To all members of the Planning Applications Committee Your ...

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)

To all members of the Planning Applications Committee

Ian Wardle Managing Director Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading RG1 2LU 0118 937 3787 Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Cttee\Agendas\160601.doc Your Ref: Direct: 0118 937 2112 e-mail: [email protected]

23 May 2016

Your contact is: Nicky Simpson – Committee Services

NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 1 JUNE 2016 A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 1 June 2016 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 APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON 27 APRIL 2016

- 1

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -

3. QUESTIONS - - -

4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 9

5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 12

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 15

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 filmed, unless they have given prior notice that they do not consent to this.

Please speak to a member of staff if you have any queries or concerns.

Planning Applications to be determined

Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page

7-10 DECISION ABBEY

31

11 DECISION CAVERSHAM

87

12 & 13 DECISION CHURCH

185

14 DECISION MINSTER

219

15 DECISION PARK

235

16 DECISION SOUTHCOTE 247

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 1 June 2016

Item: 7 Page: 31 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160635 Application Type Advertisement Consent Applicant Network Rail Address The Three Guineas PH, Station Approach, Reading, RG1 1LY Proposal 2 off single sided cartouches, 1 off timber fascia with painted display, 1 off built

up brass motif with internal LED illumination, 3 off suspended light boxes suspended from canopy beams, 1 off internally illuminated logo, 5 off brass lanterns, 2 off brass lanterns

Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 7 Page: 31 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160525 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Network Rail Address The Three Guineas PH, Station Approach, Reading, RG1 1LY Proposal Internal alterations at basement, ground and first floors. Redecoration works to

exterior including restoration of clock tower and removal of ladder and roof barrier from front elevation. New signage.

Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 8 Page: 49 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160550 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mr J Ashworth Address 4a Howard Street, Reading, RG1 7XS Proposal Change of use from 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis)

to 9 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) to include internal changes, demolition of existing rear projection and erection of single storey rear extension.


Item: 8 Page: 49 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160551 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Mr J Ashworth Address 4a Howard Street, Reading, RG1 7XS Proposal Change of use from 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis)

to 9 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) to include internal changes, demolition of existing rear projection and erection of single storey rear extension.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE



Item: 9 Page: 60 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160707 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Mr David Stevens Address 61 Baker Street, Reading, RG1 7XY Proposal Replacement of glazed conservatory roof with a warm roof finished with Tapco

slate tiles. Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 10 Page: 67 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160358 Application Type Variation of Condition Applicant New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd Address 3-5 King Street, Reading, RG1 2HD Proposal Application to vary condition 12 of planning permission 150051 to allow the A3

(restaurant/café 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)”.

Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 11 Page: 87 Ward: Caversham Application Number 160018 Application Type Non Material Amendment Applicant Hermes Property Unit Trust Address St Martins Precinct, Church Street, Caversham, Reading Proposal Non-material Amendment to condition 2 of planning permission 140997 to include

phasing plan within the list of approved drawings to allow the conditions to be discharged in a phased manner and the development to be carried out in stages.

Recommendation Agree Item: 12 Page: 185 Ward: Church Application Number 152110 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant University of Reading Address Shinfield Road, Reading Proposal Construction of a three court tennis court covered with an air dome including

lighting and heating with associated fencing and storage container (to north of existing tennis courts and to west of Windsor Hall).

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE



Item: 13 Page: 200 Ward: Church Application Number 160574 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant University of Reading Address University of Reading, Shinfield Road, Reading, RG6 6UR Proposal Temporary Academic and Office Accommodation Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement

Item: 14 Page: 219 Ward: Minster Application Number 151924 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mr R Brown Address 1 Castle Crescent, Reading, RG1 6AQ Proposal Refurbishment of 3 Castle Crescent to provide 5 residential dwellings including

internal and external alterations. Demolition of existing outbuildings including existing coach house and garage. Development of 8 residential dwellings along eastern boundary of the site. All associated works include vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping and bin store provision.

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement

Item: 14 Page: 219 Ward: Minster Application Number 151925 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Mr R Brown Address 1 Castle Crescent, Reading, RG1 6AQ Proposal Refurbishment of 3 Castle Crescent to provide 5 residential dwellings including

internal and external alterations. Demolition of existing outbuildings including existing coach house and garage. Development of 8 residential dwellings along eastern boundary of the site. All associated works include vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping and bin store provision.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE



Item: 15 Page: 235 Ward: Park Application Number 160538 Application Type Variation of Condition Applicant Mrs Luthra Address 89 Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 7BB Proposal Application for Change of use of an existing licensed HMO to a children's care

home without complying with condition no. 4, of planning permission 141799, to allow children aged 4-17 years to be able to stay in the premises


Item: 16 Page: 247 Ward: Southcote Application Number 160628 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Kier Construction Address Wren, formerly known as Elvian School, 61 Bath Road, Reading, RG30 2BB Proposal Removal of the existing temporary classroom accommodation, the erection of

eight no. temporary accommodation units to provide classroom and staff accommodation, temporary hard play space, access and parking arrangements, and the removal of a limited number of trees over a 2 year period.


Keytocoding Issue 22/03/2016

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 POA - Peter Owusu Ansah 9373827 KMR - Kate McHale 9374294 RSC - Ralph Chakadya 9372993 BXP - Boja Petkovic 9372352 MJB - Mathew Burns 9373625 JS3 - Jasmine Singh 9372418 JG2 - John Gregory 9372446 HB3 - Heather Banks 9374175 EH1 - Ethne Humphreys 9374085 DM2 - Daniel Murkin 9374237


GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER and Permitted Changes of Use (England)

Use Classes Use Classes (Amendment) Order 1972 Order 2005

Description General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005

A1 Class I Shops

• Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, dry cleaners, internet cafes, etc.

• Pet shops, cat-meat shops, tripe shops, sandwich bars

• Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors

No permitted changes

A2 Class II Financial and Professional Services

• Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies

• Professional and financial services, betting offices

Permitted change to A1 where a ground floor display window exists

A3 Restaurants and Cafes

Restaurants, snack bars, cafes Permitted change to A1 or A2

A4 Drinking Establishments

Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or A3

A5 Hot Food Take-Aways

Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or A3

Sui Generis Shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, laundrettes, taxi or vehicle hire businesses, amusement centres, petrol filling stations

No permitted change

B1 Class II Business Class III

(a) Offices, not within A2 (b) Research and development, studios, laboratories, high tech (c) Light industry

Permitted change to B8 where no more than 235m

B2 Class IV-IX General industry

General industry Permitted change to B1 or B8 B8 limited to no more than 235m

B8 Class X Storage or Distribution

Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, repositories

Permitted change to B1 where no more than 235m

Sui Generis Any work registrable under the Alkali, etc. Works Regulation Act, 1906 No permitted change

C1 Class XI Hotels

Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change

C2 Class XII Residential Class XIV Institutions

• Residential schools and colleges • Hospitals and convalescent/nursing homes No permitted change

C2A Secure residential institutions

Prisons, young offenders institutions, detention centres, secure training centres, custody centres, short-term holding centres, secure hospitals, secure local authority accommodation or use as military barracks.

No permitted change

C3 Dwelling houses

• Single occupancy or single households (in the family sense);

• No more than six residents living as a single household where care is provided;

• 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.

Permitted to change to C4

C4 Houses in multiple occupation

Use of a dwellinghouse by between three and six residents, who do not form a single household (in the family sense) and share basic facilities (toilet, bathroom or kitchen).

Permitted to change to C3

Sui Generis • House in multiple occupation with more than six residents

• Hostel No permitted change


D1 Class XIII Non- Class XV Residential Institutions Class XVI

• Places of worship, church halls • Clinics, health centres, creches, day

nurseries, consulting rooms • Museums, public halls, libraries, art galleries,

exhibition halls • Non-residential education and training centres

No permitted change

D2 Class XVII Assembly Class XVIII and Leisure

• Cinemas, music and concert halls • Dance, sports halls, swimming baths, skating

rinks, gymnasiums • Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure

uses, bingo halls, casinos

No permitted change

Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 27 APRIL 2016

1

Present: Councillor Maskell (Chair);

Councillors Ballsdon, Davies, Duveen, Gavin, Lawrence, Livingston, Page, Pearce, Robinson and Singh.

Apologies: Councillor Hopper.

It was reported that Item 16 (160355/FUL – Dingley Centre, 3-5 Craven Road) had been withdrawn.

RESOLVED ITEMS

91. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

92. SITE VISITS

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted, at the meeting, a schedule of applications to be considered at future meetings of the Committee to enable Councillors to decide which sites, if any, they wished to visit prior to determining the relevant applications.

Resolved -

That the under-mentioned application, together with any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Service might consider appropriate, be the subject of an unaccompanied site visit or, if it was possible to go inside the buildings, an accompanied site visit:

160378/FUL – FORMER GAS WORKS BUILDING, GAS WORKS ROAD

Change of use, conversion, extensions and various associated works to former Gas Works Buildings to create a part 4, 5 and 6 storey building adjacent to the River Kennet and a basement and 3 storey building fronting Gas Works Road, providing 34 (5 x studio, 17 x 1, 11 x 2 and 1 x 3-bed) residential units (Class C3).

93. 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 a planning appeal, 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.

1


2

(ii) Appeals Recently Determined

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted details of two decisions that had been made by the Secretary of State, or by an Inspector appointed for the purpose, which were attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

(iii) Reports on Appeal Decisions

There were no reports on appeal decisions.

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.

94. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 23 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of eight applications for prior approval decided between 22 March and 15 April 2016.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

95. OBJECTION TO A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER ON LAND BETWEEN ISLAND ROAD, THE RIVER KENNET AND THE A33

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on an objection to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 5/16 relating to land between Island Road, the River Kennet and the A33. A copy of the TPO plan E2921 was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that, during consideration of planning application 141789/OUT (Land North of Island Road), the importance of the belt of trees alongside the River Kennet had been noted. It had been ensured that this ‘woodland strip’ was retained and protected via conditions attached to the planning consent.

The land to which the planning approval related was located on the corner of Island Road and the A33. The Council-owned land directly to the west had recently been identified as land for a long-term lease and was a potential development site. The belt of trees continued into this site. Therefore, to also ensure the retention of the trees within this site, it was considered reasonable to include the entire belt of trees in both the site for which planning approval had been obtained and the adjacent potential development site, which formed one group, in a TPO. A TPO had therefore been served on 23 February 2016.

An objection had been made on behalf of the landowner and the developer for the site for which planning consent had been obtained, details of which were set out in the report, along with officers’ comments on the objection.

2


3

The report concluded that officers felt that the entire belt of trees warranted protection and a TPO was the best way of ensuring long-term protection. There was no division on the woodland belt between the two sites. The presence of the TPO did not impact on the implementation of the approved development because the trees were retained as part of the proposals. The report recommended that the TPO be confirmed with the inclusion of the entire belt as currently shown on TPO plan E2921.

Resolved -

That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed with the inclusion of the entire belt of trees.

96. 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:

160029/HOU – 11 CAREY STREET

Erection of replacement rear extension.

Granted as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with an additional condition to require a landscaping scheme for the rear garden, as the property was within a Conservation area.

Comments received and considered.

152308/FUL – AMERSHAM ROAD YOUTH AND COMMUNITY CENTRE, 110 AMERSHAM ROAD, CAVERSHAM

Single storey extension to entrance elevation.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which corrected an error in the original report regarding flood zones and set out further information regarding flood risk.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.


160495/FUL – 21 SOUTH STREET

15.5m2 floor area lean-to circulation extension to rear courtyard, 46m2 floor area

3


4

bar extension to east recess fronting the highway. Remove one door to west elevation and three windows to east courtyard elevation and infill opening.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of further information received from the applicant and a neighbour and responses from officers and recommended two additional Conditions 6 and 7.

It was reported at the meeting that Condition 6 needed further amendment and the provisos proposed by the Transport Officer and detailed in paragraph 1.5 of the update report needed to be included in the conditions. It was also reported that Licensing officers had confirmed that an amendment to the premises licence would be required for the external element and an additional informative was therefore recommended.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the additional conditions set out in the update report, plus additional conditions based on the provisos in paragraph 1.5 of the update report, and Condition 6 to be amended to say “The proposed light source shall be static when it is in use”.

Additional informative regarding the need for an amendment to the premises licence for the external element.


160279/HOU – 12 OAKLEY ROAD, CAVERSHAM

Two storey side extension with extension to loft space above – Renewal of 11/01833/FUL.




160522/FUL – CAVERSHAM PREPARATORY SCHOOL, 16 PEPPARD ROAD, CAVERSHAM

Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission (151663).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of further consultation responses and a statement from Councillor Hopper and officer comments on these. The recommendation had been amended accordingly.

Section 73 variation to planning permission 151663 granted as recommended in the original report, with the conditions to be adjusted as set out in the original report, with the additional informative as set out in the update report, plus the following additional condition amended from that proposed in the update report:

4


5

In connection with the operation of the school hereby permitted, no lessons with amplified music shall be undertaken outside the school buildings as indicated on plan 2015/2498/002 dated JAN 2016. Reason: in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. Policies: DM4

Description of development to be altered to show school age from 3-11 years.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objector David Moro, and Ian Lawson and Jacqueline Lawson on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

(2) That the following applications be refused for the reasons indicated:

151616/FUL – 24 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET

Change of use of the ground floor and basement from A1 use to a flexible A1/A2/A3 use.

Refused as recommended for the reasons set out in the report.

Informatives as recommended.


151617/LBC – 24 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET

Listed Building Consent for internal alterations associated with the proposed change of use of the ground floor and basement from A1 use to a flexible A1/A2/A3 use (planning application 151616)

Refused as recommended for the reason set out in the report.



151793/VAR – HIGHDOWN SCHOOL, SURLEY ROW, CAVERSHAM

Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission. (11/00925/FUL).

Refused as recommended for the reasons set out in the report.



(3) That, subject to the requirements indicated, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to determine the following applications under planning legislation:

160328/FUL – GARRARD HOUSE, 30 GARRARD STREET

5


6

Extension to include part new fourth floor and new fifth and sixth floors to provide 18 residential units.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of further consultation responses received, adaptability of the flats and a number of other clarifications. It recommended additional conditions and informatives and an amendment to Condition 7.

It was reported at the meeting that the Environmental Health Officer had now examined the Air Quality Assessment and agreed with its conclusion that no specific mitigation measures were required. Condition 15 regarding submission of an air quality assessment was therefore no longer needed. Information from the Transport Officer on minimising traffic conflict and neighbour disturbance was also given at the meeting.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 19 May 2016 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the amendment to Condition 7 and additional conditions as set out in the update report, the additional informatives as set out in the update report and the removal of Condition 15 as recommended at the meeting.


160256/FUL – LAND ADJACENT TO 17 CRAVEN ROAD

Erection of new D1 Medical centre, with on site pharmacy, new access, 50 parking spaces plus 2 drop off spaces, with associated new and retained landscaping. Demolition of existing ancillary buildings and structures.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of further consultation responses received from the Head of Transport and the lead Flood Authority, amended drawings received (appended to the update report) and an additional representation received. The recommendation had been amended accordingly and six additional conditions were recommended.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 16 May 2016 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.

In the event of the requirements set out not being met, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse permission.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the additional conditions as set out in the update report.

6


7

Comments and objection received and considered.

(4) That, pursuant to Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, the carrying out of the following developments be authorised, subject to the conditions now specified:

160440/REG3 – THE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEPPARD ROAD, EMMER GREEN

Single storey office extension.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of the consultation response received from Berkshire Archaeology.




(5) That the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government be consulted on the following application and supporting papers in accordance with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009:

160236/FUL – COOPER READING BMW, KINGS MEADOW ROAD

Part retrospective change of use to public car park for temporary three year period.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which gave details of the response by the Natural Environment Team to amended plans and recommended a resultant additional condition. It also gave further information and clarification on a number of other matters.

It was reported at the meeting that officers had not been aware that the decked portion of the car park was already in use, and so it was recommended that Condition 7 regarding a CCTV scheme for the decked car parking area should be amended to require a CCTV scheme within three months of the planning decision rather than before use of the area.

That the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to grant permission in the event that:

i) The Secretary of State decided not to call in the application for determination; or

ii) The period in which the Secretary of State may respond under paragraph 11 of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 expired.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the additional condition as set out in the update report, and Condition 7 to be amended to require submission, approval and installation of a CCTV scheme

7


8

within three months of the planning decision.


(The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 8.05 pm).

8

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Date:

1 June 2016

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. 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.

9

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; • 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.

10

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.

11

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: 1 June 2016 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.

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.

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.”

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.

12

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.

