remaining 25% (6no.) Intermediate (e.g. Shared Ownership), which is in line with Housing department advice.
6.46 The original proposal included a segregated entrance for the Affordable Housing, which is referred to in the public representations received. Officers advised that this would not be acceptable and would be contrary to local and national policy in terms of creating mixed and balanced communities and social cohesion. The layout would have also been very inconvenient for users. The revised proposals now show shared access via the main foyer at the corner of Crown Street and Silver Street. Separate secondary accesses remain for both market and affordable housing at the rear for practical reasons. On this basis it is considered that the proposals comply with Policies CS16 and CS3. The Affordable Housing is to be secured by S106 agreement. A condition is recommended to secure the shared access for all flats via the main entrance as described above.
172
Employment Skills and Training 6.47 The proposal is required to contribute towards training for employment in accordance with the Employment Skills and Training SPD. It is recommended that the Employment Skills and Training Plan, or any alternative financial contribution, be secured through the S106 agreement as set out in the recommendation above.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
6.48 Based on the CIL details submitted the proposal involves 4,912 sqm of new build floorspace (Gross Internal Area). The development is therefore liable for CIL.
6.49 Under the CIL regulations. Existing floorspace to be demolished can be discounted from the chargeable area if it has been in lawful use of 6 months within the last 3 years. The existing buildings that had been used as part of the car wash operation until recently measured 900sqm floor area. However these have been demolished prior to any permission being granted and can no longer be counted against the CIL charge.
6.50 A £120 per sqm charge applies under the adopted Charging Schedule. This is index- linked and the 2017 indexed rate is £134.59, resulting in a charge of £661,106.08 (Six hundred and sixty one thousand one hundred and six pounds and eight pence).
6.51 1357.2 sqm of the proposed floorspace is for Social Housing as defined in the CIL Regulations (the Affordable Housing units) and would be eligible for Mandatory Social Housing Relief (SHR). Assuming Social Housing Relief is correctly applied for (it is not automatically applied), prior to commencement, it is expected this would reduce the figure as follows: 4,912 – 1,357.2 = 3,554.8sqm
6.52 This would result in the final amount payable, including SHR to £478,440.53 (Four hundred and seventy eight thousand four hundred and forty pounds and fifty three pence).
xiii) Equality 6.53 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. The amended front entrance now includes a passenger lift as well as stepped access. Taking this into account and from the wider assessment set out in the report above, it is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application and the proposals would be in accordance with Policy CS5.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 It is considered that the development would be acceptable as set out above. The proposals are therefore recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and subject to completion of the S106 agreement.
Case Officer: Steve Vigar
173
DRAWINGS Ground Floor / Site Plan - Proposed
174
Basement Plan and First/Second/Third Floor Plan
175
Fourth and Fifth Floor Plans
176
Proposed Elevations (with outline of approval 160868 for comparison).
177
Streetscene Drawings – as Proposed
178
Site Photographs
View from London Road looking south west towards site
View south from London Street towards site
179
View south east towards site at junction of Crown St. and Newark St.
View east along Crown St towards site.
180
View north along Newark Street
View north from Upper Crown Street
181
View south across site towards flank wall of 9 Newark St
View west across rear of site towards rear of Newark Street houses
182
View north across site towards London Street
View north towards site from Silver Street – Rising Sun listed building to left of picture.
183
184 MAPLEDURHAM
185 186
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19th July 2017
Ward: Mapledurham Application No.: 170176/FUL Address: Caversham Lawn Tennis Club, Queensborough Drive, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7JA Proposal: Erection of 9 no. floodlighting columns (6.7 metres high) supporting 10 no. luminaires (HiLux Match LED Gen 3) with LED lamps (overall height 7.0 metres) to provide lighting to Courts 3 and 4 for Recreational Tennis (BS12193-2007 Class III). Applicant: Caversham Lawn Tennis Club Date Valid: 07/03/2017 Application target decision date: Originally 02/05/2017. Extension of time agreed with the applicant until 21/07/2017 26 week date: 05/09/2017
RECOMMENDATION
is to REFUSE the application for the following reason:
The proposed works, owing to their location, would result in unacceptable noise and disturbance and artificial lighting, thereby causing damaging noise and light pollution which would be harmful to the character and appearance of local area and have a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing nearby residential properties, contrary to Policies CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) and CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015).
Informatives:
1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. Plan and documents considered (full list included at the end of the main report)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The application site comprises two existing artificial grass tennis courts at Caversham Lawn Tennis Club (CLTC). More specifically, these are courts number 3 and 4, which are located within the mid-section of a row of seven courts on the southern side of the wider CLTC site. In the northern half of the wider CLTC site are two further courts (meaning there are nine courts in total at the site), on-site car parking and a clubhouse. Vehicular access to the site is from Queensborough Drive to the north-east. Between October and March each year the two courts in the south-west corner of the side (courts 1 and 2, immediately to the south-west of the application site court) have the ability to be enclosed by an ‘air hall’, including internal floodlights (see relevant history section below). No other floodlights are present at the site at any other time of the year.
1.2 The applicant has outlined that CLTC was established around 1900 and initially shared the site with bowls facilities. From an initial two courts the facilities grew
187
over time to nine courts (including 4 hard courts) and a clubhouse established at the tennis club by 1948. The club bought the freehold of the site in 1970, with a new clubhouse following in the late 1980s and an air hall for courts 1 and 2 (October to March only) in the early 1990s (see relevant history below). Today the club has 4 acrylic, 3 all-weather and 2 artificial grass courts, serving 537 members (83 full members, 200 juniors and 254 in other categories including social, mid- week, family, senior and non-playing members).
1.3 The applicant has advised that the club enter a variety of leagues (listed below), hosts an annual club championship and a variety of coaching activities, as provided by GDT (Gary Drake Tennis). This coaching includes regular children’s camps in school holidays. The applicant also states the club has always been very active within the local community, with numerous outreach activities and initiatives culminating in over 20,000 local children benefiting from CLTC’s school links.
Leagues CLTC enters (as per section 3.4 of the submitted Planning Statement) - AEGON League - three men’s teams and two ladies teams; - National and Regional/County : The Men’s League (five teams) - Summer and Winter Berkshire League - Ladies’ League (five teams) - Summer and Winter Junior Leagues – Boys, Girls and Mixed (11 teams) - Ladies Veterans (over 40, national over 40s) - Men’s Veterans (over 45, national over 35s) - Mixed League (five teams) Summer and Winter - National Road to Wimbledon Competition for 11-14 year olds - Numerous Friendly Matches/Ladders
1.4 The surrounding area to CLTC is solely residential in nature, with detached and semi-detached properties (many with generously sized rear gardens bordering the site) fronting onto Queensborough Drive (to the north and east), Pinewood Drive (also the east), Fernbrook Road (to the south-east, south and south-west), Geoffreyson Road (to the south-west, west and north-west) and Conisboro Way (to the north-west). In relation to courts 3 and 4 (the red line of the application site), Nos. 21 & 23 Fernbrook Road immediately border the southern boundary of these courts.
1.5 Along the boundary of CLTC with the Fernbrook Road properties, there is screening with a series of tall trees and vegetation, as well as a c. 3.5m high chain link fence. More specifically in terms of trees, along the southern boundary of courts 1 & 2 (adjacent to Nos. 17 & 19 Fernbrook Road) there is a row of Western Red Cedar (thuja plicata) trees covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO). No. 21 Fernbrook Road includes a single TPO Western Red Cedar close to the CLTC boundary. No. 23 includes 3 TPO Norway Spruce (picea abies) trees, while at No. 25 there are 5 further Norway Spruces, a Western Red Cedar and an English Oak (quercus robur) close to the CLTC boundary. In all instances there are also other tress and vegetation within the residential gardens, as well as the aforementioned TPO trees. There is also a reduction in ground levels of between 0.5m and 1m between CLTC and Fernbrook Road gardens/properties. To the north of courts 3 & 4 (the application site) there is a circa 2m increase in land levels to the two northernmost courts at the wider CLTC site.
1.6 The application is referred to the Committee by officers, owing to the level and nature of public consultation responses and the planning history at the application site. Furthermore, at the outset of the application Councillor Ballsdon registered an
188
initial request for the application to be referred to Planning Applications Committee for a decision.
1.7 The location of the site in relation to the wider urban area is shown below, together with a site photograph and aerial view. Further photographs/views and relevant plans / information are included at the end of this report.
Site Location Plan (not to scale). The red line specifies the application site (courts 3 & 4). The blue line indicates other land owned by the applicant (the remainder of CLTC).
Courts 3 & 4 looking south towards the Fernbrook Road properties boundary (13/04/17)
189
Aerial view looking north from Fernbrook Road
2. PROPOSALS
2.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 9 floodlighting columns (6.7 metres high), supporting 10 no. luminaires (HiLux Match LED Gen 3) with LED lamps (overall height 7.0 metres), to provide lighting to Courts 3 and 4 for Recreational Tennis (BS12193-2007 Class III). During the course of the application the applicant was sought to provide more information and a revised lighting report, to take into account initial queries and concerns raised by the planning officer and Environmental Protection team. More information was submitted by the applicant on 15th and 22nd May, seeking to respond to various matters raised and including a revised lighting assessment.
2.2 The floodlighting columns would be positioned as follows:
190
2.3 It is the centrally located column which will support two luminaires, with all others supporting a single luminaire. The applicant has also confirmed:
- The floodlights would only be used between the hours of 15:00 and 21:30 daily, with a maximum of 4 persons per court after 18:00 (originally 19:00, but altered to 18:00 during the application). - It was originally stated to provide for a lighting level of 200 lux across the playing area. The applicant later clarified that in-fact the maintained average illumination on the Total Playing Area (TPA - the area within the court lines plus 4.5m of each run back and 2.5m of each side run around a court) would be 203 lux and the maintained average illumination on the Principal Playing Area (PPA - the area within the court lines) would be 225 lux. In both instances, this includes a maintenance factor of 20% in these light levels, which means in practice the maximum possible illumination would be 243.6 lux in the TPA and 270 lux in the PPA (although the light consultant references 254 and 280 lux in correspondence received on 15/05/17). - The lighting columns are 6.7m in height, the luminaires are 0.3m in height; therefore the floodlights will have an overall height of 7.0 metres. - The lighting columns will be coloured dark green (RAL no. 6005). - Floodlight deflectors will be added to the three luminaires closest to the southern boundary only (2 rear deflectors and 1 side deflector). - The floodlights would not provide sufficient light to allow tennis to be played on any of the other 7 no. courts within the Club. - The floodlights would not be used during all the proposed hours of darkness, as their use would be likely to be limited by weather conditions and demand. - It is estimated that as a result of the installation of a floodlighting system onto any given tennis court, the amount of court time that can be achieved on that court will increase by some 30% per annum.
2.4 In support of the proposals, the applicant (within the planning statement and subsequent submissions) has outlined a series of benefits of the proposals. These can broadly be grouped into benefits for various club members and wider club / health / sporting benefits, summarised as follows:
Benefits to various different club members: - Increase the opportunity for CLTC’s Juniors to play tennis and to enjoy recreation. - Benefit members who would like to play in the evenings when they return from work (floodlighting operating until 21:30 hours will provide for sufficient time for games to be played after coaching sessions finish at 18:00) - Enable the Club to offer a year round coaching programme which will undoubtedly benefit all grades of playing membership, and especially by accommodating the increased demand from juniors in the Caversham/Reading and surrounding area. Additional coaching would be made available to juniors during the winter months. - Enable coaches to provide more mini-tennis, as well as coaching to Juniors (both members and non-members) from 16:00 to 18:00 throughout the winter.
Wider CLTC / health / sport benefits - Enhance the ability of the Club to develop its membership. More specifically, increase playing opportunities all year round for new and existing members and will help retain good players and attract new quality players, who are inevitably lost to other clubs who are able to offer floodlit facilities (thereby reducing the
191
migration of higher quality members and potentially other members to other sports clubs where the facilities are superior). - The provision of floodlighting will also ensure that the facility at Caversham Lawn Tennis Club is more sustainable; this approach accords with the Policies of Sport England. - Provision of a lighting scheme will be suitable for Recreational Tennis as defined in British Standard BS12193: 2007 Class III. - Floodlighting would ensure that best use is made of an existing sporting facility in order to maintain and provide greater opportunities for participation in sport. - Strengthen the Club’s position in the community and would give the local community an enhanced recreational resource. Put another way, the club also states the proposal will improve access to and enjoyment of an existing open space and sporting facility. It will increase recreational opportunities in the local area. - Proposal would make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of the local community in line with the objectives set out in the Reading Core Strategy (promoting healthy living, in line with the NPPF and paragraph 8.1.1 of the Sites and Detailed Policies document).
2.5 In summary, the applicant states that the proposed floodlighting scheme will benefit all members of CLTC and ensure the wellbeing and future prosperity of the club, whilst also making an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of the local community.
2.6 The applicant has also suggested a number of planning conditions to accompany any planning permission granted for the proposals (primarily for the purposes of protecting the amenity of nearby occupiers), as follows:
- The floodlighting hereby permitted shall not be used outside of the hours of 15:00 to 21:30 on any day and no more than four persons shall use each of the courts that are floodlit at any one time between the hours of 18:00 and 21:30.
- The floodlighting shall only be used for Courts 3 and 4 and no other court or areas of land within the tennis club shall be used for tennis when they are floodlit.
- The floodlighting columns shall be coloured green (RAL no. 6005) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
- The development shall be carried out in accordance with the lighting scheme detailed within the Luminance Pro Lighting Systems report Caversham Tennis Club, dated 05.05.2017. A verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which confirms that the approved lighting scheme has been installed within 3 months of the lighting is first brought into use.”
- Optional condition should the local planning authority consider it necessary: Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved details of a light barrier shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their written approval; the approved light barrier shall be installed before the floodlights are brought in to use.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
192
3.1 Caversham Lawn Tennis Club has a long and extensive planning history. Those applications/appeals considered to be of relevance to the determination are summarised below:
3.2 79/TP/1028 - Floodlighting to two tennis courts (No.3 & 4). Refused 23/11/79. Allowed on appeal dated 22/09/80. Work on the floodlighting was started but not completed so the permission remained extant at the time of the 1992 appeal (see paragraph 3.6 below) – as per paragraph 3 of that appeal decision.
3.3 87/TP/214 - New clubhouse and demolition of existing building - Approved 14/05/87.
3.4 89/01415/FD (890262) - The temporary erection of an air hall to provide indoor tennis on two of the existing courts between September and April. Refused 27/04/90.
3.5 90/01048/FD (900379) - Erection of an indoor tennis air hall on two of existing courts (1 & 2) between September & April each year and installation of floodlights on same courts. Refused 07/03/91 by reason that the air hall would be obtrusive and overbearing to nearby residential properties, and the inflation equipment and lighting would be detrimental to residential amenities.
Appeal Dismissed (10/12/91) by reason that a legal agreement was not in place to revoke planning permission 79/TP/1028 and that the appellant failed to demonstrate adequate drainage.
3.6 92/0155/FD (920342) - Erection of air court from September to March. Erection of floodlighting (crts 1 & 2). Refused 02/04/92 by reason that (1) its size and massing, its proximity to neighbouring properties and its illumination, would form an obtrusive, overbearing feature which would detract from the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. (2) Resultant intensification of the use of the tennis courts and a consequent increase in noise and disturbance, detracting from the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.
Appeal (Ref T/APP/Q0135/A/92/206199/P2 allowed 27/10/92. The Inspector, in allowing the appeal, included the following conditions (summarised wording):
1. 5 years for implementation. 2. The air hall shall not be erected or retained in an inflated condition between 1 April and 30 September. 3. The air hall and floodlighting shall not be used or operated after 2200 hours. 4. No floodlighting, other than that permitted, shall be erected or operated. 5. Drainage works shall be completed in accordance with approved details 6&7. Landscaping shall be submitted, approved and carried out.
This permission was implemented.
Officer Note: Condition 4 of allowed appeal decision for the air hall development (92/0155/FD) stated in full:
No floodlighting other than that hereby permitted shall be erected or operated on any part of the tennis club premises as delinerated by a blue line on the application site/block plan (scale 1:1250) and dated November 1989 (identified as Plan A in the list of plans included in the Appearances attached to this letter).
193
The reason for this condition, from the reading of the appeal decision, is to prevent the Tennis Club from carrying on implementing the previous permission for floodlights (planning permission 79/TP/1028) if the air hall/dome for which he was giving permission was implemented - in effect, an either/or situation. The air hall was subsequently implemented and so the previous floodlights already permitted (79/TP/1028) could not be erected because of the condition.
Paragraph 9 of the appeal decision stated, in full:
I have considered the matter of the extant planning permission for the erection of floodlighting equipment on courts 3 and 4. I agree with the previous Inspector’s assessment that whereas the floodlighting on courts 1 and 2 would not cause unacceptable glare in relation to neighbouring houses, the combined visual impact of illuminating 4 courts could be significant and disturbing to residents. I consider, therefore, it is necessary that the earlier permission should not be implemented. The previous Inspector suggested that a Section 106 agreement would be the best means of securing that objective. However, since all the relevant land is under the control of the appellants I consider that while a condition would not carry the same legal force as an agreement, it would in the circumstances of this case be sufficient to secure the same end.
A literal reading of the condition does prevent any further floodlighting being erected or operated on the site, but only, it is important to note, without first receiving express planning permission. A further reason for the condition is that there may be instances where a landowner could otherwise install external lighting without planning permission (a security light on the clubhouse for example). The condition does not and cannot prevent the Tennis Club from applying for planning permission for floodlighting. Indeed, planning permission, since the air hall development was implemented, has previously been granted for floodlighting on the site (05/01273/FUL – see paragraph 3.10 below). The granting of planning permission has previously and would in the future override the condition. Therefore, in any application for floodlighting, the Council must consider the development on its merits taking into account the Development Plan and any other material considerations.
3.7 94/00151/VARIAT (940335) - Air hall to remain erected for a temporary period of two weeks (1st April - 15th April 1994) to be used by the Reading-Dusseldorf Assoc. for an exchange visit of tennis players from Reading’s German twin town. Non- compliance with condition 2. Withdrawn 07/03/94.
3.8 97/00917/VARIAT (970599) - Variation of condition no 2 of application 92/0155 and appeal decision T/APP/Q0315/A/92/206199/P2 to extend the use of the air hall by two months to use the air hall between 1st September and 30th April. Refused 21/01/98 by reason that the extended hours would harm neighbouring residential amenities.
3.9 05/00549/FUL (050393) - Installation of floodlighting on courts 5 & 6 and 8 & 9. Withdrawn 08/07/05.
3.10 05/01273/FUL (051264) - Installation of floodlighting on courts 5 & 6. Permitted 27/03/06, but not implemented.
Condition 4, as granted, was: The Horizontal Illuminance levels on the court shall be no greater than Eav Lux 200 appropriate for local and club competitions, as specified in BS EN 12193: 1999.
194
Condition 6, as granted, was: The use of the floodlighting shall be restricted to between 16:00 and 21:30 Mondays to Saturdays, and between 16:00 and 21:00 on Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays.
Appeal (Ref APP/E0345/A/06/2023847) lodged against conditions 4 (light intensity) and 6 (hours of use). Appeal withdrawn 11/12/06.
3.11 07/00260/VARIAT (070658) - Variation of condition 4 of planning permission 05/01273/FUL to allow horizontal illuminance levels on the court to be no greater than 500 Lux, rather than 200 Lux. Withdrawn 01/05/07.
3.12 07/00267/VARIAT (070342) - Variation of Condition 6 of 05/01273/FUL to allow the hours of use of the floodlights to increase by half an hour on Monday to Saturday until 22.00. Withdrawn 21/05/07.
3.13 07/00559/VARIAT (071067) - Variation of condition 4 of consent 05/01273/FUL to allow illuminance levels to be increased from 200 lux to 500 lux. Recommended for refusal by officers (for consideration at Planning Applications Committee on 12/09/07) by reason that the variation would result in an unacceptable level of light trespass to adjoining residential properties, would be out of keeping with the appearance of the surrounding area, would significantly harm residential amenities, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Application withdrawn 06/09/07, prior to being considered at committee.
3.14 07/00680/VARIAT (071362) - Variation of Condition 6 of consent 05/01273/FUL to allow the hours of use of the floodlights to increase by half an hour on Monday to Saturday until 22.00.
Recommended for refusal by officers (for consideration at Planning Applications Committee on 12/09/07) by reason that the variation would increase the duration of noise and disturbance from the use of the courts until 22.00 (Monday – Saturdays) and would materially harm the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Application withdrawn 06/09/07, prior to being considered at committee.
3.15 08/01366/FUL (081225) - Installation of floodlights to courts 3 & 4. Movement of courts 3 & 4 by 3 metres away from Southern boundary. Erection of a fence 2.15 metres high to southern boundary of courts 3 & 4. Refused planning permission 11/03/09 for the following reason:
The proposed floodlighting development, due to the intensity of the luminaires, would have a significant impact on the appearance of the area. With regard to the close proximity of many residential properties, this would significantly harm the character and amenities of the area and accordingly is contrary to PPG17 (Sport and Recreation) and Policies CUD14 and LEI6 of the Reading Borough Local Plan (1991-2006), and Policies CS7 and CS34 of the LDF Core Strategy (adopted January 2008).
Appeal (Ref APP/E0345/A/09/2109529) lodged against refusal of permission. Appeal dismissed 26/01/10. The appeal decision in full is included at the end of this report.
3.16 Recent Tree applications
195
CLTC / 19 Fernbrook Road - G1 - Thuja plicata - Reduce selected branches overhanging boundary back by 1-1.5m. Permitted 23/08/12.
CLTC / 25 Fernbrook Road 150453 - Tree T3 trim the minor branches that are obstructing the replacement of a chain link fence. The branches needed to be trimmed to a height of approximately 12 feet. Permitted 24/03/15.
CLTC – 151266 - Row of Western Red Cedar: reduce the height of the group of trees G1, listed in the by approximately 4 to 5m in total and reduce the width by max of 2m. Permitted 25/08/15.
4. CONSULTATIONS
i) RBC Transport
4.1 The Transport Development Control section advises that although there may be an intensification of the use at the site as a result of the proposals (and therefore a potential impact on transport movements), this cannot be quantified owing to the existing arrangements at the site. At present during summer months, the club is able to maximise the playing time and the amount of players within the grounds. There are considered to be insufficient grounds to object to an application of this type based on increased transport movements (above the existing use) during the winter months. Moreover, many of these (new) trips will be outside of peak hours.
4.2 Furthermore, the proposed lighting on court 3 & 4 will not be a hazard or cause distraction to road users. Therefore, there are no transport objections to the proposal. ii) RBC Environmental Health – Environmental Protection (EP)
4.3 Original observations: EP, following a site visit to both the application site and from the rear garden of a property on Fernbrook Road on 13/04/17, raised concerns in relation to light and noise matters.
4.4 In terms of light, concerns are raised about proposed floodlighting resulting in loss of amenity to nearby residents. Based on the information submitted at the outset of the application, a series of questions and comments were raised to enable a fuller assessment to be made by EP officers. These revolved around:
- The environmental zone of the site (planning statement states environmental zone E3 ‘urban location’ whereas EP officers considered it would more accurately be described as E2 ‘dark outer suburban location’. As a consequence, the E2 guidance values against which the light overspill and glare should be assessed (which had been undertaken in the original lighting report). - Glare: The glare values comply with the guidance values for ‘luminaire intensity’ for environmental zone E2 (as per the Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance notes). However, the methodology of these values (the observer position) is queried, which calls into question the results stated. - Questioned whether rear and side floodlight deflectors are both proposed to be fitted to all of the floodlights. - Clarification regarding light overspill results, as the lux contours show that the overspill towards the residential properties is less than towards the rest of the tennis club, even though the lighting scheme that is proposed seems to be
196
symmetrical (and the report states on the front page that no account has been taken of screening). - Clarification over whether the surface illuminance shown is vertical or horizontal illuminance (ideally a diagram showing both should be provided). - Stated that if the light spill diagram is correct, and if it is showing vertical illuminance, then it shows that the light spill into windows of the nearby properties is within the guidance levels for environmental zone E2. However, it should be noted that assessing it that way takes no account of the fact that there is light spill into the garden. It also does not take account of the impact on visual amenity of the residents being able to see the lights where there would normally be darkness. - Appropriate to consider loss of amenity of the garden as well as the house itself. - Queries regarding planning conditions suggested by applicant
4.5 Turning to consider noise matters, there is likely to be an increase in the amount of noise experienced by residents from use of the floodlit courts because it will enable the use of the courts for greater amounts of time (30% according to the planning statement). It is not possible to predict or quantify the impact of this on amenity without first knowing what impact noise from the club currently has on amenity, although as the courts are located in close proximity to residential properties it is likely that they do have some level of noise impact on these properties. This should potentially be established via a noise assessment.
4.6 In overall terms, EP advises that the application should be refused until the above points are clarified.
4.7 Revised comments following the submission of further information on 15th & 22nd May by the applicant: EP officers have considered the updated lighting assessment (following on from original EP comments) and other information submitted. Concerns continue to be raised in respect of noise and light matters.
4.8 In terms of light matters, it is confirmed that the assessment was completed with environmental zone E2 in mind and shows that these levels are met at the residential properties. In terms of glare, the additional observer positions previously suggested have been added, but no measurements relating to the new observer positions appear to have been included in the report. As such, this remains unsatisfactory. Relating to floodlight deflectors, the report confirms that the only 3 deflectors are to be used on the floodlights nearest to the residential properties. With regard to light overspill, the updated report clarifies that the deflectors have been taken into account in the calculations and this is the reason why the lux contours in this direction are not symmetrical (consistent with the original report).
4.9 In overall terms for light matters, although the assessment shows that at the properties the light level is compliant with zone E2, a significant shortfall is that this does not take account of light spill into their gardens. It also does not take account of the impact on visual amenity of the residents being able to see the lights where there would normally be darkness. Measurements at the observer positions between the tennis courts and the residential properties might help establish this.
4.10 Turning to consider noise matters, it is considered that the response from the applicant does not address previous concerns. EP officers reiterate that once the floodlights are installed people are able to play tennis at times when they would not have been able to in the past. People playing tennis make noise and therefore there will be more noise at times when there would not have been. It is considered likely that this will result in a loss of amenity to nearby residents. It is not possible
197
to predict or quantify the impact of this on amenity without first knowing what impact noise from the club currently has on amenity. This should potentially be established via a noise assessment.
4.11 EP again advises that the application should be refused until the outstanding points raised above have been clarified. Given the applicant was provided with a previous opportunity to respond to the EP comments, planning officers considered it was not appropriate to provide the applicant with a further opportunity in this instance.
iii) RBC Planning Natural Environment
4.12 It is first noted, in response to the request for arboricultural input due to the adjacent TPO trees, is follows:
“I do not consider that they could influence the development. As is evident from the topographical survey, these trees are within the gardens of properties in Fernbrook Road. The gardens are some 1.5 metres below the court level. The lighting columns will be sunk to a maximum depth of 1.2 metres. Consequently, there is likely to be no, or limited impact on the trees”.
4.13 Most recently in 2014, but also before this, the Club have expressed concern about tree roots affecting the surface of the tennis courts. In 2014, trial holes were dug in courts 5-7 and roots were found under the surface and within the 1.2m depth the lighting columns will be sunk. Hence the request for arboricultural input was reasonable. No tree information has been provided in the form of potential root protection areas (RPAs) but it would be expected for at least the nearest (central) floodlight to be within the potential root zones. However, as no previous concern has been expressed about root damage to the courts in question (3 & 4) and that the area required to install the floodlights is minimal, compared to the overall potential root systems, the proposal is acceptable in this respect. However, it is still considered prudent to address potential root presence. Although it would have been easier to agree methods of installation prior to a decision in order to attach a ‘development in accordance with’ condition, if permission is subsequently granted it is suggested that a condition be included specifying that if any tree roots are found within the locations of the floodlights, these should be cleanly cut in accordance with good arboricultural practice.
iv) RBC Planning Ecology
4.14 The Council’s Ecologist advises that there are no objections on ecology grounds providing that the proposed hours are secured via condition in the event of any permission. With floodlighting until 21:30, in the summer this would lead to only a small artificial increase to the effective length of the day. In the winter wildlife is less active (i.e. bats are in hibernation). As such, the amount of time that the lighting could potentially impact upon wildlife would be limited.
v) Sport England
4.15 Sport England has provided a general response specifying that the proposed development does not fall within either their statutory remit (Statutory Instrument 2015/595), or non-statutory remit (National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Par. 003 Ref. ID: 37-003-20140306). Therefore, Sport England has not provided a detailed response in this case, but has provided a web-link to general guidance and advice, together with that associated with the loss of any sports facility, the
198
provision of a new sports facility and the provision of more than 300 residential units (none of which are applicable in this instance). vi) Public consultation – original consultation
4.16 Notification letters were sent to all nearby occupiers who share a boundary with the tennis club on 08/03/2017 (26 separate addresses). A site notice was erected by the applicant, expiring on 23/04/17 (as witnessed during the officer site on 13/04/17). A total of 80 responses in support, 1 observation and 18 separate objections were received as part of the original consultation.
