working hours, there will be signifcant availability of parking space on the BG Group rCampus for anv other communitv use outside of these hours-when spaces used during the day by employees are vacaied. The use of the site only by the BG group between the hours of 7am-7pm can be secured by condition and the applicant has indicated willingness to accept such a condition (Condition 7). 15. The Highway Authority considers that the community uses outside of the above hours are unlikely to generate any unsuitably high demand upon the network due to the unconditioned hours being outside of peak network hours. The BG Group campus has a very significant number of parking spaces which would be available to external users at these times. On this basis the Highway Authority do not consider that a condition restricting the numbers or type of community uses will be necessary. 16. The BG Group Travel Plan will need to be updated to reflect the changes in car parking to ensure that sustainable modes of travel continue to be promoted. It should also assess transport options to the new recreational use which could be used outside normal working hours. 17. The Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to conditions (4, 5, 6, and 7) and as such the scheme is considered to accord with policy CP6 of the Core Strategy. Trees and Landscapes: 18. The Landscape Architect has no objection to the proposed multi-use recreational space. It is considered that the proposal will not have any additional visual or physical impact on the wider river valley landscape to the north of the site over that of the previous uses on the site. 19. The Landscape Architect considers that as much of the existing landscaping as possible will need to be retained and can be enhanced through additional planting especially on the site boundaries adjacent to the river valley landscape. This can be dealt with by a landscape condition which is included as recommended condition 8. Environment Aqencv response: 20. A Flood Risk Assessment has accompanied the report and the Environment Agency is satisfied with its contents and has recommended condition 9 & 10 relating to provision of full details of SUDS to be provided and a precautionary water contamination condition. As the Environment Agency is satisfied that the proposals will not impact significantly upon flood risk it is considered that the proposals accord with PPS25. Environmental Health: 21. The Environmental Health department raise no objection to the proposals as such the proposals are considered compliant with PPS23 (Pollution Control) and PPS24 (Noise). Ecoloqy: 22. The proposal was accompanied by an ecological report (focusing on reptiles) which has been considered by the Borough Ecologist. The Borough Ecologist is satisfied with the adequacy of the report and does not require any additional survey / work to be undertaken. As such the proposal is considered ti comply with PPS9, - I CONCLUSION The application for new ancillary sports facilities adjacent to the existing BG Group Campus provides a valuable and modern facility for the employer. The site of the proposed facilities would be located within a Major Development Location and is not considered to result in an unacceptable impact upon amenity, the character of the area or highway safety, as such the proposal is considered consistent with the Core Strategy and is'therefore recommended for approval. CONTACT DETAILS Service Telephone Ernail Development 01 18 974 6445 / 6447 [email protected] Management g-0 --- NO: , - FR0M:AshIey Smith Telephone: 01 18 974 6445 DATE: 23 August 201 1 I Earlev CONSULTATION SHEET Application Number: Fl201111741 Proposal: Proposed change of use of current potentially unused, undesignated land to a rnulti use recreational space. This to incorporate a running track, sprint track, tennis courts and volleyball court, in association with a new pavilion building to include changinglshower rooms and multipurpose room with associated car parking.. Site Address: 100, Thames Valley Park Drive, Sonning Applicant: Mr Chris May, BG Group (c/o Concept 4) C/O JPB Architects (Mr John Broderick). Your observations are required in respect of this application by 20/09/2011. Please note that as well as sending comments by post you can also submit them by; Email to: [email protected] or SIGNED: ~7~ DATE: /plsrk To EaiIiParishilown Council. APPEAL MONITORING REPORT - OCTOBER 201 1 Appeal Results for the period 01.10.2011 - 31.10.2011 Appeal Type Allowed Part Dismissed Total allowed and Part Dismissed Public Inquiry 0 0 0 0 Informal Hearings 0 0 0 0 Written 0 1 4 5 Representations All 0 I 4 5 (20%) (80%) Appeal Results -Application Details PARISH: CHARVIL Application Number : F1201111078 Officer : NICK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 25/10/2011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Patel Site Location; 72 The