13

APPENDIX 1

Appeals Lodged: WARD: NORCOT APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3145823 CASE NO: 152129 ADDRESS: 137 Waverley Road PROPOSAL: Addition of mansard roof to the rear of the property and the

creation of a third 2 bedroom flat with associated internal alterations.

CASE OFFICER: John Gregory METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: NON DETERMINATION WITHIN 8 WEEKS APPEAL LODGED: 28th April 2016

APPENDIX 2 Appeals Decided:

WARD: CHURCH APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/15/3141311 CASE NO: 150640 ADDRESS: 15 Highmead Close PROPOSAL: New attached dwelling in the garden of 15 Highmead Close CASE OFFICER: Alison Amoah METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 26th April 2016

14

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE DATE:

1 June 2016

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.

15

mailto:[email protected]

• 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. 7.2 There are no direct implications arising from the proposals.

16

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 £618,821.

(Office Prior Approvals - £577,867: Householder Prior Approvals - £35,604:

Retail Prior Approvals - £690: Demolition Prior Approval - £915: Storage Prior Approvals - £3745) Figures since last report Office Prior Approvals - £0: Householder Prior Approvals - £2064

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.

17

Table 1 – Prior-approval applications pending @ 18 May 2016

Application type CLASS A - Householder Application type

Application reference number

Address Ward Proposal Date Received

Target Determination Date

Comments Equivalent planning application fee

Householder Prior Approval - Class A, Part 1 GPDO 2015

160679 6 Bramble Crescent, Tilehurst, Reading, RG30 4TX

Tilehurst Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.7m, and 2.7m in height to rear eaves level.

08/04/2016 24/05/2016 £172


160684 40 Orchard Grove, Caversham, Reading, RG4 6NF

Peppard Rear extension measuring 4.7m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.2m, and 2.25m in height to rear eaves level.

12/04/2016 23/05/2016 £172


160704 14 Brooklyn Drive, Emmer Green, Reading, RG4 8SS

Peppard Rear extension measuring 6.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.9m, and 2.7m in height to eaves level.

14/04/2016 25/05/2016 £172


160727 342 Gosbrook Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 8EG

Caversham Rear extension measuring 3.25m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.95m and 2.95m in height to eaves level.

19/04/2016 30/05/2016 £172

18

Application type






160748 56 Hemdean Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7ST

Caversham Rear extension measuring 3.9m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.83m, and 2.15m in height to eaves level.

22/04/2016 02/06/2016 £172


160759 247 Northumberland Avenue, Reading, RG2 7PZ

Church Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 2.85m in height to eaves level.

22/04/2016 02/06/2016 £172


160760 91 Blandford Road, Reading, RG2 8RR

Whitley Rear extension measuring 4m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.4m, and 2.44m in height to eaves level.

25/04/2016 05/06/2016 £172


160795 113 Connaught Road, Reading, RG30 2UE

Battle Rear extension measuring 5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.6m, and 2.4m in height to eaves level.

28/04/2016 08/06/2016 £172


160812 74 Addington Road, Reading, RG1 5PX

Redlands Rear extension measuring 6 m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.7 m, and 2.6 m in height to eaves level.

03/05/2016 22/06/2016 £172

19

Application type






160824 35 Wykeham Road, Reading, RG6 1NR

Park Rear extension measuring 4.0m in depth, with a maximum height of 4.0m, and 4.0m in height to eaves level.

03/05/2016 £172


160826 56 Salcombe Road, Reading, RG2 7LJ

Church Rear extension measuring 3.1m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.4m, and 2.65m in height to eaves level.

04/05/2016 14/06/2016 £172


160827 126 Kidmore End Road, Emmer Green, Reading, RG4 8SP

Peppard Rear extension measuring 7.6m in depth, with a maximum height of 4m, and 2.7m in height to eaves level.

04/05/2016 14/06/2016 £172


160847 8 Waverley Road, Reading, RG30 2PX

Norcot Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 3m in height to eaves level.

06/05/2016 19/06/2016 £172


160857 3 Knights Way, Emmer Green, Reading, RG4 8RJ

Peppard Rear extension measuring 3.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 2.15m in height to eaves level.

06/05/2016 16/06/2016 £172

20

Application type CLASS O – Office to Residential Application type





Office Prior Approval - Class O, Part 3, GPDO 2016

160023 Upper Ground floor Havell House, 62-66 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4AZ

Abbey Change of use of Upper Ground Floor from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 1 no. two bed flats and 2 no. one bed flats.

07/01/2016 03/06/2016 £690


160024 Second Floor Havell House, 62-66 Queens Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 4AZ

Abbey Change of use of second floor from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 4 no. one bed flats.

07/01/2016 03/06/2016 £1075


160025 Third Floor Havell House, 62-66 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4AZ

Abbey Change of use of the third floor from Class B1(a) (Offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 2 no. two bed flats.

07/01/2016 03/06/2016 £305


160026 First Floor Havell House, 62-66 Queens Road, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 4AZ

Abbey Change of use of first floor from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 4 no. one bed flats.

07/01/2016 03/06/2016 £1075


160490 4a Bridge Street, Caversham, Reading, RG4 8AA

Caversham Change of use of ground floor from Class A2 (Professional & financial services) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 1 flat.

11/03/2016 24/05/2016 £305

21

Application type






160502 The Old Bakehouse, 5 Ross Road, Reading, RG1 8EH

Abbey Change of use of use from Class B1 (a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 1 x 2 bed flat and 1 x 1 bed flat.

15/03/2016 27/05/2016 £305

Telecommunications Prior Approval applications pending Application type




Comments

Telecommunications Notification - Prior Approval

152161 Lamppost on corner of Church End Lane andThe Meadway, Reading

Norcot Replace 12 metre lamppost monopole with a 13.2 metre phase 4 lamppost monopole with 1 additional equipment cabinet.

02/12/2015 31/05/2016


152166 Jct Woodcote Road and Richmond Road, Caversham, Reading

Thames Replace 10m lamppost monopole with 13.2m phase 4 lamppost monopole with 1 no. additional equipment cabinet

02/12/2015 14/04/2016


160640 Junction 11 M4/A33, Basingstoke Road, Reading

Whitley Replacement of 15m high monopole with new 15m high phase 4 monopole with shrouded antennas. Installation of 1 no. additional equipment cabinet.

05/04/2016 30/05/2016

22

Demolition Prior Approval applications pending

Prior Notification applications pending – None Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications pending – None Retail Prior Approvals applications pending - None

Application type





Demolition Prior Approval

160661 Homebase, Kenavon Drive, Reading, RG1 3DH

Abbey Application for prior notification of proposed demolition.

08/04/2016 29/07/2016 £305

23

Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 15 April 2016 to 18 May 2016

Application type CLASS A – Householder

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


160427 39 Rotherfield Way, Emmer Green, Reading, RG4 8PJ

Thames Rear extension measuring 3.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.14m, and 2.1m in height to eaves level.

07/03/2016 15/04/2016 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED


160489 31 Brill Close, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7RD

Thames Rear extension measuring 4.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 4.3m, and 2.55m in height to eaves level.

11/03/2016 06/05/2016 Prior Approval Notification - Approval


160504 9 Hemdean Rise, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7SA




160543 1 Gravel Hill, Emmer Green, Reading, RG4 8QN

Thames Rear extension measuring 5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.6m, and 2.5m and 2.7m in height to eaves level.


24

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


160586 11 Hemdean Rise, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7SA




160610 12 Queen Street, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7RB

Caversham Rear extension measuring 6 m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.25 m, and 2.4 m in height to eaves level.



160615 39 Blenheim Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7RT

Thames Rear extension measuring 5.9m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 2.85m in height to eaves level.

01/04/2016 16/05/2016 Application Withdrawn


160624 26 Baydon Drive, Reading, RG1 6JB

Minster Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.51m, and 3m in height to eaves level.



160677 9 Clifton Park Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7PD

Caversham Rear extension measuring 5m in depth, with a maximum of 3.8m, and 3.8m in height to eaves level.

12/04/2016 13/05/2016 Prior Approval Notification - Refusal

25

Application type CLASS O – Office to Residential

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


160384 Kennet Court, Charles Street, Reading, RG1 7DB

Abbey Change of use from Class B1(a) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 2 x 2 bed flats and 1 studio flat.



160386 Kennet Court, Charles Street, Reading, RG1 7DB

Abbey Change of use from Class B1 (a) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 3 x 1 bed flats and 1 studio flat.


Prior Notification applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision

Prior Notification

160309 Burghfield Road Bridge, Burghfield Road, Reading

Southcote Extending height of bridge parapets and anti-climb works - under Part 18 Class A to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015


26

Demolition Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision

Demolition Prior Approval

160012 Cooper Reading Bmw, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, RG1 8BN

Abbey Application for prior notification of proposed demolition.


Telecommunications Prior Approval applications decided - None Retail to Residential applications decided – None Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications decided – None

27

ABBEY

29

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1 June 2016 Ward: Abbey App Nos.: 160525/FUL & 160635/ADV Address: The Three Guineas Public House, Station Approach, Reading Proposals: 160525/LBC: Internal alterations at basement, ground and first floors. Redecoration works to exterior including restoration of clock tower and removal of ladder and roof barrier from front elevation. New signage. 160635/ADV: 2 off single sided cartouches, 1 off timber fascia with painted display, 1 off built up brass motif with internal LED illumination, 3 off suspended light boxes suspended from canopy beams, 1 off internally illuminated logo, 5 off brass lanterns, 2 off brass lanterns Applicant: Network Rail Dates received and 8 week target decision dates: 160625: valid-17/3/16 target-3/6/16 160635: valid-5/4/16 target 31/5/16 (agreed with applicant to extend to 3/6/16 with PPA) RECOMMENDATION: 160525/LBC: GRANT Listed Building Consent. 160635/ADV: GRANT Advertisement Consent. 160525/LBC conditions to include:

1. LBC three years 2. Submission of details of studwork and cold room on first floor 3. Submission of open venting arrangements over display kitchen area 4. Submission of method statement for attaching stud walls and cool-room insulation

across window openings 5. Submission of method for obscuring/etching windows 6. Submission of method statement for removal of any studwork walls and making

good 7. Submission of method statement for rationalisation of basement services 8. Clock tower works and removal of ladder/railings and air conditioning units to be

completed in accordance with submitted schedule of works/supporting statements no later than first opening (trading) of basement as a bar area

9. Recording for the Historic Environment Record Informatives:

• Approved plans • No other works approved • Terms and conditions of this consent • Pre-commencement conditions • Fees • Positive and Proactive • Liaison with Highway Authority required • Separate planning permission may be required

31

• Alterations to Premises Licence required • Environmental Protection Act • No additional air conditioning units approved

160635/ADV conditions to include:

1. Plans approved, including updated parapet painted sign (Sign B) 2. Standard advertisement conditions

Informatives:

1. Terms and conditions of this consent 2. No other signage approved by this consent 3. Positive and proactive

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is the Three Guineas pub at Reading Station. The

building is Grade II listed and was formerly the ticket office to the station and believed to have been designed in the Italianate style by Brunel around 1840 and later modified (1865-7). The applicant’s heritage statement advises that the first floor is likely to have been added in the mid Twentieth Century. A significant proportion of the building (the single-storey west wing) was removed in 2012 to make way for the new Reading Station overbridge and gateline, immediately adjoining to the west. A further wing to the east was removed in the 1980s, making way for the Reading Station concourse building (still in use, the Brunel Arcade).

1.2 The building is an important Heritage Asset in the town centre and forms the central building to the newly renovated Southern Station Square and sits in between the 1980s Reading Station concourse building to the east and the new Reading Station gateline entrance to the west.

1.3 At present, the building performs a number of functions. The ground floor is the main bar, which is the Three Guineas pub itself, which includes kitchens serving pub food. Access to the pub itself is not currently possible via the station platforms. To the rear of the building (accessed from the station platform only), is a retail unit, within the building. The first floor mainly houses offices used by First GreatWestern and Network Rail, with a separate door accessed from a staircase at the western end of the building. Other rooms include storage for the retail unit. The building also contains an extensive basement area, which consists of a series of brick-vaults and concrete rooms, with a combination of dirt, flagstone and concrete flooring. These areas are partly used as keg stores, other ancillary storage associated with the pub or are unused. There are stairs between all levels at either end of the building.

32

Location plan (not to scale)

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal involves a major renovation of the building, precipitated by

the pub operator. This involves a number of key elements:

• An internal re-fit of the pub, remodelling the bar and altering the kitchen layout, by providing an open ‘display’ kitchen

• Making use of the basement area by converting the storage/unused space into a cellar bar

• Removing various unsightly installations (fire escape stairs and handrails and refurbishment of the clock tower); and

33

• Updating the pub signage. 2.2 These applications have been submitted with the following supporting

information:

• Heritage Statement • A (disabled) access statement • Schedule of Remedial Works to Central Clock Tower • CGIs (to show location and appearance of proposed signage)

2.3 These applications have been submitted following pre-application advice for

broadly similar proposals which were discussed with officers in 2015. Due to the townscape importance of the Heritage Asset and its importance at this gateway to central Reading, officers consider that these applications should be reported to the Planning Applications Committee.

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Relevant planning history is as follows: 100472 New northern and southern entrances,

connecting overbridge, and platform canopies at Reading Station. Application for Prior Approval under Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) order 1995.

Planning permission 20/10/10 and implemented

100520/LBC

Complete demolition of the single storey western range of the Reading General Station, together with the canopy along the front of the building and the platform 4 canopies attached to the rear of the building. New northern and southern entrances, connecting overbridge and platform canopies.

LBC granted 29/10/10 and implemented

151529/PREAPP

Internal remodelling including some removal of existing structure, and external works to define terrace area.

Advice supplied 12/10/15

4. CONSULTATIONS

(i) Statutory:

None.

(ii) Non-statutory:

RBC Transport Strategy does not object to the application, although advises that construction and demolition activities will require close liaison with the Highway Authority. RBC Licensing anticipates that a licensing application will be submitted shortly and is concerned for the eventual use of the building which may be facilitated by the changes applied for in the application for Listed Building Consent. The use would appear to necessitate an alteration to the current Premises Licence and RBC

34

Licensing would not support proposals which would produce a nightclub-type facility next to the Station, as this would be contrary to the Council’s Cumulative Impact Policy (CIP), which aims to restrict further extension of licensing hours for the sale of alcohol and entertainment unless the applicant can rebut the presumption of refusal contained within the policy and can demonstrate they can actively promote the licensing objectives to minimise crime and disorder and public nuisance. Advises that the current operator is currently in breach of a number of their current licensing conditions and any extended hours are unlikely to be supported. Also concerned for the plans which show extensive dining activity, particularly to the front of the building where dining seating may disrupt pedestrian flows.

Berkshire Archaeology does not object to the application as there are no changes that would have an archaeological implication, as the floor surfaces are going to be retained and covered. Asks if building recording will be carried out. Officer comment: given the relatively undisturbed nature of the vaults and the link to Brunel, officers advise that a report including full photographic evidence recording the present vaults’ condition should be provided and added to the County Historic Environment Record (HER). A condition can be included.

Reading Civic Society generally supports the application, which will be of benefit to the fabric and character of the Listed Building. The general approach to signage is restrained and not intrusive and supports the removal of the present sign on the canopy. Questions the height and size of the top sign on the parapet, which from the CGI images, appears to obscure the clock tower. Also advises that the legend, ‘Established 1860’ is confusing, as this refers to the date of the building, not its use as a pub, which dates from the 1980s, when the main Reading Station concourse building was opened. CADRA (Caversham and District Residents Association) considers that the listed building and its clock tower are important buildings in Reading, not least because they link the new station building to the original station and its history. Welcome works to improve the building and remove the ladder, railings and air conditioning units welcome. Also considers that the top sign obscures much of the height of the clock tower and significantly detracts from the impact of the tower. Any case, any sign on the pedimented parapet should be contained within the size of the parapet. Considers that the signage should be reviewed and other options pursued. The current first floor blinds are in poor condition. Other listed buildings have fitted new internal roller blinds with signage printed on the blind in the top half of the windows, which allows signs on the building itself to be much more limited and sometimes avoided completely.

Suggests discreet external lighting of the tower and upper building. With the loss of the other sections of the original station building, the remaining central section and its clock tower deserve prominence.

(iii) Neighbour consultation No neighbour letters were sent, but a site notice was displayed. No letters of representation have been received.