4.17 Supports to the original consultation - There were 80 separate representatives in support of the proposals received following the original public consultation. These were received from (Reading/Caversham addresses unless otherwise stated): 3 from 2 separate addresses at Abbots Walk; 3 from Queensborough Drive; 2 from a single Blenheim Road address; 2 from a single Brooklyn Drive address; 2 each from: Darell Rd, Derby Road and Geoffreyson Road. 1 each from: Addington Road; Albert Road; Argyle Road; Atherfold Road, Clapham; Bath Road; Belleisle, Purley-on-Thames; Bourne Road, Pangbourne; Bulmershe Road; Cane End; Catslip, Nettlebed; Caversham Park Road; Chapel Square, East Hendred; Conisboro Avenue; Consiboro Way; Denmark Street, Wokingham; Donkin Hill; Donnington Gardens; Elliots Way; Elm Road; Fernbrook Road; Glenrhondda; Gosbrook Road; Grove Hill; Hafod; Hazel Road, Purley-on-Thames; Hemdean Rise; Hemdean Road; Hewett Close; Highdown Hill Road; Hillbrow; Hindhead Road; Kelmscott Close; Kidmore Road; King James Way Henley-on-Thames; Kingwood, Henley-on-Thames; Lower Henley Road; Manor Road, Henley-on-Thames; Marchwood Avenue; New Road, Hurley; Newfield Road, Sonning Common; Oakley Road; Paradise Road, Henley-on-Thames; Parkhouse Lane; Recreation Road; Richmond Road; Rotherfield Greys, Henley-on-Thames; Rufus Isaacs Road; St Andrews Road; St Barnabas Road; St Peters Avenue; Shepherds Lane; Short Street; Stoke Row, Henley on Thames; Tanners Lane, Chalkhouse Green; Tilehurst; Tokers Green Lane, Tokers Green; Tower Close; Upper Warren Avenue; Woodcote Way; Woodlands Road, Sonning Common; Wychcotes; and 3 from no specified addresses. A summary of the various matters raised is provided below (many of which are direct quotes from respondents):
4.18 Benefits of the tennis club / proposals
4.19 a) Existing local community value - The club has a lively community spirit and fantastic facilities enjoyed by over 500 people of all ages. But things could be so much better! - The Club is a valuable asset to the local community in so many ways and has been for the past 100 years. It would be a great shame if the club was denied the opportunity to move with the times and continue to thrive for current and future generations. Another states the club is a great asset to the local community; many families, and in some cases through several generations, have enjoyed the tennis facilities at Caversham, and have enriched their lives through a sociable and healthy pastime. - Many of the surrounding residents are fully supportive of the plans as they value having this facility locally and want to see it able to continue where it is. - A nearby resident (not a member of the club) specifies that the Tennis Club existed before many of the houses in the surrounding area and has been, and emphasises that it is still, valued by the community as an inclusive and friendly Club.
4.20 b) Benefits of the existing tennis club itself
199
- CTLC is one of the best clubs in Berkshire and most other clubs have floodlights. Another letter of support states that the club is very supportive of me and my daughters and provides a great place to place tennis and meet friends. - One supporter specifies that her children, who played at all levels from club tennis to international, enjoyed many hours playing tennis at the Club in a safe and happy environment. If the Club is to survive it is essential that they increase the hours that members can play. Caversham is currently one of the best clubs in Berkshire and indeed the region but nearly all the equivalent clubs have some, if not all their courts floodlit and she would strongly recommend that a visit is made to some of these clubs in order that the reality of the light spillage can be assessed. It is often not fully understood that the lighting for tennis courts is not the same as for larger sporting facilities. - Caversham have been the leading club in their outreach programme in Reading and their coaching team (GDT) have introduced free tennis to many schools in the area and free tennis has been offered to some of those children at the club. - The club follows a fully inclusive policy for all those living in the community. Another states that the Club is very active within the local community, each year dedicating over £5,000 of its own funds towards tennis in the local community in the form of a their schools taster programme, where over 2,000 primary school children get the chance to try tennis completely free. The club also attends local school fairs and community events such as Reading’s Children’s Festival, Reading Water fest and Reading’s Children’s Play Day, which are all organised by Reading Borough Council, where they set up a mini tennis zone for children and families to try the sport for free. - In 2015, the Club worked closely with Reading Borough Council, and the LTA to establish a Satellite Club at local park courts in Christchurch Meadows, with the sole aim of increasing participation in the sport within the local area. As part of this programme, GDT and a team of volunteers from the Club ran the largest park site Great British Tennis Weekend in the UK, enabling over 1,200 people to play tennis for free, per year. Paul Gittings, Lead Councillor for Culture, Sports and Consumer Services, acknowledged the success of these events in local press and media. - The most wonderful thing about CLTC is its total inter-generational inclusivity, where all are encouraged, supported and allowed to develop skills, compete and have fun whether they are 5 or 85. Another response states that the club provides a great opportunity for Caversham residents to participate in tennis at a range of levels. From young children & beginner adults to experienced veterans. The proposal to add floodlights will add to what is a great and popular facility. - The Club is a registered Community Amateur Sports Club and has approximately 550 members, the majority of which are juniors aged 4-18 years of age.
4.21 c) Future benefits the proposals would bring to the club - Outside floodlights would significantly enhance CLTC allowing it to position itself against other larger tennis clubs in Berkshire, such as Maidenhead Lawn Tennis Club and Windsor Lawn Tennis Club, both of which are located in residential areas and have outside floodlights. - The provision of flood lights and allowing members to play until 10pm in the evening would help the club thrive and have no adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. Tennis is played until 10pm during the summer months with no adverse effects, so it is failed to see why extending this to the winter months on two more courts should cause any problem. - Floodlighting is now becoming an essential requirement for any sizeable club, and CLTC is the largest in the area. Another response states floodlights are very much needed to ensure the Club can fulfil the demand of both the local community and its members
200
- Floodlighting on two courts would make an enormous difference to the quality of club life. It is a fantastic club. Wouldn't it be amazing if the next tennis superstar came from CLTC? - If the courts hadn’t been changed from grass/shale to hard surfaces, new clubhouse (1987) and indoor facility membership would undoubtedly have dwindled and the club would probably have closed down. Once again, like any other organisation, one cannot afford to stand still. Floodlighting on two courts only is a relatively small but meaningful way of maintaining the good standards and facilities that the club has. - Benefits for juniors - Junior membership at the club is strong, but could be so much better with the provision of floodlights and the whole community will benefit from an active club for youngsters. Another response continues that floodlights will enable children to learn to play / improve tennis, which is far better for them than to be in-front of the TV or an electric gadget. It will also enable many players to get valuable exercise after work and be able to play a sport that they love. - Benefits for adult members - during the summer early evenings, some courts are set aside for the coaching of children even if adult members are waiting to play. The floodlighting would enable the adults to play on after the natural light has failed and the children have gone home. - Benefits for families - Would allow a family to play a bit later in the evenings and especially during the winter / spring months when it still gets dark early. - Benefits for the daytime working population - For those of us who work, the outdoor playing season at Caversham lasts only half of the year. For much of that time, during the early and later parts of the season, there are only a couple of hours available for play in the evenings. Properly lit courts would extend that playing time. - To have floodlit courts will be of huge benefit to one supporter (and other members too) in making it possible to train all year round in a cost effective way, not only to keep up a good level but also to help stay fit. Facilities of this type are now the norm for tennis clubs throughout the area and given the size and strength of membership it feels absolutely right for the club to bring its facilities up to date. - Better availability of this sport facility will be a great boon, possibly saving on healthcare for players with health problems.
4.22 d) Wider benefits of tennis / sports facilities - There are considerable benefits associated with exercise and in particular tennis, which was recently found in an Oxford study to confer the greatest benefit of all sports in terms of longevity! So anything that allows more people to play must be a good thing. - One supporter sincerely hopes that the Council embraces the need for greater level sport & activity in this area - not least for the children of this supporter, who are members of the club. Another response states Great Britain boasts the No. 1 men’s player and a top 10 women’s player, who is aiming for the No. 1 spot. We need facilities to be able to encourage the next generations to be able to achieve these heights. - Improving the club in this way is beneficial to current and future members and is an essential step forward for this sport in general which has to compete not just with other clubs but other sports. - The game of tennis has become increasingly popular, especially because of national and international events, as well as the exhortation by the health conscious to take more exercise. Therefore our membership has increased over the years and the club hopefully keeps up to speed through sound management. Because of the efforts to keep up standards, we have a thriving sports facility available to a wide catchment area.
201
- A Practice Nurse sees the outcomes of today's obese sedentary population and feels sport in all forms should be encouraging as much as possible. Another response specifies that the lack of focus on sport in this country is terrible and will only lead to a generation of obese children. - The denial of the chance for CLTC to bring itself forward and into line with other clubs is quite preposterous in an age when healthy living, participation in sport, mental and physical wellbeing are high on the nation's agenda. - Having sporting facilities close to residential areas is positive – it is a community activity, which obviously necessitates some level of compromise. If we only have residential facilities, the richness and variety of the community is diminished. - A number of neighbours or their children have benefitted from being involved in the club and you will often see the club used in a positive tone when houses are put on the market for sale. The benefits of having a traditional member’s club run by volunteers who are passionate about Lawn Tennis works both ways. - Tennis isn’t a noisy sport and is predominantly played by honest, well-mannered individuals.
4.23 Current deficiencies with existing facilities at the club - The club has seen increasing numbers of players move to other clubs such as Mapledurham and Caversham Park because the club does not have an outside floodlit court. The long term viability of the club in its current location very much depends on our being able to compete on an equal footing with these and other nearby clubs. More specifically, one member of CLTC (for over a decade) states the club has one major weakness; the lack of outdoor floodlights. This member pays an annual membership, despite only being able to use the club during the working week for 7 months a year due to the limitation of natural light. This is unacceptable, so this member has also joined Mapledurham Tennis Club, which has outdoor floodlights, at considerable additional expense. Few members are prepared to continue with two memberships so give up on tennis for 7 months of the year, inhibiting the value of the CLTC to the local area. - Many club members work long hours and are only able to play in the evenings. For seven months of the year there is not enough natural light for them to do so. Another response states that when you have young children and are at work on weekdays, it is not always easy to play during the day at the weekends. This supporter would have loved to have had the opportunity be able to come and play, even for just a single set, during the darker evenings.
- There are often times when court space is at a premium, particularly in spring and autumn when daylight is restricted. To help to alleviate this problem, the erection of floodlights on the two courts proposed would enable the club to extend hours into the evening for a small number of members at a time. - While the existing Dome covers two courts and allows play until 10pm from October to end March, the other seven courts are unusable after dark. Another member of the club finds it incredibly annoying that you can't play once it starts getting a bit dark which is a significant portion of the year. - It is disappointing for children and parents when coaching lessons have to be cancelled or cut short owing to poor light. It also puts children at a disadvantage when they come to play children from other clubs that are able to coach for longer in the evenings after school. - All the clubs where a supporter plays evening Veteran’s matches have floodlights, including those firmly in the middle of residential areas, such as Maidenhead and Caversham Park. As often happens, this year the club have had to postpone their first home ladies’ fixture as they will not have enough light to complete it from a 6.15 start. Many members work long hours and are only able to play in the evenings.
202
- Other much smaller clubs have floodlights and it has been a bone of contention for many years why we have had such difficulty in installing them as noise levels and light pollution will be minimal.
4.24 Addressing / responses to neighbours’ concerns about the proposals
4.25 a) Light - It is known that some neighbours are against our club having floodlights. However, it is understood that the proposal shows full consideration for their concerns and that the lights will not impact in any way on their quality of life. The level of light (200 lux) is very low; the design of the lights and the surrounding trees ensure no ‘light pollution’ beyond the courts themselves. Another response continues by stating that light is directed onto the courts and not into garden or homes. - Technology has advanced, light pollution from the particular lights to be used at Caversham is not going to be a problem to neighbours. A further response states that the club has done a lot of research into the floodlights available, taking first class advice incorporating up to the minute technology to choose a suitable system so that the neighbours will not be affected at all by the lights. Another respondent, a tennis player for 35 years, has never yet seen floodlight technology that is so non- imposing to the surrounding area as these. Times have changed, please recognise that all the historical reasons for objection to floodlights simply no longer apply. Another response continues that the technical advancement of the lighting equipment over the last 15 to 20 years which has reduced the dissipation of light to an absolute minimum. - The application is for a lighting level of 200 LUX only, a much reduced level from earlier applications. It is also exactly the same as the very first application in the early 1980s for which consent was duly granted. The only reason that the consent was not implemented at the time was because of the subsequent consent for the air hall (1992). Thus the precedent set in the 1980s is being requested now. - Floodlights are a feature of many sporting venues now and especially when the technology these days means that the spillage of light is minimal. - Do not feel that evening play will be detrimental; particularly in the winter months when the club desperately need the lights, most of the neighbours will be indoors, and in the summer the sounds of play are a pleasant enhancement to the evenings, and certainly preferable to the barbecues, bonfires and outside music. - Most people close their curtains or blinds at dusk. Even if there were 'light pollution' from the proposed floodlights (and it has been demonstrated by experts that there won't be), I cannot see that the neighbours will be unduly affected. - To object to the artificial light during winter evenings is absurd when you consider that the daylight of summer evenings is infinitely brighter than any artificial lighting known to humans.
4.26 b) Noise / disturbance - The agreed curfew of 21.30 is an added guarantee that neighbours will not be unduly disturbed. Another response states that a curfew of 21.30 is a very reasonable hour, especially given that pubs in and around Caversham stay open until 23.00 and are often responsible for noise as late as midnight. In a similar regard, another response states that in terms of additional noise, it is believed that the sound generated by 8 people playing tennis until 9.30pm will be far less than that is already suffered from in Caversham due to aircraft flights which do not have such an early curfew and which start up again in the early morning. - A nearby resident states that there is very little noise from the club, only a soothing background of tennis balls being struck. There is traffic from the players coming to/from the club, but it is not seen how adding flood-lighting to a few courts (out of a total of 9 courts I believe) will significantly increase traffic levels
203
- Club members are a very reasonable bunch of people and very aware when playing early in the morning or late in the evening, that we have neighbours to consider. - Club tennis is a non-spectator sport. There will not be hordes of people whooping on the sidelines. Just the occasional grunt or calling of a ball in or out.
4.27 c) Light and noise/disturbance combined - Floodlighting technology has improved enormously since the Clubs last application, and both light spill and light glare have been reduced substantially, which would mean that any neighbouring properties would not be affected. The Club has suggested a number of conditions as part of their application, which we believe demonstrates a willingness to listen to the concerns from nearby properties. These suggestions are that the floodlights will only be used between the hours of 15:00 and 21:30, and be limited to a lighting level of 200 lux across the playing area. The Club has also suggested a condition that any coaching under these floodlights will only take place from 16:00 to 19:00 throughout winter, meaning that play after 19:00 would purely be social doubles and singles, where noise is very minimal. - The light emitted from the Dome during the Winter months, along with any noise created from the echo created inside the courts, is not particularly worse than the particular floodlights being proposed here. - Many of the neighbouring properties, particularly those in Geoffreyson Way, are unlikely to be affected by noise or light pollution as they have long gardens and there is then the club ground and clubhouse between them and the courts which are the subject of the application.
4.28 d) General proximity to residential properties - One supporter has been a member at tennis clubs in Cheshire, Nottingham and London, all of which had floodlit tennis courts as well as lots of residential properties within close proximity, and there were never any issues whatsoever. - Another supporter has travelled to many clubs throughout the country and a substantial number of those clubs have floodlights which are much closer to residential buildings with far less protection than those at Caversham. In many cases, whilst initially some of those residents were concerned about light spillage and noise, they found in reality this was not a problem and in some cases they found the incident of theft, vandalism etc. was decreased.
4.29 e) Screening - If there is a need for it there can be more build up shrubs /fences as there is space for that (i.e. if our closest neighbours request that) - Since the very first floodlighting application in the 1980s the natural vegetation has grown up enormously and is therefore much improved. One of the conditions for the air hall was a programme of additional tree planting along the western boundary with Geoffreyson Road. When standing on any of the lower courts it is impossible to see those houses. The trees all carry a TPO. - The courts are already surrounded by extremely tall conifer tress.
4.30 f) Other matters - This is a reasonable and logical application and it is argued that major priority should not be given to the objections of some residents. The birth of the tennis club far-and-away pre-dates the arrival of the present day residents and they should not be in a position to prevent in perpetuity the installation of modified floodlights for all-year-round utilisation of the club's facilities. - It is also not unreasonable that the area in which they live should be able to have an active and vibrant tennis club and one that can function ‘normally’ – it adds to the community in a very appropriate way.
204
- The analysis produced by the lighting consultants demonstrates that this installation will no visual impact on our neighbours and therefore I hope you will dismiss the small number of objections that you have received that are driven out of self-interest rather than a rational consideration of the merits of this application. - The neighbours who object to our application would object far more vehemently to any application for change of use of the site and the building of residential homes. One way or the other, things will change. They always do. - It is asked for the committee to recognise that rejections of the club's previous applications have actually had the effect of denying a large number of people, including juniors, evening access to play during the winter months for 5 days a week. - From your website there are 10 letters objecting to the application, three of those are from one person writing from three different addresses*. Thus I would suggest eight have written in. It is estimated that there are 28 dwelling houses around the four sides of the club.
* Officer note: There is no evidence to substantiate that one person has written objections from three different addresses
4.31 Future impacts if the scheme is not approved
- The long term viability of the club in its current location very much depends on being able to compete on an equal footing with Mapledurham and Caversham Park tennis clubs (which do have outside floodlit courts) and other nearby clubs. - Should the club be unable to improve the facilities it offers to local members, there must be a significant possibility that the club will sell the land and the site be put to a fresh purpose, which is likely to be neither communal nor recreational. How sad, given the club’s longstanding role as a healthy, recreational facility. - The vast majority of neighbours support the club and want it to thrive where it is rather than have a potential housing estate built on the plot of land. - A nearby resident (not a member of the club) specifies that recreational spaces in our neighbourhood seem to be under constant threat of development. I really do not want to see the demise of this club due to a lack of flood lighting. - One supporter does not want the tennis club to have to move sites because it cannot grow and flourish in its current location - this supporter does not drive and therefore takes children to the club using public transport and this may not be an option if the club has to move. - Hate the idea that the club which is a great asset to the community and the neigbourhood may close and move because it is not allowed to improve in the same way local homeowners have been able to improve their own houses.
4.32 Letter of support from the East Region of the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA)
4.33 The East Region of the Lawn Tennis Association (letter addressed to CLTC and was received via CLTC & not the LTA) supports the proposal, stating:
The LTA Facility Project Manager writes to provide the LTA’s support to the proposed facility development at Caversham Lawn Tennis Club.
The construction of floodlights on two existing courts will strengthen the Club’s ability to provide tennis to the local community. The additional facilities will notably increase the Club’s membership capacity and amount of playing time available throughout the year. These additional playing hours would ideally be used to increase the number of local juniors and
205
adults able to compete, enjoy and experience the game of tennis in line with the LTA participation objectives.
The LTA share the view of Sport England’s Planning Policy Objective 20 and look to support the installation of floodlighting of sports facilities where this will lead to a significant increase in opportunities for sport. Floodlighting is essential if these tennis facilities are to be used to their full capacity. Without floodlighting, opportunities for sport in the local community are significantly reduced.
This letter is an indication of support for the scheme but is not an indication that the project will receive LTA funding.
4.34 Observations to the original consultation
4.35 One specified observation from an occupier at a Clifton Park Road address was received, stating:
Continual surprise by how inflexible people can be and how judgements are made based upon historic data. The club members were also initially concerned by the lighting proposals but after listening to facts about new lighting methods and seeing other clubs who have installed modern flood lighting they have been persuaded that the club can offer a good standard of lighting and not impact unreasonably on our new neighbours as the club celebrates its 98th Birthday.
4.36 Objections to the original consultation
4.37 There were 18 separate objections received following the original public consultation. More specifically, 8 objections were received from 5 separate Fernbrook Road addresses. 6 objections were received from 5 separate Geoffreyson Road addresses, 3 objections were received from Queensborough Drive addresses and 1 objection was received from a Pinewood Drive address. A summary of the various matters raised is provided below (many of which are direct quotes from respondents):
4.38 Noise - Even with the dome it is very noisy from 7am in the morning and as late as 10.30pm at night 7 days a week. With floodlights this will create more noise. - Noise pollution will be further extended during the dark morning or night hours, impacting on the peaceful enjoyment of nearby properties, and the peaceful night- time routine of young children. - One neighbour seldom has noise issues from regular members, apart from within the air hall. However group coaching is intensely noisy (shouting instructions and encouraging children to shout). The intensity and duration of the noise has significantly increased in recent times. Group coaching is now the primary activity at the site from 4pm, with 8.30am-4.30pm tennis camps during all school holiday (except Christmas/New Year). This is considered to be the main reason the club have applied for the lights, as it is noted that there is limited use of the courts by the adult club members, for example at weekends. If there were floodlights, this noise would increase further, and would be even more disturbing, especially during good weather when neighbours would want to be outside in the early evening. - The tennis camps take place at a time when residents would expect to use their gardens in peace and tranquillity. There are crowds of children letting off steam from 8.30am to 4.30pm. This is followed up closely with the coaching sessions. By also applying to have floodlighting, this would further increase the times of the
206
intrusion into the lives of the surrounding local community and would have a very detrimental effect on the wellbeing and living conditions of the neighbours giving them no reliable periods of respite or ability to utilise their property in a normal way, by day or evening. This is unreasonable, incompatible with normal life and an unacceptable proposal. - The topography of the club premises actually amplifies noise due to the hard surfaces of the courts (which were changed from grass to noisy hard surfaces), the proximity of the surrounding houses and the constrained site which causes an echoing effect. The nearby Caversham Park and Mapledurham tennis clubs are not bordering housing, so the noise dissipates easily without the echo effect. - In relation the DEFRA guidance, the current situation (owing to coaching and the air hall) meets the definition of level 4 (of 5 levels) “Significant Observed Adverse effect”, which is: “The noise causes a material change in behaviour and/or attitude, e.g. avoiding certain activities during periods of intrusion; ... having to keep windows closed most of the time because of the noise ...Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.” If the current application were to be approved nearby occupiers would avoid using their gardens during the periods of use, and diminish the quality of life (unable to use the garden for evening family/social events / keep windows/doors shut) through a change in the acoustic character of the area. - The club have done nothing to curtail their noisy activities since 2010; in fact the opposite has occurred. Nobody is monitoring or managing the coaches and there are apparently no restrictions placed upon them, they do as they please and create a major intrusion into the lives of ordinary residents - Children should be entitled to not be subject to noise after 9pm and adults should not be subject to noise prior to 8am in the area. - Existing noise nuisance from high powered water jets cleaning the courts for several hours at a time.
4.39 Light / glare / sky glow pollution - The dome is already intrusive through light and noise pollution (amplifies sound). Further evening lighting by bright LED lighting will produce glare at an unacceptable height which will be visible easily even through the trees - The proposed luminaires would be 7 metres tall, the closest being barely 2 metres from a Fernbrook Road property boundary. The Fernbrook Road garden is approximately 1 metre below the level of the courts – so the apparent height of the luminaires would be 8 metres. The luminaires would cause intense visual intrusion, including light trespass, sky glow and glare. - Light trespass into a Fernbrook Road property would be significant, intrusive and has been understated. - The Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) maximum allowable levels were not intended for use in relation to residential back gardens – they are more relevant to, for example, street lighting where properties border a road. - The club assumes that the level of light incident on windows is the only issue to address. Local residents have a right to use their gardens, which are considered to be hugely important. - Irrespective of overspill figures, the luminaires create a large volume of light which will be visible and intrusive. It is also noted that overspill does not equal visibility of light. Even where there is no recorded overspill, the light is still visible and intrusive - It is claimed that manufacturers always underestimate the level of overspill. It is suggested that it has been understated in this instance owing to: o Inconsistency in the light contours and screening level information provided. More specifically, the accuracy of the stated zero screening is questioned owing to the light contour results.
207
o Sought for a maintenance factor of 1 to be applied to the overspill results (rather than 0.8 submitted), to demonstrate the day one impact, not the average light level over the lifetime of the lights. o The overspill methodology does not reference a reduction in ground levels within the Fernbrook Road gardens. Correcting for this error would again increase the levels of light overspill. - Nearby occupiers would definitely experience discomfort from glare as a result of this scheme. One nearby occupier refers to University College London data from 2012, which if applied to the proposal, means these occupiers are extremely likely to suffer glare discomfort. In a private back garden, this would be completely unacceptable. - Sky glow would also be an issue. It is estimated that reflectivity from modern tennis courts can be 20 - 30% of total incident light, causing even more visual intrusion, especially on damp or misty evenings. - Observed at other tennis clubs that floodlights are turned on during every month of the year and much earlier than dusk. Therefore residents would be affected at all times of the year, affecting the way people can use their property and intrude on private lives. - It would introduce artificial lighting into an area where there is none at all.
4.40 General Disturbance / loss of use of amenity space / noise and disturbance combined - There would be noise and disturbance alongside the impact of very significant, very powerful artificial lighting in an area that is normally completely without any artificial lighting of any description. After dusk this area is totally dark and quiet between March and October. The only noise and disturbance experienced is from the club’s floodlit Airhall which acts as an enormous amplifier. - Neighbours are disturbed in the winter months and now the club wish to destroy the peaceful spring, summer and autumn that we currently enjoy. Another states neighbours are already disturbed on a daily basis by the many group adult and children’s coaching sessions during the daytime on the outdoor courts, mainly between March and October and from within the Air Hall between October and March. - There are many more people who are disturbed by the club than numbers of actual tennis players playing and the neighbours live here 24/7 not just for a couple of hours a week. - If the proposals are implemented it will reduce the use of nearby gardens/ conservatories/ balconies by residents owing to the increase in noise/ activity / light overspill/glare and visible light. The fact there is currently no floodlit activity, especially during spring and summer months, allows neighbours a noise free period in the evenings. This respite from noise and light would now only be possible after 9.30pm. Another response states that the increased level of activity is inconsistent with its residential surroundings and for this level of activity to be possible until 9.30pm at all times of the year is wholly inappropriate and would have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity residential occupiers derive from their properties. - The intention of the planning application for floodlights is for use by additional GDT commercial business coaching and would further destroy the remaining peaceful hours after dusk that the residents can currently rely on between March and October. Alongside completely destroying the local environment with intense lighting, where currently no light at all even from street lights or housing is visible in nearby back gardens, and in addition to this complete change in character there would be further intensification of the noise nuisance. How are local residents supposed to have full use and enjoyment of our property when there would be no remaining reliable times we could ever use gardens/homes without disturbance 365
208
days a year? The LPA and the Inspectors refused floodlighting in 2009/10, not because of the technical detail but because it would represent a complete change in character and damage the living conditions of the surrounding neighbours. - Light trespass, light pollution and excessive, persistent but unpredictable, irritating noise do not enhance enjoyment in the lives of the neighbours having to endure the impact of these unnecessary stressors potentially into all their waking hours every month of the year. The decision to refuse any further harmful development at this club has already been adjudicated and judgements made. Apart from the monstrous Air Hall, which fortunately is only legally operated in the winter months, this is a quiet, benign neighbourhood, it is not an urban, busy environment, it is not affected by any noise from roads or industry, it is not affected by any light intrusion from any source, so why would anyone wish to permanently change the character of this lovely place? - Disturbance has also arisen in competitive play, as standards of on court behaviour have much deteriorated, though in this case some members are completely reasonable. - The applicant does not state that the 30% increase in activity will be during times of the day when residents are at home, i.e. the late afternoons and evenings, making is effects more disturbing and incongruous. - The application does not refer to the combined effect of noise and glare from the air hall and floodlit courts (1, 2, 3 and 4) would have on local residents. 3 planning inspectors to date have categorically stated it is unacceptable, significant and disturbing.