Hawthorns Cha~il Proposal : Conversion of loft space to create habitable accommodation to dwelling, with rear dormer window extensions (obscure glazed), roof lights and alteration of part of existing roof to form a rear- facing gable. PARISH: HURST Application Number : Fl201012416 Officer : ASHLEY SMITH Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 1411 012011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Saad Audeh Site Location; Marchfield House Forest Road Binfield Proposal : Proposed vehicular site entrance to northern boundary via Monks Alley PARISH: WOKINGHAM Applicatiom-Number : F/201111295 Officer : NlCK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 2511012011 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr Adrian Gray Site Location; 59 Plough Lane Wokingham Proposal : Demolition of conservatory and detached garage, erection of a two storey rearlside extension and single storey side extension, plus raising of roof to create habitable accommodation to dwelling. PARISH: WOKINGHAM Application Number : Fl201111034 Officer : NlCK CLARK Appeal Decision: APPEAL PART ALLOWED AND PART DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date :2511 01201 1 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mrs Laura Wiard Site Location; 85 Oxford Road Wokingham Proposal : First floor side and single storey rear extensions to dwelling PARISH: WOKINGHAM WITHOUT Application Number : F1201111089 Officer : ASHLEY SMITH Appeal Decision: APPEAL DISMISSED Appeal Decision Date : 1311 01201 1 Applicant (and agent, if any): Mr & Mrs P Larkins Site Location; 19 Rowan Drive Crowthorne Proposal : Proposed erection of first floor side and front extension including single storey rear and front extensions, plus conversion of existing loft space with creation of two front dormer windows. The Planning ,,,,,,, Inspectorate Appeal Decision Site "isit made on 18 October 2011 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 25 October 2011 Appeal Ref: APP/X0360/D/11/2159776 72 The Hawthorns, Charvil, Reading, Berkshire, RGlO 9TS. The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Patel against the decision of Wokingham Borough Council. The application Ref F/2011/1078, dated 29 November 2010, was refused by notice dated 8 July 2011. The development proposed is described as 'loft conversion with dormer windows and rear hip roof to gable end'. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The description of the development refers to a 'rear hip roof to gabble end'. The rear elevation does not have a hipped roof. It does, however, have a 'cat's slide' roof into which is set a dormer window. The application drawings show that it is proposed to alter that part of the roof to a gable end. I have proceeded to determine the appeal on that basis. Main Issues 3. 1 consider the main issues in this case are: (a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property as well as that of the surrounding area; and (b) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers to the north. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The property the subject of the appeal, number 72 The Hawthorns, is located in a relatively recent residential development of generally detached dwellings. Although designed with a common palette of details and materials, by reason of careful layout and detailing the properties do not have a uniform or regimented appearance. I saw that rooflights and dormers are a common Appeal Decision APP/X0360/D/11/2159776 feature in a number of the dwellings. Indeed, although a substantial house, number 72 is of a one and a half storey design which due to its low eaves line incorporates dormer windows to serve some first floor rooms, both to the front and rear of the property. 5. The appellant proposes forming a new second floor to provide additional accommodation within the roof void. This would be achieved by introducing a new gable and two new dormers to the rear and four rooflights to the front roof slope. 6. The four rooflights to the front elevation would be sited high on the roof and above the three existing dormer windows. In this respect the arrangement would be unusual. Nevertheless, the rooflights would relate well to the established fenestration pattern. However, the windows proposed would be 0.978 metres deep and 0.780 metres wide. Iconsider that because of their overall size and elevated location they would be visually dominant and thereby harmful to both the appearance of the dwelling and, albeit from limited public vantage points, the character and appearance of the surrounding area. 7. The replacement of the section of 'cat's slide' roof to the rear elevation with a gable would change the character of the dwelling when viewed from the rear, giving it more presence. However, the ridge of the new gable roof would be set below that of the main roof and therefore subservient to it.