5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE

35

National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) Chapter 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG): Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 requires that Local Planning Authorities have regard to the desirability to preserve or enhance the special interest and setting of a Listed Building. 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. Reading Borough LDF: Core Strategy (2008, amended 2015) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) Reading Borough LDF: Reading Central Area Action Plan (RCAAP) (2009) Site is within the RC1d Policy Area: Station/River Major Opportunity Area RC5 (Design in the Centre) RC14 Public Realm) Reading Borough LDF: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, amended 2015) SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM22 (Advertisements) 6. APPRAISAL

6.1 The main issues raised by these applications are as follows:

(i) Principle (ii) Physical works to the Listed Building (iii) Signage

(i) Principle 6.2 Policy RC1d of the RCAAP (Station & interchange) states that, “The listed

station building should be retained and its setting enhanced. Areas of civic open space will be provided at the northern and southern entrances to the station.”

6.3 As CADRA points out, the demolition of the western wing of the listed building to facilitate the construction of the western gateline was an unfortunate, but necessary consequence of the enhancement of Reading Station. There should now be a focus now on preservation of the remaining structure as far as possible and largely, this proposal provides this

36

opportunity and accords with Policy CS33. The existing uses (pub, offices and retail) are considered to be suitable uses to the Historic Asset. The section below will discuss the elements of the works in greater detail.

6.4 The building is considered to be relatively under-used, given that the building forms part of the principal arrival hub of the regional mainline station and is near to the terminus of all buses for the Greater Reading Area. Although the application does not involve a planning proposal of itself, it nevertheless represents a significant investment in the building and an augmentation of the leisure offer in the RCAAP’s Central Core area, whose policies encourage the location of such facilities.

(i) Physical works to the Listed Building

Overall scope of works

6.5 The application includes a comprehensive heritage statement, which presents the history and evolution of the building and details the impact of each of the changes proposed. Each individual change will not be reported here, but general comments and the more important changes will be examined in terms of each floor and then the external works.

Ground floor

6.6 The ground floor is principally an open space, with remnants of the historic

building layout visible here and there. Noticeable retained features are the windows, central columns and beams.

6.7 The ground floor would be remodelled, including replacing the bar and upgrading the accommodation generally, with various internal alterations. Most of the changes involve alterations to stud walling and other changes which are not part of the original fabric. A number of sections of studwork are to be removed, a condition should require details of making good to ensure retention and/or replacement of any architectural detailing including cornices/coving, dado rails, skirting boards, etc.

6.8 Replacement interior design will feature wall panelling to halfway up the wall, with traditional, yet contemporary design. There is an artist’s impression of the interior design concept at the end of this report.

6.9 However, the extended kitchen area will require large holes to be

introduced at high level for extract vents and the removal of a short section of original wall. Both are considered to be suitable adaptations. However, the ‘display’ cooking area currently shows a large boxed ventilation overhead system and this would be deep, coming below the top of the tall windows (which front the platform). This would be potentially bulky and intrusive. On the advice of officers and the Council’s Conservation Consultant, the applicant is exploring more open, exposing venting arrangements. Current plans show that this bulky area has been reduced towards the interior of the building. However, the extract hoods themselves are sited towards the edge of the building and would be seen below the top of the windows from outside, but to address this, the applicant proposes that the windows be obscurely etched to minimise the impact of this. Subject to details of these arrangements being secured by

37

condition and favourable comments from the Conservation Consultant, this is considered to be a satisfactory solution.

6.10 Another area where additional information was requested was the method of forming openings in the ceiling to form the new ceiling hoists (dumb waiters) for the food coming from the first floor. These details have now been supplied and subject to confirmation from the Conservation Consultant, are considered to be acceptable.

6.11 Whilst officers have raised the question of whether the ground floor changes (which feature a heavy emphasis on food-related equipment and furniture) would amount to its use as a restaurant, the applicant has advised that this will remain as a pub with a pub food offer. In any event, any alteration to this would be separately covered under the licensing system.

First floor

6.12 The pre-application proposal involved using the first floor as a conference facility, but this element of the proposal has not been pursued. The works to the first floor are comparatively limited and involve a rationalisation of the present toilets and the introduction of a preparation kitchen (operationally linked to the ground floor via the hoist lifts). These works do not disrupt original walls and therefore the original layout of this floor, however, some studwork to be installed does bisect a north principal window and a cold-room insulation barrier will internally block another on the front. But both of these are minor, reversible fitments only and subject to additional details, are acceptable. Furthermore, the application has again confirmed that the windows affected will be subject to etching.

Basement

6.13 The existing cellar extends to almost the entire footprint of the building and

is currently largely disused, apart from some minor ancillary pub storage. It features quite grand, curved elevated vaults. The proposal would convert this area into a large underground bar. This is a good opportunity to use this area and the brick arches and various steel and concrete structures would be retained and revealed. Use of the spaces is generally appropriate with regard to the layout of the arches. In relation to the works, the basement area will largely use the existing fabric and where walls are to be broken through, these tend to be modern blockwork walls only and were erected principally to create barrel stores and house pumping and electrical services.

6.14 The cellar is currently damp, having never been designed as part of the habitable part of the building and the application proposes a number of measures to deal with this. For the walls, there are three approaches. Where a modern hard ‘Sika’ render has already been applied (towards the western end of the cellar) this will remain, as removing it may inadvertently harm the building. Where there the tall, impressive brick arches and vaults are to be exposed, the bricks and mortar will be cleaned and left untreated with adequate ventilation. This will be of benefit to the fabric of the building and celebrate the character of these areas. The third approach (generally for use in the service areas, stores and toilets) is for a batten and dry-lining system, in order to insulate the walls, but will include a self-

38

draining membrane to allow any moisture to be expelled behind the plasterboard.

6.15 At the eastern end of the building, there are some intact utilitarian features, such as panelled doors, flagstone floors and the stone stairs. The stairs need to be adjusted for safe fire escape and will remain in situ, but with new timber risers and treads sensitively attached. An enlarged headroom is required, but the room required for this means cutting into a concrete ceiling (the entire ground floor appears to be concrete) so no harm is caused to the historic fabric. An original cupboard is to be knocked through at the foot of the stairs, but an in-built arch will be retained over. In this area, the original barrel-drop (currently in situ, but disused) will be re-opened. The stairs at the western end are a straight flight of original stone steps and will not be altered. There is a change in levels in the middle part of the basement where new timber stairs will be required. Floors would be screeded and also have a draining system to carry moisture away.

6.16 The basement currently features a mass of cables, wires, cable-trays, ducts, pipes and other equipment, some of it connected to the current pub use, much of it now apparently redundant. The heritage statement advises that this equipment would be rationalised and tidied. Generally, this is supportable and although it is accepted that a significant proportion of this equipment would need to remain, this is not going to be unacceptable in this ‘industrial’ basement area. Nonetheless, a general method statement for this rationalisation should be submitted and a condition is recommended.

6.17 Whilst there is no in principle concern for the use of this area, officers have raised concerns with the applicant that on plan, the layout looks to be producing a separate planning unit, as a bar or possibly a nightclub. The plans show a separate greeting area in the new ground floor lobby and the cellar area having its own manned cloakrooms, toilets, bar, dancefloor, band area, seating booths and VIP area. However, this largely will depend on how this area operates and if this area is subsequently operated as a separate bar/club, the Local Planning Authority will need to decide if this is acceptable or if a retrospective planning application is required. An informative is recommended to remind the applicant of this. External

6.18 The application also proposes a number of works of renovation to the building as part of the refurbishment project. The clocktower is in need of renovation and redecoration. The owner, Network Rail, has prepared a schedule of remedial works and although these appear comprehensive, the advice of the Conservation Consultant shall be sought on this and a detailed inspection needs to take place. An amenity society has suggested lighting of the clocktower. The applicant has responded to this by advising that the refurbishment of the clock faces will include new glass and each of the four clocks are internally lit. The applicant advises that this was the original way the clocktower was seen (the clocks would have been lit by gas lamps) and that exterior lighting of the tower itself would detract from the clock faces. Officers agree with the applicant’s response. Other improvements include removing redundant access railings and ladders and air conditioning units. These improvements need to be delivered as part of these works,

39

however, and officers suggest that this is carried out before the basement bar comes into operation, via a condition. Additionally, no information is supplied regarding any additional air conditioning units and for clarity, an informative should advise that no further units are permitted by any consent granted. Conclusions

6.19 Overall, whilst an extensive set of proposals, the coverage of details by the application is generally very good and offers sufficient comfort that the works will be suitable in terms of the fabric, special interest and setting/views of the Listed Building and will preserve this important and high-profile Heritage Asset. The application for consent is considered to comply with Policy CS33.

(ii) Signage

6.20 A separate application is made for advertisement consent. The relevant

factors to consider are effects on amenity and public safety.

6.21 The application proposes a completely new set of signs and associated lamps, and plans are shown at the end of this report. All installations affect the southern elevation only. At present, the principal signage is a long, upstanding sign on the frontal canopy and the under-canopy area lit by modern, rectangular halogen-type downlighters and seating delineated by canvas barriers. Various temporary signage is known to be used.

6.22 The application proposes a series of signs. The principal replacement sign was to have been a large panelled sign affixed to the parapet upstand on the roof of the building and both officers and amenity societies were concerned that this sign was too bulky. The applicant has now chosen a much more restrained solution, that of sign-painting the parapet upstand itself. This is considered to be a far more traditional solution and is welcomed. To confirm this, a condition is recommended.

6.23 Other signage is considered to also be relatively restrained. On the first floor, two small brewery plaques are proposed on either end of the building and a new brass logo sign in the centre (this is to be back-lit). Under the canopy, discreet internally-lit hanging signs indicate ‘wines’, ‘ales’ and ‘food’ would be introduced. These have been designed in a style similar to traditional station signs. Antique brass-style lanterns will replace the halogen lamps, which are more reminiscent of a Victorian station. Generally, the signage appears in-keeping and in proportion and sympathetic to the style of the building. Given the small size and arrangement of the signage, this is not considered to represent clutter.

6.24 All of the above signs also provide symmetry to the building, which is considered to be important to the character of the building. However, there is one additional sign which does not comply with this symmetry and this is an internally lit ‘firefly’ logo, 1.5 metres long, to be situated over the left hand (new lobby) entrance. There is no message to this sign, although officers assume that its purpose is to separately attract customers to the basement bar area. However, it is located under the canopy and is an attractive sign and on balance, it is considered to be an acceptable addition

40

to the building and will not cause harm to amenity/safety or to the character of the Listed Building itself.

6.25 These signs are considered to be suitable in terms of public amenity and no concerns are raised in terms of public safety (pedestrian obstruction, cctv operation, etc.) and accordingly are considered to be suitable in terms of Policy DM22. Although not specifically applied for as part of the Listed Building Consent application, officers are satisfied that they are also suitable in terms of the character of the Listed Building.

Other matters

Construction impacts

6.26 The construction logistics involved with these works are not strictly controllable via the consents applied for, but given the location of the site and the amount of material to be removed and supplied, close liaison will be required with the Highway Authority. The applicant has been encouraged to consider these matters early and any response will be reported to your meeting. Disabled access and the Equalities Act

6.27 The ground floor is generally accessible, although there is a raised area in part of the bar. The basement bar area will be very difficult for disabled people to access. The stairs for the public at the western end are the original stone steps. No lift is proposed and no stairlift would be possible without widening the stairs. The staff stairs at the eastern end are the original stone steps, but are proposed to be modified to comply with the Building Regulations. The access statement does not propose that disabled access should be improved via lifts, etc. as the intervention into the fabric of the Listed Building would be too great and this is considered to be unjustified. In any event, disabled access considerations are not relevant to the LBC application: if this were a planning issue, officers may wish to consider this in more detail before agreeing that disabled access is not possible. Two related points should therefore be noted. The first is that providing that the lower bar is part of the pub operation upstairs (i.e. it remains the same ‘planning unit’), officers are generally content that the services offered on the ground floor are similar to those in the lower bar. However, were this to be found not to be the case, adequacy of disabled access is likely to be an area of concern to officers.

6.28 In determining these applications, the Council is required to have regard to

its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to these proposals. 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, the applicant should ensure that they comply fully with Part M of the Building Regulations.

41

Extension to pavement seating area

6.29 The plans indicate updated mobile seating area with removable planters, which is an extended area which currently exists outside the front of the pub. Whilst this area is outside the red line area of the LBC application site, the land is not part of the Public Highway and is owned by Network Rail. As such, the use of their land for any railway-related activities (such as seating areas related to food and drink establishments as part of the station) is not considered to require planning permission. Nevertheless, the extension to the outdoor seating/terrace area has been discussed with the Council’s Transport Manager. The westerly part of the extension would be sited near the Station Entrance westerly gateline and interrupt a pedestrian desire-line with high footfall, between the gateline and Brunel Arcade. This is considered to be inadvisable for public safety reasons and the Transport Manager is discussing this issue directly with Network Rail. The Update report will provide further guidance on this matter.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 The heritage statement states that the purpose of the works is to make better use of the building for rail passengers, but this is curious, as the pub use is disconnected from the station and has been since the introduction of the ticket barriers, roughly ten years ago. This is considered to be a commercially-driven enhancement of the pub offer at the premises, which is not of concern.

7.2 These applications are a scaled-down version of proposals seen at pre-application stage, where officers advised that the proposals also required planning permission, due to the changes of use of the building. The proposals before you now do not require planning permission, however, an informative should remind the applicant/operator that any mutation of uses may trigger the submission of a retrospective planning application.

7.3 Notwithstanding the above, the physical alterations themselves are in general well-considered and these proposals are suitable in terms of the long-term preservation of the building in a suitable use. Other refurbishments are an important beneficial aspect of the proposals and are welcomed. The signage is generally considered to be sensitive to the character of the building.

7.4 For the above reasons, officers recommend the granting of these consents. Case Officer: Richard Eatough Plans:

LBC:

8202/104C Proposed Basement (received 12/5/16)

42

8202/105D Ground Floor As Proposed (received 12/5/16)

8202/106B First Floor As Proposed (received 12/5/16)

Advertisement Consent: 23635PL01 Issue 3 page 1 of 5 Signage colour [hand-painted sign] 23635PL01 Issue 2 page 2 of 5: Signage Specifications for signs A-G [Sign B not approved 23635PL01 Issue 2 page 3 of 5: Proposed Signage [photomontage]

43

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1 June 2016 Ward: Abbey App Nos.: 160550/FUL & 160551/LBC Address: 4a Howard Street Reading Proposal: Change of use from 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) to 9 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) to include internal changes, demolition of existing rear projection and erection of single storey rear extension. Applicant: Mr J Ashworth Date received: 22nd March 2016 Minor Application 8 week target decision date: Extension to 2nd June 2016 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent. Conditions (160550) to include:

1. Standard time limit (three years) 2. Approved plans 3. Retention of communal use of kitchen/diner and lounge rooms 4. Refuse bin storage & collection scheme to be submitted 5. Cycle parking 6. Permits – Postal addresses 7. Permits – Residents not entitled 8. Details of windows & doors, including new replacement sashes to front elevation 9. Sample brickwork panel to be submitted 10. Natural slate roof tiles (samples) to be submitted 11. Re-instatement of front boundary wall (details to be supplied)

Conditions (160551) to include:

1. Standard time limit (LBC three years) 2. Details of windows & doors 3. Sample brickwork panel 4. Natural slate roof tiles (samples) 5. Re-instatement of front boundary wall 6. Submission of method statement for render repairs

Informatives (160550/160551):

• Approved plans (LBC 160551) • Building Regulations • Terms and conditions • Demolition & construction • Parking permits • Works affecting highway • Occupancy, licensing & management - Housing Act 2004 • Positive and proactive approach • Advice: removal of satellite dish

49

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site comprises a Grade II listed three storey terraced house

(adjacent to No. 4 Howard Street, which is also listed) and is located on the west side of Howard Street opposite the Inner Distribution Road adjacent to the Reading Central Area.

1.2 The property is located within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation

Area and the surrounding area is primarily residential.

50

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 Both planning permission and listed building consent are sought for a change

of use of the property from an existing 8 bedroom (large) house in multiple occupation (HMO) to a 9 bedroom house which is also classified as a large HMO.

2.2 An existing attached rear storage building is to be demolished and replaced

by a single storey lounge extension (4.3m x 3.15m) with raised parapet sides and a slate pitched roof.

2.3 The application has been supplemented by the following information:

• Planning and Heritage Statement • Historic England: Kent House (4 and 4a Howard Street) - List Entry

Summary • CIL form

2.4 The application is being reported to your meeting at the request of

Cllr. Page, who is concerned for the implications on the Listed Building. 3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 100997 Conversion of dwelling to 2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats; and

erection of ground and basement rear extension – Withdrawn 23.7.2010

51

111233 Conversion of dwelling to 1 x 2 bed flat and 2 x 1 bed flats - Granted 11.4.2012 Not implemented

111234 Internal and external alterations to convert one dwelling to 2 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed flats and erection of ground and basement rear extension – Granted 13.7.2012 Not implemented

4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Statutory:

None 4.2 Non-statutory:

RBC Environmental Protection: No objections, or conditions recommended. RBC Transport Strategy: No objection subject to conditions and informatives regarding the non-entitlement of residents to parking permits and works affecting the highway. RBC Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Team: No objection to the proposal provided it is carried out in compliance with the applicable Building Regulations. Advises that the property has been registered with an HMO Licence by the Borough Council since 19th September 2008. This was granted for an initial five years on the basis of nine persons occupying 8 letting rooms (including two in the basement).