4.41 Outlook - The glare will disturb the natural outlook residents have from their bedrooms, kitchen, and garden, and isn't in keeping with the local surroundings - Floodlights at Caversham Lawn tennis Club would create “...a dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook...” Those were the words of the government- appointed Planning Inspector when refusing the tennis club’s previous application for floodlighting in 2010. - The installation would create a dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook, with the light generated by the HiLux lamps, coupled with their 7m height above ground level, producing an intense wall of light both directly and by reflection off the court surfaces into a nearby house.
4.42 Visual dominance and overbearing - Eight metres is five times the height of one objector. This would be visually domineering and overbearing contrary to planning policy DM4.
4.43 Other amenity based matters - Considerable stress, illness and misery experienced by nearby occupiers from having to spend five years of their lives between 2005 and 2010 defending their home from these planning applications. - Contravention of Article 1 of the first Protocol to the Human Rights Act 1998, namely “every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions” (which includes property). How can this legal right be enjoyed by neighbouring residents when 3 inspectors, on 3 separate occasions, have been of the opinion that the combined visual impact of the air hall on courts 1 and 2 and floodlights on courts 3 and 4 would be “significant and disturbing”.
* Officer note: Article 1 of the Human Rights Act was also referenced at the time of application 08/01366/FUL at the site (see relevant history section above). At this time, in 2009, the Head of Legal Services advised:
209
Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Human Rights Act sets out that “every natural person or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his property”. In legal terms the approach to be taken by planning authorities in cases (as here) of claims to rights under Article 1 is similar to the approach to be taken in cases of claims under Article 8, with which Members will be familiar. In other words:
It is not unlawful to act in a way incompatible with a right granted by the Human Rights Act if “as a result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently”.
Parliament has entrusted planning authorities with the statutory duty to determine planning applications, and (under Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) has provided that in dealing with such an application the authority “shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan…….and to any other material considerations”.
Therefore, provided the Committee makes a decision on the current application in the light of the development plan and any other material considerations it cannot be regarded as acting unlawfully under the Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act allows public authorities to interfere with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property if it is “in accordance with the law” and “to the extent necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of “the well-being” of the area or for “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
In considering this issue, Members need to ask themselves the following five questions: Question 1 - Does a right protected by Article 1 exist? Question 2 - Has an interference with that right taken place? Question 3 - Is the interference in accordance with law i.e. is there a legal authorisation for the interference? Question 4 - What “interference” is, as a matter of judgement, likely to be caused by the proposed use, and what reasonable and appropriate measures should be taken in the circumstances? Question 5 - Is the interference necessary in a democratic society?
Each of these questions will be considered (and advised on) in turn:
Question 1 Although the Council does not accept that the Objectors’ rights under Article 1 are being interfered with, in order to deal with the objection raised it is assumed that a right protected by Article 1 applies.
Question 2 Although the Council does not accept that the Objectors’ rights under Article 1 are being interfered with, in order to deal with the objection raised it is assumed that (for the sake of the objection) an interference with that right is involved.
Question 3 It is considered that under the existing statutory regime enshrined in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act the Council has specific legal authority to do what it is doing.
Question 4 Members will need to ask themselves (and make a decision on) what “interference” is likely to arise from the proposed use, and what reasonable and appropriate planning Conditions should be attached to any planning consent?
210
Question 5 Having answered the previous question Members will then need to ask themselves (and make a decision on) whether the interference is “necessary in a democratic society”?
This involves Members in carrying out the usual “balancing” exercise undertaken by all Planning Authorities in this country when deciding whether or not to grant planning applications – the balance between: (1) on the one hand, the interests of individual residents living adjacent to the site, and (2) the interests of the intended users of the site, and (3) the interests of the wider community
As is always the case, Members will need to consider (and make a decision on) what interference is likely to arise, and weigh that in the balance with what is appropriate and reasonable in a “democratic society”, and in the interests of “the well-being” of the area, and the wider community (see above) given (a) the existing subsisting use and (b) the use which is being proposed.
This previous advice is considered to be equally relevant in this instance.
4.44 Character of the area - The installation would severely and permanently damage the character of this residential area, at all times of the year including throughout the summer. Another states the scheme will undoubtedly cause severe and permanent harm to the character of this lovely area and severely impact the amenity of many neighbours - The proposed floodlighting would severely and permanently impact the intrinsic character of this residential area. The government Planning Inspector was very emphatic when refusing the previous application. - The applicant clearly states that activity levels will increase for all types of play, coaching competitions. This is what 3 planning inspectors considered unacceptable, harmful and detrimental to the residents living conditions and character of the local area and were resolute in refusing.
4.45 Lack of screening - Despite having proposed, in their previous application, to move the courts 3 metres away from the southern boundary and to plant screening, the club have not bothered in the intervening 7 years, to provide any screening to even attempt to mitigate the impacts of their proposal. - There is no mitigation or justification for this application and there is no screening offered by the applicant, and the adjoining properties only have ancient, overgrown Christmas trees, (Norway spruces over 125 years old) currently needing remedial work to remove lower dead branches, on the adjoining boundary. These trees are said to die off from the ground upwards, gradually leaving a long trunk with few remaining branches at the top. This is apparent on two of the three trees already and the third is about to lose its only lower branch which is now dying off. Norway spruces cannot be considered to be effective screening, they are thin scruffy trees, not hedges. - At the moment, direct light reaching a Fernbrook Road property is limited by the existing vegetation, but this will not be for ever. The shielding at the moment is provided by a single row of evergreen trees which are in The Clubs grounds (not in private land as stated by CT Planning). These trees will not last for ever. They also inevitably tend to lose lower branches by reasons of natural growth of damage from improper cutting. Normal industrial practice is to insist on at least 4 rows of trees to provide adequate screening – in this case there is a single row. Even now in winter, the Air Hall is clearly visible through the existing vegetation.
211
- The existing screening being adequate is complete nonsense. Screening adjacent to 23/25 Fernbrook Road comprises a small number of deciduous trees, which will lose their leaves during autumn and winter months, and sparse coniferous trees where there is no effective cover up to a height of 6 metres.
4.46 Impact on trees - In March 2015 the club wrote to a neighbour stating they needed to do some repair work to their court surface as the tree roots from the Norway Spruces had damaged the surface of their courts. How can they now argue that their proposed development would have no impact on the tree roots and yet they cited them as damaging the court surface two years ago?
4.47 Ecological impacts - There are regularly bats flying in nearby gardens at night time, owls are active in the area from sunset to sunrise and Mantjac deer also walk through nearby gardens. - There is currently no glare in the night sky which is not only pleasant for residents but also helps to attract a wide range of birds and animals to the hedgerows, nearby copse and gardens. This enjoyment and the wildlife will be enormously and detrimentally affected.
4.48 Specific references to adopted planning policies - Policy DM4 states: “Development will not [i.e. should not] cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties, in terms of: “. . . Visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development; Noise and disturbance; Artificial lighting . . . .” - This application clearly contravenes policy DM4. There are also many references in the new national planning guidance to the importance of private and communal outdoor spaces. This application would effectively prevent nearby residents from benefiting from their garden as they would become virtually unusable. - It is inevitable and unavoidable that there would be detrimental impact, from light trespass and noise nuisance, on the living conditions of the adjoining dwellings in contradiction to planning policy DM4. - Reading planning authority has a policy DM4 to safeguard the amenity of residents who would be affected by a planning application. This application would certainly seem to be contrary to such a policy.
4.49 Refusal of previous applications / expectation of future applications at the site - The key points in the 2009 refusal / 2010 dismissed at appeal scheme were: o the lights “would appear incongruous and entirely out of keeping with the residential character of the area.” o “I understand that the air dome is illuminated from October to March. It therefore seems all the more important to preserve the existing residential character and appearance of the area. In this respect I note that the Inspector who dealt with the air dome appeal was concerned that the combined visual impact of floodlighting could be significant and disturbing to residents” o “In my opinion the proposed floodlighting would present a dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook...” o “I am concerned that the intended intensification of use would result in little respite from noise at surrounding dwellings and thereby diminish the occupants’ enjoyment of their properties.” o “I conclude that the proposal would be significantly detrimental to neighbours’ living conditions in respect of outlook and noise” o “It seems to me that the activities of the club are necessarily constrained by its location and relationship with neighbouring dwellings. In these
212
circumstances I find that the protection of local amenity is of over-riding importance” - Nothing has changed since this judgement was written. It is believed to be a definitive statement from the highest planning authority that floodlights should not be allowed in this location. - A separate response states there are only three differences between this application and that dismissed at appeal in 2010. Courts 3 and 4 are not being moved 3 metres further away from residential properties (worse for residents), no screening is proposed (worse for residents) and lighting levels at 200 lux (inadequate for safe play and coaching). - Another objector states The Planning Inspector in 2010 could see the impact this would have on the lives of the adjoining neighbours after spending only a few minutes in a nearby property and she clearly set down her reasons for refusal in her direct and definitive statements. Nothing has changed since that time apart from the 125 year old Norway Spruce trees (Christmas trees) becoming older, the hazel tree largely dying off and so cut right down, and there being less screening now than when the Inspector visited on 5th Jan 2010. - Another objector is confused as to why the tennis club are applying again. The planning inspector who adjudicated the appeal from the club when their last proposal was refused by Reading talks about the importance of protecting the amenity of local residents. She says that there would be no respite from noise in surrounding dwellings, and that the lights would present a “dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook”. There is nothing in her decision letter that suggests an improved proposal would be considered – she rejects the whole idea of lights here, saying that the club is naturally constrained by its location in relation to neighbouring dwellings. - Floodlighting was granted on appeal at courts 3 and 4 in 1980. Works were started but not completed. In 1991 the first air hall application was refused and rejected at appeal, with one of the main reasons stated by the Inspector being the club’s refusal to enter into a section 106 agreement not to implement the 1980 floodlight application. In 1992 the air hall was allowed on appeal, but item 9 states “…whereas the floodlighting on courts 1 and 2 would not cause unacceptable glare in relation to neighbouring houses, the combined visual impact of illuminating 4 courts could be significant and disturbing to residents. I consider, therefore, that it is necessary that the earlier permission should not be implemented”. Condition 4 states that “no other floodlighting other than that hereby permitted shall be erected or operated on any part of the tennis club premises as delininated by a blue line on the application site/block plan”. In both the 1991 and 1992 appeals the Inspectors were of the opinion that the cumulative effect of lighting from the air hall on courts 1 and 2 and floodlights on courts 3 and 4 would be unacceptable for it would cause a combined visual impact that is both significant and disturbing to residents. The Inspectors were only prepared to grant permission for the air hall on the strict understanding that no other floodlighting be used on any part of the tennis club site. - Whatever the tennis club might say, nothing has changed since 2010 when their lighting application was refused. The lighting with the noise it will bring will still be intrusive and the houses surrounding the club are still there. Another objector states that nothing has changed in the local area, all the club is doing is reducing the lux levels emitted from lights. This will not affect levels of glare and will increase noise, through the intended increased activity, at very quiet times of the day for the club’s neighbours. - Application 97/00917 refused to extend the dates of use of the air hall, in the interests of the amenity of residents who would expect to use their gardens at these times.
213
- The LPA objected to the club’s appeal (APP/E0345/A/06/2023847) against the original conditions set to 05/01273, which again extensively referenced the need to protect residents’ amenity. This appeal was then withdrawn by the club. Other attempts to change the conditions of 05/01273 were rejected by the LPA and were mostly withdrawn before a definitive judgement. - The club point to the LPA’s approval of 05/01273FUL, which was also a 200 Lux scheme, as a precedent. This is not an application that any self-respecting organisation would own up to. The club soon sought to amend it, on the basis that 200 Lux was inadequate both for playing reasons and for health and safety. This was when they submitted numerous VARIAT applications, withdrawing each of them before they could be refused. It is obvious to all the neighbours that, should they be given permission for the current scheme, they would do exactly the same thing again – this application is in effect a Trojan Horse, designed to get some lights, any lights, at this site, and then start building up from there. - Another objector does not want this to open the gates for many more applications. Another response states it is feared that, based on past behaviour, if these are approved the club would in a few years apply for more lights on different courts. - Another objector states that in spite of the conditions of the Inspector regarding the Air Hall, The Club were not content and have put in planning proposal after planning proposal as a continuous campaign for additional lighting. Proposals were made to test the water, deleted, changed, just re-submitted after a few years hoping that the history would be forgotten or by denying it ever existed.
4.50 Lack of planning need - The club refer extensively to their need for floodlights. However their case is not at all convincing and does not constitute a planning need. - Ordinary members do not make extensive use of the courts, even on sunny weekends. - The vast majority of bookings of the air hall in the winter are block bookings by GDTennis (normal winter month pattern of bookings detailed in one objection). Even with this, there is plenty of availability of courts for coaching. GDT run coaching programmes across 12 other sites (including nearby Mapledurham Tennis Club and Caversham Park Tennis Club) and already have plenty of capacity locally to run coaching. - It is very unjust that the neighbourhood should be so adversely affected by what is essentially a much enhanced and expanded operation of a commercial entity, where many alternative sites are available nearby (for instance Caversham Park, Mapledurham Playing Fields and others) which are already lit and environmentally suitable.
* Officer note: It is considered that an assessment of demand for such a facility is not relevant in considering the in-principle acceptability of the proposals.
4.51 Lack of planning benefits - Whilst the club may claim that the proposed scheme will provide them with various benefits, it is not believed that this is the same as a benefit in planning terms. It is not believed that this scheme will provide any significant benefit to the community or the area. - Any benefit to individual members would be for the brief period they are playing, this should be weighed against the huge ongoing impact to the local residents which affects people’s homes, not just a hobby.
4.52 Air Hall/Dome - The Inspector, allowing the Air Hall on Appeal, was concerned about the cumulative effect on the amenity of the residents, of any additional floodlighting
214
that may be installed at the site. Condition 4 to the Air Hall states that “no floodlighting, other than that hereby permitted, shall be erected or operated on the site...” The club agreed to abide by this condition and this is sufficient reason in itself for this application to be refused. Another response adds that the club broke this promise when applying for floodlighting in 2005-2010 and have now broken it again. - There are existing noise issues from the air hall – the fabric of the dome acts as a massive amplifier and noise bounces off the surrounding buildings and there have been many noise complaints about it. One objector compares it with a large, crowded, echoing swimming pool and another states it has completely changed the acoustic character of the area during the winter months. - Until 1991/2 the area was extremely quiet and moderate and Caversham Tennis Club (The Club) was generally regarded as an asset. However this all changed from 1991 onwards. The courts were surfaced so it had ceased to be a lawn tennis club. Then there was the erection of the Air Hall. There has been almost continual noise from this during play; fortunately this is only erected in the winter. - The club also undertook to ensure that noise would be limited by not having more than eight people present at any time. Believed that there are large numbers of people in the Air Hall especially when groups of schoolchildren are being coached by GDT. In fact no club members are necessarily present on these occasions. All this can only get worse if the whole operation is expanded, both in extent of time and numbers involved, should this current proposal be accepted. - The existing planning permission for the floodlit Air Hall specifies no lighting after 10pm. The facility has been sometimes lit after 10pm and sometimes very early in the morning.
4.53 Misleading statements in the application submission / questioning whether statements would be adhered to - It is questioned whether the courts would be “used by a maximum of four people”. It is suggested that this is not the case with group coaching, nor with mini tennis. The planning application statement itself may state to the LPA that four people only can play on each court but the reality is completely different as for much of the time there are many more people on each court in tennis camps during the daytime and in addition there are intensive comprehensive coaching programmes for groups of older children which goes on into the evening period and would presumably want to use the floodlights for this group coaching. - It is questioned whether the coaching programmes offered at Caversham “tend to be seasonal”. It is suggested that they are year round already, using the floodlit air hall. - The application does not include all the relevant planning history at the site. - The application doesn’t make any reference to The Lawn Tennis Associations document “Floodlighting Outdoor Tennis Courts” (October 2012). This states that the principal playing area is recommended to maintain an average illuminance of 500 lux and a minimum of 400 lux. The objector therefore considers that safe tennis cannot be played at the 200 lux level sought, putting its members and members of the public being coached, at risk. - The club has previously tried to gain planning permission at a lighting level of 400 lux by stating that a lower lux level is not safe. This contradicts the club’s current application for lighting levels at 200 lux. Increasing the lighting levels from 200 to 500 lux is the club’s longer term intention. - The application refers to BS12193:2007 class III recreational tennis, but the club is essentially a coaching facility with some occasional members tennis. It is therefore not a BS12193:2007 class III recreational tennis club.
215
- The appeals referred to at Selsdon Tennis Club and Hale Barns Tennis Club relate to environments, topography and localities that are nothing like that existing in Caversham.
4.54 Perceived lack of a responsible attitude by the club - A nearby occupier believes the attitude and level of maturity and responsibility towards neighbours, and indeed the planning system, of any applicant should be a material consideration in deciding whether to award planning permission*. The nearby occupier considers that the club does not display the levels of maturity and responsibility one would look for in a good neighbour, and would struggle as an organisation to manage and mitigate the impacts of any floodlighting on its neighbours. More specifically: - The applicant gained permission for the air hall, only by making a formal commitment in writing to the Inspector to abide by his condition stating there would be no further floodlighting on the site. There appears to be no “corporate memory” at the club, given the subsequent applications. - In addition, the following have not been adhered to: noise would be “very curtailed” by the air hall; only four people at a time would use each court in the airhall. - In every application for floodlighting they seek to tell the LPA and the community that there would be “minimal impact”. - The club do not respond effectively to neighbours’ concerns about noise (e.g. early morning). The majority of neighbours have given up complaining because of the indifferent or sometimes rude response they have had in the past. - Given that the “non-profit private members club” has a commercial relationship with GDT, a for-profit coaching company, which now constitutes the primary activity at the site, a nearby occupier asked whether their contract contained any obligations on GDT to respect the living conditions of neighbours by restricting noise levels where possible (as would be normal in many tenancy situations). The chairman refused to tell us – so we assume it does not. - This is the 10th application by the club for floodlighting at the site. This is an abuse of the planning process at taxpayers cost.
* Officer note: The application is considered on the basis of the use and its associated impacts; it cannot be considered on the basis of the perceived attitude of “the club”, as membership/ownership of the facility may change in time. Therefore, this is not a material consideration. Furthermore, it is noted that a number of objections have specified that they anticipate this proposal, if approved, would to be the first in a succession of applications at the site, each seeking to increase the lux levels. Objectors point to the planning history (see section 3) of evidence for this. In response, officers would not that the proposals are being considered on their own merits, as each and every application is. There is no specific suggestion based on the information submitted by the applicant that this is the first of a series of applications.
4.55 Other matters - The applicant should submit a planning application for ‘change of use’ from a local Lawn tennis club to a commercial coaching business based on the now hard court site. - GDT’s aim is to change this club into a commercial industrial scale coaching centre and to generate income and profit for the organisation. Please recognise this. - This new proposal for further lighting is intended to enhance the business interests of GDT (a company which specialises in tennis coaching) who are now a major operator on the site. This is clearly being reinforced by the profit motive of this independent business which is using The Club. Whilst the club itself may be “not for profit” a local resident believes that the same is not true of GDT
216
* Officer note: It is considered that no change of use of the site has occurred, with the site remaining in a Class D2 (Assembly and leisure) use.
4.56 Re-consultation
4.57 Following the submission of additional / revised information on 15/05/17 and 22/05/17, re-consultation letters were sent to 115 addresses (those originally consulted and those who responded to the original consultation) on 23/05/17, inviting any further comments by 06/06/17.
4.58 No responses in support, 1 observation and 15 objections were received. The specified ‘observation’, from a Clifton Park Road occupier, states:
Having lived near to other facilities with flood lights I do not accept that the proposals will cause undue issues for the residents at the proposed lux level which is also lower than in many other facilities. The design minimises the local impact on occupiers and the hours of use are restricted and we need to try and support government policy to educate children and adults that exercise is a positive health statement. Anything we can do to encourage Fun and competitive sport during the 6 months of limited daylight hours will be a benefit to the community as a whole.
4.59 The 15 objections comprised 7 objections from 4 separate Fernbrook Road addresses. 4 objections were received from separate Geoffreyson Road addresses, 3 objections were received from separate Queensborough Drive addresses and 1 objection was received from a Pinewood Drive address. A summary of the main issues raised are:
4.60 General comments on the additional / revised information submitted - The revised submission is no different. - Found nothing whatsoever to change in our original objection. All our objections still apply. In particular, the club do not address the issue of noise. Another response states that the club’s revised application is not materially different from its original application and therefore the surrounding resident concerns are as valid now as there were initially. Another echoes this and states it in no way lessens my opposition. - I do not feel that the responses from the club are satisfactory. Another response states that the club have entirely failed to answer concerns raised in feedback from the planning officer.
4.61 Noise - In terms of noise, the club simply continue to deny there is ever a problem with noise. They have not met the concerns raised in the slightest. Another states that on the question of noise, the club have not been able to make any constructive comments. - On the question of the use of the courts for coaching (the noisiest activity) the club continue to avoid a condition which would preclude coaching after 6pm. Another response states the club have continued to ignore the basic fact that they cause the only disturbance in this extremely quiet, outer suburban, almost rural location. - The club have not been able to find any way to suggest protecting the surrounding residents from increased noise, other than to offer the usual bland assurances that noise would not be a problem. The question of noise was a specific concern in all three past planning inspector’s determinations and especially in the most recent determination dated 26th January 2010.
217
- The floodlit courts would be used largely for more group coaching by GDT, the commercial company who run coaching at the club. This would lead to even more noise – throughout the year but especially on spring, summer and autumn evenings. Again, the government planning inspector said in 2010: “. . .the intended intensification of use would result in little respite from noise at surrounding dwellings . . .”. - Noise pollution – although it would be the same noise as during the day, having it go on longer into the night means there is more/longer noise pollution. - Existing noise conditions disturbs sleep for nearby children - having this go on longer throughout the year isn't acceptable.
4.62 Light - On the question of the floodlighting itself, nothing much has changed from the original application. Certainly there has been no reduction in the overspill, in fact the lighting levels on my house appear to have increased. I don't think the details of the design are that important - it is the principle of having these lights in the first place that is objected to. The Inspector who rejected the appeal in 2010 did not talk about the lux levels but rejected the scheme as being inappropriate in a residential neighbourhood. - Other responses also highlight that the revised estimate of light overspill at neighbouring houses is actually around 50% higher than in the original proposal. One response states that the obtrusive light calculations (Section 3) on the houses in Fernbrook Road show approximately 50% higher maximum values at all the properties in this amended design compared to the previous submission. The light overspill into gardens, according to the contour diagram, looks similar to the previous version. The amended design therefore does nothing to alleviate the concerns of residents. Incidentally, no modelling has been shown for 23a Queensborough Drive or for houses in Pinewood Drive. - Following on from this last point, another response states that a lot of attention has been paid to the light pollution to the houses on Fernbrook Road; however no cross section has been provided to the houses on Pinewood Drive and Conisboro Avenue. It is not do believed that the Laurel bush provides enough protection to avoid a significant light impact. - The club offer assurances that 200 lux is adequate, but it is noted that the club appealed against a 200 Lux limit in 2006, and subsequently submitted 2 VARIAT applications between 2007 – 2008 in an attempt to increase the levels to 400 or 500 Lux, followed by a further application and appeal in 2008 / 2009. This clearly demonstrates that the club would not be satisfied with 200 Lux for any length of time. Please bear in mind the proposed luminaires have a modular structure and it would be technically easy to upgrade the installation to 400 Lux. If this scheme were to be allowed it would not be the end of the matter; both the LPA and ourselves would be subject to recurring applications to increase the Lux levels and to floodlight more courts. - The applicant has not provided any examples of other clubs that are successfully using 200 Lux schemes. - Glare shortcomings – the applicant states that observer positions have been added at the boundaries, to take into account the impact on gardens - but no calculations of glare or obtrusive light are provided for those positions. They are not even labelled. In fact the word “glare” does not appear in the design section of the document at all. No account has been taken of the impact of glare from the lights, which is believed to be very significant and detrimental. - Floodlight deflectors - the lack of deflectors on the majority of luminaires in this application is highly unusual and would lead to even more glare than I had previously expected.
218
- The lux level of 235 lux, taking into account the maintenance factor, would mean this scheme would fail the conditions imposed on 05/01273 – the so-called precedent in the view of the club. - Reiteration of comments from the 2010 Inspector regarding the cumulative impact of the air hall plus the impact of floodlights. - The light pollution from the dome is bad enough but as it lasts for only some of the year you put up with it; we don't want any more glare or bright lights out the back. - No more lights as agreed when the dome was approved.
4.63 Impact on the character of the area - Provision of 6.7m high floodlights at the bottom of gardens in a residential area is a joke and must be unacceptable. - The lights are completely out of character with the surrounding environment and despite claims that tennis is a quiet sport. - The installation would severely and permanently damage the character of this residential area, at all times of the year including throughout the summer.
4.64 Lack of demand - I would also like to add that over the last few weeks during this period of good weather there has been very little evening activity at the courts. I cannot see that demand would be so great during the winter months that the current dome would not provide enough capacity. - The club chairman has stated that regular member players have to wait for Courts to be free; this is completely disputed by observers of the Courts. For example today it was a beautiful sunny Saturday and there was almost no one playing “ordinary tennis” all day and it is now 5.00pm on 3rd June
4.65 Previous applications / appeals at the site - Nothing has changed since the 2010 judgment apart from an increase in noise levels from coaching and tennis camps; there has been no effort made to recognise or reduce their noise levels, no effort to increase the vegetation for screening, no moving of the courts in question as they have claimed, 3 metres, as the plans of the courts submitted now are identical to those previously submitted prior to 2010. - The additional information submitted by the applicant states the last application 2008-2010 was refused because the design was overstated. In fact, the Inspector made no direct reference to the Lux level of the design, and was concerned about the presence of floodlights per se in this location (visually obtrusive, incongruous, out of keeping . . . . dominating, oppressive, unneighbourly etc.). She emphatically did not say that floodlights at a lower level might be acceptable.
4.66 Other matters - Existing members do not comply with hours of play limits - Noted that this current proposal has a number of supporters amongst the members. None of these live anywhere in the area we understand; hence their views are hardly relevant from the planning perspective. - I don't believe the club will be happy with 200 lux lighting and will keep on putting in applications to increase the lux levels and the number of floodlit courts until they get what they want. - The additional information submitted by the applicant describes the 2006 application (actually 05/01273) as a “Comedy of errors”. This was less a comedy of errors, more a deliberate attempt to mislead the LPA (another response refers to it being more of an epic tragedy). The result of this manipulation was that the light overspill was grossly understated. Unfortunately the club’s efforts were partially successful, resulting in the limited approval given by the LPA. This is the first time
219
anyone on the club’s side has ever admitted the plans were rubbish, something a nearby occupier has been pointing out for years. - The additional information submitted by the applicant states “the neighbouring residents have chosen to live next to this tennis club”. Neighbouring occupiers state this was based on assurances from the LPA that floodlights would not be allowed owing to the air hall condition. - Based on the plans submitted in 2008/2010 application and in this submission, the courts have not been moved by 3m, as the additional information submitted by the applicant states. - Any potential 3m barrier at the boundary of the site would unusual, obtrusive, not hide the luminaires and diffract any noise around the barrier. - The club have an appalling disregard of the effect of their activities on this otherwise beautiful peaceful neighbourhood - Floodlighting would severely damage this area for ever it would severely impact on our wellbeing and ability to use and enjoy our own home - The installation would create a dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook. - For the club to not reconsider how to protect with taller thicker trees and resubmit effectively the same plans shows a disregard for the resident concerns.
5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2 The application has been assessed against the following policies:
5.3 National National Planning Policy Framework 2012 National Planning Policy Guidance 2014 onwards
5.4 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS28 Loss of Open Space CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands
5.5 Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM15 Protection of Leisure Facilities and Public Houses
5.6 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011)
5.7 Other relevant documentation Reading Tree Strategy 2010
220
Reading Open Spaces Strategy 2007 Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light GN01:2011 by the Institution of Lighting Professionals British Standard BS 12193:2007 Class III – Light and lighting. Sports Lighting. Floodlighting Outdoor Tennis Courts document by The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) October 2012 Design Guidance Note on Artificial Sports Lighting by Sport England 2012
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The main issues are considered to be:
i) Land use principles ii) Character and Appearance of the area / Amenity for nearby occupiers iii) Transport iv) Trees, landscaping and ecology v) Equality
i) Land use principles
6.2 In very general terms the upgrading of an existing recreational open space facility (albeit privately owned and therefore not fully publicly accessible) in the borough is broadly welcomed. By increasing playing opportunities at the site the proposal would contribute to facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities (as referenced in the NPPF and the introductory text to Policy DM16, although the actual policy is not relevant to this application). More specifically, Policy CS28 (Loss of Open Space) states that “development proposals that will result in the loss of open space (paragraph 9.10 of the supporting text clarifies this relates to all open space in the Borough: public or privately owned) or jeopardise its use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted”. By consequence of the proposal facilitating additional use of the facility, it is considered to comply with the thrust of this policy. The proposals would also align with objectives of Sport England and The Lawn Tennis Association (as specified within the LTA response at paragraphs 4.32-4.33 above).
6.3 It is evident from the supporting information submitted by the applicant (summarised as paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 above) and through public consultation responses in support of the proposals (as per paragraphs 4.18 – 4.22 above), that the provision of floodlights would improve facilities for existing members, as well as having wider club/community and sport / health / well-being benefits. For example, the applicant has estimated a 30% increase in court time per annum with the installation of the proposed floodlights. All of the aforementioned benefits are fully acknowledged by officers. As such, improvements to facilities at the Club (and wider community / sport / health / well-being knock on benefits) are considered to be material planning benefits of the proposed development. These benefits form part of the overall planning balance for the proposals as a whole, as discussed further in later sections of this appraisal.
ii) Character and appearance of the area / Amenity for nearby occupiers
6.4 Whilst mindful that this application must be considered on its own planning merits, the previously refused and dismissed at appeal proposals from 2010 (see paragraph 3.15 of the planning history section above and the appeal decision and related plans / photographs at the end of this report) are considered to form a material planning consideration in the determination of this application. It is considered
221
reasonable for a comparison of the refused and dismissed at appeal proposal and the current proposal to be made, to form part of the overall wider assessment of the proposals as a whole.
6.5 In terms of the nature of the proposals themselves, a simplistic comparison of the 2010 dismissed proposals and the current scheme is given below:
Element of the proposal 2010 dismissed at appeal Current application scheme Courts location Courts 3 and 4 (relocated Courts 3 and 4 3m further north than was then existing) Number of columns /9 columns / 10 luminaires 9 columns / 10 luminaires luminaires Total height 6.7 metres of 7 metres structures Level of illumination 400 lux in the TPA / 300 203 lux in the TPA / lux in the PPA 225 lux in the PPA Provision of additional 2.15m acoustic timber None screening proposed? fence on southern boundary and 3.6m wire mesh fence Tree / vegetation cover Series of tall trees andSimilar series of tall on site boundaries? vegetation trees and vegetation Time of use Until 22:00 daily, with 4 15:00 – 21:30 hours persons per court afterdaily , with 4 persons 20:00 per court after 18:00
6.6 As such, the proposals are broadly similar in the location, amount and height of the columns, but there are differences in the level of illumination,amount of additional screening and time of use proposed.
6.7 As already mentioned, the previous proposal was dismissed appeal, at with the Inspector raising a number of concernsWhilst. acknowledging that the policy context has changed in the intervening time (with the adoption of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012/2015 and the NPPF 2012), as at the time of the 2010 dismissed appeal, policies CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) and CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) remain in place. In terms of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document, Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) is considered to be particularly pertinent in this instance. It is considered reasonable, owing to the similarities between the proposals (as shown simplistically in the table above), to assess whether the current proposals overcome the previous concerns.
6.8 At paragraphs 4-10 of the appeal decision the Inspector considers the impact on the character and appearance of the area, concluding at paragraph 10 that the floodlighting would be materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy CS7. A number of more specific points are made to lead to this overall conclusion. Each point is identified below,followed by commentary / evidence submitted by the applicant in relation to the current proposalsand then officer commentary and analysis as to how this compares with the current proposals (and a standalone assessment of these proposals too):
- Paragraph 5 considers that the lighting structures would not appear out of place around the tennis courts, owing to their slenderness and neat design
222
- Paragraph 6 references concerns about floodlights, with “the use of the powerful floodlights… visually obtrusive and result in the site taking on a somewhat commercial appearance” which “would appear incongruous and entirely out of keeping with the residential character of the surrounding area” - Paragraphs 7 & 8 outlines that existing hedging would not adequately screen the floodlighting from most of the surrounding residential development as it is too sparse, too low or deciduous. This is particularly when seen from the south-east and east. - Paragraph 9 outlines that moving the court 3m north and adding planting would take many years and not address the impact to the east. - Paragraph 9 continues that the illuminated airdome (October to March) makes it all the more important to preserve the existing residential character and appearance of the area. The airdome Inspector was concerned that the combined visual impact of floodlighting could be significant and disturbing to residents.
6.9 In respect of character and appearance matters, the applicant considers that the proposed lighting columns would not be visually intrusive or indeed out of character with the area owing to:
- The substantial separation between the floodlighting columns and the nearest residential properties (nos. 23 and 25 Fernbrook Road are 23 metres to the south; nos. 22 and 24 Geoffreyson Road are 60 metres to the west; Queensborough Drive to the east are in excess of 40 metres away); - The degree of screening afforded by existing hedgerows and trees; - The columns will be slender and set against the backdrop of mature trees and hedgerows of similar height and views of the courtside fencing and the green “all weather” courts. As such the columns would not stand out as intrusive features when viewed from surrounding properties; - In relation to the visual impact of the columns, in an appeal at Rayleigh Lawn Tennis Club (where the applicant states the same columns were proposed) the Inspector stated: “The proposed floodlighting columns would be slender and relatively low structures enclosed within the mesh fencing that surrounds the courts. I am satisfied that these features together with the backdrop of high vegetation which screens views from dwellings in Elizabeth Avenue and the separation distance would ensure that the columns would not have an unacceptable impact on the outlook from residential properties.”
6.10 In response to all of the above character and appearance matters, officers first note that the lighting structures (i.e. solely the columns) proposed are similar to those previously proposed. In this sole regard it is noted that the previous Inspector did not raise any specific concerns (neither did officers at the time of the application) and that is also considered to be the case in this specific instance.
6.11 With regard to the floodlights specifically, these will broadly be at the same height as previously sought, but would be slightly closer to Fernbrook Road properties as the current proposals do not seek to move the court 3m north as in the 2010 proposal. The Inspector does not explicitly reference lux levels in the appeal decision, instead discussing the matter generally (thereby meaning that the lower lux levels, as now proposed, is not particularly relevant in this particular regard). Although the applicant has referenced an appeal decision elsewhere, where outlook from residential properties was explicitly referenced, it is not clear whether the context is similar to that at CLTC. Instead, the conclusion of the Inspector at this specific site are considered to be more relevant, whereby references to a ‘somewhat commercial appearance’, ‘incongruous’ and ‘entirely out of keeping with the residential character of the surrounding area’ are all
223
stated. It is considered that the proposals have not suitably addressed these previous concerns, with the proposals in fact closer to some nearby residential boundaries (Fernbrook Road) than previously. Moreover, irrespective of the previous context, officers consider that the introduction of daily floodlighting at the site would not maintain or enhance the character and appearance of this area; instead the impact would be harmful in altering the current context (largely dark, aside from the acknowledged airdome) to a lit area, thereby harming the existing residential character/appearance.
6.12 In terms of screening, the level of tree and vegetation cover in and around the site is considered to be broadly similar to the context in 2010, as can be seen in photographs included within this report. Furthermore, it is also noted that a number of recent tree applications have been permitted around the site to trim trees protected by TPOs (see paragraph 3.16 above). Whilst the applicant for the current proposal considers the tree and vegetation screening to be sufficient, this view was not shared by the Inspector previously. Officers consider that, given the visual context has evidently not significantly changed in the intervening time, together with the height of the floodlights at 7m, the floodlights would introduce an element which would not respond positively to the local context (which is predominantly residential); instead the proposal would introduce the daily occurrence of floodlighting in the area, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area.
6.13 On the matter of the cumulative impact of the airdome and the floodlights, the applicant has confirmed that “The updated lighting design has not taken into account any light from the air hall. This would not be possible to calculate, only to take some readings on the boundary and manually add them”. As such, no indication has been indicated by the applicant as to actual light levels. Again, this is another significant shortcoming of the current proposal and is considered to be a further indicator as to the harmful impact the proposals could have on the character and appearance of the area.
6.14 Moving onto consider paragraphs 11 to 16 of the 2010 appeal decision, this considered the effect on neighbours’ living conditions, with particular regard to outlook (from floodlights) and noise (associated with the increased use). It is concluded at paragraph 16 that the proposals would be “significantly detrimental to neighbours’ living conditions in respect of outlook and noise”, conflicting with Policy CS34 in terms of noise and light pollution. A number of more specific points are made to lead to this overall conclusion. In this instance, it is considered relevant to discuss light and noise matters as separately as is possible (acknowledging that there is some overlap). Thus, each specific light-related point from the Inspector’s decision is summarised below, prior to specifying the main points raised by the applicant in support of the proposals, and then commentary/analysis from officers in respect of the matters. This is subsequently repeated in terms of noise matters. In relation to light matters first, the appeal decision states:
- Paragraph 11 states that although the technical evidence suggests light spillage would be limited, that was not to say the proposal would be acceptable in terms of neighbours’ outlook; - Paragraph 12 states floodlighting would create a dominating, oppressive and unneighbourly outlook from the rear windows and gardens at Nos 23 and 25. - Paragraph 13 continues that it is not reasonable for neighbours to tolerate unacceptable outlook for a number of years prior to possible additional landscaping creating an effective screen.
224
6.15 In respect of light (and in-turn related outlook matters) matters, the applicant considers that the current proposals are acceptable for the following main reasons:
- Substantial degree of separation, through the distances involved and hedgerow/tree cover - Analysis demonstrates that the proposed floodlighting scheme will only result in limited spillage of light outside of the application site - Evident from the report from Luminance Pro Lighting Systems that the light intrusion from the proposed floodlights is compliant with the Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidelines for E1 Zones, that is National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. - In absolute terms, the proposed lighting scheme would not present a substantial increase in direct illumination of surrounding properties. - The lighting design incorporates the use of side deflectors to further reduce the potential for glare. It incorporates horizontally mounted lights, with high positions of the LED lamps within the luminaires and sharp reflective cut offs, that will be directed downwards and would minimise glare to neighbours. - Although the light would be visible from some of the neighbouring properties, it would not result in strong enough glare, or be close enough to adjacent houses, to cause any significant harm to the occupants’ living conditions. - The 200 lux level across the playing area (later clarified to actually be 203 lux) is the same level of lighting that was approved for Courts 5 and 6 under planning permission 05/01273/FUL - The floodlights would allow Courts 3 and 4 to be used all the year up to similar times that they can already be used during the longest periods of daylight in the summer. - Proposal is entirely compliant with the Institute of Lighting Professionals guidance. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that there would be no material harm to any nearby residential property, by virtue of light incident upon windows of surrounding properties. The development will not result in much more harm being caused to the living conditions of nearby residential properties. - Although floodlighting may be visible from the surrounding properties, it would not unduly harm the use and enjoyment of any of the surrounding properties. Its impact would be localised and be temporary in duration.
6.16 As a starting point, input from RBC’s Environmental Protection team raised concerns / queries with the original lighting report submitted and the revised document submitted during the course of the application, as per section 4ii of the report. In particular, light spill into the neighbouring gardens has not been adequately demonstrated and there is an absence of assessment on visual amenity of the residents being able to see the lights where there would normally be darkness (increased ‘sky glow’). This picks up on a wider point that the impact on an area / the residential amenity of nearby occupiers is considered to go beyond impacts quantified by a technical lighting assessment. Such a factor was fully acknowledged by the previous Inspector in 2010 and it is considered, in short, that although there has been a reduction in the proposed lux level (as per paragraph 6.5 above) the Inspector was more concerned of the light/outlook impact in a general manner, irrespective of the specific lux level. Put simply, it is considered that owing to the existing physical relationship between the tennis courts and nearby residential properties (particularly to the east and south-east), it is the officer view that the site is plainly not appropriate for floodlit courts, for it will result in light pollution beyond the application site. Owing to the height of the
225
floodlights (which is necessary for them to be fit for purpose – and at 7m makes an light barrier impractical to be incorporated at this point) and despite the deflectors / lower lux level proposed, there will inevitably be instances of light spill into the nearby gardens, causing a detrimental change in the character/appearance of the area and harming the amenity of nearby occupiers. The precise lux level is not considered to be especially crucial on this occasion, with it instead being more a matter of principle in this specific instance, partly as a result of previous conclusions reached by the Planning Inspectorate at this site.
6.17 More specifically, the applicant references a permission granted at the site for floodlighting at courts 5 & 6 under permission 05/01273/FUL in 2006 (see paragraph 3.10 above for details), seeking this to be justification for the current proposal, owing to the similar lux level proposed. However, in a later submission, the applicant’s light consultant clarified that:
“The application back in 2006 which was approved on appeal, again was a comedy of errors. The planning consultant entered the wrong column elevation data for the final agreed design. The lighting design being 8m in height with “projector” type lights, but the elevations showed 6.7m height with “box” type lights. Hence the club could not install this scheme. However, had they provided the correct column elevation data they would have had 2 courts with 8m columns for the last 10 years!”
6.18 To clarify, the 2006 permission was not allowed on appeal and the consultant has clarified other subsequent shortfalls with that particular unimplemented permission. Officers consider that application 05/01273/FUL should not be used as a basis for justifying the current proposals.
6.19 In addition, a wider point raised with the applicant during the course of the application was whether the lux level proposed was actually ‘fit for purpose’ for a tennis club such as CLTC; or put another way whether floodlighting, at the lux level proposed, would provide a suitable quality of facility for users (bearing in mind the various leagues CLTC members compete in (as per paragraph 1.3 above). This was queried as the lux level, later clarified to be 203 lux within the total playing area and not the 200 originally stated, appears to fall significantly below the minimum and recommended levels by the LTA, as specified by the LTA and Sport England:
Page 5 of Floodlighting outdoor tennis courts document by LTA (October 2012)
226
Page 33 of Sport England Design Guidance Note on Artificial Sports Lighting 2012
6.20 The proposed lux level is also marginally above the very minimum level specified by the British Standard, as stated within the Sport England document at appendix 4:
6.21 The Sport England level of play categories are shown to be:
227
6.22 As such, to help demonstrate this to officers, the applicant was asked to provide details of tennis clubs which have the proposed lux floodlighting in a similar design/layout as proposed. It was suggested to the applicant that these examples could be used as case studies to assist in the consideration / justification of the proposal.
6.23 In response, the applicant has not provided any explicit examples, with the light consultant stating:
So, is 203 lux plus 20%, of beneficial use to the club? Well this actually equated to an initial light level on the TPA 254 lux and PPA 280 lux (by taking in to account the maintenance factor). From my 34 years’ experience of lighting and in particular club tennis courts, I have had the benefit of carrying out hundreds of lighting tests on not only newly installed courts, but also for courts which have been installed for some years. Some clubs work on the principle of replacing lamps as and when they fail and not to the recommended maintenance plan. This means many lit courts around the country are lit well below the LTA recommended standards and clubs happily play matches, club sessions, training and alike. I have tested many courts which are being well used and fall into the 250-300 lux category. Although Caversham LTC are not seeing the use for club matches, more for Junior and youth training, I am sure some low-end club matches would also benefit. Of course, a 300 or 400 lux maintained scheme would be more beneficial to the club. Given the past planning history, the club are trying to be fair and reasonable with their neighbours.
6.24 The Planning Consultant also clarified that the Sport England and LTA documents are only guidance and that:
In my experience, some clubs (e.g. Bowdon LTC and Bowdon Bowling LTC) have elected to use mobile floodlights* on the basis that they do not require planning permission. Suffice to say that such temporary lights achieve lighting levels well below 200 lux but are deemed adequate by the Clubs concerned (especially given the difficulties they have experienced in obtaining planning permission for permanent floodlights).
* Officer note: Mobile floodlights are not proposed in the scheme, with this comment being a result of an officer suggestion during the application that the applicant consider installing a temporary / movable floodlight mock-up to assist the further officer assessment of the proposals – the applicant indicated this was impractical due to cost. It is not suggested that mobile floodlights would be installed at the site in the future.
6.25 After a further request for specific examples from the planning officer, the Planning Consultant stated:
The planning system operates on the basis that each case is dealt with on its individual merits. The Club has applied for a 200 lux lighting scheme. It is that proposal that you are to consider. I am at a loss as to how examples of other Clubs (yet alone photographs and video footage) would assist you in the determination of this application on its merits.
6.26 The chair of CLTC also confirmed the following:
228
We had the illumination carefully and professionally measured in our Dome over courts 1 and 2 and this came out to an average of 177 Lux. We have played happily in our Dome for some 25 years and are very happy with its level of illumination.
We also asked some of the committee and our head coach to play on a local 200 lux outdoor court after dark and report back. The committee and the head coach reported back that although they would not recommend such a level for matches or for our league teams or competitions, for normal club play and the practice of our teams 3, 4 and 5 this level lighting was adequate.
6.27 It is considered surprising that the applicant has not been able to provide any specific examples of other tennis clubs which use a similar lux level to that proposed. Although it is acknowledged that the exact context of each club (for example the site and surroundings) will be different, an indication of a similar proposal in practice would have been helpful to officers in the assessment of the proposals. This results in officers being unconvinced as to whether the lighting level is sufficient for future tennis players. Although this is an area of concern for officers, it is not considered sufficient to warrant a specific reason for refusal of the application solely on this basis. This is primarily owing to the lux level proposed being likely to be suitable for some tennis activities at the site, such as coaching (although this is unlikely to be suitable for many of the leagues referenced at paragraph 1.3 above).
6.28 In overall terms in relation to light matters, it is considered that the proposals have not suitably addressed previous concerns raised in 2010 by an Inspector at this site. Moreover, in itself, the presence of the proposed lighting, at courts 3 & 4 would be harmful to the amenity of nearby residential occupiers as well as to the character and appearance of the area as a whole.
6.29 Turning to consider specific noise matters, the relevant comments from the Inspector in 2010 were:
- Paragraph 14 identifies concerns that the intended intensification of use would result in little respite from noise at surrounding dwellings, and thereby diminish the occupants’ enjoyment of their properties (despite limiting court players after 7pm). The harmful impact would increase if matches/coaching took place before 7pm (raised voices). - Paragraph 15 acknowledges moving the courts 3m north and adding an acoustic barrier, but the Inspector was not persuaded that this would reduce noise at a 3m proximity to an acceptable level, or benefit other neighbours.
6.30 In support of the proposed development, the applicant has made the following points in relation to noise matters:
- It is estimated that as a result of the installation of a floodlighting system onto any given tennis court, the amount of court time that can be achieved on that court will increase by some 30% per annum. However, there is absolutely no reason why the use of a tennis court under floodlights should be any noisier than when it is used without lights. - During daylight hours, there could be a maximum of 36 persons playing on 9 no. courts (9 doubles matches). In summer months playing can take place on the court until 21:30 hours on any night without the need for floodlights. The proposed floodlighting would create substantially less activity or noise than if all of the Club's courts were to be used during the evening in the summer since
229
there will only be two courts in use (maximum of 8 people) as opposed to full summer capacity. - Furthermore, a material consideration in assessing the impact of the use of the floodlights during the evening hours in respect of noise and activities is the fact that the tennis courts can be used for tennis during normal summer evenings up to around 21:30 hours. - There is no suggestion that use of Courts 1 and 2 during the winter months, under the air hall, has given rise to any demonstrable harm being caused to the living conditions of any adjacent property by reason of noise or any other activity. - In terms of noise and intensification of activity, the applicant points to appeal decisions at Croydon and Cheshire tennis clubs, stating: “…In my experience tennis is not a particularly noisy sport and no evidence has been put forward to demonstrate that noise levels from outdoor tennis courts are particularly intrusive” (Selsdon Tennis Club in LB Croydon) and “Generally, I would agree that the type of equipment used and its inherent nature renders it [tennis] less noisy than team and spectator sports such as hockey or football….At the time of my site visit, the junior coaching taking place on the site, with all five courts utilised, generated a significant level of noise – the product of youthful high spirits and the raised voices of coaches. Nevertheless, I noted that this noise was barely audible from within the neighbouring premises that I visited” (Hale Barns Tennis Club in Cheshire). - To allay concerns, coaching is proposed to take place only prior to 18:00 (originally proposed between 18:00 and 19:00 hours only), as secured via condition. This condition is modelled on that included on appeal at Elliswick Tennis Club in Hertfordshire, with paragraph 12 of the decision stating “The game of tennis is not an inherently noisy activity, and the number of courts that would be available for use would be less than those during the summer. However, the sound of voices, particularly when coaching juniors, could noticeably increase the level of noise during the relatively quiet evenings. The appellant has stated that such coaching would take place between the hours of 1600 and 1900. A condition has been suggested by the appellant to restrict the number of players on each of the floodlit courts after 1900 hours to prevent this type of coaching any later in the evening. I am satisfied that this condition could help to reduce the noise from voices late into the evening, and junior coaching would be unlikely to take place at those times”.
6.31 In relation to noise matters, the applicant has submitted commentary (backed up by appeal decisions elsewhere in the country) explaining tennis not being a noisy sport and the noise that would result being no worse than may currently be experienced during summer months. However, solely considering the current proposals, it is considered that the applicant has failed to fully take into account the more intensive use and the impact this potentially has on neighbouring occupiers. The applicant themselves specify that usage may increase by 30% per annum, which itself is considered to be a significant increase. As such, instances of respite for nearby occupiers (currently possible in times of darkness, aside from the permitted airdome elsewhere at the site between October and March) would be substantially reduced and instead noise would be possible 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As such, a possible more consistent/regular/daily noise issue is created, whereas at present this is only possible at more limited times of the day / times of the year (in daylight hours). Moreover, the timing of the noise would be elevated over the generally lower background noise levels likely in the evenings. Taking into account all factors, this is considered to be a more harmful baseline context in terms of possible noise and disturbance for nearby occupiers, and one which is considered by officers (including the Environmental Protection team, as
230
per paragraphs 4.5 and 4.10 above) to result in a significant detrimental impact to the living environment (including garden areas) of existing/future nearby occupiers.
6.32 It is noted that such a concern was also raised by the previous Inspector in 2010. It is considered that the more limited hours of operations now proposed (reduced from 22:00 to 21:30 daily and coaching opportunities limited from 20:00 to now only until 18:00) do not go far enough to overcome the previous criticisms of the Inspector, which are considered by officers to be unequivocal in this regard. It is also noted that the courts are no longer (as was the case in 2010) proposed to be moved 3m north (thereby potentially causing more harm than the previous Inspector considered to be unacceptable in 2010) and no acoustic wall is proposed either. Owing to the proximity of the site to residential properties, it is not considered that any conditions (whilst also being mindful of the objectives of the applicant) could be included to overcome these identified concerns.
6.33 Furthermore, again, the cumulative impact from the air hall and courts 3 and 4 combined on noise has not been explicitly addressed by the applicant, which is considered another shortfall in the proposals. Finally, it is also recognised that it is difficult to quantify noise disturbance, especially in instances such as this where it can change from day to day and is based on human behaviour. Although the applicant has sought to apply conditions (such as limiting hours and limiting number of persons per court), in practice this would be difficult to manage (in practice for the club and for the local planning authority in an enforcement scenario). Furthermore, a suggestion from the Environmental Protection team to undertake a formal noise assessment has not been taken up by the applicant. As such, in overall terms, considering all relevant matters, it is considered that the proposals, in themselves, would cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing nearby residential occupiers, through the possible intensification of the use at courts 3 and 4 (as a consequence of the proposed floodlights) resulting in harmful noise and disturbance.
6.34 In overall terms, officers consider that the proposals are in themselves (irrespective of the substantial planning history at the site) harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would result in significant detrimental impacts to the living environments of existing nearby residential properties, primarily through noise and light matters. When applying a critical planning balance, these significant shortcomings are considered to outweigh the various planning merits of the proposals, as already referenced in the land use principles section above.
iii) Transport
6.35 Transport officers have carefully considered the proposals from this sole perspective and conclude, as stated at section 4i above, that the scheme is acceptable in relation to all transport based matters.
iv) Trees, landscaping and ecology
6.36 As per observations from the Natural Environment and Ecology officers (sections 4iii and 4iv above at paragraphs 4.12 – 4.14 of this report), the proposals are considered to be appropriate in these regards. Had the application been able to be recommended for approval, a condition would have been included relating to applying good arboricultural practices if any tree roots were found within the floodlight installation areas.
231
v) Equality
6.37 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular application.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 It is acknowledged that the applicant has outlined, in support of the proposals, a number of planning benefits of the proposals, as detailed within the report above. Therefore, when applying a critical planning balance, officers consider that whilst acknowledging that there are a number of planning merits in the proposals (such as the improvements to facilities at the club and wider community / sport / health / well-being knock on benefits), the various shortfalls of the proposals are such that in overall terms these concerns override the merits. These concerns are in relation to the impact the proposals would have on the character and appearance of the area and the significant detrimental impacts to the living environments of existing nearby residential properties, primarily through noise and light matters. In overall terms these concerns are so significant so as to weigh against the proposals when considering all relevant material considerations. Accordingly, within the context of national and local planning policies, as detailed in the appraisal above, full planning permission is recommended to be refused. This is as per the recommendation at the outset of this report.
Drawings and documents submitted:
Site Location Plan Ref 4521.99, as received 03/02/17 Planning Statement – Appendices 5-6 Ref CET/CMF/DJ/4521, as received 03/02/17 16-064-01A - Property Detail & Level Survey, as received 07/02/17 16-064-02A - Property Detail & Level Survey, as received 07/02/17 Letter from CT Planning Ref CET/CMF/4521 dated 20/02/17, as received 21/02/17 Planning Statement – Revised Appendices 1-4 Ref CET/DJ/CMF/4521, as received 21/02/17 Planning Statement – Revised Ref CET/DJ/CMF/4521 dated 16/02/17, as received 21/02/17 4521/01C - Site Layout and Proposed Lighting, as received 21/02/17 HLC067 Sheet 1 – Single Luminaire Mounting floodlight elevation, as received 21/02/17 HLC067 Sheet 2 – Twin Luminaire Mounting floodlight elevation, as received 21/02/17 Letter from Caversham Lawn Tennis Club, dated and received 11/04/17 Email from applicant ‘Caversham Lawn Tennis Club - Floodlight Application 170176 - Planning Consultants comments on Neigbourhood Objections’, as received 22/04/17 Email from CT Planning ‘Caversham Lawn Tennis Club, Reading (170176)’, as received 15/05/17 Caversham Lawn Tennis Club Outdoor Tennis LED Lighting Design by Luminance Pro Lighting Systems Ref 3832g, dated 05/05/17, as received 15/05/17 Letter from Luminance Pro Lighting Systems Ref PG/05, dated 10/05/17, as received 15/05/17 Appeal decision at Rayleigh Lawn Tennis Club, Watchfield Lane, Rayleigh, Essex SS6 7SG Ref: APP/B1550/A/09/2112656, dated 03/03/10, as received 15/05/17 Appeal decision at Elliswick Lawn Tennis Club, Browning Road, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 4TR Ref: APP/B1930/A/09/2097860, dated 08/07/09, as received 15/05/17
232
Email from CT Planning ‘RE: Caversham Lawn Tennis Club, Reading (170176)’, as received 22/05/17 PNJ211 01 Rev A – Sectional Elevation, as received 22/05/17
Case Officer: Jonathan Markwell
233
234
235
Design of the proposed floodlights
236
Proposed floodlighting, as detailed on page 3 of the light report received on 15/05/2017
237
Light overspill, as detailed on page 15 of the light report received on 15/05/2017
238
Aerial view looking east
Aerial view looking west
239
Aerial view looking south
View towards courts 3 and 4 from a first floor bedroom window of 23 Fernbrook Road (13/04/2017)
240
View from courts 3 and 4 towards the southern boundary
View from courts 3 and 4 looking north
241
Further views of courts 3 and 4 looking south-west (above) and south-east (below)
242
243
244
245
Plans submitted at the time of the refused and dismissed at appeal proposals (Application reference 081225 / Appeal reference APP/E0345/A/09/2109529) 2008- 2010.