4.2 Public consultation: Neighbour Notification: Properties at 2, 4 & 6 Howard Street and 9, 11 Zinzan Street were consulted (on 7.4.2016) and in addition a Conservation Area/Listed Building notice was displayed at the site on 20.4.2016.

There has been one objection received raising the following issues and concerns: - object to further bedrooms; - record of up to 20 different people entering this house plus drug dealing

(police have made arrests late at night). Sometimes more than 50 people enter No. 4a in and out and children complain about the smell. Officer comment: disturbance from anti-social behaviour and odours are not considered to be material considerations to these applications.

Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association (BSANA) made the following comments:

52

BSANA is concerned for these proposals, which could easily fall short of the "preservation and enhancement" duty that the LPA is required to consider with any planning application in a CA. Concerned that the front rendered brick wall of the property directly on the pavement, has been removed and a picket fence has been put in its place in the past 6 months or so. Additionally, this property and No. 4 have unauthorised satellite dishes installed.

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'. 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 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.3 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 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.

5.5 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 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 CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car/Cycle Parking

53

CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and water resources

Reading Borough LDF Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) RC5 Design in the Centre

Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM5 Housing Mix DM8 Residential Conversions DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters

Supplementary Planning Documents Revised Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2011 Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD 2011 Residential Conversions SPD 2013 Planning Obligations under S106 SPD 2015

6. APPRAISAL 6.1 The main issues to be considered are:

a) Policy and principle b) Whether the intensified HMO use of the property would unduly dilute or

harm a mixed and sustainable community c) Whether the property is of a suitable size and type to be so converted d) The impact of external and internal alterations on the listed building

and conservation area e) The amenities of future residents and neighbours f) Impacts on amenities of neighbouring occupiers g) Car/cycle parking provision

Policy and principle 6.2 Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy states that proposals to convert properties

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 provision and location of adequate on-site car parking and the treatment of bin storage areas.

6.3 Policy DM8 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document sets out the criteria

under which these will be acceptable: - the proposal respects the physical character of the area and would not,

individually or cumulatively unduly dilute or harm an existing mixed and sustainable community through the loss of single family housing;

54

- there are no unacceptable adverse impacts to other residential properties arising from noise and disturbance in terms of the number and layout of units and proximity to other properties;

- there is appropriate sound insulation between proposed and neighbouring units and layouts avoid inappropriate stacking and rooms between the units

- bin and cycle storage is of an appropriate size and standard for the units proposed and should be located at ground floor level with easy access.

6.4 In addition, sui generis houses in multiple occupation should have four or

more bedrooms or measure more than 120 square metres gross and have an appropriate balance between communal and private areas.

6.5 Along with the adopted local planning policies, any appraisal for a change of

use to an HMO is assessed against the Residential Conversions Supplementary Planning Document, November 2013. Section A of the SPD considers a general assessment of all conversions typically from dwelling houses to flats or HMOs (whether Class C4 – small or Sui Generis HMOs). Whilst the proposal is not for the change of use of a house, but of an existing HMO, it is useful to have regard to the SPD, which sets out a number of checklist items and the relevant ones have been used to form the basis of the following appraisal.

Mixed and Sustainable Community 6.6 Officers are satisfied that the lawful use of the building is already a large (Sui Generis) HMO, having been in that use in excess of four years. The property has been registered with an HMO Licence by the Borough Council since 19th September 2008 on the basis of nine persons occupying 8 letting rooms. These applications therefore seek to enlarge the existing HMO. 6.7 Checklist 3 of the Residential Conversions SPD states that any residential

conversion must contribute to achieving an appropriately mixed and sustainable community by providing an acceptable housing mix, ensuring that, as appropriate, single family housing remains the dominant form of dwelling in the vicinity of the application site and ensuring there is not-detrimental impact on the physical character of the area.

6.8 The existing property is used as an HMO with 8 bedrooms and is to be

converted by changing the use of the second floor kitchen into a ninth bedroom. The retained kitchen at ground floor (12.9 sq. m) is of a suitable size and is situated not more than two floors from any user.

6.9 Therefore an established HMO is already present and these applications, in your officers’ opinion, propose a modest intensification of activity.

Impact of alterations on the Listed Building and Conservation Area 6.10 Policy CS33 of the Core Strategy confirms that historic features and areas of

historic importance and other elements of the historic environment, including listed buildings, Conservation Areas and their settings, will be

55

protected and where appropriate enhanced. Planning permission will be granted where development has no adverse impact on such historic assets and their settings and all proposals will be expected to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located.

6.11 Checklist 1 of the Conversions SPD requires any external alterations to be

carried out sympathetically, respecting the character of the area. Checklist 6 of the SPD reaffirms that conversions which alter the existing property as little as possible can be more successful, particularly with listed buildings where the Council will seek to conserve and enhance the internal and external parts.

6.12 Officers consider that the proposed internal changes would have no

detrimental impact on any existing features, as chimney breasts are retained, the altered layout would be suitable in terms of the building’s compartmentation and other features have already been lost/covered. The external front elevation is currently marred by poor render/decoration, uPVC windows and a satellite dish. The front wall has also recently been removed.

6.13 The external alterations including new sash windows on the front elevation and a replacement wall would be appropriate to the character and restore the special architectural character of the building and well as enhancing the Conservation Area. Repair and repainting of existing paint/plaster work is

also required, through a suitable method statement. The proposed changes will result in an improvement of the overall Howard Street elevation and these details can be secured by conditions.

6.14 The existing single storey store to the rear would be removed, but this is

much altered. The design/scale of the proposed rear extension is also acceptable on this Listed Building subject to conditions regarding materials. The amenities of future residents and neighbours

6.15 Policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document considers the living environment of new residential properties in terms of privacy, access to daylight/sunlight, noise and disturbance etc. Similarly, Checklists 2 & 4 of the Conversions SPD discuss whether extensions achieve acceptable residential amenity for occupiers and respect the character of the existing house. An appropriate level of outdoor space will be expected.

6.16 In this regard, a satisfactory standard of amenity would be provided by the

provision of a communal lounge (10.2 sqm.) at ground floor level in the extension built adjacent to the rear patio providing access between the kitchen and garden. There is no lounge at present therefore, this part of the building should thus become much used by residents and meets the requirement set out in the SPD (Checklist 25) for at least one such room per 4-6 bedrooms. The long rear garden is available to residents whilst the existing room layout and stacking between floors is largely retained. It is

56

noted that bedrooms 2 (basement), 3 (ground floor) and 6 (first floor) are situated below, next to and above the kitchen respectively which is unfortunate, but unavoidable. The remainder of the layout is otherwise as required in Checklist 9 of the SPD.

6.17 Policy DM4 and Checklist 5 of the SPD consider aspects of privacy, access to

daylight/sunlight and noise and disturbance from the neighbour viewpoint. Checklist 8 looks at whether there is adequate sound insulation between the property and neighbouring units.

6.18 In this respect there is unlikely to be any significant difference when

compared to the existing levels of noise generated from an 8 bedroom HMO. There is also a high brick wall to the boundary with No. 6 Howard Street thus no serious overlooking issue or loss of privacy is likely to be introduced by the proposed lounge extension occupying part of the garden.

Provision of car/cycle parking

6.19 Policy CS24 of the Core Strategy requires that maximum car and cycle parking standards will be applied in relation to the accessibility of locations to public transport.

6.20 Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document considers whether

proposal would be detrimental to the safety of users of the transport network including pedestrians and cyclists.

6.21 Checklist 13 and 14 of the Conversions SPD refer to the Council’s parking

standards and entitlement to on-street parking permits and Checklist 16 to the provision of outdoor secure cycle storage.

6.22 The site is not provided with any car parking but in accordance with the

Council’s Parking Standards and Design SPD, the requirement for an 9 bedroom HMO (at 0.25 space per bedroom) would be marginally above that for a dwelling (2 spaces) but would not significantly increase the existing shortfall. A condition regarding cycle storage can be included on any permission granted.

6.23 The Transport Manager has confirmed that there is no objection on

highways or parking issues subject to conditions.

Other Issues 6.24 Officers have considered the extent to which contributions towards

affordable housing may be required in relation to this proposal. However, given that the increase is only one additional letting room, officers are content that the additional impact on affordable housing demand is minimal and there is no conflict with Policies CS9, DM3 and the Obligations SPD.

6.25 Checklist 17 of the Conversions SPD identifies the need for suitable refuse

containers within the curtilage of the building. The current arrangements for refuse collection take place at the front of the property but in order to

57

formalise this a condition regarding further details of this provision would therefore be included on any planning permission granted.

6.26 Checklist 21 of the SPD confirms the need for Building Regulations approval

which can be the subject of an informative on any permission granted. 6.27 Checklist 26 of the SPD concerns the need for an agreement to ensure that

acceptable management of all communal parts of the HMO. This aspect of the proposal can be controlled however by means of a suitably worded condition that ensures that the kitchen and lounge areas are retained for the use of all residents occupying the nine bedrooms.

6.28 The proposal is not a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liable

development as the proposed addition to the gross internal floorspace of the property is less than 100 square metres. Equality Act

6.29 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 and sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal to extend the established HMO use of this property has been

considered against the Council’s Residential Conversions SPD guidance adopted in November 2013 and thus has been applied for the most part retrospectively.

7.2 The suitability of the property, as extended, for such conversion and the

minimal impacts on the character of the building and surrounding area including neighbour amenities that the intensified use would have do not raise significant concerns or conflict with the objectives of the SPD or other relevant LDF policies.

7.3 The current application therefore provides an opportunity to impose

planning controls on the HMO use that have not previously been possible beyond the provisions of the Housing Act. In particular, the amenities of residents and various aspects concerned with the external appearance will be protected and thus help to ensure satisfactory incorporation of the HMO without detriment to the visual amenities and residential character of the area.

7.4 The planning and listed building consent applications are accordingly

recommended for approval.

58

Plans: 01 P1 – Site Location Plan 02 P1 – Site Plan 03 P1 – Existing Plans 04 P1 – Existing Elevations 05 P3 – Proposed Plans 06 P3 – Proposed Elevations Received by the local planning authority on 22nd March 2016 Case Officer: Daniel Murkin

59

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT CULTURE & SPORT READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1st June 2016 Ward: Abbey App No.: 160707/LBC Address: 61 Baker Street, Reading Proposal: Replacement of glazed conservatory roof with a warm roof finished with ‘Tapco tiles’. Applicant: Mr David Stevens Date received: 25th April 2016 Minor application 8 Week Date: 20th June 2016 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT Listed Building Consent. Conditions to include:

1. Three year time limit for implementation (LBC) 2. Roof finish of materials to be as applied for: Tapco slate effect tiles, to match colour of

existing Listed Building and to be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.

Informatives to include:

1. Approved plans 2. Terms and conditions 3. Separate Building Regulations approval may be required 4. No encroachment

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application property is a two storey end of terraced house, with basement. It is a

Grade II Listed Building, part of a pre-1840 formal terrace of red brick houses. The terrace is characterised by a stucco string under the first floor windows, low-pitched slate roofs (hipped on the terrace ends), red brick chimneys and two sash windows at first floor and one at ground floor. The properties also have four-panel front doors with a characteristic gauged brick arch and radiating fanlight.

1.2 Rear gardens to this terrace are enclosed by brick walls. The existing property has an

attached single storey side garage with a flat roof and a modern glazed conservatory to the rear.

1.3 The property is situated within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area and the

surrounding area is mainly residential in nature. 1.4 This minor application is being reported to Planning Applications Committee for a

decision as the applicant is Councillor David Stevens.

60

Location plan

Photo of rear of property, with existing conservatory

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 This is an application for Listed Building Consent (LBC) and has been submitted because

the works propose material alterations to a structure which is attached to a Listed Building and therefore itself listed. The proposal is to remove the existing glazed roof of an existing rear conservatory and to replace it with a ‘warm roof’ construction to provide greater thermal efficiency. The exterior finish would be plastic slates (actually a

61

recyclable polypropylene-limestone mix), whose appearance attempts to mimic real slate.

2.3 The layout of the conservatory will remain the same. The present conservatory is of

hardwood timber construction over a brick dwarf wall and will be retained. These slate effect tiles have been proposed as they are lighter than real slate tiles and can therefore be supported by the present glazed conservatory structure.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

• 86/TP/0909 and 86/TP/0910 – Replacement of existing garage and new conservatory.

Permitted 19/12/1986 • 99-00501-FUL and 99-00502-LBC – Two storey side extension to listed building,

incorporating existing garage. Refused 18/08/1999. APPEALS DISMISSED • 02-00067-FUL - Single storey rear conservatory extension following demolition of existing.

Permitted 13/03/2002 • 02-00063-LBC - Erection of single storey rear conservatory with fully glazed roof

extension following demolition of existing extension. 13/03/2002 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Statutory: None 4.2 Non-statutory:

RBC Building Control has advised that an application under the Building Regulations may be required, although depending on the construction, the works may be exempt. If approval is required, the main issues to consider would be structural loading and fire safety.

4.3 Public consultation:

Properties at 1-16 Chancery Mews, 63 Baker Street, 36A, flats 1-5 of 36, flats 1-4 of 38, flats 1-2 of 40, 42 and 42A Russell Street were notified by letter. A site notice was also displayed. No response letters have been received.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE (i) Legal context 5.1 Sections 16(2) and 66(1) 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.

5.2 National Planning Policy and Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Part 12 – Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment National Planning Practice Guidance: Historic England Good Practice Guide Note Number 2: managing significance in decision-taking

62

5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2008) (altered 2015)

CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment 6. APPRAISAL 6.1 The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the historic character/fabric of the

building and impact on the appearance of the property, including its setting. 6.2 Policy CS33: Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment states that

proposals will only be granted where development has no adverse impact on historic assets and their settings. All proposals will be expected to protect, and where appropriate, enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located. It also states that in making decisions on development proposals in Conservation Areas, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that particular Area and as such development should respect and enhance the Area’s architectural and visual qualities. However, it should be noted that this second requirement is not relevant to this application for LBC, where the principal impact to consider is the effect on the Listed Building itself and not any effects on the wider Area.

6.3 The application does not explain how the conservatory will need to be adjusted or how

the slate effect tiles will be supported and this information shall be sought from the applicant, although this is considered to be essentially a constructional issue and is unlikely to be material to the consideration of this application. The conservatory is not historic or part of the original building. Therefore the original historic fabric of the building will not be affected by this development and there is no conflict with Policy CS33.

6.4 An example of this type of roof covering is provided in the Design and Access Statement

submitted with the application and this image is included at the end of this report. The replacement of the glazed conservatory roof with a warm roof finished with these Tapco tiles will, to a minor extent, reduce the visibility of the Listed Building through the conservatory, when seen from the rear gardens of surrounding properties. However, as this part of the property is not visible to the public realm, the features to the rear of the property are not considered to be as sensitive to changes as those on the front façade. Moreover, the conservatory does not span the full width of the property and there a number of smaller roofed extensions to the rear of other properties within the terrace. For these reasons, it is not considered that the changing of the glazed roof for an opaque roof would cause unacceptable harm to the setting of the main Listed Building, and in this regard the proposal complies with Policy CS33.

6.5 The roof finish to the listed buildings in this terrace is slate. To preserve the character of

both the listed buildings (and the Conservation Area more generally), it is therefore usually important that that the finish to ancillary buildings and structures should be in the same material. The Council’s Conservation Consultant has been consulted on this proposal and advises that, in his opinion, the development should use appropriate quality materials (i.e. real slate), even on a more modern addition. However, in this instance, officers consider that as the conservatory is currently a glazed structure (and not slate in any event) and the construction of the structure will not withstand the weight of real slate, it would not be appropriate to insist on a slate roof.

6.5 Officers therefore advise that this is a back garden situation, where limited views of the

Listed Building are affected. The setting of the house itself would be suitably preserved in this proposal, as would the wider setting of the Listed of the terrace. The proposed

63

materials are sustainable and whilst a departure from the original conservatory’s design specification, there will be a limited impact on the fabric of the Listed Building, as the change concerns the modern conservatory only. Furthermore, the appearance of the proposed roofing material chosen will closely match the roofing material of the original Listed Building itself. Officers therefore feel that in this instance it would not be appropriate to resist this alternative roofing material.

Equalities Act

6.6 In determining this application, the Council is required to have regard to its obligations

under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this proposal. 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 Officers consider that impact on the setting and fabric (and therefore the special

architectural character) of the Listed Building will not be harmed by the proposal, although it is accepted that the material is not a natural or historic material. Whilst within the Conservation Area, this type of application does not allow the effect on views within the Area to be considered. Notwithstanding this, officers informally advise that there is considered to be no harm to views experienced within the Conservation Area. For the above reasons, officers recommend that Listed Building Consent can be granted.

Case Officer: Heather Banks Plans: Location Plan, Site Plan, Block Plan

Example of Tapco slates fitted to a conservatory to create a ‘warm roof’.

64

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1 June 2016 Ward: Abbey App No.: 160358 Address: 3-5 King Street, Reading Proposal: Application to vary condition 12 of planning permission 150051 to allow the A3 (restaurant/café 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). Applicant: New World Trading Company (UK) Ltd. Date received: 7 March 2016 Minor Application Planning Performance Agreement date: 3 June 2016 RECOMMENDATION GRANT s.73 variation to planning permission 150051. Conditions adjusted as follows: Condition 12a: The A3 use hereby permitted in respect of Unit One (west) on approved plan AG-05 Rev. E shall not operate outside of the hours of 0800-2300 (Sunday-Wednesday) and 0800-0030 (Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays). Condition 12b: The A3 use hereby permitted in respect of Unit Two (east) on approved plan AG-05 Rev. E shall not operate outside of the hours of 0800-2300 each day. Reason(s): in the interests of the amenities of neighbouring properties. Policies: CS34, DM4, DM12 Summary of other changes to conditions: Condition 2 (approved plans): update plans Condition 5 (plant noise): add that the noise level required needs to be better than that set out in noise assessment Condition 8 (ancillary bar): alter to any ancillary bar in respect of any A3 use Condition 9 (anti-ram bollards): adjust to refer to easternmost unit only Condition 10 (ancillary takeaway strategy): adjust to refer to any ancillary Condition 13 (retention of active frontages: refer to the A3 units (plural) Additional conditions required: 1. A3 use to be in accordance with all recommendations in submitted noise

assessment 2. Details of measures to achieve acoustic insulation to be submitted before

installation 3. Dividing walls providing at ground and basement level, prior to first occupation as

A3 restaurant. 4. No use of eastern 1/3 of the ground floor via this Section 73 approval

67

Informatives:

• Separate application still required for Listed Building Consent • Other planning issues • Positive and proactive • Premises Licence required

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is part of the former Barclays Bank and is situated on

the northern side of King Street and has frontages to King Street (South) and the Market Place (to the North). The bank comprised four buildings of varying age and construction type which formed a single unit (with ancillary ban-related offices on the upper floors) until 2009. Three of the four buildings are Grade II Listed and these date from about 1800-1870: 3-5 King Street, 50-51 Market Place and 10 High Street. The fourth part is a 1970s element with a curved façade towards the King Street/High Street corner, which then continues along High Street (therefore also listed as it is attached). The site is prominently located within the Market Place/London Street Conservation Area. The application site and adjoining commercial units towards Buttermarket form an ‘island site’. The site is therefore accessed and has main entrances from King Street and Market Place.

1.2 However, this current planning application, for reasons which will be discussed below, does not relate to the whole of the former bank, but only part of its ground floor and a corresponding area in the basement.

Location plan

68

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 As with the permission/consent issued in 2010, the 2015 A3

permission/consent identified no operator and was essentially speculative in order to attract a restaurant operator.

2.2 This application has been submitted by a prospective A3 occupier, who wishes to run the restaurant under a brand known as ‘The Botanist’, which operates in a number of other locations, including Marlow. The concept of the restaurant is dining-led, although there is a strong emphasis on live music and drinking.

2.3 The application is being made under Section 73 of the Planning Acts, as the operator wishes to extend the opening hours granted under the original planning permission, to allow the premises to open until 12:30 on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. Documents submitted with the application include a noise impact assessment; an operating schedule; the operation’s dispersal policy; and smoking and al fresco dining policy.

2.4 Although the original planning permission 150051 (and associated Listed Building Consent 150203) was dealt with under officers’ delegated powers, officers consider that this variation to the opening hours has potential additional amenity and disturbance issues and for these reasons recommend that this application is reported to your meeting.

2.5 Importantly, Members should note that the application site is only the Western 2/3 of the former bank. This is because the operator is only planning to operate from part of the ground floor and the remainder of the floor will be separated to form a separate A3 retail unit.

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning history for this site is extensive and below is the more recent

history from 2009 onwards. 091501 Change of use from Class A2 (Financial Permission with s106

69

(09/01931/ FUL)

and Professional Services) to C lass A3 (Restaurants and Cafes) on ground floor, ancillary storage at basement and Class B1 (Business) use on 3 upper floors.

agreement, not implemented.

091750/ LBC

[LBC for above] Consent, not implemented

110203 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

Consent, not implemented. Consent secured by Barclays to try and an attract an A3 occupier

120875/ VARIAT

Change of use from Class A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to C lass 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 Applicant attempted to adapt original A3 approval to extend A3 to upper floors too

121606/ FUL

Change of use of first, second and third floors from A2 (Financial and Professional Services) to A3 (Restaurant and Cafe)

Withdrawn

121607/ LBC

[LBC for above] Withdrawn

141187/ LBC

External repairs and the installation of replacement bird deterrents.

Consent, implemented.

150283/ PREAPP

Pre-application enquiry relating to a proposed change of use to residential.

Pending consideration. Submitted by Freeholder. Involves seeking residential use of upper floors.

150051 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.

Permission 6/11/2015, not implemented

150203 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.

Consent 6/11/2015, not implemented

4. CONSULTATIONS (i) Statutory:

None.

70

(ii) Non-statutory: RBC Transport Strategy considers that there are no transport implications from the change and therefore has no objections to the proposal. RBC Environmental Protection has no objection to later opening times, provided that the plant noise and the noise from the inside of the restaurant are adequately controlled, in particular to protect the proposed residents above the venue. The EP team has considered the noise impact assessment submitted with the application and has found it to be very comprehensive and advises that the development will be suitable, providing that the recommendations in the assessment are adhered to. This is discussed further in the Appraisal below. RBC Licensing Team: The premises is within the Council's Cumulative Impact (CIP) Area. The Area is in place due to over 180 licensed premises being in the town centre alone and is to attempt to address concerns in relation to the undermining of the licensing objectives and the cumulative effect of having so many premises in the town centre. This places significant strain on resources and in particular, crime associated with alcohol. The CIP puts in place a ‘presumption of refusal’ in the consideration of licences for alcohol-led premises unless the applicant can demonstrate robust procedures to mitigate its impact. This planning application states that the premises wishes to be a restaurant. The cumulative impact policy at paragraph 8.6.1 states: “Restaurants: where applications are made for restaurants to sell alcohol ancillary to the consumption of full table meals, it is not envisaged that negative impact on the licensing objectives would result and therefore the Authority will look favourably upon such applications”. The key points in the above paragraph are that alcohol is ancillary to a full table meal during all hours of operation and that alcohol cannot be purchased separately. However, if the set-up of this proposed new 'restaurant' is similar to Revolucion De Cuba (138-141 Friar Street), for example, then RBC Licensing would object to any licence application that proposes to sell alcohol beyond midnight. Revolucion De Cuba wanted a 2am licence but would stop selling food at midnight. If these new premises stopped selling food at 2200, for example, and then proceeded to be a ‘wet-led’ venue, then it would likely face objections. Here paragraph 8.6.7 of the CIP would apply which states the following: “8.6.7 Bars/Clubs/music and dancing venues: – Subject to the rebuttable presumption as outlined at paragraph 8.1.9 above, the policy is to refuse applications for such premises. Experience has shown that venues which serve alcohol, often at low prices; provide limited seating for customers; provide facilities for music and dancing; and which are alcohol rather than food-led, have the strongest potential to have a negative impact on the licensing objectives and to add to cumulative impact. Applicants seeking to operate in the CIP area will need to demonstrate detailed measures in the operating schedule of any application that will result in no increase in crime and disorder or have a negative impact on the area as a whole”. All venues in the town centre that are subject to the CIP need to have active management and dispersal policies in place. RBC Licensing advises that a Premises Licence relating to this operator has now been received.

5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE

71

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 An application under Section 73 of the Planning Acts allows for changes to

the conditions of the original planning permission and any new permission is read in conjunction with the original planning permission. Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework and the following development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance are relevant:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 1. Ensuring the viability of town centres 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment NPPG: Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres Reading Borough LDF: Core Strategy (2008) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS26 (Network and Hierarchy of Centres) CS27 (Maintaining the Retail Character of Centres) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) RCAAP – Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) RC5 (Design in the Centre) RC6 (Definition of the Centre) RC7 (Leisure, Culture, Tourism and the Centre) RC8 (Drinking Establishments) RC10 (Active Frontages) Reading Borough LDF: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) DM23 (Shopfronts and Cash Machines) SPD/SPG None relevant

6. APPRAISAL

6.1 The main issues raised by this variation planning application are:

(i) Policy and principle including subdivision issues (ii) Disturbance to neighbouring residential properties (iii) Implications for Section 73 conditions

(i) Policy and principle including subdivision issues

6.2 Firstly, the Council’s solicitor has considered the format of this application

carefully and advises that it is possible for the Local Planning Authority to

72

consider this Section 73 planning application. The planning decision notice in respect of permission 150051 is appended to this report. To recap, this has been submitted as a planning application simply to extend the opening hours of the proposed A3 restaurant use, but the complication is that the applicant is only concerned with part of the planning unit as previously approved. This report will consider to what extent the purposes of the original planning permission would be affected by this application.

6.3 The applicant advises that in order for the restaurant to operate successfully (viably), extended opening times are required until 12:30 on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays. The applicant describes the proposed activity as a restaurant with an ancillary bar and considers that Policy RC8 (Drinking Establishments) supports this activity in the RCAAP Central Core area. Whilst this is true, RC8 also requires a consideration of the effect of the proposal on character and amenity.

6.4 This is a central location where a listed building has now been left vacant for some seven years and there is likely to have been continued deterioration of the building fabric over this time. It should be noted that in 2014, Listed Building Consent was granted for repairs to the eastern and northern elevation of the building, where a combination of neglect, weed growth and pigeon damage was resulting in areas of stucco render becoming detached and in some instances, falling into the public highway on High Street. A comprehensive programme of extensive repairs to the render, cornices and windows was approved and immediately undertaken. It is therefore considered to be welcome that a potential occupier is now coming forward and hopefully this will act as a catalyst to the remainder of the building becoming occupied and secure its long-term future. The use would also secure an active frontage to King Street and Market Place, which would be beneficial to both frontages and comply with Policy RC10.

(ii) Disturbance to neighbouring residential properties

6.5 It is perhaps not surprising that a prospective operator has come forward requesting longer hours and a potential adjustment of the originally applied planning condition allows a closer examination of the suitability of this.

6.6 The Council’s Licensing Team clearly has concerns with this type of operator, where the use may purport to be a restaurant, but with later opening hours, appears to take on the appearance of a bar and in this case, also a live music venue and this has a potential to affect the amenities of surrounding residential properties. But their concerns are largely considered to be capable of control via the Licensing Acts and this planning application is being considered on its individual planning merits and is being treated as applied for: i.e. as an A3 restaurant. However, it is noted that the operator will have ancillary activities as part of the restaurant, which include a bar and live music.

6.7 The site is within the RCAAP Central Core, where such uses are to be encouraged. However, it should be borne in mind that since 2009, there is a greater concentration of town centre residential uses near this site, particularly in Market Place. This is a consequence not only of planning permissions but also permissions gained through the office prior approval mechanism, where the Local Planning Authority has limited opportunity to object to the proposal. A balance therefore needs to be struck between the

73

economic advantages and the benefit to the long-term sustainability of the Listed Building on one hand, and the amenity to be reasonably expected by town centre flat dwellers on the other.

6.8 Throughout the day, this area of the town has high pedestrian footfall and also passing buses, particularly southwards through Market Place, along High Street. However, into the evening, the sound level drops. Therefore, background noise levels are lower and break-out noise from this use could be much more audible or even harmful to amenity, for instance on a still summer’s evening.

6.9 Were the proposal to involve the whole of the ground floor, the nearest affected properties would be at 7 High Street, where conversion of the upper floors from residential is underway. But in this case, the site has frontages to the North (to Market Place) and South (to King Street) only and therefore the noise assessment has identified that the closest sensitive receptors are not residential, but occupants of the George (Mercure) Hotel, diagonally opposite.

6.10 The Environmental Protection Team is generally content with the conclusions of the noise assessment and advises that if the amenities of the hotel are not harmed then the amenities of other more distant receptors will also be preserved. The recommendations of the noise assessment are varied, but all considered to be acceptable and appropriate to apply. In summary, these are:

a) External doors are not to be kept open during trading hours. b) Detailed information is given on the type of live music to be played.

The assessment indicates guitar-duo type bands and no drums. c) Different acoustic insulation levels are set out if the upper floors are

offices or residential. These would involve acoustic insulation being applied to the underside of the ceiling within the retail unit. However, this will also require details of the construction of this to be suitable to the fabric of the Listed Building.

d) The report also recommends improved insulation within the proposed flats themselves. This may be more difficult to achieve/enforce with a different developer, however.

6.11 The applicant has confirmed that the operator is content to confirm to all

the recommendations in the assessment, in order to maintain amenity levels. There is one aspect where the EP team recommends a restriction greater than the noise assessment and that is related to the level for plant noise. However, the noise limit (for any plant to be 10dB below the background level) is already set out in existing Condition 5 and this need not be altered, except to indicate that it takes precedence over the recommendation of the noise report in this instance.

6.12 Were the Committee minded to approve this application, Condition 12 will need to be re-worded to ensure that it refers to the extended opening times for the western unit and the ‘as approved’ times for the eastern unit. Officers have not suggested that different hours should apply to Bank and Statutory holidays, although Licensing may wish to.

74

6.13 With the conditions indicated above, officers are satisfied that neighbour amenity can be adequately maintained and the proposal is acceptable in terms of Policy DM4.

(iii) Implications for Section 73 conditions

6.14 This application, like all Section 73 applications, allows the LPA to delete, add or adjust conditions as necessary. With reference to the decision notice at the end of this report, officers have considered how the other concerns of the conditions would be affected and a brief discussion of the changes required is set out below. Condition 1 (time limits)

6.15 The applicant intends to comply with this condition and the planning permission does not lapse until 6 November 2018.

Condition 2 (plans)

6.16 The plans in relation to this Section 73 application need to be approved.

This should include later plans which show indicative layouts and divisions for the unit applied for.

Condition 3 (removal of stud walls and external alterations)

6.17 These matters are not related to the current proposal, as these affect the

eastern part of the building.

Condition 4 (ventilation and filtration) 6.18 These details would still apply, although two sets of equipment are likely to

be required. Officers would seek for operators to share facilities, where appropriate.

Condition 5 (no air condition or ventilation plant to be installed before acoustic assessment)

6.19 As with condition 4, this may mean multiple units, but this need not be

objectionable. Adjust to confirm that the level required has precedence over the noise assessment.

Condition 6 (refuse collection strategy)

6.20 This will become more complicated, with the two users of the ground floor,

not one and the prospect of further residential flats above. Given the limitations of the listed building and the requirements of the various uses, the applicant has been asked to explain how refuse storage and collection arrangements may work and this will be discussed in the Update Report.

Condition 7 (submission of a strategy for disabled access)

6.21 There is a large change in levels to Market Place, but less severe to King

Street (the plans are not clear, but it appears to involve two steps). These matters will still need to be attended to and the condition is still required.

75

Condition 8 (ancillary bar) 6.22 this refers to ‘any ancillary bar for the A3 use’, this should be altered to

‘any ancillary bar in respect of any A3 use’. The applicant has confirmed that they are content with the condition.

Condition 9 (removal of anti-ram bollards)

6.23 RBC Highways confirms that these bollards were not removed during the

upgrade of Market Place and still require removal and the condition would continue to apply. However, it is in front of the other unit (to the east) so should be adjusted to refer to that unit only.

Condition 10 (ancillary takeaway strategy)

6.24 Again, this refers to, ‘the A3 use’, so should be adjusted in the same way as

Condition 8.

Condition 11 (no bulky goods) 6.25 This restrictive condition is not affected and should continue to apply.

Condition 12 (hours of use)

6.26 This is the subject of this Section 73 application. The Council’s solicitor advises that for clarity, the condition should be divided, with different hours set out for Unit One and Unit Two. See full condition wording in the Recommendation above.