246
Plans submitted at the time of the refused and dismissed at appeal proposals (Application reference 081225 / Appeal reference APP/E0345/A/09/2109529) 2008-2010.
247
Site photographs when previous application 081225 was considered at Planning Applications Committee on 04/02/2009 & 04/03/2009.
248 MINSTER
249 250
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 16 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19th JULY 2017
Ward: Minster App No.: 170671/FUL Address: 8 Bath Road, Reading, RG1 6ND Proposal: Proposed change of use from existing 12 bedroom private residential care home (C2 residential institution use) and one bedroom self-contained flat (C3 use), to a 12 person house in multiple occupation (sui generis use) and one bedroom self- contained flat (C3 use) with associated new car parking area to the rear of the site and suitable bin / cycle storage facilities. Applicant: Turner Estates and Mr Michael Bissell Date received: 27 April 2017 Minor Application: Target decision date: 28 June 2017 26 week date: 26 October 2017
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT full planning permission;
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Standard approved plans condition. 3. Boundary Treatment (front garden wall) 4. Access provision. 5. Vehicle parking (Approved Plans) 6. Lockable bicycle storage spaces 7. Construction Method Statement 8. Tree protection 9. Landscaping details 10. Landscaping implementation 11. Landscaping maintenance 12. Standard – HMO communal areas management plan 13. No. tenants restricted to no more than 12 at any one time 14. Standard parking permits – advising council 15. Standard parking permits – advising occupiers
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE 1. Pre-commencement conditions 2. Compliance with terms of permission 3. Highways licence 4. Damage to highways 5. Works to the highway 6. Standard positive and proactive informative. 7. Management plan 8. Complaints about construction 9. CIL 10. Contact refuse collection regarding number of bins to be provided for the HMO 11. The Housing Act 2004 requirements. 12. Parking Permits Informative
251
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The site comprises a two-storey building with rooms in the roofspace on Bath Road. The application site is located next door to the grade II listed 4 and 6 Bath Road which were originally constructed as two semi-detached houses in the early 19th century. The site is located within the Castle Hill/Russell Street Conservation Area and the surrounding area is predominantly residential comprising flatted developments.
1.2. This application, which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers, is reported to Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Page.
Location plan (not to scale)
Site frontage photograph
252
2. PROPOSALS
2.1. The application is for change of use from existing 12 bedroom private residential care home (C2 residential institution use) and one bedroom self-contained flat (C3 use), to a 12 person house in multiple occupation (sui generis use) and one bedroom self-contained flat (C3 use) with associated new car parking area to the rear of the site and suitable bin / cycle storage facilities.
2.2. The description was amended to reflect that the proposal is for a 12 person large HMO rather than simply a 12 bedroom HMO. This clarifies the maximum number of persons that will occupy the 12 bedrooms HMO.
2.3. New parking layout with six spaces is proposed to the rear garden with access from Janson Court. The existing car parking to the front would be landscaped and existing frontage vehicular accesses onto Bath Road removed.
2.4. Existing frontage boundary wall will be modified.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1. 161618PRE – Pre-application enquiry for the change of use to existing 502 square metre care home (C2 Residential Institution Use) to a 14 Bedroom large HMO (Sui Generis Use).in addition, providing suitable car parking, cycle and bin storage accommodation at the site.
4. CONSULTATIONS
Non Statutory Consultation RBC Transport 4.1. The proposed development consists of the change of use from existing 12 bedroom private residential care home (C2 residential institution use) and one bedroom self- contained flat (C3 use), to a 12 person house in multiple occupation (sui generis use) and one bedroom self-contained flat (C3 use) with associated new car parking area to the rear of the site and suitable bin / cycle storage facilities.
4.2. Given the existing use would generate vehicle movements associated with staff, visitors, and deliveries etc I am happy that the proposed development would not generate a significant change in the number of vehicle trips.
4.3. The existing site currently provides off road parking at the front of the property with two access points from the A4 Bath Road. Double yellow lines run along the front of the property. These accesses are to be removed as part of the proposal and therefore this would be of benefit given Council Policy is to limit accesses onto the classified road network. The existing access points at the front of the property will need to be reinstated as plans indicate that this area will be transformed into a landscaped area fronting Bath Road. This has now been illustrated on a submitted amended plan.
4.4. The proposal illustrates that the development will provide off road car parking to the rear of the property for 6 vehicles and this will require the creation of a new access from Janson Court which is the road adjacent to the development. The new access will be located within the turning head of Janson Court. Residents have objected to the location of the access given that this would result in the loss of on street parking; however parking should not take place within the turning head and keep clear markings are provided to retain the use of the turning facility.
253
This turning facility would be for the use of both the formal parking spaces along Janson Court and refuse vehicles, given that the new access would free up the turning head this would reduce the amount of reversing movements and therefore is deemed acceptable in principle.
4.5. The proposed access has been revised so that it is 4.1m to allow for two way movements. Visibility splays have been illustrated and these identify a visibility of 2.4m x 18.5m, this visibility would be the requirement for a 16mph speed along the road, given the short nature of the road and the on street parking I am happy that this visibility is acceptable.
4.6. In accordance with the adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD, the HMO development would be required to provide a parking provision of 0.25 car parking spaces for each bedroom equating to a total of 3 parking spaces. The proposal also includes the provision of a 1 bed flat and this would require a provision of 1 space. The total required provision for the site would be 4 spaces but the development includes the provision of 6 spaces and this has been deemed acceptable.
4.7. The car parking layout has been assessed and this is to the required design standards.
4.8. It should be noted that the proposed new access would be located close to a large tree, and therefore may have implications for tree roots; this would be for the Natural Environmental Officer to comment on.
4.9. The development site is in close proximity to roads that are part of the Residents Parking Permit Scheme. Therefore if this application is approved there should be an assumption that any future occupants of the proposed dwelling will not be issued with a resident parking permit which should be covered by condition and an informative applied. This will ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area.
4.10. Cycle storage should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per letting room / dwelling in the form of ‘Sheffield’ type stands within a lockable covered store. This therefore equates to a total cycle storage provision of 7. Plans submitted illustrate cycle storage within a dedicated store located to the east of the building, which is deemed acceptable.
4.11. A bin storage area is indicated in the submitted plans located within 15m from the access point of the site avoiding the stationing of service vehicles on the carriageway for excessive periods and is therefore acceptable. The refuse collection team should be contacted to ensure the correct number of bins is provided for the HMO.
4.12. In the circumstances there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions.
RBC Historic Buildings Consultant 4.13. No objection to the external works to the building. The proposed removal of parking from the front hard-standing and conversion to a garden would be beneficial to the character of the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent Listed Building.
254
4.14. The re-building of the front wall in brick to match the existing building would be beneficial to the conservation area if appropriate brick and railings are used; a condition to this effect is recommended.
4.15. However, there is a concern that without permanent changes to the existing front parking area then residents could ‘unofficially’ re-adopt the area for parking. To this end it is recommended that, when re-building the front garden wall, either the entrances are reduced or some other form of restriction to prevent parking is required.
4.16. The restoration of the front garden area would be considered, in-part, as mitigation for the loss of part of the rear garden to parking. Large gardens are characteristic of the larger properties in the conservation area, but in this case the improvements to the streetscene would be considered more significant.
RBC Environmental Health 4.17. No objection subject to standing advice on appropriate conditions and informatives on noise and dust pollution control.
RBC Natural Environment (Ecology) 4.18. No objection
RBC Natural Environment (Trees) 4.19. Following the findings of the trial trenching holes regarding the potential impact to the Root Protection Area (RPA) of a Cedar tree from the proposed access to the rear parking, it is confirmed that the dropped crossing, subject to tree protection conditions, is acceptable in relation to the adjacent tree.
4.20. Subject to additional landscaping conditions requiring the submission of landscaping proposals, implementation and maintenance, there is no objection to the proposed development.
Public/local consultation and comments received 4.21. Notification letters were sent to premises adjoining and close to the site. A site notice was displayed. 7 items of correspondence were received including a letter from Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association. The issues raised were as follows: • Not enough parking • Loss of 4 parking spaces to provide access to proposed parking (Officer comments - Whilst people currently park on the area to be converted to access, the area is clearly marked ‘Keep Clear’ meaning there are no formal vehicle parking spaces.) • Overcrowding • Impact on character of the conservation area • Loss of green space to parking • Disrupt the unique type of family way of life in the area • Loss of privacy from the rear terrace • Household waste management • Noise and disturbance • Light pollution from cars to the rear gardens • Need for a management plan for the HMO • Transient nature of the occupants • Not enough amenity space • Already HMOs in the area • Changing the look of the conservation area
255
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2. National Planning Policy • Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport • Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes • Part 7 – Requiring good design • Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
5.3. Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008.
• CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) • CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) • CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) • CS18 (Residential Conversions) • CS20 (Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy) • CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) • CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment)
5.4. Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012)
• SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) • DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • DM8 (Residential Conversions) • DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) • DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters)
5.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
• Parking Standards and Design (Supplementary Planning Document). • Residential Conversions SPD (November 2013).
6. APPRAISAL
Principle of change of use 6.1. Core Strategy policy CS31, among other things, seeks to prevent ‘the redevelopment of existing community facilities for non-community uses’, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no longer a need to retain that facility. The proposal for the change of use would result in the loss of a care home that is a community facility and therefore would be contrary to policy CS31. To justify the loss of the community use, the applicant has submitted details from Haslams Estate Agency highlighting the marketing of the care home in excess of 5 years without any success; how the care home has become unviable as a business; and the likely continued deterioration of the building if a successor owner is not found. In addition, no representations have been made by residents regarding the need to retain the care home as a community facility. Provided the proposal is acceptable in other planning terms, it is officers’ view that based on the details submitted as
256
outlined above, the loss of the community facility would be justifiable in this instance. The existing C3 flat at second floor level would be relocated to the ground floor. As such there is no loss of the C3 use within the building as a result of the proposals.
Impact on character and appearance of the building and conservation area 6.2. The building is located within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation area and neighbouring numbers 4 and 6 Bath Road are Grade II listed. The Council’s Historic Buildings Consultant has assessed the proposals and concluded that the proposed removal of parking from the front hard-standing and conversion to a garden would be beneficial to the character of the conservation area and the setting of the adjacent Listed Building (4-6 Bath Road). The restoration of the front garden area would be considered, in-part, as mitigation for the loss of part of the rear garden to parking. An appropriate condition is recommended to ensure the restoration of the front garden area. In addition the re-building of the front wall in brick to match the existing building would be beneficial to the conservation area provided appropriate brick and railings are used; a condition to this effect is recommended. Whilst large gardens are characteristic of the larger properties in the conservation area, the Council’s Historic Buildings Consultant concluded that in this instance, the improvements to the streetscene would be considered more significant to mitigate the loss of part of rear garden to parking.
6.3. The proposal will not involve extensive external alterations apart from installation of 2 additional matching windows to the west side elevation, lightwells to the front elevation to serve the converted basement, and partial removal of the boundary wall alongside Jason Court to create access to the proposed rear parking. These alterations are not considered to be detrimental to the appearance of the building, the adjoining listed buildings and the character of the conservation area. The proposals are therefore considered to accord with the Core Strategy policies CS7 and CS33, and policy DM8 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.
6.4. Concerns have been raised regarding the overprovision of HMOs in the area. The Residential Conversions SPD identifies that the ‘tipping point is when the concentration of HMOs becomes over dominant and the community is no longer considered to be mixed and sustainable.’ The SPD confirms that “planning permission will not normally be granted where the proportion of HMOs will result in HMOs representing 25% or more of the residential properties within a circle of 50m radius measured from the application site” (para. 5.43). Based on available Council data, there are no HMOs within the 50m radius (see diagram on appendix 1) and as such the proposal would not result in the concentration of HMOs.
Transport Issues 6.5. The site is located along the A4 Bath Road within close proximity to a frequent premier bus route 26. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links. The Transport Officer has highlighted that as the existing use generates vehicle movements associated with staff, visitors, and deliveries, the proposed development would not generate a significant change in the number of vehicle trips.
6.6. The Transport officer’s comments are summarised above highlighting that the proposed 6 parking spaces to the rear garden accessed from Jason Court complies with the Councils SPD and the parking layout is deemed acceptable. To ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area, conditions and informatives will be added to ensure the occupants of the HMO will not be entitled to residents parking permits.
257
6.7. The removal of the existing accesses onto Bath Road is welcome as it would limit the number of accesses onto a classified road, Bath Road. The frontage area will be landscaped to enhance the appearance of the application site with the conservation area.
6.8. Acceptable cycle storage and bin/recycling provision has been made. Therefore, subject to appropriate conditions regarding vehicle parking, closure of existing accesses, bin/cycle storage provision, construction method statement, works on the highway, and restriction to residents parking permits, the proposal is considered acceptable.
Residential Amenity 6.9. Policy CS18 states that proposals to convert properties into self-contained flats or for multiple occupation will be assessed against the impact on the amenity and character of the surrounding area, particularly in terms of intensification of activity, loss of privacy, loss of external amenity space, the location and provision of on-site car parking, and the treatment of bin storage areas. Policy DM8 also requires proposals for conversion to respect the physical character of the area.
6.10. Concerns have been raised regarding the potential intensification of activities on the site notwithstanding that the proposal is for a 12 person HMO to replace the existing care home, which is licensed for 17 occupants. There is an existing terrace in the rear garden that is available for use as outdoor amenity space by occupants of the care home. Neighbours are concerned that future occupants of the proposed HMO, who might be young students, would use the terrace for parties causing noise and disturbance. The applicant has submitted that the target group for the HMO are young professionals who cannot afford independent accommodation of their own.
6.11. It is relevant when determining planning proposals to have regard to the obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Among the key equalities’ protected characteristics is age and it would be unreasonable to refuse planning permission for the proposed scheme based on the perceived activities of one group of people of a certain age or to use these assumptions to justify requiring by planning condition that the accommodation is limited to non-students only. In addition noise and disturbance is also subject to control from separate legislation. Finally it is a material consideration that the site could be converted to other uses within Use Class C2 without the need for planning permission; such as a residential college or training centre, that could result in an intensification of activities significantly greater than the existing use of the site.
6.12. Light pollution concerns to adjoining rear gardens have been raised by neighbours in terms of the proposed rear parking. However, the proposed parking would be at least 2.2m below the ground floor level of the existing rear terrace is well screened by an approximately 2m brick boundary wall that will provide a light pollution buffer to the rear gardens of 4-6 bath Road.
6.13. Whilst concerns have been raised regarding potential overlooking from the rear terrace, it should be noted that the terrace is existing and currently in use as outdoor amenity space and would therefore not introduce any additional loss of privacy than existing.
6.14. The proposal is for all the 12 rooms to have ensuite bathrooms with appropriately sized communal areas that include dining area and kitchen at ground floor level, an additional kitchen and a laundry room at second floor level. The provision is
258
considered to accord with checklist 25 of the SPD that requires the provision of 1 communal room for every 4-6 bedrooms.
6.15. The proposed basement unit benefits from proposed light wells to the front elevations that are considered adequate to provide an appropriate standard of living to the future occupant of the unit. Submitted section plan 16009-PL-17 illustrates a basement ceiling height of 2.24m that is considered acceptable.
6.16. Whilst the overall stacking of the habitable rooms is considered acceptable, plan details (Drawing no. 16009-PL-17 Proposed Section AA & Acoustic Detail) have been submitted showing the acoustic upgrade to the floor beneath the second floor Kitchen and Laundry rooms that are above bedrooms. With such acoustic measures in place, it is not considered the bedrooms below the kitchen and laundry room would be adversely affected by noise and disturbance.
6.17. To protect the amenities of the neighbours and the future occupants of the HMO, it is recommended that an appropriate condition be added requiring the submission of a Management Plan for the proposed HMO prior to its occupation. The management plan will cover the internal and external communal areas, including the proper use of bin stores and responsibility for refuse and recycling collection arrangements. The plan would ensure adequate standards of visual appearance and safeguard the amenities of the area in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS18, policy DM8 of the Sites and Policies Document and the Residential Conversions Supplementary Planning Document (November 2013).
Landscaping 6.18. Following concerns raised by the Council’s Natural Environment Officer regarding potential impact onto a Cedar tree RPA by the proposed access to the rear parking, trial holes have been dug in the location of the proposed drop kerb to establish whether any tree roots will be affected. The Natural Environment Officer has assessed the findings of the trial holes and confirmed that, subject to tree protection condition in accordance with submitted Tree Protection Plan 9362/02, the dropped crossing is acceptable in relation to the adjacent tree.
6.19. Additional landscaping conditions recommended by the Natural Environment officer will be added to ensure soft landscaping is provided to the frontage of the site replacing the existing car parking area. With such conditions in place, it is considered the development will not adversely affect the character of the conservation area.
Representations 6.20. Issues raised have been adequately addressed in the above report
Equalities impact assessment 6.21. In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application.
6.22. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
259
CONCLUSION 7.0 The proposed change of use is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan Policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to suitable conditions.
Recommendation Grant subject to conditions and informatives
Case Officer: Ralph Chakadya
260
Appendix 1: 50m HMOs radius
261
Appendix 2: PLANS
Proposed site and parking layout plan (not to scale)
262
Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plans (not to scale)
Proposed Ground Floor Plan (not to scale)
263
Proposed First Floor Plan (not to scale)
Proposed Second Floor Plan
264
Proposed Section A-A and Floor Acoustic upgrade detail (not to scale)
Proposed Elevations (not to scale)
265
Proposed Elevations (not to scale)
Proposed front boundary wall (not to scale)
266 REDLANDS
267 268
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 17 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Redlands App No.: 170705/HOU and 170706/HOU Address: 83 and 83a Christchurch Road Proposal (identical for both applications): Proposed single storey flat roof rear and side extension resulting in an increase in the size of the C4 (Small HMO) from 4 to 5 bedrooms. Applicant: Mrs Singh Danda Date validated: 10 May 2017 (170705) and 17 May 2017 (170706) Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: Extension agreed until 31 July 2017 for both applications
RECOMMENDATION
Grant.
CONDITIONS FOR BOTH TO INCLUDE
1. TL1 The Standard time limit 2. AP1 The standard approved plans condition 3. M1 The standard materials to match condition 4. DC1 Vehicle parking space provided in accordance with approved plans
In addition for 170706 83a Christchurch Road
Any foundation trench along the boundary with 85 Christchurch Road shall be lined with an impermeable membrane prior to concrete being poured. Reason: to protect roots of adjacent vegetation within the Redlands Conservation Area in accordance with Policy CS38.
INFORMATIVES FOR BOTH TO INCLUDE
1. IF3 Highways 2. IF1 Positive and Proactive Working – approval 3. IF5 Terms 4. IF7 Complaints about construction
In addition for 170706 83a Christchurch Road
The applicant is reminded that any works to trees at 85 Christchurch Road (within the adjacent Redlands Conservation Area) will require the submission of a Section 211 Notice and tree works will not be allowed until 6-weeks from the date of that Notice.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 83 and 83a Christchurch Road are a pair of small houses in multiple occupation as small HMOs (C4 Use) that currently have 4 bedrooms each, three at first floor level and one on the ground floor. The boundary of 83a abuts the boundary of the Redlands Conservation Area and 85 Christchurch Road, which is Grade II listed. The site is located opposite the Christchurch Road Local Centre.
269
1.2 This application, which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers, is reported to Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Gavin following concerns raised by neighbours.
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 The application is for single storey side and rear extensions to both houses. Each house will see an increase in the number of HMO rooms from 4 to 5. Two parking spaces will be provided for each property.
3. PLANNING HISTORY
None for either property.
4. CONSULTATIONS
4.1 Statutory:
• No statutory consultations were required given the nature of the application.
4.2 Non-statutory:
• Transport Development Control – no objection • Natural Environment Officer – no objection • Councillor Gavin – Notes that these applications have caused a great deal of concern with neighbours.
4.3 Public consultation:
• 10 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by officers. The consultation period expired on 3 July 17.
270
3 objections to the applications have been received. In summary the comments are:
• Impact on trees • Detrimental impact on Conservation Area • Increased traffic flow and impact on safety, parking, environmentally through air quality, safety. • Impact from increased noise and pollution. • Impact from paving over of front gardens. • Potential increase in size of HMO. • Impact from increased number of tenants. • Further reduction in size of garden • Proposal represents an overdevelopment.
A further consultation with neighbours was undertaken on an amended description of development that includes the increase in the number of HMO bedrooms in each property from 4 to 5. No further representations were received at the time of writing. Should any be received before the Committee Meeting these shall be reported as an update.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
5.1 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy
CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment)
5.2 Sites and Detailed Policies Document
SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM9 (House Extensions and Ancillary Accommodation)
5.3 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance
• Parking Standards and Design (Supplementary Planning Document). • A Design Guide to House Extensions (Supplementary Planning Guidance).
6. APPRAISAL
Main Issues
6.1 The main issues are: i. Proposed extensions
271
ii. Increase in HMO rooms
Proposed extensions
6.2 The proposal involves the erection of side and rear extensions to both 83 and 83a Christchurch Road. They will extend 2.15 metres from the side of the existing properties, and 1.35 metres beyond the rear. These structures will be modest in appearance and will be fully subservient to the host properties. They will have an acceptable visual impact on the host properties, and on the setting of the neighbouring listed building and Conservation Area.
6.3 85 Christchurch Road sits forward of 83a, and as such the proposed extension will extend 6.5 metres beyond the rear of this property. Nonetheless, there will be a 3.5 metre gap between the proposed extension and number 85. Furthermore, as noted above, the extension will not extend significantly beyond the existing rear of the host dwelling. It is not considered that the proposed extension to number 83a would have an unduly negative impact on number 85 as a result of loss of light or overbearing.
6.4 An objection has been received regarding the potential impact of the extension on plants in the garden of 85 Christchurch Road. The Council’s Natural Environment Officer notes that the vegetation along the boundary is a mix of tall shrubs and small trees. It is located in a low raised bed and the ground level of the garden seems to be slightly higher than that at 83a. Given this, any root severance may not be as severe as it otherwise may have been. However, given the proximity of the proposed elevation to the boundary, it is entirely possible that roots will be encountered. They consider it is reasonable to require the applicant to implement simple measures to minimise harm to the future health of the vegetation, which is important to the conservation area. With normal concrete trench foundations, a simple measure would be to line the trench adjacent to the boundary with an impermeable membrane prior to pouring concrete, as concrete is toxic to roots. The applicant has confirmed that this is possible, and it is recommended this is secured by condition, as noted in the recommendation. The Natural Environment Officer has also suggested an informative is included reminding the applicant that any works to trees at 85 Christchurch Road (within the adjacent Redlands Conservation Area) will require the submission of a notice under Section 211 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and tree works will not be allowed until 6- weeks from the date of that Notice.
6.5 The extension to 83 Christchurch Road will extend approximately 2.5 metres beyond the rear of 81 Christchurch. This is relatively modest and will ensure that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the occupants of number 81.
Increase in HMO rooms
6.6 Following a request by officers the applicant has submitted tenancy agreements demonstrating that both properties have been small HMOs (C4 use) since 2011. This pre-dates the introduction, in May 2013, of the Article 4 Direction restricting new C4 uses in this area.
6.7 Each dwelling currently has 4 bedrooms. The proposal will result in each having 5 bedrooms. There is no evidence to suggest the level of noise generated from a five bedroom HMO is likely to be significantly greater than a fully occupied family dwelling. The same is true of impacts on traffic flow, air quality and other matters
272
raised by objectors. 5 HMO bedrooms generate a requirement for 1.25 parking spaces. Each dwelling will have 2 off road parking spaces.
6.8 It is therefore considered that the impact of the additional HMO bedrooms is acceptable.
Equalities impact assessment
6.9 In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, gender, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application.
6.10 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The proposed development at both properties is considered to comply with the relevant Development Plan Policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval for both planning applications be granted, subject to suitable conditions.
Case Officer: Ben Pratley
273
Plans: MC/1800/02
274 SOUTHCOTE
275 276
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 18 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19 July 2017
Ward: Southcote App No.: 170614/FUL Address: 72-74 Bath Road Proposal: Conversion of the approved 7 serviced apartments into 13 studio apartments plus additional parking spaces on the site. Applicant: Mr H.S Walia Date received: 18 April 2017 Target decision date: 19 July 2017
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT full planning permission;
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Standard approved plans condition. 3. Vehicle parking (Approved Plans) 4. Construction Method Statement 5. Noise and dust (CMS) 6. Deliveries 7. Cycle parking 8. Parking retained 9. Use as a hotel within Class C1 10. Non-resident guest hours 11. No external uses 12. Lighting 13. Noise management plan 14. Conference room use limit 15. Number of occupiers of conference room 16. Close doors and windows 17. External amplified speech 18. Landscaping details 19. Landscaping implementation 20. Soft landscaped areas within the site 21. Construction Working times 22. No Bonfires
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE 1. Pre-commencement conditions 2. Terms 3. Highways licence 4. Damage to highways 5. Works to the highway 6. Standard positive and proactive informative. 7. Management plan 8. Complaints about construction 9. CIL
277
1. SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
1.1. The Parkside International Hotel (72 Bath Road) is located at the corner of Bath Road and Parkside Road.
1.2. The hotel building comprises two wings with centrally located entrance lobby. There is a courtyard area between the wings and a basement level with planning permission for meeting, leisure facilities and car parking.
1.3. The site has vehicular access to both Bath Road and Parkside Road. The application site is known as Unit 4 (shown on the location plan below) of the Brunel Retail Park, an established retail park on Rose Kiln Lane, located approximately 3km south of Reading town centre. Unit 4 is currently vacant. The retail park has a dedicated car park to the north. Servicing is to the rear of the units.
Location plan (not to scale)
2. PROPOSALS
2.1. The proposal is for the conversion of approved 7 serviced apartments into 13 studio apartments plus additional parking spaces on the site.
2.2. The serviced studio apartments would all contain en-suite facilities and kitchenettes and fall in the same use class as a hotel – Class C1. Normally planning permission would not be required to change between the two provided they do not become dwellings (a C3 use) which would involve a change of use. However, as with previous permissions for the site, there is a need to control the use of the hotel to prevent harm to the amenities of neighbouring residential properties.
278
2.3. This application, which would normally be dealt with under delegated powers, is reported to Planning Applications Committee at the request of Councillor Deborah Edwards given the site history.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1. Most relevant planning history to the application site is the fact that planning permission was granted for a new hotel on the site in 2000 (99/01000/FUL). However, a number of breaches of planning control occurred, and three Enforcement Notices were issued in 2004 to rectify the breaches that the Council considered had taken place. Over the course of an appeal against the Notices, the Inspector considered that the hotel as built did not benefit from planning permission (as it was so different to what was approved), that two of the Notices (relating to external differences and breaches of conditions) were incorrect, and that the breaches should be amalgamated into a composite Notice. The Inspector decided that the Notice should be varied and upheld with restrictions relating to exterior and interior works, the use of the restaurant, bar and other facilities on the ground floor of the building, and of the leisure and recreation facilities on the lower ground floor of the building, to hotel guests, parking, deliveries and external lighting. The consequence of the appeal decision was that the use of the hotel was controlled through restrictions contained within the Enforcement Notice, rather than conditions attached to a planning permission.
3.2. To rectify this, a further application (10/00579/FUL) was submitted for the use of the building as a hotel with ancillary facilities by resident and non-resident guests to supersede restrictions imposed by the enforcement notice; amendments to external elevations (Retrospective); revisions to car parking layout. The application sought to:
• Regularise the use of the building as a hotel; • Remove the restriction that the restaurant, bar and other facilities on the ground floor of the building, and of the leisure and recreation facilities can only be used for hotel guests; • Make alterations to the external appearance of the building; and • Revise the car parking layout.
3.3. That application was granted permission in December 2011, subject to a number of restrictions relating to exterior and interior works, parking, deliveries and external lighting. The additional elements not authorised by the enforcement notice (i.e. the use of the facilities by non-hotel guests, external alterations and car parking revisions) have not been implemented to date.
3.4. Further permission (12/01396/FUL) was granted for the ‘Conversion of 6 existing rooms and loft into serviced accommodation comprising of 6 x self-contained serviced rooms, 1 serviced studio and 3 x 1 bed serviced apartments within the Parkside International Hotel and additional 8 parking spaces on site’.