Condition 13 (retention of active frontages)

6.27 As with conditions 8 and 10 above, needs adjusting to refer to the A3 units

(plural).

Other issues and conditions required 6.28 The applicant has advised that the issue of the subdivision of the planning

unit is not being applied for in this planning application. Notwithstanding this, officer advice is that planning permission is not required to create two separate A3 units as it does not constitute development (Section 55 (2) (f)) and the conditions adjusted as indicated in this report are suitable. There are conditions on the LBC relating to works to the façade, etc., however, these relate to the exterior of Unit Two and would be pertinent to the proposed occupier of that unit.

6.29 Officers have sought clarification as to whether the basement would be used and the applicant has confirmed that the basement demise would mirror the ground floor. The basement would be used for storage only and therefore a condition for installation of stud walls to ground and basement is required. Equalities Act

6.30 In determining these applications, the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected

76

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 these proposals. 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, the applicant should ensure that the development complies fully with Part M of the Building Regulations.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 Officers have considered the implications arising from this application and

advise that there are relatively few concerns. The proposal would allow the economic re-use of part of the Listed Building and should not prejudice the ability of the remainder to come forward for re-use. The noise report indicates that with the controls indicated in the comprehensive noise assessment, the use will be suitable in terms of neighbour amenity.

7.2 The applicant has indicated that if this application is granted, they will then

turn to matters of planning (and listed building) detail and licensing considerations. For the above reasons, the proposal is considered to be a suitable adjustment to the extant planning permission and Section 73 approval is recommended.

Case Officer: Richard Eatough Plans: 1:1250 Location Plan AG-05 Rev. E Ground Floor Proposed Restaurant Demise

77

APPENDIX 1 decision notice: planning permission 150051

80

CAVERSHAM

85

COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1 June 2016

Ward: Caversham App No.: 160018/NMA Site Address: St Martin’s Precinct, Church Street, Caversham Proposal: Non-material Amendment to condition 2 of planning permission 140997 to include phasing plan within the list of approved drawings to allow the conditions to be discharged in a phased manner and the development to be carried out in stages. Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust Date valid: 2 March 2016 28 Day Date: 30 March 2015

RECOMMENDATION

AGREE Non-material Amendment

Amendments to conditions relating to permission 140997 to include (numbering as per original permission):

2. The drawing hereby approved as a Non-Material Amendment to original permission 140997 is as

follows: PH_01 Revision B dated 12 November 2015. All other drawings approved under condition 2 of permission 140997 are unaltered and remain extant.

4. No development within any phase as identified on drawing PH_01 Revision B shall take place

until full details of both hard and soft landscaping for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority The submitted details shall include:

(a) hard surfacing materials - to be water permeable to SUDS principles; (b) planting plans, including:

• All trees shown on drawing PP-MP-02 Rev. P6 Proposed Site Plan and drawing RG-L-AI13 Rev 04 - Soft Landscaping.

• Written specifications (including tree pit and root barrier details, cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment)

• Detailed specification for the green wall to the car park deck (Phase 2c). • Schedules of plants (noting species (to be wildlife-friendly), plant sizes and proposed

numbers/planting densities where appropriate). • Details of all existing and proposed underground services

Any trees or plants that, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, die, are

removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees or plants of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

5. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until a landscaping

maintenance and management plan for the phase within which the development to be occupied is located, including long term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance/watering schedules for the landscaped areas, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority The approved landscaping shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the plan at all times thereafter.

7. Notwithstanding the landscaping details shown on the approved drawings, no development

hereby approved shall be commenced within phase 2c as shown on drawing PH_01 Revision B until details of tree planting along Archway Road, with associated tree pit and root barrier specification, in consultation with Thames Water, have been submitted to and approved in

87

writing by the local planning authority. The approved tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details within

the first planting season following the first use of car park unless an alternative timescale is agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Any tree that, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, dies, is removed, or

become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of a similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation.

9. No development within any phase shown on drawing PH_01 Revision B shall commence until a

lighting scheme for that phase, , with details and specifications of all external lighting, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The details shall include:

i) A layout plan with beam orientation ii) A schedule of equipment iii) Measures to avoid glare and excessive use of light (e.g. the design of the luminaire and the use of motion sensors) iv) An isolux contour map showing light spillage to 1 lux both vertically and horizontally and areas identified as being of importance for commuting and foraging bats.

No external lighting shall be provided other than in accordance with the approved scheme. 10. No development within any phase shown on drawing PH_01 Revision B shall be commenced

until details of ecological enhancements, for that phase, to include bird and bat boxes on or within buildings and a timetable for their provision, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The enhancements shall be provided, in accordance with the approved details and the approved timetable.

11. No development shall be commenced within Phase 2c as shown on drawing PH_01 Revision B

until details of the design of the north-south pedestrian route through the car park between Abbotsmead Place and the rear of Block D have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the profile, surfacing materials and the means of demarcation and segregation from the surrounding car park. No part of the car park within Phase 2C shall be brought into use until the pedestrian route has been provided in accordance with the approved details.

12. No development shall be commenced within Phase 2d as shown on drawing PH_01 Revision B

until details of the design, specification, means of operation and location of bollards to control access to the public square to the south of Block D as identified as Caversham Square on approved drawing PP-MP-02 Rev. P6 ‘Proposed Consolidated Site Plan and Car Park’, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No part of the development within Phase 2d shall be brought into use until the bollards have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The bollards shall be retained, as approved, at all times thereafter.

32. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012, no works or development within Phase 1b or Phase 3 shown on drawing

PH_01 Revision B shall take place until a scheme for the topping and/or lopping of the Holm Oak, or any other tree work to the Holm Oak, identified as T3 in the Reading Borough Council Tree Preservation Order 58/13 dated 1st August 2013 and confirmed on 20th December 2013 has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of its implementation which shall be phased so as to limit the extent of tree works to those being essential for Phase 1b and Phase 3 individually. No topping and/or lopping and/or any other tree work to the Holm Oak shall be carried out other than strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.

Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Approach

88

2. This notice relates only to the changes to conditions 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 32. It shall only be read in the context of the substantive planning permission granted under reference number 140997, and is bound by all the conditions and obligations attached to that permission. That permission still stands and this notice (and any other notices issued under section 96a for this development) should be read together.

3. In reaching this decision, the local planning authority is satisfied that the changes proposed by this application do not constitute material changes to the approved planning permission.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Full Planning permission was granted on 31 March 2015, following the approval by

Planning Applications Committee on 11 February 2015, for a mixed use scheme to remodel and extend the existing St Martin’s Centre under the following description: “Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works.”

1.2 Since that time Waitrose, who were to occupy the extended retail space, have

confirmed that they no longer require the extension. The applicant has explained that this results in a need to amend elements of the scheme affected by the Waitrose decision and they are currently considering this in detail.

1.3 In the meantime the applicant has confirmed that they are seeking to progress as

soon as possible with parts of the current approval; the public realm improvements to the precinct space and the new-build restaurant and flats on the undeveloped land next to the telephone exchange (known as ‘Block A’ under the current permission), as these are not affected by the change in circumstances. It is also proposed to include the façade improvements to the existing Church Street frontage to the west of the precinct as part of this early phase of the redevelopment.

1.4 The remainder of the site is more closely bound-up with the Waitrose element of the scheme and the applicant is currently working towards a new application for that part of the site which responds to the change in circumstances. A pre-application enquiry for the new scheme was received on 10 May 2016 and is currently being considered by officers.

1.5 The current permission 140997 allows for some phasing within the conditions, however this is not set out in a phasing plan. There are also a number of pre-commencement conditions that apply to the whole site that would need to be satisfied before any part of the development is started. The applicant has explained that the requirement to submit details for the entire scheme when only parts can currently be implemented would delay implementation and as such seek to separate out the various parts of the scheme.

1.6 The Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Applications Committee and Ward Members have been consulted in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The application has been called-in for determination by Planning Applications Committee by Cllr Page to allow the issues surrounding the delivery of the scheme to be considered in more detail.

89

Site location plan – not to scale

Site Photograph

2.0 PROPOSALS

90

2.1 In response to the changed circumstances referred to above, the applicant has

applied for a Non-material amendment to the permission issued for 140997 to add a phasing plan drawing to the list of approved drawings.

2.2 Section.96A allows for new conditions to be imposed and existing conditions

removed or altered. Following discussions with the applicant, it has been agreed that the following conditions also require some amendment to be consistent with the proposed phasing plan:

Condition 4 – Details of hard and soft landscaping Condition 5 – Landscaping Management Plan Condition 7 – Details of tree planting along Archway Road Condition 9 – External lighting scheme Condition 10 – Ecological enhancements Condition 11 – Design of north-south pedestrian route Condition 12 - Details of access control bollards to public square Condition 32 – Protection of Holm Oak

2.3 If the Non-material Amendment is agreed, it would not be a new planning

permission. Rather it would form part of the extant permission 140997/FUL and the developer would remain bound by all the conditions and obligations attached to that permission except whereamended by this NMA.

Information Submitted with the Application:

Drawings -

18511 PH_01 Revision B, dated 12 November 2015

3. CONSULTATIONS 3.1 Applications for a Non-material Amendment under S96A are not applications for

planning permission, and as such are not covered by the usual publicity requirements. However, given the large size of the site, its importance within the District Centre, and the numerous constraints on development within the site, it was considered that a further limited consultation was warranted as follows:

RBC Transport 3.2 No objection in principle because the planning conditions retain controls to ensure

adequate car and cycle parking is provided.

RBC Natural Environment (Trees and Ecology)

3.3 No objection. Comments as follows:

Condition 4 – Phasing is acceptable because an overall soft landscape tree planting strategy has already been approved. Condition 5 – A landscape maintenance and management plan would have to be devised before the first phase started and as this would be likely to be appropriate

91

for all landscaping within the site. It does not seem necessary to submit a different plan for each phase. Condition 7 – Phased approach change is acceptable. Condition should state the relevant phase (2c) Condition 32 – It is acceptable to change the wording so that the details are submitted before the relevant phase, however in this case it will be 2 phases, i.e. 1b & 3 and the condition should specifically state this. The works required for phase 1b are likely to be less extensive and the condition should reflect this.

RBC Environmental Protection

3.4 Confirm no objection to phasing.

Berkshire Archaeology 3.5 No objection to the proposed phasing plan. The previous advice that further

documentary assessment should be undertaken in order to identify areas for an initial phase of trial trenching still stands.

RBC Ecologist

3.6 Confirmed no objection

Caversham and District Residents’ Association (CADRA)

3.7 CADRA have commented on the proposals as set out below. The applicant was invited to comment on the points raised and their response is included in italic text after each point.

1. Is the Developer proposing a final end date guarantee when all the scheme will be completed? If not, there is the implication that the scheme will only ever be partially built. Applicant comment: Each phase will be subject to viability and from a design perspective can stand up on their own. We will be seeking to address the worst [existing] elements first to have the greatest [positive] impact on the town. It is clearly intended that each phase will have a positive impact. 2. There is concern that there should be no loss of shopper car spaces from current numbers at completion of each phase. Can the position and car space numbers at the completion of each phase be confirmed in writing? Applicant comment: This will be addressed as part of the car park phasing plan. 3. What is the position re Section 106 contributions, will the contributions be payable on the partial scheme and not hang in abeyance pending a theoretical final completion? Applicant comment: They will be paid on a phased basis. [Officer comment – this is addressed in more detail in the appraisal section below]

92

4. Is there a written guarantee from the Developer that each of the proposed numbered phases 1, 2 etc will be fully built out when the first part of the phase is commenced, i.e. if 1a is started is there a guarantee that 1b will follow immediately? If not, the phasing could for example result in 2b being built without the car deck/car park improvements. Applicant comment: The desire is to build out the entire scheme - at this point it is a marginally viable scheme, the intention is still to complete it although given the decision by Waitrose to withdraw from the proposed store extension, some elements are being considered for amendment. Phase 1b will address the existing retail and precinct which will set the precedent for future works and put the retail heart back into Caversham village. It is also significant as it will effectively tackle the worst element first. 5. One of the controversial aspects of the scheme is the potential loss of the Holm Oak in the precinct, which the developer is proposing to cut back to accommodate Block D. As the extensions to Block D are now in Phase 3, can we have a written undertaking that the Holm Oak will not be cut back as the Developer proposed until Phase 3 goes ahead and that it will not take place under Phase 1b, which is the work to the precinct. Light pruning and tidying up may be acceptable. Applicant comment: While conversion/construction works are not proposed to take place initially to block D, the Holm Oak will need to be pruned when the precinct upgrade works are undertaken, more specifically when the adjacent trees are removed and replaced. However we will use all reasonable endeavours to ensure the health and safety of the Holm Oak when these works are undertaken. As a reminder there was additional planting agreed adjacent to Church Street in order to provide additional greening onto Church Street.

3.8 CADRA have provided further comments as follows:

“In our previous email we expressed concern about car parking spaces at completion of each phase. We note that this will be addressed as part of the car parking phasing plan. We have not had sight of this plan and believe this should form part of the application for phasing, especially since Hermes indicated to us in April that without the Waitrose extension, the parking layout might change, and that the Archway House entrance is to now be included in the scheme. Acknowledging that Hermes intend to bring forward changes to the area previously intended as an extension to Waitrose, the question of the car park deck remains unsatisfactory and requires clarification. The letter of 15 April from Barton Willmore refers to condition 34 as requiring amendment but this is not listed in the attached Annex 1.

The correspondence gives no firm indication that a full scheme will be built out, though we acknowledge the commitment expressed in principle. The email dated 8 April indicates that each stage "will be subject to viability and from a design perspective can stand alone." We question whether the significant number of proposed sub phases can indeed stand alone. We suggest that all of Phase 2 should be considered as a single phase from a design and planning viewpoint, even if a,b,c and d are then built sequentially by Hermes.

As previously stated, the work on the Holm Oak remains a concern. We challenge the need to complete all the proposed cut back in Phase 1b. The Tree Officer has already expressed concern about the form of the remaining tree after a substantial

93

cut back to accommodate Block D. An initial cut back to accommodate Ib need not be as severe as that required for Block D. Two separate operations would reduce the shock to the tree and safeguard the eventuality that Block D either does not proceed or proceeds several years after 1b. This would also improve the visual amenity from the tree during what may well be a lengthy period of building work. If each phase is to be considered separately, there is no logic to the tree work anticipating the requirements of a later phase.”

These matters are addressed in the appraisal section below.

4. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 4.1 Section 96A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 allows for non-

material changes to an existing planning permission. 5. APPRAISAL 5.1 It is relevant to note that the existing permission 140997 does not include a

requirement for the development to be completed in its entirety as this would be contrary to established planning principles and national planning guidance.

5.2 The existing permission already includes conditions which seek to control the timing

of provision of key elements such as car parking and landscaping, which acknowledges that the development may come forward in stages. It is considered that within a site of this size and including a variety of buildings and uses, a phased approach would not be unacceptable in principle.

5.3 The proposed phases relate to separate buildings, described as Blocks A to E on the

approved drawings. These already have a degree of separation in terms of their physical layout and would appear to lend themselves to a phased approach. It is considered that the parking and landscaping could also be broken down into elements relevant to different parts of the site. For example each new block will have certain parking requirements associated with it and would not require the whole car park to be provided to support it in isolation in planning policy terms. Equally landscaping at the eastern end of the site adjacent to Archway Road, would not be considered to have a direct relationship to development at Block A at the western end and as such it would not be essential for it to be provided at the same time.

5.4 Nevertheless, it is considered that particular care is needed to ensure that the

public spaces around the buildings, together with the vital supporting function of the new car parking spaces, are provided at appropriate times, linked to relevant phases of the scheme. Achieving this within a formally phased scheme will depend almost entirely on the correct wording of conditions. Provision for appropriate timing is already secured under the current permission where necessary; the current permission is already phased in that sense. The need for changes to the wording of conditions to ensure consistency with the proposed new phasing plan is addressed below.

94

i. Condition 4 – Details of hard and soft landscaping 5.5 The phased approach would require changes to Condition 4 which currently requires

details of all landscaping to be provided prior to commencement. It is considered that it would be reasonable to allow the details of landscaping to be provided for each phase separately. This is on the basis that the principles of landscaping, including the number, species and size at planting of trees within the site as a whole are shown on drawing RG-L-AI13 Rev 04 – ‘Soft Landscaping’ and Condition 4 would still require the details to be submitted to accord with these approved principles.

5.6 It is considered that the proposed amendment would not materially alter the

landscaping; it would simply allow details for parts of the site to be submitted at a later date. The timing and phasing of landscaping remains subject to the phasing secured under Condition 6, which remains unchanged (see below).

ii. Condition 5 – Landscaping Management Plan 5.7 Allowing the details of how landscaping is to be cared for in the long term to be

submitted for individual phases would accord with the approach in relation to Condition 4 above.

iii. Condition 7 – Details of tree planting along Archway Road

5.8 This condition was imposed to secure specific additional tree planting, not shown on the submitted landscaping plan. Planting in this location is very closely associated with Phase 2c, the decked car park, and there is considered to be no particular requirement for it to be provided before the car park has been constructed, indeed the construction works could conflict with the trees if they were to be planted at an earlier stage.

iv. Condition 9 – External Lighting Scheme 5.9 Condition 9 requires details of external lighting to be submitted for approval prior

to commencement. The reasons given for the condition are the safety of users of the site, to control light pollution, to prevent light spill or glare harming the amenity of neighbouring dwellings, and to enhance the appearance of the site during hours of darkness. It is considered that this lighting could not be reasonably provided before development of the part of the site to which it relates has taken place. On this basis it is considered reasonable to link the provision of lighting to the proposed phasing plan.

v. Condition 10 – Ecological enhancements 5.10 These enhancements would be closely related to the landscaping of the site and as

such it is considered necessary to introduce a phased approach that matches the changes to Condition 4.

95

vi. Condition 11 – Design of north-south pedestrian route 5.11 This element of the proposals is closely linked to the provision of the new car

parking area and associated landscaping within proposed Phase 2c. It is considered reasonable that this should be progressed at the same time as the surrounding car park and changes to the condition are recommended accordingly.

vii. Condition 12 - Details of access control bollards to public square

5.12 There is considered to be little rationale for providing these bollards prior to provision of the public square that they are designed to protect. It is therefore considered reasonable to allow submission of details prior to works commencing within Phase 2d, which includes the square.

viii. Condition 32 – Protection of Holm Oak 5.13 Condition 32 requires a scheme for works to the TPO Holm Oak fronting Church

Street to be submitted prior to any works or development taking place within the site as a whole. The condition was imposed due to the way in which planning permission can override TPO controls in certain cases. In the case of the approved development, this would only be a concern with regard to works relating to Block D (proposed Phase 3) and the redesigned precinct space (proposed Phase 1b), which are directly adjacent to the tree. On this basis is considered reasonable to release the other phases from being bound by this condition on the basis that any works to the tree during these unrelated phases would be protected by TPO legislation.

5.14 CADRA’s concerns relating to the extent of works to the Holm Oak are noted. It is

agreed that less extensive works are likely to be required in relation to the re-landscaping of the precinct (Phase 1b). Any works to reduce the canopy spread over Block D (above the existing café) would be unlikely to be necessary until Phase 3. It is therefore recommended that Condition 32 be amended to allow for phasing, but that the condition should also include a requirement for the scheme to include details of its phased implementation, reflecting the difference in the extent of tree work required in respect of Phase 1b compared to Phase 3. On this basis, it is considered that the health of the TPO Holm Oak would be at no greater risk than under the current permission.

5.15 The wording of the revised conditions is set out in full in the recommendation

section at the head of this report. ix. Other Conditions (not proposed to be altered) 5.16 Other requirements currently secured by condition under 140997/FUL that could

possibly be affected by, or are relevant to, the proposed amendments have also been considered. The applicant has clarified their intentions in respect of these and this has informed the following assessment:

Condition 6 – (Landscaping Phasing Plan) 5.17 This condition requires the submission of a phasing plan for hard and soft

landscaping within the site to be submitted prior to commencement. The applicant

96

has confirmed that they do not propose any amendments to the wording of this condition.

5.18 The LPA therefore retains control over the timing of the provision of landscaping

and this would be made clear for the whole site prior to commencement of any development within the site, i.e. at the initial phase, as per the current requirements.

5.19 Without prejudice to the proper consideration of an application for approval of the

details reserved by Condition 6, it is considered reasonable that, in order to be acceptable, the proposed timing would need to be closely bound up with the buildings and uses adjacent to the landscaped areas. For example there would appear to be little justification for the car park being brought into use, or Blocks C or D (phases 2a, 2b, 2c, or 3) being occupied, without the public square (phase 2d) first having been provided. This matter will need to be examined further once the landscaping phasing plan has been submitted pursuant to Condition 6.

Condition 8 (Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan) 5.20 This condition requires specifications for works within Root Protection Areas and

details of tree protection during construction to be submitted prior to commencement. The applicant does not propose to alter this condition and it is considered that the current wording would not necessarily conflict with the proposed phasing as all existing trees to be protected are readily apparent within the site. Any implications arising from phasing could be addressed within the submitted document.

Condition 13 (Archaeology)

5.21 Condition 13 requires a phased programme of archaeological work in accordance

with a Written Scheme of Investigation prior to commencement. Any matters relating to phasing can reasonably be negotiated and secured as part of the WSI that is to be submitted. It is therefore considered that there is no conflict with the proposed phasing.

Condition 17 (Construction Management Statement) 5.22 The CMS condition, as currently worded, requires details for the whole site to be

submitted prior to commencement. Therefore the CMS will need to include details that reflect the new phasing when is submitted for approval (prior to commencement of the first phase). This is will inevitably require a number of different construction site layouts, reflecting the successive phases around the site. Although the phasing may result in a more complicated CMS document, it is considered that the LPA would retain the same level of control over the construction process as is currently the case under the current permission if the NMA proposal were to be approved.

Conditions 18 and 19 (Car Parking and Cycle Parking Phasing) 5.23 These pre-commencement conditions require the submission of plans for the phased

provision of car and cycle parking respectively. The applicant has confirmed that

97

no amendments to the wording of this condition are proposed. It therefore remains the case that car parking and cycle parking phasing plans would need to be submitted prior to any development taking place within the site as a whole. The LPA would therefore retain the same control over the phasing of parking as currently and would not be constrained by the proposed phasing plan. When details of phasing are submitted, prior to commencement, these would need to demonstrate that sufficient parking is in place to meet the needs of each part of the phased development. For example, the additional parking demand created by Block C (cinema) would suggest that sufficient new parking should be made available, commensurate with the increased demand, prior to this new use commencing.

5.24 Concerns over the provision of the car parking and the decked car park are noted. Considering the limited potential that exists for insisting that a development is completed in its entirety, any requirements imposed by condition are limited to securing parking that meets the predicted demand at each phase. It is not considered appropriate to require these phasing plans to be submitted sooner than is currently required under the planning permission 140997/FUL, i.e. prior to commencement of any development within the site as a whole.

S106 Planning Obligations 5.25 The NMA procedure does not alter the S106 agreement secured under 140997/FUL.

However, as S106 contributions are secured to mitigate the impact of development, it would seem reasonable to link payments to each phase depending on their relative impacts. The applicant has indicated that they intend to apply to vary the agreement to reflect the phased approach, . however this would need to be considered under a formal, detailed, request to vary the S106 agreement, or as part of a future planning application for the site.

Equality 5.26 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, or 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 amendment.

6. CONCLUSION 6.1 The proposed changes do not alter any of the drawings or physical details of the

development approved under 140997/FUL 6.2 As referred to above, there can be no requirement for the development to be

completed in its entirety. The proposed changes therefore do not reduce the likelihood of the development being completed in Planning terms.

6.3 Where existing conditions require certain details or elements of the proposal to be

provided at a certain stage, these requirements would remain in force for the relevant parts of the development, following the proposed changes.

98

6.4 On this basis it is considered that, whilst the proposed changes would result in a

significant amount of change in the wording of the conditions attached to the current permission, the changes relate largely to the process and the order in which the development is carried out, rather than any material change in the nature of the development that has been permitted.

6.5 For these reasons it is considered that the proposals would not materially alter the

development as already approved and the changes are acceptable subject to the altered conditions set out in the recommendation above.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar

99

APPENDIX to 160018/NMA - Previous reports to Planning Applications Committee

UPDATE REPORT: BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 11 February 2015 Ward: Caversham Application No.: 140997 Address: St Martin’s Centre, Church Street, Caversham Proposals: Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works. Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust Date Valid: 24 June 2014 Application target decision date: 11 March 2015 (agreed extension of time) 26 week date: 23 December 2014 RECOMMENDATION Amended Condition 31: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation) (England) Regulations 2012, no works or development shall take place until a scheme for the topping and/or lopping, or any other tree work, of the Holm Oak identified as T3 in the Reading Borough Council Tree Preservation Order 58/13 dated 1st August 2013 and confirmed on 20th December 2013 has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the topping and/or lopping shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme only. Additional Condition 32. No development relating to Blocks B, D or landscaping of the precinct public space shall take place until details of the design of a replacement community noticeboard has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in the location shown on approved drawing PP-MP-02 revision P6. The noticeboard shall be provided in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the development approved for Blocks B, or D, or the landscaped precinct space being brought into use, whichever is the sooner. Additional Condition 33. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a car park management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car park management plan shall include details of measures to enforce the residents parking permit scheme, details of the location of spaces allocated to commercial tenants, and details of measures to secure a turnover of spaces between the hours of 09.00 to 18.00 Monday to Saturday. The car park management plan shall be implemented as approved at all times thereafter. All other recommendations as per the main agenda

100


1.0 Trees 1.1 The matter of tree protection is discussed in detail on Pages 93 and 94 of

the main agenda and also within the previous reports to November Committee which are appended to the main agenda with pages 102-104 and 151-152 being the most relevant. It is considered that the conclusions reached within these reports remain valid in respect of trees.

1.2 Condition 31 (included within the November Update but omitted from the

February main report in error) requires details of the works to the Holm Oak tree to be submitted for approval. It is recommended that the wording be amended slightly to clarify that this condition supersedes any rights to prune the tree to facilitate the development which may otherwise exist under the TPO Regulations. The amended wording is included in the recommendation above.

2.0 Caversham Sign 2.1 A revised site layout drawing has been submitted which shows the

Caversham sign retained in its existing location outside of the application site. It is considered that this suitably avoids potential confusion over the future of this sign.

3.0 Community Noticeboard 3.1 A revised drawing has been submitted showing a replacement community

noticeboard being provided to the rear of Block D, to replace the current board in the precinct area. A condition requiring details of the design of the board to be submitted for approval, together with its subsequent provision is recommended. It is considered that the board is a community facility and its re-provision is in accordance with Policies CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) and CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008.

4.0 Parking 4.1 31 additional representations have been received from from individual

local businesses together with an objection from the Caversham Traders’ Association suggesting that officers have resisted sufficient parking being provided and that this will increase congestion in centre of Caversham, discourage potential customers from travelling to Caversham, and will cause businesses to fail.

4.2 The proposed development requires 312 spaces according to the Council’s

Revised Parking Standards and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2011). 324 spaces are proposed and there is therefore in fact a slight over provision in policy terms.

101


4.3 In accordance with good practice for parking, particularly in town centres and as part of major proposals, officers have worked with the applicant to encourage the shared use of parking where peak times of use are different, for example shops (with peak use during the day) and leisure uses such as cinemas and restaurants (with peak use during the evening and weekends).

4.4 The agreed approach, to be secured through the proposed S106 legal

agreement, whereby residents would be issued with parking permits for the car park as a whole, rather than dedicated spaces, is considered to be a pragmatic means of ensuring that an appropriate level of residential parking is secured, whilst also allowing other car users to make full use of the space available at peak times.

4.5 It remains the opinion of officers that sufficient parking is provided, in

accordance with adopted policy. An additional condition to secure a Car Park Management Plan is recommended, (in addition to the parking permit scheme referred to in the recommendation on page 90 of the main agenda). This would ensure that the car park is managed and parking controls are enforced in the interests of its efficient operation in the long term.

5.0 Conclusion 5.1 It is considered that the application remains acceptable for the reasons set

out in paragraph 4.1 on page 95 of the main agenda, taking into account the assessment contained within the previous reports to Committee, which are appended to the main report for reference.

5.2 The application is recommended for approval in accordance with the

recommendation on pages 90, 91 and 92 of the main agenda, as amended by the recommendation above.

Revised Drawings PP MP 02 Revision P6 – Proposed Consolidated Site Plan and Car Park, dated 5 February 2015 L25 Revision 06 (“revision F”) – Public Realm Sheet, dated 6 February 2015 D_601 Revision P.4 – Block D Retail & Resi Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 Case Officer: Steve Vigar

102


Revised Consolidated Site Plan and Car Park PP-MP 02 Revision P6

103


Revised public realm proposals L25 Revision 06 (also referred to as Revision F)

104


Revised proposed west elevation of Block D - D_601 Revision P.4

105


COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 11 February 2015 Ward: Caversham Application No.: 140997 Address: St Martin’s Centre, Church Street, Caversham Proposals: Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works. Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust Date Valid: 24 June 2014 Application target decision date: 11 March 2015 (agreed extension of time) 26 week date: 23 December 2014

106


RECOMMENDATION Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement to secure: i) The sum of £430,048 to be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to commencement of development ii) The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iii) The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iv) An Employment Skills and Training Plan for construction and end user phases - in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing. v) A pedestrian route between the new public square and Church Street, to be provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vi) Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vii) Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity. or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 11 March 2015 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement or submission of amendments). And the following conditions to include: 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. In accordance with approved drawings 3. External materials in accordance with approved drawings and submitted sample panel. Block A and C façade construction in accordance with drawing PP-MP-11 Revision –P1. Block B, D and E façade construction in accordance with details to be submitted for approval prior to commencement. 4. Hard and soft landscaping details, including wildlife planting and all trees shown on submitted landscaping and site layout plans, detailed specification of green wall to car park, Tree pit and root barrier details, details of all services, existing and proposed,

107


details of water permeable surfacing.

5. Landscaping maintenance – including watering regime, aftercare

6. Landscaping in accordance with landscaping phasing plan to be submitted prior to commencement. 7. Details of proposed tree planting along Archway Road, with associated tree pit and root barrier specification in consultation with Thames Water prior to commencement – implementation in first planting season after first use of car park – unless otherwise agreed in writing by LPA. 8.Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement for tree works prior to commencement 9. Lighting scheme for all public areas prior to commencement – safety for users of the site, control of light pollution, and to enhance the appearance of the buildings and spaces. 10. Ecological enhancements – bat and bird boxes details prior to commencement. 11. Detailed design of north-south pedestrian route to be submitted prior to commencement – (highway safety and landscaping) 12. Details of access control bollards to public square prior to commencement. 13. Archaeological works in accordance with written scheme of investigation submitted prior to commencement. 14. Details of mechanical ventilation for all new dwellings adjoining Church Street prior to commencement - intake to be at roof level or at rear (air quality). 15. Air quality management travel plan – submitted for approval prior to commencement. 16. Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure submitted to, for approval (in consultation with Thames Water) prior to commencement. 17. Construction Management Statement – prior to commencement 18. Provision of vehicle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation of new floorspace/dwellings. 19. Provision of cycle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation of new floorspace. 20. BREEAM – Very good with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each Block, prior to occupation of new build elements of that block 21. Code for Sustainable Homes – Level 3 with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each new dwelling, prior to occupation of that dwelling. 22. Evidence of compliance with Lifetime Homes Standard to be submitted for each new dwelling prior to occupation,. 23. Noise mitigation for flats to be provided in accordance with submitted noise assessment – prior to occupation of flats within each Block - (amenity of future occupiers).

108


24. Hours of Construction. 25. Floor levels of Block A (flooding) 26. Times of Deliveries to Block D service yard and vehicle movement within public space/square to south of Block D - no deliveries or other associated vehicle movements between the hours of 0900 and 1700 (conflict with pedestrians) 27. Times of Deliveries – no deliveries to Blocks A, B and C between the hours of 2000 and 0800 (noise and disturbance) 28. Second Floor, Block C – cinema use only – no other uses within Class D2. 29. External restaurant seating associated with A3 uses not to be used outside of the hours of 08:00 – 23:00. No amplified music. 30. Externally located or externally vented plant - BS4142 Noise assessment to be submitted for approval prior to provision. Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. Holm Oak – long term retention 3. A Thames Water main crosses the development site. Thames Water easements and way leaves run through the north west of the proposed development. 4. Environmental Protection advice 5. Highways licences. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This application was considered by Planning Applications Committee on 12

November 2014. 1.2 The November Planning Applications Committee report and Update Report are

appended to this report and set out the reasoning behind the recommendation in full, subject to the additional assessment within this report.

1.3 The application was recommended for approval subject to receipt of an

acceptable proposal for the provision of Affordable Housing and subject to receipt of suitable pruning specifications for the retained Holm Oak. Negotiations regarding Affordable Housing and other Section 106 contributions were unresolved at the time of November Committee. Tree pruning and protection details were submitted to the satisfaction of Officers and reported to Committee in an Update report.