3.5. 160087FUL - conversion of existing undercroft parking into conference facilities, conversion of the existing conference facilities into 7 service apartments, provision of additional surface car parking and incorporation of part of the rear garden of 1a Parkside Road to accommodate a footpath. Granted 24/04/2016 and partially implemented. The current proposal is to convert these permitted 7 service apartments into 13 studio apartments plus additional parking.
279
4. CONSULTATIONS
Non Statutory Consultation RBC Transport 4.1. The proposed development consists of the conversion of the approved 7 serviced flats into 13 studio flats plus additional parking spaces on the site. The 7 serviced apartments were previously approved under reference 160087.
4.2. The site is located along the A4 Bath Road and is outside of the town centre area (as defined in the LDF) but is within close proximity to frequent premier bus route 26. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links and town centre services.
4.3. There are two existing vehicular accesses to the site one is taken from the A4 Bath Road which has a left in left out arrangement and the other access is from Parkside Road which runs between the A4 Bath Road and the C400 Tilehurst Road. No changes to these access arrangements are proposed as part of this application.
4.4. The previously approved conference facility could permit up to 160 people but this was reduced to a capacity of 112 people as a result of the 2016 application for the 7 service apartments.
4.5. The only element of the proposal that required detailed assessment was the parking provision and this is still the case and therefore has been assessed in a similar way by referring to the 2010 implemented permission.
4.6. Parking Provision (Weekday) Permitted Agreed Proposed Required uses Parking Uses Parking Provision Provision Conference 26 spaces Conference 26 spaces / Function / Function Room Room Hotel 11 spaces Hotel 11 spaces * * Leisure 19 spaces Leisure 19 spaces Club Club Restaurant 15 spaces Restaurant 15 spaces 7 Serviced 4 spaces 13 Serviced 7 spaces Apartments Apartments Total 75 Total 78 spaces spaces
4.7. It should be stated that this provision is based on daytime only with guests of the hotel enjoying the whole of the car park in the evening when the other facilities are not in use.
4.8. The applicant has indicated a parking provision within the Design and Access Statement but this proportion of parking was not agreed during the previous 2010 application. The assessment within the table above keeps the parking provision in line with that previously agreed.
4.9. Based on the above the proposed use will only slightly increase the demand for car parking by 3 on the site for the day time uses.
280
Parking Provision (Weekend) Permitted Agreed Proposed Required Uses Parking Uses Parking Provision Provision Conference / 17 spaces Conference / 4 spaces Function Function Room Room Hotel 49 spaces Hotel 49 spaces Leisure Club 14 spaces Leisure Club 14 spaces Restaurant 19 spaces Restaurant 19 spaces Serviced 4 spaces Serviced 7 spaces Apartments Apartments Total 90 spaces Total 93 spaces
4.10. The applicant has indicated a parking provision within the Design and Access Statement but this proportion of parking was not agreed during the previous 2010 application. The assessment within the table above keeps the parking provision in line with that previously agreed. Based on the above the proposed use will again increase the demand for car parking by 3 on the site to a total of 93.
4.11. The proposal incorporates a provision of 111 parking spaces (albeit that the plan states 113) which exceeds the required provision but I am happy that this is acceptable as this ensures that any overspill could be accommodated on site.
4.12. Although not included within the number of spaces the plan also indicates 11 spaces within the basement but these spaces have been removed as part of a separate application and therefore should not be referred to.
4.13. The proposed parking spaces are to the correct dimensions of 2.4m x 4.8m and provided with adequate manoeuvrability.
4.14. In the circumstances there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to conditions.
RBC Natural Environment (Trees) 4.15. No objection subject to soft landscaping plan conditions. It is not clear where the new car parking spaces are proposed. Application 160087 identified a number of new spaces adjacent to the Lawn Hotel, which were acceptable. The location plan for the current application shows a revised layout with further spaces. It is assumed that this is where the new spaces are proposed, but clarification is required. I am concerned about the increasing amount of hard surfacing at this site and feel that soft landscaping needs to be incorporated. A soft landscape plan will therefore be required for approval on condition, along with implementation and maintenance details.
RBC Environmental Health 4.16. No objection subject to appropriate conditions and informatives on noise and dust pollution control.
Public/local consultation and comments received 4.17. No responses were received.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
281
5.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2. National Planning Policy • National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
5.3. Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008. • Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) • Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) • Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) • Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) • Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) • Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) • Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
5.4. Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) • Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)
5.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
• ‘Revised Parking Standards and Design’ (2011)
6. APPRAISAL
Principle of the development 6.1. The application relates to the use of existing hotel space in terms of the conversion of the permitted 7 service apartments and provision of additional surface car parking. Notwithstanding other considerations, given that the proposed uses falls within the same use as the existing hotel the principle of the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to confirmation that the proposals would not give rise to transport problems, have detrimental impacts on the amenities of neighbours and users of the hotel, and provided the length of stay to the serviced apartments is controlled to avoid a change of use to dwellings (C3 Use Class).
Impact on the character of the surrounding area and residential amenity 6.2. The proposals are mainly internal and therefore not considered to impact onto the external appearance of the existing hotel or the character of the surrounding area. The external changes to the hotel would be to the rear north elevation only at lower ground level in terms of introduction of additional fenestration to the proposed studio apartments 9-13 as infilling the patio areas, alterations considered minimal to have an adverse effect onto the external appearance of the hotel. The provision of additional parking spaces would be by reconfiguring the approved parking layout under permission 160087 utilising the existing hardstanding to the north rear of the hotel.
6.3. To further improve outlook and access to light to units 9-13 facing the rear north elevation, further excavation north-wards creating additional open space has been carried out. The apartments averaging 32sqm are of a size considered appropriate
282
for short term occupation. The proposed apartments are not considered to have an adverse effect to the amenities of neighbouring number 1a Parkside Road.
6.4. With conditions in place controlling the use of the studio apartments, it is not considered that the additional serviced studio apartments would result in undue noise and disturbance for neighbours from within the hotel or use of the car park due intensification in use of the site.
6.5. As is the case with the previously approved apartments (12/01396/FUL and 160087FUL), it is considered necessary to ensure a restriction to limit the maximum length of a contract or tenancy agreement/stay in the serviced studio apartments to 3 months from the date of check-in to ensure that the rooms remain as hotel rooms rather than separate flats.
6.6. To minimise disturbance during construction, the Council’s Transport Officer has recommended imposition of a condition requiring the submission of a Construction Method Statement prior to commencement of works.
6.7. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the amenity of surrounding occupiers in accordance with Policy CS34 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.
Transport issues 6.8. The site is located along the A4 Bath Road within close proximity to a frequent premier bus route 26. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links. The previously approved conference facility could permit up to 160 people but this was reduced to a capacity of 112 people as a result of the 2016 application for the 7 service apartments. As assessed by the Council’s Transport Officer, the 13 serviced studio apartments proposed within the basement will therefore result in an insignificant change in the number of trips to and from the site. The Council’s Transport Officer concluded that the principle of the development in transport terms is therefore acceptable.
Parking 6.9. The Council’s transport officer has assessed the parking requirements of the proposals as summarised within paragraph 23-36, concluding that the proposed serviced studio apartments will only slightly increase the demand for car parking by 3 spaces to 93 spaces on the site. The proposal incorporates a provision of 111 parking spaces which exceeds the required provision and the Council’s Transport Officer is satisfied with the provision that ensures any overspill could be accommodated on site.
6.10. The proposed parking spaces are to the correct dimensions of 2.4m x 4.8m and provided with adequate manoeuvrability. It is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the provision of parking in accordance with the approved plans.
Landscaping 6.11. The Council’s Natural Environment officer has highlighted concerns about the increasing amount of hard surfacing at this site and feel that soft landscaping needs to be incorporated. To ensure that soft landscaping is provided, the officer has recommended conditions requiring the submission of soft landscape details along with implementation and maintenance details. With such conditions in place, it is considered the proposed car parking is acceptable.
283
Other matters 6.12. As shown in the history section above, planning permission (10/00579/FUL) was granted for the use of the building as a hotel with ancillary facilities by resident and non-resident guests. The purpose of the planning application and subsequent permission was to impose conditions to control the use of the hotel rather than rely on the restrictions contained within the Enforcement Notice. To ensure continued control on the use of the hotel and to be consistent with the recent permission 160087 (only partly implemented) it is considered appropriate to re-impose relevant conditions to control the use of the hotel.
Equality 6.13. In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current applications) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
6.14. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
Conclusion 6.15. It is considered that the proposal is acceptable for the reasons set out in this report.
Recommendation 6.16. Grant
Case officer: Ralph Chakadya
PLANS
284
Proposed site and parking layout plan (not to scale)
Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plans (not to scale)
285
Proposed west side elevation (not to scale)
Proposed north side elevation (not to scale)
286 WHITLEY
287 288
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 19 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 19th JULY 2017
Ward: Whitley App No.: 162108 App Type: FULL Address: 452 Basingstoke Road Proposal: Part retention and refurbishment of the existing Gillette building, erection of a research and development building (Class B1/B8), totalling 6,104sqm (GEA), with associated access, surface car parking, servicing, landscaping and engineering works. Applicant: Proctor and Gamble Ltd Date valid: 21st November 2016 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 20th February 2017 Agreed Extension of time: 31st July 2017 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 22nd May 2017
RECOMMENDATIONS
(i) GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 31st July 2017 unless a later date is agreed by the Head of Planning Development & Regulatory Services. The S106 legal agreement to secure:
a) Employment, Skills and Training Plan for Construction: commitment to prepare an ESP, in liaison with Reading UK CIC, and undertake the training in accordance with the approved ESP; payment of monitoring fee per agreed output as defined in the Plan
b) Employment Skills and Training Plan for End User: commitment to undertake in accordance with approved ESP, in liaison with Reading UK CIC; payment of monitoring fee per agreed output as defined in the Plan
c) Transport: a sum of £25,000 towards the installation /implementation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) at the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction.
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:
1. Full - time limit - three years 2. Approved Drawings 3. Details and samples of all materials to be used externally. Prior to commencement. 4. Details of hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved prior to commencement. Hard surfacing to be designed used SUDS principles. Soft landscaping provision prior to end of first available planting season following first occupation. 5. Approved tree protection measures to be implemented prior to the commencement of all works and retained until completion. 6. Submission of landscaping maintenance and aftercare details – replacement of any failed planting within 5 years. 7. Implemented in accordance with approved landscape scheme. 8. (i) The development as built, shall meet a minimum of BREEAM Very Good standard with a minimum score of 62.5 points. (ii) No part of the development shall be occupied until a Post- Construction review demonstrating compliance with a minimum BREEAM Very Good Standard with minimum score of 62.5 points has been submitted to
289
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9. Altered and new access arrangements to be implemented prior to occupation in accordance with approved plans. 10. Vehicle parking to be provided prior to occupation. 11. Prior to occupation of the development details of how the allocation of the car parking spaces for staff and visitors will operate, shall be submitted to and approved. 12. Any gates provided shall open away from the highway and be set back a distance of at least 10m metres from the back of the adjoining highway. 13. A plan to be submitted and approved to show the covered bicycle storage spaces and provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands prior to occupation of the buildings to which they relate. 14. Submission and approval of a Travel Plan 3 months post occupation of the buildings. 15. Annual review of the Travel Plan to be submitted and approved. 16. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to deal with noise, dust and highway matters during construction and demolition phases. 17. Noise levels from the proposed development to not exceed those as set out in the RPS 2014 Noise Assessment, as appended to the Design and Access Statement. 18. Hours of working – construction and demolition phase. 19. Assessment of nature and extent of contamination to be submitted and approved 20. No development until a detailed contamination remediation scheme has been submitted and approved 21. Contamination remediation scheme to be implemented prior to construction and validation report to be approved prior to occupation. 22. Reporting of unexpected contamination. 23. No development shall take place until a detailed land gas site investigation has been carried out by a competent person to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of land gas and its implications. 24. No development shall take place until a scheme showing how the development is to be protected against the possibility of land gas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 25. The land gas remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A validation report must be submitted to the LPA. 26. No development shall take place until the implementation, maintenance and management plan of the sustainable drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 27. No materials or green waste produced as a result of the clearance of the site, demolition works or construction works associated with the development hereby approved shall be burnt on site. 28. Deliveries via the front R&D deliveries and collection access shown on approved plan to be within the hours of 6.30am to 10pm Monday to Friday, not on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank holidays.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 1. Terms and conditions. 2. Building regulations. 3. A section 106 legal agreement relates to this permission. 4. Pre-Commencement conditions. 5. Access construction. 6. Damage to the highway. 7. Works affecting the highway. 8. Environmental protection information regarding the control of nuisance during construction and demolition. 9. The Applicant is advised that the Environment Agency (EA) states that part of this site is regulated under the CoMAH regime, specifically the LPG and methanol storage areas. The EA advise that the Operator should review the possible impacts of the
290
proposed development as part of their Management of Change procedures. In particular, this may include changes to their occupied buildings risk assessment and to their emergency plans. 10. Positive and proactive.
1. INTRODUCTION/ BACKGROUND
1.1 This application was presented to Planning Applications Committee in February 2017 when it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement (Please see original committee and update reports in Appendix 2 & 3 below). The Agreement is currently in progress, largely complete; but the formal decision, therefore, has not yet been issued.
1.2 Subsequent to that committee resolution, the applicant has now submitted an amended scheme, which is described in Section 2 and the changes assessed in Section 5 below. It is acceptable for these amendments to be submitted and considered at this stage as the formal decision has not been issued and the overall thrust of the scheme is the same as that originally submitted.
Location Plan
Existing Block Plan
291
2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.1 The overall proposals include the following. The items in bold are the new/amended elements:
• Demolition of the three storey 1970s return wing (south-western) of the existing frontage building (of Building D). • The development of a new three storey building comprising remodelled and new offices, laboratories, glazed atrium to form a link between the old and new buildings and a rear Shelter (warehouse). This would be research and development office and laboratory accommodation, and associated warehousing within B1a, B1b and B8 uses – totalling 6,028sqm (GEA). This is a reduction in the footprint from the original submission. • Increase of the height of the laboratory building by 2m to conceal plant within the overall building massing, providing safe access to roof areas. • Refurbishment of the southern half of the existing frontage building (D) (i.e. to the south of the clock tower) and the façade of the northern half of the retained frontage building (B) to bring them up to modern standards for thermal insulation and services provision. • Omission of the multi-storey car park - 190 spaces. • 274 proposed car parking spaces, including 9 visitor spaces and retention of 91 spaces (outside of the red line, but within the overall P&G site). • 20 no. parking bays in front of buildings D & F. • Formation of a new northern vehicular access to the site. • Minor Amendments to the ground floor security building. • Demolition of external store, part of sub-station and switch room. • Ancillary plant and engineering works including switch room, generator and transformer buildings. • External compound building. • Associated servicing, hard and soft landscaping works. • Amended landscaping to the front of Block D to accommodate some parking provision • Retention of trees and landscaping in front of Block A. • Elevational treatment changes – replacement of panelling with cladding system (silver and grey); amendment of flue colour from stainless steel to grey; amendment to glazing framing to match existing; inclusion of blue brindle brick to new build elements as a contrast to existing.
2.2 The number of proposed staff would remain the same as the originally submitted scheme.
2.3 The applicant has advised that “the reduction in the building size has been achieved by further design development which has identified efficiency in operations. This has resulted in the same amount of staff achieving a higher utilisation of the lab equipment, therefore allowing for a reduction in overall lab space while maintaining the same productivity. The warehouse size has similarly been reduced through improved operational efficiencies in how the labs are supported, and better logistical processes in supplying the new labs and wider site.”
292
2.4 The proposed floor areas are as follows:
Building Land Use New Areas (GEA m2) Refurbished Gillette Building B1(a) Office 1720 Other (Plant) 66 New Build B1(a) Office 380 B1(b) Research & Development 2125 Other (lift, stairs, wc's, plant) 1583 B8 Storage or Distribution 230
Total 6104
2.5 The following plans and supporting documents were submitted:
The following plans as received on 8th November 2016 (unless otherwise dated), remain the same:
• Existing Site Location Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1001 • Existing Topographical Site Survey – Drawing no: 5504-1010 • Existing Ground Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1020 • Existing First Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1030 • Existing Second Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1040 • Existing Roof Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1050 • Existing Front/ Left Elevations & Sections AA - Drawing no: 5504-1060, received 8th December 2016 • Existing Rear Elevations & Sections BB - Drawing no: 5504-1070
2.6 A schedule of amended plans and documents is as follows identified against the plans they replace (where relevant).
Originally submitted plan/ document Amended plan/ document (received as shown) Proposed Site Location Plan – Drawing no: No change 5504 2000, received 8th November 2016 Proposed Site Block Plan – Drawing no: Site Plan Proposed – Drawing no: 7553-11- 5504-2010, received 8th November 2016 001, Rev 4, received 7th July 2017
Changed to show omitted MSCP and reduced building footprints and ancillary fencing/parking layouts.
Proposed Demolition Plan – Drawing no: Proposed Demolition Plan – Drawing no: 5504-2015 Rev P/1, received 5th February 5504-2015 Rev P/2, received 6th July 2017 2017 The Substation indicated for demolition is no longer to be demolished only minor alterations are to be made.
Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing no: Overall Level 00 Plan - Drawing no: 7553- 5504-2020, received 8th November 2016 11-100, 8th June 2017
293
Proposed First Floor Plan - Drawing no: Overall Level 01 Plan – Drawing no: 7553- 5504-2030, received 8th November 11-101, 8th June 2017 20168/11
Proposed Second Floor Plan - Drawing no: Overall Level 02 Plan – Drawing no: 7553- 5504-2040, received 8th November 2016 11-102, received 8th June 2017
Proposed Roof Plan - Drawing no: 5504- Overall Level 03 Plan - Drawing no: 7553- 2050, received 8th November 2016 11-103 [Plant], received 8th June 2017
Overall Roof Plan – Drawing no: 7553-11- 104, received 8th June 2017
Proposed Security & Site Access Plan- Pedestrian and Traffic Flow Strategy Drawing no: 5504-2070 Rev P/1, received During Construction - Drawing no: 7553- 5th February 2017 51_EW08 Rev C, received 8th June 2017
P&G Secure Line Permanent - Drawing no: 7553-51_EW15 Rev B, received 8th June 2017
Proposed Contractors Compound/Site Superseded. This was previously included Access Plan – Drawing no: 5504-2080, to illustrate how construction phasing received 8th November 2016 could be managed. This has not been updated.
Proposed Car Park Layout– Drawing no: Wider Site Plan with Parking – Drawing no: 5504-2090 Rev P/1, received 5th February 7553-08-104_P04, received 7 th July 2017 2017
Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 2 - Drawing no: Site Plan Proposed – Drawing no: 7553-11- 5504-2095, received 8th November 2016 001, Rev 2, received 8th June 2017
This shows the site layout. Landscaping to be addressed via hard and soft landscape condition.
Landscape Plan Sheet 2 of 2 – Drawing no: Site Plan Proposed – Drawing no: 7553-11- 5504-2096, received 8th November 2016 001, Rev 2, received 8th June 2017
This shows the site layout. Landscaping to be addressed via hard and soft landscape condition.
Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 of 3 – Drawing Elevations - Drawing no: 7553-08-100, no: 5504-3000 Rev P/1, receivedth received 5 8th June 2017 February 2017 Sections Sheet 1 – Drawing no: 7553-12- Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 of 3 – Drawing 100, received 8th June 2017 no: 5504-3010 Rev P/1, receivedth 5 February 2017 Sections Sheet 2 – Drawing no: 7553-12- Proposed Elevations Sheet 3 of 3 – Drawing 101, received 8th June 2017 no: 5504-3020 Rev P/1, receivedth 5 February 2017 Sections Sheet 3 – Drawing no: 7553-12- 102 , received 8th June 2017
294
External Works – Site Sections Sheet 1 - Drawing no: 7553-51-101 , received 8th June 2017
External Works - Site Sections Sheet 2 - Drawing no: 7553-51-102, received 8th June 2017
Proposed Substation and ElectricalIt is no longer proposed to construct new Distribution Elevations – Drawing no: 5504- substation and electrical distribution 3030, received 8th November 2016 buildings.
Proposed External Lighting Layout– Car Park and External Electrical Services Drawing no:5504-E2100, received th 8Options 1&2 – Drawing no: SP-EN-E-100_1 November 2016 Rev T1, received 3rd July 2017
Shows the lighting for the new parking areas.
Proposed External Lighting ISO Lux Plots– No revised plan. Drawing no: 5504-E2110, received th 8 November 2016
Tree Protection Plan – Drawing no: 16216- Tree Protection Plan – Drawing no: 16216- BT2, received 15th November 2016 BT2 Rev P01, received 6th July 2017
- P&G Secure Line Existing– Drawing no: 7553_51_EW13 Rev B, received rd 3July 2017
- P&G Secure Line Temporary - Drawing no: 7553_51_EW14 Rev D, received rd 3July 2017
- Planning Footprint Comparison – Drawing no: 7553-08-103, received 8th June 2017
Air Quality Assessment, prepared by Arup, No change received 8th November 2016
Arboricultural Assessment & MethodNo change Statement, prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy, received 15th November 2016
Architectural Visualisations received 21st Architectural Visualisations – Sheet 1 – November 2016 and th 5February 2017 Drawing no: 7553-08-101, received th 8 8000, 8010, 8020 June 2017
Architectural Visualisations – Sheet 2 – Drawing no: 7553-08-102, received th 8 June 2017
295
Contaminated Land Desk Study, prepare No change by Arup, received 8th November 2016 Design and Access Statement, prepared by No change DHP (UK) LLP, received 8th November 2016
Energy Strategy, prepared by Arup, No change received 8th November 2016
Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by ARK No change Environmental Consultancy Ltd, received 21st November 2016
Planning Statement, prepared by Arup, Letter received 30th June explaining the received 8th November 2016 proposed amendments.
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, prepared No change by Arup, received 8th November 2016
Sustainability Statement, prepared by No change Arup, received 8th November 2016
Transport Assessment, prepared by Arup, Transport Assessment Addendum 2, received 8th November 2016 prepared by Arup, dated 5/7/17, received 7th July 2017
Employment, Skills, Training Plan for End No change User, prepared by Arup, received 10th February 2017
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
296
PREVIOUS APPROVED SITE PLAN
3. CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The main changes relate to parking and transport measures and impacts on landscaping. Further consultation has been undertaken with Transport and Natural Environment. Their comments are as follows:
Natural Environment – Trees 3.2 The amended scheme would involve the removal of fewer trees. With regard to replacement trees it is still recommended that the replanting of trees should achieve a minimum of 1:1 replacement, but ideally more. As previously advised this could include planting in the new car park areas to the north of the site. New planting in this urban environment will require specially engineered planting pits to ensure the successful establishment of the trees in this area and prevent damage to areas of hard standing from tree root growth.
3.3 It is noted that the amended proposal also includes further parking to the front of the building. The layout plans show indicative tree planting adjacent to the back edge of the pavement, but with no further details. Further detailed landscaping plans will need to be submitted and should include a range of measures which would ‘soften’ the appearance of the car parking, which could comprise a combination of box hedging and trees.
Transport 3.4 The Transport officer stated the following: “This proposal has been altered to reduce the requirement for car parking and additional justification has been provided, I comment on this as follows:
Parking
The original proposal included an additional provision of 380 spaces above the 161 retained on site spaces, the overall number is to be reduced following an analysis of the parking at the Reading and Egham sites.
The analysis undertaken by the applicant identifies that the proposal would require a provision of 356. The previous proposal would have retained an existing level of
297
31 visitor spaces which is linked to the testing of goods on the site, this is being reduced to 9 following a review of the use of visitor parking and is therefore deemed acceptable. The total proposed provision is therefore 365 spaces.
The analysis undertaken would be in keeping with the calculations I including in my comments dated 27th January 2017 and stated the following:
The application site currently provides a total of 311 car parking spaces, of which 280 are for staff and 31 for visitors. This includes seven accessible (disabled) parking spaces for staff and one accessible (disabled) parking space for visitors.
The applicants undertook a parking survey of its on-site facilities in March 2016. On the day of the survey, out of the 260 employees working at the Reading site, 231 were present and the maximum occupancy of the car park was 183.
Although 280 existing spaces are reserved for employees, the maximum occupancy rate of the car park is 79.2% (183 parked vehicles / 231 staff on site), with a minimum of 97 extra spaces not used and available at all times for employees.
The proposal includes the relocation of the 250 employees from Egham to the Reading site, applying the same staff attendance rate of 88.9%, it is predicted that, on average, 88.9% × 250 = 222 relocated staff would be on site on any given day.
Given the existing car mode share of 79.2%, the applicants have predicted that the 222 relocated staff present on site on any given day would require a maximum of 176 car parking spaces. The car mode share of 79.2% indicates that not all existing staff drive to the site and therefore reflects that parts of the existing staff make use of other modes of transport to commute. It is likely that the new, relocated staff would follow the same travel patterns as the existing employees based in Reading.
The car mode share calculated from the survey data is also in line with the 2011 Census data for Area E33039773 which records a mode share of 73.4% that includes the P&G wider site and some adjacent businesses.
By utilising the survey data the total required provision for the whole Reading site post-relocation would therefore amount to 183 + 176 = 359 spaces.
If the 359 spaces were added to the 9 visitor spaces that the applicant wishes to retain then a requirement of 368 spaces would be required.
Given the results from the latest assessment by the applicant and my assessment in January are similar and the applicant has provided a level of parking only 3 short of my assessment I am happy that the proposed parking provision is deemed acceptable.
I therefore have no objections to the proposed changes subject to the conditions previously submitted earlier in the year.”
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
4.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies
298
in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
4.2 The following national and local planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (2008, altered 2015). CS1: Sustainable Construction and Design CS2: Waste Minimisation CS3: Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4: Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS5: Inclusive Access CS7: Design and the Public Realm CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS10: Location of Employment Development CS13: Impact of Employment Development CS16: Affordable Housing CS20: Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS22: Transport Assessments CS23: Sustainable Travel CS24: Car / Cycle parking CS34: Pollution and Water Resources CS36: Biodiversity and Geology CS38: Trees, Hedges and Woodland
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, altered 2015) SD1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1: Adaptation to Climate Change DM2: Decentralised Energy DM3: Infrastructure Planning DM4: Safeguarding Amenity DM12: Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18: Tree Planting DM19: Air Quality DM20: Hazardous Installations SA12: Core Employment Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) Revised Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Employment, Skills and Training (2013) Planning Obligations Under S106, April 2015 Affordable Housing (2013)
5. APPRAISAL
(i) Principle of Development
5.1 The amended scheme proposes B1 and B8 uses, which are acceptable in principle in this location being within a Core Employment Area (Policy SA12, Sites and Detailed
299
Policies Document), subject to meeting other policy requirements and other material considerations.
(ii) Design, Appearance & Scale
5.2 The overall scale of the B1 and B8 buildings has been reduced in its footprint from the originally proposed (see comparison drawing below – pink= original submitted scheme). However there is some proposed increase in height to include the roof plant within the framework of the building. This is considered acceptable, especially as this increased height is set back from the front elevation of the existing frontage buildings (D&B).
5.3 The proposal to retain and refurbish Building D remains the same. The amended scheme, however significantly reduces the roof plant on this building and is therefore considered an improvement to the proposed appearance.
5.4 The existing single storey security building located between the two wings and the infill areas to the right hand entrance was originally identified for demolition. The amended scheme proposes to retain the existing building, but the existing security gate would be removed and replaced with new steel gates to match existing. The gates would be further forward than the existing gates and widened slightly to utilise the entire width of the roadway. The access would still be used for the collection and delivery of materials to the new shelter building.
5.5 The amended scheme still includes new buildings comprising the following:
5.6 Atrium – This would connect the existing frontage building to the proposed new buildings. The amended design is slightly higher than Building D. As before it would be constructed with a modern structural glazing system and include roof lights. It is proposed with a relatively simple design, which is considered to provide an ‘understated’ and open look transition building between the old and the new, as well as providing a functional space.
5.7 New laboratory and offices – The amended scheme seeks an increase in height of this building of ca 2m in order to include roof plant within the massing of the building. An element of brick section is included on the eastern and western facades of the building, in a contrasting brick to the existing buildings (blue brindle). The remainder of the building is proposed with composite panels (grey colour). As in the original submission this building would project beyond the southern end of the existing building, but as this would be set well back in the site
300
this is not considered to detrimentally detract from the dominant form of Buildings D and B.
5.8 The amended scheme would still have a horizontal emphasis and be a contemporary design considered appropriate within the commercial setting. The flues would be visible when viewed from the front elevation of the existing buildings, but would be set far back on the building with a light grey colour, which is considered would reduce their visual impact.
5.9 Circulation space – The amended scheme would be at the same height as the proposed laboratory and offices and would be clad in the same composite panels.
5.10 The shelter – The amendments include a cladding system of silver and grey colour as opposed to the powder blue in the original submission.
5.11 The amended proposal has removed the multi-storey car park, and although the original proposal was considered to be appropriate in terms of the design and scale of the car park, its omission will clearly reduce the impact of development on the appearance and character of the site.
5.12 Overall the amendments are considered to simplify the appearance of the new buildings, both through the reduced palette of materials and colours, and by incorporating the plant within a more unified structure. These changes are not considered to have a detrimental effect on the original buildings, and still present an expansion scheme which responds well to site constraints.
5.13 The proposal is still considered to accord with policy CS7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(iii) Residential Amenity
5.14 The amended proposal raises no additional issues with regard to residential amenity over and above those set out in the original committee report and update report. The conditions and informatives are as originally recommended and included above.
(iv) Transport and Access
5.15 The applicant has submitted an amended Transport Assessment, which includes further analysis, which aims to demonstrate why the originally proposed multi- storey is not required to meet the parking demand at the site.
5.16 The assessment has used a detailed model assessment based on ‘real world’ data of parking behaviour for both the manufacturing and R&D operations across the Reading and existing Egham P&G sites. This takes account of shift patterns and work/travel patterns of R&D staff, which the original submission did not as it was based on absolute staff numbers.
5.17 The Assessment concludes that additional analysis demonstrates that 356 spaces would be sufficient to cater for the expected demand for parking spaces at the redeveloped Reading site without resulting in any over spill onto the surrounding residential streets. A total of 356 spaces are provided on site to cater for the expected employee demand, plus nine visitor spaces retained to meet the visitor demand (total 365 spaces).
The comparison between the parking proposed is as follows:
Original scheme:
301
161 employee spaces outside the red line remain; 150 existing spaces, including the 31 visitor spaces, within the red line are removed; and 380 new spaces, including 31 visitor spaces, within the red line are introduced.
For operational reasons not all of the 161 retained spaces can now be retained; the amended breakdown of spaces is therefore as shown below: 91 employee spaces outside the red line remain; 150 existing spaces, including the 31 visitor spaces, within the red line are removed; and 274 new spaces, including nine visitor spaces, within the red line are introduced.
5.18 The revised parking layout retains surface level parking in the area of the originally proposed multi-storey car park, along with proposed parking to the front. As well as the areas to the north and west of the building, the latter as previously identified.
5.19 The number of access and egress points would remain as three, which includes a new access to provide an exit from the northern parking area.
5.20 Deliveries and collections would remain to be via the opened up entrance between Buildings D and B. Pedestrian, visitor and emergency vehicle access routes would largely remain as the existing situation.
5.21 Cycle parking is as originally proposed and a condition is recommended above requiring the submission of a plan to illustrate the location of bicycle stores.
5.22 Subject to the conditions and mitigation it is considered that the amended proposals are acceptable in respect of highway safety, vehicle parking, servicing and accessibility in accordance with Policies CS5, CS20, CS24 and DM12.
(v) Landscaping & Ecology
5.23 The proposals require fewer trees to be removed. Due to the proposed parking to the front of the building additional landscaping has been discussed with the applicant, and the Natural Environment Officer has suggested a combination of hedging and trees.
5.24 The loss of the existing landscaped strip to the front has been balanced against the requirements to meet the parking standards. It is considered that a suitable scheme can be developed which effectively mitigates the impact of the parking spaces. The landscaping conditions as originally recommended are included to ensure that a scheme which provides a good quality setting, specifically with regard to the front of the building, is achieved.
(vi) Environmental Issues and Sustainability
5.25 The amended proposals would have no effect on the conclusions of the originally submitted Air Quality Assessment, and would have no effect on the adjacent COMAH site. Any conditions and informatives in this regard remain as originally recommended.
5.26 The proposed sustainability approach is the same as the original submission, which is that the proposal would achieve a minimum final BREEAM in line with the policy requirements. A condition is recommended as previously that would require the submission of a post-construction review to demonstrate that this level had been achieved.
302
5.27 The principles of the energy hierarchy, as set out in the Energy Strategy, would be used within the final design.
5.28 There would be no changes to the SUDs proposals and conditions are recommended as previously.
5.29 The measures proposed are considered to still comply with policies CS1, CS2, SD1, DM1, and DM2 which cover sustainability.
(vii) Access
5.30 In addition to those measures originally identified this amended scheme includes a disabled parking space to the front of the building at the main reception, which would assist with improving the accessibility of the site in accordance with Policy CS5: Inclusive Access.
(viii) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL))
5.31 Obligations for Employment, Skills and Training, and Transport are included in the Heads of Terms within the recommendation above as originally detailed within the February committee report and update. No additional obligations are recommended.
(ix) Equality
5.32 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
5.33 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
6. CONCLUSION
6.1 The amended scheme would still present an opportunity to maximise and make efficient use of the site, in a sustainable location, would bring vacant buildings back into use and would provide for enhanced employment facilities for the ongoing operation of this key employment site in Reading.
6.2 As with the originally submitted scheme a Section 106 legal agreement would secure relevant mitigation measures and financial obligations. It is recommended for approval, subject to the completion of this agreement.
Case Officer: Alison Amoah
303
APPENDIX 1: APPLICATION DRAWINGS AND IMAGES
Amended Architectural Visualisation – Front
Original Submission Architectural Visualisation – Front
304
Amended Elevation- Front
Original Elevation – Front
Amended Elevation - Side
Original Elevation – Side
305
Amended Elevation - Rear
Original Elevation - Rear
306
APPENDIX 2: COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED TO PAC FEBRUARY 8TH 2017
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th FEBRUARY 2017
Ward: Whitley App No.: 162108 App Type: FULL Address: 452 Basingstoke Road Proposal: Part retention and refurbishment of the existing Gillette building, erection of a two storey research and development building (Class B1/B8), and erection of a 190 space multi-storey car park, with associated access, surface car parking, servicing, landscaping and engineering works. Applicant: Proctor and Gamble Ltd Date valid: 21st November 2016 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 20th February 2017 Agreed Extension of time: 31st March 2017 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 22nd May 2017
RECOMMENDATIONS
(i) GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by 31st March 2017 unless a later date is agreed by the Head of Planning Development & Regulatory Services. The S106 legal agreement to secure:
a) Employment Skills and Training Plan for Construction: commitment to undertake in accordance with the approved ESP, in liaison with Reading UK CIC; payment of monitoring fee per agreed output as defined in the Plan
b) Employment Skills and Training Plan for End User: commitment to undertake in accordance with approved ESP, in liaison with Reading UK CIC; payment of monitoring fee per agreed output as defined in the Plan
b) Transport: a sum towards mitigation measures for the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:
28. TL1 - Full - time limit - three years 29. Approved Drawings 30. Details and samples of all materials to be used externally. Prior to commencement. 31. Details of hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved prior to commencement. Hard surfacing to be designed used SUDS principles. Soft landscaping provision prior to end of first available planting season following first occupation. 32. Approved tree protection measures to be implemented prior to the commencement of all works and retained until completion. 33. Submission of landscaping maintenance and aftercare details – replacement of any failed planting within 5 years. 34. (i) The development as built, shall meet a minimum of BREEAM Very Good standard with a minimum score of 62.5 points. (ii) No part of the development shall be occupied until a Post- Construction review demonstrating compliance with a minimum
307
BREEAM Very Good Standard with minimum score of 62.5 points has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 35. Car park to be constructed prior to occupation of the proposed buildings. 36. A plan to be submitted and approved to show the covered bicycle storage spaces and provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands prior to occupation of the buildings to which they relate. 37. Submission and approval of a Travel Plan 3 months post occupation of the buildings. 38. Annual review of the Travel Plan to be submitted and approved. 39. Altered and new access arrangements to be implemented prior to occupation in accordance with approved plans. 40. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to deal with noise, dust and highway matters during construction and demolition phases. 41. Noise levels from the proposed development to not exceed those as set out in the RPS 2014 Noise Assessment, as appended to the Design and Access Statement. 42. Hours of working – construction and demolition phase. 43. Assessment of nature and extent of contamination to be submitted and approved 44. No development until a detailed contamination remediation scheme has been submitted and approved 45. Contamination remediation scheme to be implemented and validation report to be approved prior to construction. 46. Reporting of unexpected contamination. 47. No development shall take place until a detailed land gas site investigation has been carried out by a competent person to fully and effectively characterise the nature and extent of land gas and its implications. 48. No development shall take place until a scheme showing how the development is to be protected against the possibility of land gas has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 49. The land gas remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A validation report must be submitted to the LPA. 50. No development shall take place until the implementation, maintenance and management plan of the sustainable drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 51. No materials or green waste produced as a result of the clearance of the site, demolition works or construction works associated with the development hereby approved shall be burnt on site.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 11. Terms and conditions. 12. Building regulations. 13. A section 106 legal agreement relates to this permission. 14. Pre-Commencement conditions. 15. Access construction. 16. Damage to the highway. 17. Works affecting the highway. 18. Environmental protection information regarding the control of nuisance during construction and demolition. 19. The Applicant is advised that the Environment Agency (EA) states that part of this site is regulated under the CoMAH regime, specifically the LPG and methanol storage areas. The EA advise that the Operator should review the possible impacts of the proposed development as part of their Management of Change procedures. In particular, this may include changes to their occupied buildings risk assessment and to their emergency plans. 20. For clarity condition 16 is with regard to the requirement for an onsite investigation in addition to the desk based study, the latter already submitted with the application. 21. Positive and proactive.
308
1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 The site is to the south of Reading located on the western side of Basingstoke Rd within a commercial/industrial area, but with the established residential areas of Whitley on the opposite side of the road (to the east), two properties to the north east (nos. 444 and 446 Basingstoke Road) and newer residential development within Kennet Island further west. The application site would be accessed from a small access road, which runs parallel to Basingstoke Road.
1.3 The site has a long history dating back to the 1950s and currently comprises a range of low rise B1 and B8 uses as part of Proctor and Gamble’s Gillette manufacturing facility. Reading is where personal care ranges are produced and there is also an R&D laboratory responsible for the front-end innovation for new razor products (testing centre). There is also staff facilities housed in a block to the centre of the site, along with a few surface level car parks. There are two existing access points from the roadway which lies parallel to Basingstoke Road, two to the north from Manor Farm Road and one from the rear at Commercial Road. These rear access points include operational access for heavy goods vehicles. The application site currently provides 176 car parking spaces.
1.3 The specific proposal site, which covers ca 1.5 ha of the existing site, is formed by the currently vacant three storey frontage Gillette building D (as shown on the block plan below) and the adjoining remainder of the frontage building (B) dating from 1950s, ancillary structure, surface parking and the site of the demolished building C. To the west of the application site are the two storey office building (F), office and research and development buildings (I & A) and factory/ warehousing building (E1).
1.4 In front of the building, adjacent to Basingstoke Road, beyond the site area, is a wide grassed amenity strip with trees, which is land owned by Reading Borough Council.
1.5 A request for considering the façade for local listing has been received from Councillor Eden. This was received after the submission of the application and is currently being investigated. The consideration of this is referred to within the assessment below (Section 6).
1.6 This application is being referred to Planning Application Committee as it falls within the Major category.
309
Location Plan
Existing Block Plan
2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.2 The proposal is to enable the relocation of Proctor and Gamble’s (P&Gs) Greater London Innovation Centre from Egham to allow consolidation of activities. In summary the proposals include:
• Demolition of the three storey 1970s return wing (south-western) of the existing frontage building (of Building D)
310
• Demolition of ground floor security building, external store, sub-station and switch room. • The development of a new two storey building comprising remodelled and new offices, laboratories, glazed atrium to form a link between the old and new buildings and a rear Shelter (warehouse). This would be research and development office and laboratory accommodation, and associated warehousing within B1a, B1b and B8 uses – totalling 6,995sqm (GIA) • Refurbishment of the southern half of the existing frontage building (D) (i.e. to the south of the clock tower) and the façade of the northern half of the retained frontage building (B) to bring them up to modern standards for thermal insulation and services provision. • New car parking to the south of the frontage building, in a multi-storey car park (total of 190 spaces over 8 half floors – four storeys – 4,744sqm GEA), partially replacing existing surface level parking; Surface parking on the vacant land to the north/ west of the building – 159 spaces • Total car parking spaces within the application site = 384 (proposal would involve the relocation of the existing surface level car parking). • Formation of a new northern vehicular access to the site. • Ancillary plant and engineering works including switch room, generator and transformer buildings. • Associated servicing, hard and soft landscaping works. • Retention of trees and landscaping in front of Block D and in front of Block A.
2.2 The number of staff would increase from current ca 200 to a maximum of 500 (this compares to the former fully occupied Gillette site - advised by the Applicant as a maximum of ca 2000).
2.3 The following plans and supporting documents were submitted:
Received 8th November 2016:
• Existing Site Location Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1001 • Existing Topographical Site Survey – Drawing no: 5504-1010 • Existing Ground Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1020 • Existing First Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1030 • Existing Second Floor Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1040 • Existing Roof Plan – Drawing no: 5504-1050 • Existing Front/ Left Elevations & Sections AA - Drawing no: 5504-1060 • Existing Rear Elevations & Sections BB - Drawing no: 5504-1070 • Proposed Site Location Plan – Drawing no: 5504-2000 • Proposed Site Block Plan – Drawing no: 5504-2010 • Proposed Demolition Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2015 • Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2020 • Proposed First Floor Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2030 • Proposed Second Floor Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2040 • Proposed Roof Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2050 • Proposed Security & Site Access Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2070 • Proposed Contractors Compound/Site Access Plan – Drawing no: 5504-2080 • Proposed Car Park Layout – Drawing no: 5504-2090 • Landscape Plan Sheet 1 of 2 - Drawing no: 5504-2095 • Landscape Plan Sheet 2 of 2 – Drawing no: 5504-2096 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3000 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3010 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 3 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3020
311
• Proposed Substation and Electrical Distribution Elevations – Drawing no: 5504-3030 • Proposed External Lighting Layout – Drawing no:5504-E2100 • Proposed External Lighting ISO Lux Plots – Drawing no: 5504-E2110 • Tree Protection Plan – Drawing no: 16216-BT2
Other documentation and studies: • Air Quality Assessment, prepared by Arup • Arboricultural Assessment & Method Statement, prepared by Barrell Tree Consultancy • Architectural Visualisations • Contaminated Land Desk Study, prepare by Arup • Design and Access Statement, prepared by DHP (UK) LLP • Energy Strategy, prepared by Arup • Flood Risk Assessment, prepared by ARK Environmental Consultancy Ltd • Planning Statement, prepared by Arup • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, prepared by Arup • Sustainability Statement, prepared by Arup • Transport Assessment, prepared by Arup
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 There has been a long history on this site dating from the 1950s. The following lists the most relevant recent applications (further detail is set out in Table 1 of the submitted Planning Statement) :
• 97/00317/FUL - Refurbishment of existing warehouse and production area in phases and associated external works including temporary building – Approved subject to legal agreement 15/10/97 • 98/01107/FUL - Construction of new UKRDL research facilities and refurbishment of building 454 with modifications to associated external works and car parking arrangements – Approved subject to legal agreement 28/9/99 • 01/01340/FUL - Construction of 2 storey test facility, demolition of building 460, with modifications to associated external works and car parking arrangements – Approved 6/3/02 • 04/00730/FUL - Single storey extension to the west wing of existing building B – Approved 6/8/04 • 10/00058/FUL - Demolition of store building and erection of water tank, fire screen wall and associated pump house – Approved 24/3/10 • 11/00881/FUL - Single storey extension and covered walkway –Approved 3/8/11 • 131096 – Single storey extension to reception area to create more internal space – Approved 5/12/13 • 140313 – Demolition of Building C, 452 Basingstoke Road – Prior approval granted 13/6/14 • 161128/PREAPP – Development of a research and development office and laboratory accommodation (Class B1) and associated warehousing (B8), demolition and alterations to existing building, and new car parking and associated hard and soft landscaping works. Observations sent 11/8/16 • 161685/SCR – EIA Screening Opinion – response that the development proposed is not development likely to have significant effects on the environment and that no Environmental Statement would be required to accompany the application – Opinion sent 30/9/16
312
4. CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory
Environment Agency 4.1 No objections to the proposal, but recommended an informative regarding the areas regulated under the CoMAH regime [adjacent to the application site].
HSE 4.2 The Planning Officer used the HSE’s online Planning Advice Web App and the advice for the proposed scheme was “Do Not Advise Against, consequently, HSE does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case.”
(ii) Non-Statutory
Environmental Protection & Nuisance 4.3 The Environmental Protection officer stated that Reading has declared a significant area of the Borough as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) for the exceedance of both the hourly and annual mean objectives for nitrogen dioxide. In addition to this recent epidemiologic studies have shown that there is no safe level for the exposure to particulate matter PM10. The proposed large scale development has the potential for significant traffic generation located adjacent to an air quality management area and has the potential to increase emissions. An assessment and/or mitigation measures should be provided as part of the application. The developers have submitted an assessment and have concluded that the development will have a negligible impact, therefore no condition is required.
4.4 The Officer has also provided comments regarding contamination land and land gas as follows: Where development is proposed, the developer is responsible for ensuring that it is safe and suitable for use for the intended purpose or can be made so by remedial action.
4.5 The development lies on the site of an historic engineering works and next to manor Farm Landfill which has the potential to have caused contaminated land.
4.6 Ideally a ‘phase 1’ desk study should be submitted with applications for developments on sites with potential contamination to give an indication as to the likely risks and to determine whether further investigation is necessary. They have submitted a contaminated land desk study, however, this identifies potential pollutant pathways so a site investigation is required. Recommended conditions are required to ensure that future occupants are not put at undue risk from contamination.
4.7 A number of contamination related conditions are recommended as included in the recommendations section above.
4.8 The Officer also refers to the fact that the proposed development is within 250m of a former landfill the below and therefore land gas conditions are also recommended, as set out in the recommendations section above.
4.9 The Officer also recommended conditions on the control of noise and dust (a construction method statement to be submitted), hours of working and no bonfires on site. These are included above.
313
Natural Environment – Trees and Ecology 4.10 The Natural Environment Officer’s comments were as follows: “The applicant has submitted a belt and braces report supporting the loss of 17 of the 19 trees surveyed within the site. In addition the report details a method statement required for the protection and retention of two small apple trees on site. These two trees offer very little to the amenity of Basingstoke Road and have little potential for future growth. Realistically given the pressures of the development site, these small trees would not be a significant constraint on development and I think it unrealistic to make any great effort and expense to retain the trees.
4.11 My colleague Sarah Hanson in her pre-application comments for this site stressed the importance for new planting as part of any redevelopment of the site. The proposed planting of eight new trees would not suffice to mitigate the removal of 17 (maybe 19) of the trees on site. We would look to achieve a minimum replanting scheme of 1:1 for the trees removed but ideally more. This can include planting in the new car park areas to the north of the site and in the verge where appropriate running adjacent to the eastern boundary with Basingstoke Road. New planting in this urban environment will require specially engineered planting pits to ensure the successful establishment of the trees in this area and prevent damage to areas of hard standing from tree root growth.
4.12 If planning permission is granted we will require conditions: • Pre-commencement submission and approval of landscaping details to include tree and shrub planting, tree planting pits, post planting maintenance plan etc. (standard condition). An acceptable scheme of landscaping will include a minimum of 1:1 replacement tree planting for the felled trees within the site particularly on the frontage with Basingstoke Road. New trees could also be included in the new parking area to the north of the site. • Approved tree protection measures to be implemented prior to the commencement of all works on site and retained until completion. • Soft landscaping to be implemented in the first planting season etc. (standard condition). • Replacement planting for anything that dies within 5 years of planting.
4.13 The Ecology comments are awaited and will be reported in an update.
Office for Nuclear Regulation 4.14 The scale and location of the proposed development is such that ONR do not advise against this application unless the emergency planners at West Berkshire Council which is responsible for the preparation of the Burghfield off-site emergency plan required by the Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations (REPPIR) 2001 state that, in their opinion, the proposed development cannot be accommodated within their off-site emergency planning arrangements.
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) 4.15 The Officer states that a SuDs report has been submitted to accompany the application and this has identified that attenuation tanks accommodating 106m³ will be provided to reduce surface water run-off. The discharge rate has not been fully specified but it has been stated as being the greenfield run off rate which has been deemed acceptable. I therefore have no objections to the SuDs proposal subject to conditions.
Thames Water 4.16 Please be advised that we will not be pursuing an agreement to build within 3 metres of a public sewer/ 1m of a lateral drain for 162108 452 Basingstoke Road RG2 0QE. Although the site itself does not have mapped sewers; This Gillette site we believe to be privately drained. If this is incorrect and the site owner does
314
encounter a public sewer or lateral drain within 3 metres of their building work they must ensure that they comply with the specifications in our Appendix. They must also contact Thames Water so that we can update the public sewer record and pursue an agreement.
Transport 4.17 The Transport officer stated that the site is located in South Reading outside of the Town Centre Area but is located within close proximity to frequent premier bus routes to and from the Town Centre Area.
4.18 During the pre-application discussions it was agreed that a Transport Assessment (TA) should accompany any planning application. My comments on this are as follows:
Trip Rates
4.19 The Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) has been used to calculate the proposed trip generation and I am happy with this approach.
4.20 The site has been assessed as being an office for the whole site as this would constitute a worst case scenario and in principle has been deemed acceptable.
4.21 The applicant has utilized the 85th Percentile instead of the average over all the selected sites, the TRICS Good Practice Guide does not suggest this as a suitable assessment when less than 20 sites have been selected. Only 10 sites have been selected by the applicant and therefore this could result in a skewed trip rate.
4.22 I have reviewed the TRICS database and I do not believe that site SC-02-A-16 is comparable to the application site in terms of parking provision and should therefore be removed, leaving just 9 sites. Given the TRICS Good Practice Guide the trip rate data should be assessed utilizing the average trip rate over the remaining 9 sites which equates to the below data:
Table 1: RBC Trip Rate Data AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) In Out Total In Out Total Vehicles 59 5 64 3 48 51
4.23 These trips rates would be comparable to the application site and would be accepted especially as they are representative of all office trips that would be a worst case scenario.
4.24 The trip rate data supplied within the Transport Assessment can be seen in the table below:
Table 2: Applicant Trip Rate Data AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) In Out Total In Out Total Vehicles 108 0 108 11 76 87
4.25 As can be seen the 85th percentile results in a higher result and there is the anomaly that no vehicles exit the site in the AM Peak which would not be a comparable assessment.
4.26 Given that the proposed trip rates are in excess of those I am happy with in principle I am happy that the development has been satisfactorily assessed.
315
Junction Assessments
4.27 As agreed with the applicant at the pre-application meeting on 13th June 2016, traffic surveys were requested for the following junctions:
• B3031 Basingstoke Road/Bennet Road; • Service road/Bennet Road; • B3031 Basingstoke Road/Hartland Road/Acre Road; • B3031 Basingstoke Road/Whitley Wood Lane/Imperial Way; • Commercial Road/Bennet Road; and • B3031 Basingstoke Road/Manor Farm Road.
4.28 Manual classified turning counts with queue lengths were carried out at the above junctions and this has fed into the junction assessments. These assessments have identified that the junctions are currently within capacity but the B3031 Basingstoke Road/Bennet Road Junction is close to capacity.
4.29 Future years have been assessed included 2018 and 2026, this would comply with assessment criteria. The assessment of future years identifies that all of the junctions still remain operating within capacity apart from the B3031 Basingstoke Road/Bennet Road signalized Junction. This junction exceeds capacity in 2018 and 2026 without development, therefore the proposed development worsens this situation. The tables at Appendix E highlight that extensive queues and delays would be generated following development on each of the arms of the junction. However, as can be seen above the trip rate data used by the applicant is in excess of that the Highway Authority would be happy with therefore there is some scope to reduce the impact on the junction.
4.30 At present it is likely that some form of mitigation to reduce this impact would be required, however any reduced impact as a result of the updated trip rates in Table 1 above could remove or reduce any mitigation measure required by the developer.
4.31 The above will therefore need to be addressed.
Access
4.32 Access to the site is currently gained from a two-way service road originating from Bennet Road, approximately 230m to the south, which runs parallel with the B3031 Basingstoke Road. The egress point is located 70m south of the access point along the same service road.
4.33 Access to and egress from the visitors’ car park has different arrangements, with visitors entering and exiting via at the same point.
4.34 The new access arrangements include the provision of the retained existing access / egress for the southern car park and a new in / out arrangement for the northern car park. The existing access point for the northern car park will require modifying and the proposed design is acceptable. A completely new access is also required to provide the exit from this parking area.
4.35 During the pre-application discussions it was agreed that access to a small number of parking spaces could be provided north of the bollards, located on the service road, however the submitted plan (drawing 2096 P0) illustrates the access located north of the bollards is the exit for a parking area that accommodates 159 car parking spaces. This is an unacceptable amount of parking to be accessed from this point and could result in staff rat running through the site and the adjacent
316
residential areas via Manor Farm Road. A revised access and parking layout is therefore required illustrating a reduced parking number that could be served from the northern access point. This could be achieved by segregating a number of the parking spaces.
4.36 The access located to the north of Block B will require alteration to reduce its width. Given my points above the access should be a minimum of 4.1m in width so that it can accommodate two-way movement.
4.37 An additional access point is retained for servicing the site and this is deemed acceptable.
Parking
4.38 The application site currently provides a total of 311 car parking spaces, of which 280 are for staff and 31 for visitors. This includes seven accessible (disabled) parking spaces for staff and one accessible (disabled) parking space for visitors.
4.39 The applicants undertook a parking survey of its on-site facilities in March 2016. On the day of the survey, out of the 260 employees working at the Reading site, 231 were present and the maximum occupancy of the car park was 183.
4.40 Although 280 existing spaces are reserved for employees, the maximum occupancy rate of the car park is 79.2% (183 parked vehicles / 231 staff on site), with a minimum of 97 extra spaces not used and available at all times for employees.
4.41 The proposal includes the relocation of the 250 employees from Egham to the Reading site, applying the same staff attendance rate of 88.9%, it is predicted that, on average, 88.9% × 250 = 222 relocated staff would be on site on any given day.
4.42 Given the existing car mode share of 79.2%, the applicants have predicted that the 222 relocated staff present on site on any given day would require a maximum of 176 car parking spaces. The car mode share of 79.2% indicates that not all existing staff drive to the site and therefore reflects that parts of the existing staff make use of other modes of transport to commute. It is likely that the new, relocated staff would follow the same travel patterns as the existing employees based in Reading.
4.43 I would be happy to utilise both sets of survey data results mentioned above to calculate a parking provision for the site but these would need to be included within the application documents.
4.44 The car mode share calculated from the survey data is also in line with the 2011 Census data for Area E33039773 which records a mode share of 73.4% that includes the P&G wider site and some adjacent businesses.
4.45 By utilising the survey data the total required provision for the whole Reading site post-relocation would therefore amount to 183 + 176 = 359 spaces. The current number of visitor car parking spaces would also be re-provided, i.e. 31 spaces, bringing the total number of required parking spaces to 390.
4.46 However, the applicants have undertaken an additional assessment given the above calculation is solely based on a staff attendance rate derived from a one-day survey. Attendance may vary and may as well increase depending on circumstances. Assuming a worst-case situation where all future staff would be present on site, i.e. 510 employees, and still applying a car mode share of 79.2%, it is expected that 510 × 79.2% = 404 car parking spaces would be required. Taking
317
account of visitor parking, a total of 435 spaces would be needed to accommodate future demand. Again this figure would be acceptable subject to the receipt of the survey data.
4.47 Irrespective of the above the development proposals provide for a provision of 541 spaces. This figure breaks down into 510 spaces, one space per future member of staff, and an additional 31 spaces, re-provided for visitors (as per the existing situation). P&G has indicated that, on regular occasions, all staff are gathered on site and this provision would help ensure demand can be met at all times.
4.48 This proposed provision has been compared with RBC’s car parking standards. The Councils maximum car parking standards would require a provision of an additional 191 spaces resulting in a total provision of 502 spaces.
4.49 The applicants have however proposed an uplift of 230 spaces (bringing the total number of spaces to 230 + 311 = 541) this is in excess of the Councils maximum car parking standards. This level of parking has been to address RBC’s concerns about any potential, albeit infrequent, overspill on local streets, in the event of all 510 staff being on site at the same time.
4.50 As stated above I would be happy to review the survey data with the aim of utilizing it to formulate the parking numbers. Given that the assessment of the B3031 Basingstoke Road / Bennet Road junction identifies that it exceeds capacity following development a reduction of 151 parking spaces is likely to have a positive impact on the assessment of the junction.
4.51 At Point 4.5 of the TA it states that little on-street parking is available in the vicinity of the site. All roads have double-yellow lines (including Bennet Road and the service road), thus deterring parking, however extensive on street parking is available within the residential areas of South Reading located on the east of the B3031 Basingstoke Road. It is therefore important that the parking levels proposed are sufficient to ensure that overspill parking does not occur but I am happy that the level of parking proposed would be sufficient.
4.52 I do however have a query given that the proposed car parking layout plan (drawing number 5504 2090 P/0) states a provision of 380 car parking spaces. This does not tie up with any of the car parking provisions detailed above and therefore a revised drawing should be provided illustrating the full provision of parking.
4.53 I would stress that although drawing number 5504 2090 P/0 states 380 parking spaces the drawing itself actually illustrates 384 parking spaces. This should be reviewed and the correct number of spaces illustrated.
4.54 The car parking spaces illustrated are to the correct dimensions and provide suitable manoeuvrability.
4.55 Application of the Councils cycle parking standards would result in the cycle parking provision of 44 cycle parking spaces and this has been deemed acceptable. It is stated that these will be provided within a secure and covered store but none of the submitted plans illustrate the location of any of this cycle parking. Given the size of the site I am happy that this can be dealt with by way of a condition.
Servicing
4.56 The proposals provide for one loading bay in the service yard area. While this is below the maximum standards however this has been agreed given that a vehicle swept path analysis has been undertaken to show servicing vehicles could
318
manoeuvre and dwell within the site without blocking back onto the public highway.
Travel Plan
4.57 An overview travel plan has been submitted and is acceptable. A full travel plan will be required but I am happy for this to be dealt with by way of a condition.
4.58 Please ask the applicant to address the above points by way of amended plans / information prior to determining the application.
S106
4.59 It is likely that a S106 requirement will be required towards mitigation measures for the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction but until the assessments of the junctions have been reviewed I am unable to determine what level of contribution would be required.
(iii) Public Consultation
4.60 The following addresses were consulted and no responses have been received: 397-463 (odd) Basingstoke Road; 444-448A (even) Basingstoke Road; White, James & Son Engineering Co Ltd, Commercial Road; Andy Truc Ltd, Commercial Road; Parceline Ltd, Commercial Road; 2 Callington Road.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.
5.2 The following national and local planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
National Planning Policy Guidance National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (2008, altered 2015). CS1: Sustainable Construction and Design CS2: Waste Minimisation CS3: Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4: Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS5: Inclusive Access CS7: Design and the Public Realm CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS10: Location of Employment Development CS13: Impact of Employment Development CS16: Affordable Housing CS20: Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS22: Transport Assessments CS23: Sustainable Travel CS24: Car / Cycle parking CS34: Pollution and Water Resources
319
CS36: Biodiversity and Geology CS38: Trees, Hedges and Woodland
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, altered 2015) SD1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1: Adaptation to Climate Change DM2: Decentralised Energy DM3: Infrastructure Planning DM4: Safeguarding Amenity DM12: Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18: Tree Planting DM19: Air Quality DM20: Hazardous Installations SA12: Core Employment Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) Revised Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Employment, Skills and Training (2013) Planning Obligations Under S106, April 2015 Affordable Housing (2013)
6. APPRAISAL
(ii) Principle of Development
6.1 The development for B1 and B8 uses is acceptable in principle in this location as it is within a Core Employment Area under Policy SA12, within the Council’s Sites and Detailed Policies Document, subject to meeting other policy requirements and other material considerations.
(ii) Design, Appearance & Scale
6.2 Councillor Eden has submitted a request that the façade of the frontage building (Referred to by P&G as buildings B and D) be considered for local listing, and this was received during the course of this application period. This is currently being investigated; however this application assessment does include consideration of the proposal with regard to building D (part to the south of the clock tower) and B facades, in the context of the local listing request.
6.3 Building D is believed to have been constructed in 1950s and along with the clock tower and building B, forms a distinctive, largely original and identifiable part of the site, well known within the local area. The side return extension, at the southern end, is believed to have been constructed in the 1970s. The submitted proposal includes the retention and refurbishment of the façade of Building D and its overall refurbishment, and the façade, of Building B. For the façade it is proposed to replace the windows with new windows that would match the style and appearance. However, it should be noted that the original windows are likely to have been crittal windows, but those currently in situ are a replacement of the original ones, believed to be aluminium. Two areas of roof plant are proposed at each end of Building D, set back from the front (eastern) building edges by 1.2 m at a total height of 2m, with perforated roof cladding system to screen the roof plant. This was originally proposed as a dark grey finish, and following comments from the Planning Officer regarding overall impact on the appearance of the original frontage buildings this will be amended
320
to a light grey. Officers have asked the Applicant to also consider siting this roof plant further back. Any amendments will be reported in an update.
6.4 Building D has been vacant for many years and this scheme would involve an extensive refurbishment and renovation programme to enable new office space and meeting rooms to be provided. The proposed fabric improvements, to bring the building up to modern required standards, include the following: replacement of windows with powder coated aluminium same style and appearance as existing; upgrading of the roof to improve thermal properties. The existing security single storey building located between the two wings and the infill areas to the right hand entrance would be demolished, with an existing column, set back from the front elevation, and the existing under croft opened up, with new steel gates to match existing. This access is proposed to be used for the collection and delivery of materials to the new shelter building. An amended drawing is due to be submitted to provide a clearer image of this proposal. A request has been made by officers that the gates match the existing ones in this location. These matters will be reported in an update. To the far end of building B a new access to a proposed surface level car park is proposed.
6.5 The new buildings comprise the following:
6.6 Atrium – This would connect the existing frontage building to the proposed new buildings. This is proposed to be the same height as Building D, and would follow the same building line as the southern end of it. It would be constructed with a modern structural glazing system and include roof lights. It is proposed with a relatively simple design, which is considered to provide an ‘understated’ and open look transition building between the old and the new, as well as providing a functional space.
6.7 New laboratory and offices – This would be to the west of the Atrium (behind) and would maintain the height of the existing building, but would project further forward. This projection, being set well back in the site is not considered to detrimentally detract from the dominant form of Buildings D and B. The building would have brickwork at ground floor to tie in with the original buildings. The building would have an external façade of a grey cladding system, contemporary in design, which would provide a contrast in materials to Buildings D and B, appropriate within the commercial setting and the other buildings on site and surrounding area, but would reflect the horizontal emphasis of the existing buildings. The roof plant includes stainless steel exhaust extract chimneys, largely screened with a 2.5m high blue perforated cladding system, to help reduce noise from the equipment. The plant is set in from the roof edge to reduce the overall height when viewed from ground level. Although the proposed chimneys would project above the main level of the existing buildings D and B, as they are located so far back in the site they would be relatively unobtrusive as structures and would not detrimentally detract from the original buildings.
6.8 Circulation space - This would be a feature brick faced structure to reflect materials used in the existing buildings. Although slightly higher than them it would not be visible when viewed from the front (east), as it would be no higher than the roof plant of the section of building in front of it (the new lab and offices).
6.9 The Shelter – This would contain general storage, waste management office facilities and climate chambers for product development. This is proposed to be clad in composite wall panelling system in powder blue to match the existing cladding to the rear of the existing buildings. The roof plant would be enclosed
321
by profiled cladding 2.5m high. An enclosed delivery bay is included to the north side of the building accessible via an external ramp located off the existing through road.
6.10 Multi-storey car park - The proposed materials would be a steel frame with polyester powder coated mesh infill panels. These horizontal panels would reflect the lines of the brickwork of the existing buildings. The main body of the car park building would be at the same height as the existing buildings. Two taller brick faced towers are proposed, for the lift/ stair cores and the easternmost one would depict architectural elements present in the existing buildings D & B.
6.11 The site has very little room for expansion and adaptations and it is considered that the proposal has responded well to the existing site constraints and ongoing operational requirements. Each area of the overall new building has its own form and massing, which breaks up elevations and provides visual interest, using a limited, but acceptable palette of materials.
6.12 In general terms the new buildings would have a horizontal emphasis, considered to reflect and successfully complement the existing frontage buildings. The overall scale of the proposed buildings is considered acceptable within the context of the site and neighbouring commercial buildings. Any higher elements are set well back and are limited.
6.13 Use of alternative and complementary materials to the elevations of the proposed buildings is considered an acceptable approach and provides a contrast which is evident in other nearby building and suitable for a commercial setting. It would provide some colour and visual interest, without detrimentally affecting the overall character of the frontage building or the wider area.
6.14 The proposal is considered to accord with policy CS7 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(iii) Residential Amenity
6.15 The closest properties to the application site are about 70m away and are on the opposite side of Basingstoke Road. 444 and 446 Basingstoke Road, to the north- east of the site are some 190m from the nearest part of the proposal area. The area is characterised by a range of vehicular activity within this mixed residential/ commercial setting, as well as the presence of street lights and significant lighting at the commercial premises.
6.16 The DAS identifies that the site currently operates on a near 24hr, 7 days a week basis, with the majority of noise produced by HGV movements from the dispatch end of the main building travelling along the site boundary with housing within Kennet Island to the west. It also states that there are a number of existing fixed noise sources along that western elevation e.g. chillers, flue extracts, boiler room, transformers etc.
6.17 In 2008, 2011 and 2014 noise impact assessment reports were prepared by RPS for P&G. The latest (2014) is appended to the DAS. No new assessment of the proposed externally mounted plant has been undertaken alongside this planning submission, but the DAS states that it is P&G’s intention that none of the new plant would exceed the levels, determined in the report, to the surrounding areas. All new externally mounted plant will be contained within acoustically treated enclosures. A condition is included requiring the noise levels from the development to not exceed the levels set out in the 2014 Noise Assessment.
322
6.18 The use of the front for deliveries and access to a multi-storey car park would generate additional traffic movements to the east of the building including delivery vehicles, potentially in the early hours when the background traffic levels on Basingstoke Road and other roads would be expected to be much lighter. It is recommended therefore that a restriction is placed on the hours of use for deliveries of the front entrance (opened up as part of this proposal). This is being considered by the Applicant and will be reported in an update.
6.19 To the far end of building B it is proposed that the surface level car parking will be accessed from the northern end of the service road. This could raise issues of increased noise and disturbance, however, a concern regarding the level of parking provision to be accessed from this location, has been raised by Transport and a request made for an amended proposal. This is addressed in the Transport section below.
6.20 The control of noise and disturbance during construction is briefly referred to in the DAS, but a condition requiring the submission of a CMS is recommended, which includes this.
6.21 In order to alleviate light spill from car headlights facing Basingstoke Road the multi-storey car park includes solid infill panels.
6.22 Subject to the recommended conditions above the location and scale of the proposed development and its operation, to the front of the site (east) are not considered to raise any significant residential amenity concerns with regard to noise and disturbance nor light pollution, particularly in the context of the site’s former capacity up to 2000 employees, and it is therefore considered to accord with Policy DM4.
(iv) Transport and Access
6.23 A Transport Assessment including a Travel Plan has been submitted. Transport highlights that the tables at Appendix E of the Assessment show that extensive queues and delays would be generated following development on each of the arms of the junction. As detailed in the Transport comments above the trip rate data used by the applicant is in excess of that the Highway Authority would be happy with, and therefore there is some scope to reduce the impact on the junction.
6.24 Some form of mitigation to reduce this impact would be required, likely through a site-related S106 contribution, however any reduced impact as a result of the updated trip rates could remove or reduce any mitigation measure required by the developer. A potential reduced number of car parking spaces, as referred to below, could also impact positively on the impact assessment. This will need to be addressed and will be reported in an update.
6.25 In terms of site access and egress points there are three main vehicular entrances – the provision of the retained existing access / egress for the southern car park and a new in / out arrangement for the northern car park. The existing access point for the northern car park will require modifying and the proposed design is acceptable. An amended drawing has been requested and will be reported in an update. A completely new access is also required to provide the exit from this parking area.
6.26 Deliveries and collections would be via an opened up entrance between Buildings D and B. Pedestrian, visitor and emergency vehicle access routes would largely remain as the existing situation.
323
6.27 During the pre-application discussions it was agreed that the northern access would be for access to a small number of parking spaces, north of the bollards, located on the service road. The submitted plan illustrates the access serving 159 car parking spaces and Transport considers that this amount of parking is an unacceptable amount of parking to be accessed from this point. A revised access and parking layout has been requested. This will be reported in an update report.
6.28 In terms of the overall number of car parking spaces Transport suggests that the total to be provided across the site, identified as 541, an uplift of 230 from the existing provision, although in accord with standards, would exceed them. Indeed using the survey data the Applicant has provided to formulate parking numbers, would lead to the requirement for fewer car parking spaces, which would be likely to have a positive impact on the assessment of the junction.
6.29 There would be one loading bay, which would not meet the Council’s standard, however it has been demonstrated that service vehicles could manoeuvre and dwell within the site without blocking back onto the public highway, and is considered acceptable.
6.30 Application of the Councils cycle parking standards would result in the cycle parking provision of 44 cycle parking spaces and this has been deemed acceptable. The submitted information states that these will be provided within a secure and covered store but none of the plans illustrate the location of these. A condition is recommended.
6.31 Subject to the conditions and mitigation (potentially through S106) it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in respect of highway safety, vehicle parking, servicing and accessibility in accordance with Policies CS5, CS20, CS24 and DM12.
(v) Landscaping & Ecology
6.32 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal concluded that buildings and hardstanding dominate the site. It is proposed that trees that would be removed would be replaced, and the Natural Environment officer has recommended a condition requiring 1:1 replacement, which is included above. The Officer was supportive of the proposals which include native landscaping including trees shrubs and ground flora and this would be included within the strip to the front of the development within the site area.
6.33 No evidence of roosting bats was found. Ecological enhancements have been incorporated into the proposed development. The Ecologists comments are awaited and will be reported in an update.
6.34 The proposals are considered to accord with Policy CS36, CS38 and DM18.
(vi) Environmental Issues and Sustainability
6.35 The site is located within the Air Quality Management Area (Policy DM19). An Air Quality Assessment was submitted and the Environmental Protection and Nuisance Officer has confirmed that as this concludes that the development would have a negligible impact no conditions are required in this regard.
6.36 Adjacent to the application site, but within the wider P&G site, there is a Major Hazards Site (Policy DM20). This relates to its status as a lower tier Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) site where flammable gases are stored in relation to Gillette product manufacture and testing. This would remain unaffected by the current proposal. The Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency,
324
who together form the statutory body of the COMAH Competent Authority, provide specialist advice to the Borough on matters relating to hazardous sites. Both were consulted and have raised no objection. The Environment provided advice in this regard and an informative is recommended above.
6.37 The Sustainability Statement summarises the targets, which the development seeks to achieve under the headings of management, health and wellbeing, energy transport, water, materials, waste, land use and ecology and innovation (as required under BREEAM assessment).
6.38 In terms of responding to Policy DM1 which seeks that proposals incorporate measures to adapt to climate change the design response, set out, is as follows: • The orientation of buildings is determined by the existing buildings to be retained, however the existing building and proposed Shelter building would provide physical protection from direct sunlight and prevailing wind to the east and west elevations. • The refurbished D Block would have new insulation to the roof and walls to provide thermal performance to meet current standards and windows would be double glazed. • New buildings would be constructed to meet current standards to achieve all thermal performance regulations, and the external cladding colour chosen as light grey to reflect solar gain.
6.39 Adopted policy CS1 requires larger non-residential developments (i.e. above 1000sqm) as a minimum to achieve a BREEAM score of 62.5%. It is intended that the proposal would achieve a minimum final BREEAM in line with the policy requirements, but the target would be a score of 67.2. A pre-assessment estimator is provided. A condition is recommended requiring a post-construction review to demonstrate that this level has been achieved.
6.40 The Sustainable Design and Construction Statement (Section 6 of the DAS) sets out a comprehensive summary of the sustainability measures and identifies for example that the development has been designed as a simple modular steel structural frame that will permit flexibility and adaptability for change in its use, and the main structure is designed to be 100% recyclable. It also sets out sustainable measures during construction such as sourcing local materials where possible and from sustainable sources, reclamation and recycling of materials where salvageable. It also refers to P&Gs policy regarding generating zero landfill.
6.41 The submitted Energy Strategy follows the energy hierarchy: Priority 1 – Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency; Priority 2 - Exploitation of Low Carbon Technologies and Priority 3- Exploitation of renewables, sustainable sources of energy. In accordance with RBC policy requirements a 20% carbon saving would be achieved by a combination of improved building fabrics and the introduction of renewable energy systems. The reduction in energy consumption and carbon emissions would enable the achievement of 6 out of 10 credits for BREEAM.
6.42 With regard to SUDS this is documented in the Flood Risk Assessment and within the DAS. In summary this would include attenuating rainwater by storing in tanks for general release, and discharging rainwater into surface water sewer. The current site has direct, unattenuated run-off to the surface water sewer system, and the proposal would result in a net reduction of surface area which would produce run- off directly discharging into the surface water sewer. The SUDS officer considers the proposals acceptable subject to conditions as included in the recommendations above.
325
6.43 The measures proposed are considered to comply with policies CS1, CS2, SD1, DM1, and DM2 which cover sustainability.
(vii) Access
6.44 Policy CS5: Inclusive Access, requires that all developments should be located, sited and designed to be accessible for all potential users including disabled people, so that they can use them safely and easily. The DAS includes an Access Statement, at Section 4 which comprehensively identifies the measures included as part of the proposal to meet the requirements of this policy.
(viii) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL))
6.45 Policies CS9 and DM3 set out the principles for ensuring that developments provide for relevant infrastructure and mitigate their impacts.
Employment, Skills and Training 6.46 Specifically in this case there is a requirement for contributions or a commitment to preparing an Employment Skills Plan (ESP) for employment, skills and training for construction and end user employment, as set out in the Council’s SPD. Section 5 of the Planning Statement includes the proposed Heads of Terms. Section 5.1.4 identifies the Applicant’s ESP, which has been discussed and agreed in liaison with Reading (UK) CIC (providing the Council’s Economic Development role). The commitment to undertake the scheme in accordance with the ESPs and to pay the required monitoring fee, as set out in the SPD are included as recommended S106 obligations above.
Affordable Housing 6.47 Policy CS13: Impact of Employment Development is intended to secure mitigation measures in line with the development’s impact on the demand for housing (including affordable housing) as well as skills and transport. The Affordable Housing SPD specifically details this as affordable housing contributions will be sought as part of major commercial proposals involving significant net additional employment for B1 (a) office development of greater than 2500sqm, and for other B1 uses this will involve higher floorspaces applying relevant employment densities.
6.48 Although the overall proposal is for over 2,500sqm, having reviewed the proposed scheme further the net additional employment for B1a, taking into account demolition and excluding stair cores, servicing areas etc, would be much less than 2,500sqm. The remainder of the proposal would be for B1 (b) Research and Development and B8. The Planning Statement identifies that P&G anticipate that approximately 250 jobs will be relocated to the site from Egham, and that the proposals should be viewed in the context of the previous much higher employment numbers on the site; up to 2000. It is not considered that this proposal would generate significant net additional employment and therefore no contributions are sought to affordable housing.
Transport 6.49 As set out in the transport section above it is likely that some form of mitigation will be required to address issues regarding the extensive queues and delays which would be generated by the development, based on the current data and numbers of car parking spaces. A transport obligation is currently included in the recommendation, but further details will be reported in an update.
326
CIL 6.50 Although the proposed scheme would be CIL liable development, B1 office development in this location attracts a zero CIL charge in the Borough, and therefore there would be no CIL payable for this scheme.
(ix) Equality
6.51 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.
6.52 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 The application site is in a sustainable location and presents an opportunity to maximise and make efficient use of this sustainable site, would bring vacant buildings back into use and would provide for enhanced employment facilities for the ongoing operation of this key employment site in Reading.
7.2 The proposals would provide for a sustainable and high quality scheme which would retain the existing frontage building and develop new buildings in a contemporary, but sympathetic design.
7.3 Any impacts of the scheme would be mitigated through specific measures and S106 obligations.
7.4 As a sustainable development, which accords with the relevant national and local planning policy and other material considerations the application is recommended for approval, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement.
Case Officer: Alison Amoah
327
APPENDIX 1: APPLICATION DRAWINGS & IMAGES
Proposed Scheme superimposed on aerial view
Visualisation – for illustration purposes only
328
329
330
331
APPENDIX 3: UPDATE COMMITTEE REPORT PRESENTED TO PAC 8TH FEBRUARY 2017
UPDATE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 18 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th FEBRUARY 2017
Ward: Whitley App No.: 162108 App Type: FULL Address: 452 Basingstoke Road Proposal: Part retention and refurbishment of the existing Gillette building, erection of a two storey research and development building (Class B1/B8), and erection of a 190 space multi-storey car park, with associated access, surface car parking, servicing, landscaping and engineering works. Applicant: Proctor and Gamble Ltd Date valid: 21st November 2016 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 20th February 2017 Agreed Extension of time: 31st March 2017 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 22nd May 2017
RECOMMENDATIONS As on main report and the following.
Amended Heads of Terms for the S106:
a) Employment Skills and Training Plan for Construction: commitment to prepare an ESP, in liaison with Reading UK CIC, and undertake the training in accordance with the approved ESP; payment of monitoring fee per agreed output as defined in the Plan
c) Transport: a sum of £25,000 towards the installation /implementation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) at the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction.
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:
25. No building shall be occupied until the accesses have been constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, TL1 - Full - time limit - three years 26. Any gates provided shall open away from the highway and be set back a distance of at least 10m metres from the back of the adjoining highway. 27. No building shall be occupied until vehicle parking space has been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The space shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. 28. Prior to occupation of the development details of how the allocation of the car parking spaces for staff and visitors will operate, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 29. Deliveries via the front R&D deliveries and collection access shown on approved plan 5504 2070 Rev P1 to be within the hours of 6.30am to 10pm Monday to Friday, not on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank holidays.
AMENDED CONDITIONS: 18. Contamination remediation scheme to be implemented prior to construction and
332
validation report to be approved prior to occupation.
1. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Transport
1.1 Following the initial comments from Transport the Applicant prepared a Transport Assessment Addendum and updated drawing. On review of this further information Transport provide the following amended comments:
Trip Rates
1.2 Following discussions with the applicant I am happy that the trip rates are comparable to the application site and these are specified below:
Table 1: RBC Trip Rate Data AM Peak Hour (08:00-09:00) PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) In Out Total In Out Total Vehicles 59 5 64 3 48 51
1.3 It should be stated that these trips rates represent all office trips and would therefore equate to a worst case scenario.
Junction Assessments
1 .4 The junction assessments have been updated to reflect revised lower trip rates and these obviously show a betterment to that initially assessed. However, the development would still result in the junction being over capacity and as a result mitigation will be required.
1.5 Following a discussion with my network management colleagues it has been confirmed that if the junction were upgraded to include Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) this would improve the operation of the junction and help reduce the impact generated by the development. As a result the applicant should contribute £25,000 towards the implementation of MOVA at the junction.
Access
1.6 The new access arrangements include the provision of the retained existing access / egress for the southern car park and a new in / out arrangement for the northern car park. The existing access point for the northern car park will require modifying and the proposed design is acceptable.
1.7 The completely new access located at the far north of the site is to provide an entry and exit for vehicles travelling north and help reduce unwanted vehicle movements through the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction and the Bennet Road Gyratory. The initial number of vehicles that would be able to utilise this junction would be 50 and this would be controlled through pass activation at the gate. This will be controlled through a car park management plan and passes will only be issued to staff that travel to or from the north of the site.
1.8 The access located to the north of Block B will require alteration to reduce its width. Given my points above the access should be a minimum of 4.1m in width so that it can accommodate two-way movement. It has been proposed as being 6m in width and therefore is acceptable subject to conditions.
333
1.9 Gates have been proposed to control access and egress to the site but not all of the gates have been illustrated. In principle I have no objections to the provision of gates subject to them being set back 10m from the Public Highway boundary. The control of these gates should be included within the car parking management plan.
Parking
1.10 Clarification has now been provided as to the proposed number of parking spaces and this identifies that an additional provision of 230 spaces are to be proposed. This uplift of 230 spaces for the additional floor space, exceeds the Council’s maximum car parking standards by 40 spaces, however I am happy that this provision would be acceptable as this is to ensure overspill parking does not occur.
1.11 The relocation of the Egham facilities to the Reading site will result in the following alterations to the car parking provision at the Reading site:
• 161 employee spaces outside the red line remain; • 150 existing spaces, including the 31 visitor spaces, within the red line are removed; and • 380 new spaces, including 31 visitor spaces, within the red line are introduced.
1.12 The uplift in car parking spaces is therefore 230 bringing the total on the wider Site to 541, of which 380 are within the red line and shown on DHP Drawing 5504-3010- P/1.
1.13 The car parking spaces illustrated are to the correct dimensions and provide suitable manoeuvrability.
1.14 Application of the Council’s cycle parking standards would result in the cycle parking provision of 44 cycle parking spaces and this has been deemed acceptable. It is stated that these will be provided within a secure and covered store but none of the submitted plans illustrate the location of any of this cycle parking. Given the size of the site I am happy that this can be dealt with by way of a condition.
1.15 The Officer has recommended additional conditions and these are included in the recommendation above.
S106
1.16 A S106 contribution of £25,000 will be required towards the installation /implementation of Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) at the Bennet Road / Basingstoke Road junction to improve the operation of and reduce the impact on the junction generated by the development.
1.17 As a Construction ESP has not yet been prepared the recommended S106 Heads of Term has been amended to reflect this.
Design Matters
1.18 The Planning Officer asked the Applicant whether there would be any potential to reduce the scale of the proposed plant enclosure the roof of the existing buildings. The Applicant has confirmed that the location of the stairwell and lift and related access way are fixed by the orientation of the cores throughout the building and this determines the location of the plant. Although detailed design and procurement may reveal that a smaller area is required, if the plant enclosure were to be moved back, while maintaining the same sqm of space it would require the
334
elongation of the structure, which could have a greater impact on the appearance of the building. The Officer accepts that any change to the plant would have an effect on the overall internal configuration, which would mean a significant internal redesign. The impact of the appearance of the plant will be lessened with the use of the lighter colour of the plant enclosure and is considered acceptable. An illustration is included below to show the amended roof plant colour.
1.19 An amended drawing has been submitted to show that the delivery access that will be used again when the security building is demolished will have gates to match the colour and style of existing (shown on Drawing no: 5504 - 3000 P /1)
Conditions
1.20 The Applicant raised a question regarding recommended condition 18 and that in terms of any validation report for contamination this would normally be expected to be issued prior to occupation rather than construction. The Environmental Protection and Nuisance Team have confirmed that an amended condition 18 would be acceptable and this is included above.
1.21 The Applicant has confirmed that the front vehicular service access between Buildings B and D would be for working hours only, however they advise that a number of couriers do tend to arrive just before 7am. A condition is however recommended to restrict the hours of use and is additional condition no. 29 above.
Amended Plans
1.22 The following amended plans have been submitted:
Received 5th February 2017: • Proposed Demolition Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2015 Rev P/1 • Proposed Security & Site Access Plan - Drawing no: 5504-2070 Rev P/1 • Proposed Car Park Layout – Drawing no: 5504-2090 Rev P/1 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3000 Rev P/1 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3010 Rev P/1 • Proposed Elevations Sheet 3 of 3 – Drawing no: 5504-3020 Rev P/1 • Architectural Visualisation – Ref: 5504-8000 • Architectural Visualisation – Ref: 5504-8010 • Architectural Visualisation – Ref: 5504-8020 •
Other documentation and studies: • Transport Assessment Addendum, First Draft, prepared by Arup, received 3rd February 2017
335
APPENDIX 1: APPLICATION DRAWINGS & IMAGES
Amended Visualisation – for illustration purposes only to show light grey plan
336