1.4 Members discussed the application and heard the concerns of the Caversham and

District Residents’ Association (CADRA) at the meeting. These focused on: • the effect of the proposed pruning on the health of the Holm Oak tree; • the proximity of the building resulting in future pressure to remove the

tree; and • the design and scale of Blocks A and D.

109


1.5 The application was deferred to allow further time for negotiations on the provision of Affordable Housing and to allow further consideration of concerns raised by Members at the meeting regarding future pressure on the Holm Oak tree and also the location and design of Blocks A and D. Members advised the applicant to meet with representatives of CADRA to discuss their concerns.

1.6 Members also requested one or more 3D Computer Generated Images showing the

proposal from the eastern end of Church Street looking westwards and showing the relationship between the proposed scheme and the library.

2. Revised Proposals 2.1 The proposals for Block D have been revised to show the living areas within Flat

numbers 2 and 10 on the first and second floors being moved more centrally so that the outlook is more to the street rather than into the main body of the Holm Oak tree canopy. The spaces vacated by the living areas are replaced with bedrooms, which have a lesser need for a clear outlook and thus less likely to result in future pressure to remove the tree.

2.2 The applicant has stated that less flexibility exists within Flats 1 and 9 of Block D,

which also face onto the Holm Oak, as the internal corridor arrangement does not allow sufficient room for the lounge and kitchen to fit within the space currently occupied by a bedroom. The proposals have been amended to include two additional windows within the west elevation of Block D to serve the living rooms of Flats 1 and 9, with the aim of relieving the effects of the tree on daylight and outlook to these rooms.

2.3 CADRA had suggested that the applicant should consider setting the upper floors

of Block D back away from the tree. The applicant has responded stating that their engineers have advised that this is unviable from a structural perspective as it would require significant physical alterations to the internal parts of the building, which would disrupt the occupiers of the ground floor unit who are to remain during the development.

2.4 Members and CADRA requested alterations to Block A to improve the way it

responds to the local architectural characteristics of Caversham. The applicant has responded that they are confident that the scheme design and proposed materials will achieve a high quality development and do not propose further changes to Block A.

2.5 The streetscene drawing PP-MP-04 Revision P3 was found to show the Holm Oak

inaccurately plotted in relation to the surrounding buildings. This has been resubmitted as Revision P4, with the tree represented accurately.

2.6 A CGI image of the proposed development looking west along Church Street has

been submitted and is appended to this report. 3. Appraisal i) Trees 3.1 It is considered that the revisions to the layout of Flats 2 and 10 would improve

the relationship to the Holm Oak tree by reducing the extent to which the living

110


room windows are obscured by foliage. It is considered to be a reasonable assumption that future occupiers would be less concerned over the outlook from bedroom windows than from main living rooms.

3.2 The proposed additional windows for Flats 1 and 9 will also increase the amount

of daylight received by the living area and improve the outlook as these would face away from the tree.

3.3 It is considered that these amendments strengthen the ability of the Council to

resist pressure from future occupiers of the flats to prune or fell the Holm Oak by reducing the relative importance of windows closest the tree in terms of daylighting and outlook.

3.4 The applicant has not agreed to set back the upper floors of Block A as requested

by CADRA and has sought to justify this on the basis that it would require overly invasive changes to the internal structure of the existing building, and interfere with the operation, and potentially the layout, of the ground floor commercial unit.

ii) Design 3.5 The external design of the proposals has not changed fundamentally, other than

the new windows referred to above. Officers presented a recommendation to November Committee to approve the scheme as it currently stands, based on the overall merits of the proposal. Although the reluctance of the applicant to make further changes is regrettable, there have been no material changes since the last Committee meeting to suggest that a different recommendation should now be made.

iii) Affordable Housing 3.6 The applicant proposes that, while an agreement will be entered into to provide

the full infrastructure requirements contributing £588,000 towards transport, education and open space needs in the area, the development will provide nil Affordable Housing.

3.7 The reason given for this is the need to modernise and regenerate the Centre and

high development costs associated with the scheme, including the decked car park and large areas of public space, compared to the relatively small increase in the value of the scheme.

3.8 The Council’s Valuer and independently appointed property consultant has

concluded a detailed examination of the submitted viability evidence in terms of both a short and long term return and accepts that the provision of Affordable Housing in accordance with policy would make the scheme financially unviable and unlikely to proceed.

3.9 Revised Policy CS16 states that “In all cases where proposals fall short of the

policy target as a result of viability considerations, an open-book approach will be taken and the onus will be on the developer/landowner to clearly demonstrate the circumstances justifying a lower affordable housing contribution.”

111


3.10 In this instance it is considered that the scheme would be unlikely to proceed should affordable housing be sought, due to the particular circumstances of the site and the particular costs associated with its modernisation and regeneration, including improving the car park and public realm areas.

3.11 The report to November Committee concluded that, whilst the scheme did not

address all officer concerns, as a whole the proposal offers an improvement to the site compared to the existing centre. Given the regeneration benefits (albeit imperfect) of the scheme, it is considered that the importance of it proceeding should outweigh the harm arising from a lack of Affordable Housing and the greater harm that would arise from the scheme not proceeding.

iv) Additional Comments Received 3.12 3 additional representations have been received since 12 November which raise

concerns over the proposed chain store occupiers, including Pizza Express. Concerns also relate to the design of the scheme which, it is suggested, is out of character. One letter suggested that the scheme would bring investment to the area and is needed.

3.13 It is considered that these issues are addressed in the November Committee

report. Whilst the applicant has shown a chain operator occupying the lower floors of Block A, there is no reason in Planning terms why this could not be occupied by an independent or locally-owned business.

4. Conclusion 4.1 Following an extended period of consultation with Members, CADRA and officers,

the proposals have changed very little. Despite the unwillingness of the applicant to amend their proposals significantly, it remains the view of officers that, whilst the proposals do not address all the concerns raised by Members, officers or local residents, the proposed development taken as a whole offers an improvement to the site, compared to the existing centre, and would not conflict with development plan policy to a harmful extent. On balance and taking into account the benefits of the scheme, the application is recommended for approval.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar Revised Drawings: PP-MP-04 Rev. P4 Proposed Streetscape Elevations D502 Rev. P4 Proposed First Floor Plan D503 Rev. P4 Proposed Second Floor Plan

112


Revised streetscene drawing – as proposed

113


Block D – Amended first floor as proposed.

114


Block D – Amended second floor as proposed

115


Block D – Amended elevations as proposed

116


Computer-generated Image of proposal looking west along Church St.

117

Appendix 1 - Update Report to Planning Applications Committee 12 November 2014

UPDATE REPORT: BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014 Ward: Caversham Application No.: 140997 Address: St Martin’s Centre, Church Street, Caversham Proposals: Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works. Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust Date Valid: 24 June 2014 Application target decision date: 23 September 2014 26 week date: 23 December 2014 AMENDED RECOMMENDATION: Subject to receipt of an acceptable proposal for the provision of Affordable Housing, delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement as set out in the main agenda. Amended condition 4: Hard and soft landscaping details to include:

i) Tree to replace trees 3011 and 3012 (tree survey numbering) fronting Church Street to west side of Block A.

ii) Additional tree fronting Church Street as mitigation for works to Holm Oak (tree T3 of TPO 58/13).

iii) All other new and retained trees shown on submitted landscaping drawings

iv) Wildlife planting

v) Detailed specification of green wall to car park,

vi) Tree pit and root barrier details,

vii) Details of all services, existing and proposed,

viii) Details of water permeable surfacing.

118


Additional condition 31: No works or development shall take place until a scheme for the topping and/or lopping, or any other tree work, of the Holm Oak identified as T3 in the Reading Borough Council Tree Preservation Order 58/13 dated 1st August 2013 and confirmed on 20th December 2013 has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the topping and/or lopping shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved scheme. Informative: All proposed works to the trees which are subject to the Reading Borough Council Tree Preservation Order 58/13 other than those authorised by Condition 31 above will require express written consent by the Local Planning Authority under Article 3 of the said Tree Preservation Order. All other parts of the recommendation on pages 64 to 66 of the main agenda remain unchanged. 1.0 Affordable Housing / Viability 1.1 The recommendation on Page 64 of the main agenda is subject to receipt of an

acceptable proposal for the provision of Affordable Housing. Officers are not in receipt of such a proposal and negotiations are ongoing with the applicant. Officers advise that the application would need to be brought back to a future committee if this issue is to be resolved. The applicant has also requested that the application be deferred to allow for this.

1.2 The current situation is that the Applicant has submitted a viability report

demonstrating that, due to the current value of the Precinct and the associated abnormal costs of the proposed enhancement infrastructure and structural works, it was not possible to deliver the full set of S106 contributions and the affordable housing requirement.

1.3 The Applicant advises that they are willing to progress the proposed scheme which

would not be delivered in the open market due a lack of profit because it is in the unique position of being able to take a longer term view on viability risk and benefits.

1.4 Discussions with the Council’s Valuer are ongoing in relation to the detail and

principles of the scheme viability and either an appropriate upfront S106 and affordable housing contribution, or a combination of a reduced contribution and a suitably constructed deferred payment mechanism linked to the profitability of the proposed development.

1.5 Officers have continued to address the other outstanding issues relating to the

application as set out below. 2.0 Effect on Existing Holm Oak Tree 2.1 The recommendation on page 64 of the main agenda is subject to receipt of

suitable pruning specifications for the retained Holm Oak. 2.2 The applicant has submitted further written details of the works that they

consider are necessary to allow the development to be implemented and to allow

119


removal of the existing two horse chestnuts (adjacent to the Holm Oak), as already approved under TPO regulations.

2.3 The applicant’s tree consultant states that the precise extent of the crown

reduction should be specified at the same time as its implementation, to ensure the most current assessment of the tree’s condition. However as a guide they suggest that this is likely to result in a height reduction of around 4 to 5 metres. In addition and in order to achieve a clearance of up to 2.5 metres for construction scaffolding, a horizontal reduction over a range of between 3.6 metres to 4.9 metres would be required (the crown of the tree overhangs the existing building by up to 2.4m).

2.4 The applicant’s tree consultant has plotted this on a diagram which is appended

to this report at appendix 1. 2.5 The applicant’s tree consultant states that the effect of the pruning on the

long-term health of the tree is not possible to predict, however, as the tree is currently healthy and of a species known to be highly tolerant of pruning, there is no inherent reason why its long-term health should be adversely affected.

2.6 The applicant’s tree consultant expects that the amenity value would reduce, due

to the necessary reduction in size, but that it would retain a substantial presence in the streetscape.

2.7 It is clear from the submitted details that a significant amount of pruning would

be necessary just to accommodate the new buildings. The diagram (appendix 1) shows an unusually shaped canopy and this change would be clearly visible from the street (the streetscene drawings submitted are somewhat misleading in this regard). The existing height of the tree is 16 metres, according to the tree survey. The suggested reduction to 11 metres would be considerable. This combined with the reduction to the crown spread would result in a much smaller tree, the top of which would be broadly level with the top of the proposed second floor of Block D.

2.8 It is apparent that the effect on the long-term health of the tree is not possible to

predict with absolute accuracy at this stage. The tree as a living organism may respond well to the works, or the extent of works may ultimately result in the tree going into decline.

2.9 The applicant, on the advice of officers, has submitted a revised landscaping

drawing (see appendix 2) to show a fourth Tulip tree within the precinct space and close to Church Street and the Holm Oak. The tree (as with the other three proposed Tulip trees) is proposed to be ‘super semi-mature’ at planting, with a height of 7 or more metres and a trunk girth of 55-60 centimetres. It is considered that this is a prudent response to the possibility (however slight) of the Holm Oak declining as a result of works. The Tulip, together with the Holm Oak, would make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the street. If the Holm Oak were to decline, and this is not certain, it is considered that the Tulip would prevent significant harm occurring to the visual amenity of the area by maintaining the visual presence of trees in the street. The planting of a further tree as a suitable replacement for the Holm Oak could still be secured under TPO legislation if its removal was agreed under the TPO in the future.

2.10 With reference to paragraphs 6.61 and 6.62 of the main report, it is considered

that the Holm Oak exists in a far from ideal situation due to the existing buildings

120


being built very close to the tree without due regard to its future growth. The general pruning details submitted show a much reduced tree but one which would still be worthy of retention with a reasonable degree of amenity value. It is considered that whilst a degree of uncertainty must remain regarding the long term health of the Holm Oak, this can be balanced against the sub-optimal growing environment of the existing tree; the proposed additional large tulip tree; the possibility for further replacement planting if the Holm Oak were to decline; and to some extent the wider benefits of the scheme as a whole where these are identified in the main report.

2.11 Further conditions are recommended (set out in the amended recommendation

above) to control the precise works required to the Holm Oak to ensure that they are strictly necessary to allow the development to be implemented. The landscaping condition (4) is amended to include the additional tulip tree fronting the road. An informative is recommended clarifying that any works to TPO trees that are not strictly necessary to implement the permission remain under the control of the TPO regulations.

3.0 Tree Planting 3.1 Paragraph 6.64 of the main report states that the proposals had been revised to

show two existing street trees adjacent to Block A and one adjacent to Block E as being retained. The applicant subsequently advised that, due to a conflict with the proposed canopy of Block A, it was intended to remove the two trees adjacent to Block A. Officers advised that this would only be acceptable if a replacement tree of ultimately large size were to be provided in the space to the north west corner of Block A. The applicant has responded by proposing a semi-mature Silver Lime tree (5.5 to 6 metres high at planting). It is considered that this would provide suitable visual mitigation for the trees to be removed and would enhance the visual amenity of this part of the site. Caversham Globe have written since the publication of the main report raising concerns over the choice of Silver Lime as they have a toxic effect on bees. Whilst this is more usually a concern in rural areas, the proposed landscaping condition allows for further discussion over the precise variety of tree and the question of bees can be explored more fully as part of the conditions discharge process.

3.2 A new Silver Lime is also proposed to the southern boundary to the rear of Block B

as a replacement for a Beech which has died. Again, the landscaping condition would allow determination of the precise variety of tree.

3.3 One of pair of existing Dawn Redwoods which is shown as requiring removal is now

proposed to be re-located to the rear of Block E adjacent to the rear entrance of the supermarket.

3.4 Objections have been received citing a lack of tree planting to the street

frontage. Whilst there may be further opportunity for planting, the current proposals are considered to provide adequate tree planting to soften the frontage.

3.5 Overall, it is considered that the amount and layout of proposed tree planting is

acceptable and necessary in order to integrate the development into the wider area; soften the effect of the new buildings; and to mitigate the effects of the necessary pruning to the Holm Oak (T3 of TPO 58/13) and the removal of existing trees within the site. The landscaping condition is amended to take this into account, in accordance with Policies CS7, CS38 and DM18.

121


3.6 The applicant has submitted revised landscaping, public realm and tree retention

plans to reflect the changes referred to above. 4.0 Additional Representations. 4.1 15 additional objections and 2 additional comments have been received since the

publication of the main agenda. 4.2 For the most part these do not raise any new issues not already addressed in the

main report. 4.3 The main new issue (in addition to comments relating to trees referred to above)

is a concern over the lack of windows to the second bedrooms of 2 two-bedroom units in Block D.

4.4 Officer Comment: The lack of windows is a concern and has been raised with the applicant. The applicant has submitted revised drawings today (12/11/14) which show the layout of Flats 3 and 11 on the first and second floors of Block D amended, moving the second bedroom to an outside wall, thereby allowing a suitable window to be provided. It is considered that this is sufficient to address the amenity concerns.

5.0 Amended drawings 5.1 Amended drawings have been submitted as follows. The drawings have been

amended to reflect the additional tree planting referred to above:

PP-MP-03 Rev.P3 – Long sections through site PP-MP-04 Rev.P4 – Proposed Street Elevations L25 Rev.05 – Landscaping Public Realm drawing RG-L-AI13 Rev.04 – Soft Landscaping drawing 30-1018.01-D – Tree retention plan D502 Rev.P3 – Block D First Floor Plan D503 Rev.P3 – Block D Second Floor Plan

5.2 The drawings are attached to this report at Appendix 2. Case Officer: Steve Vigar

122


APPENDIX 1: Predicted pruning requirements for Holm Oak.

123


Appendix 2 – Revised Drawings

Proposed soft landscaping

124


Proposed public realm

125


Tree retention plan

126


Proposed long sections through site

127


Proposed long elevations to Church Street and rear of centre

128


Revised first floor Block D

129


Revised Second Floor Block D

130

APPENDIX to 160018/NMA – Previous reports to Planning Applications Committee (140997/FUL)

• COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 12 November 2014 Ward: Caversham Application No.: 140997 Address: St Martin’s Centre, Church Street, Caversham Proposals: Erection of new and extended retail (use class A1) floorspace, new restaurant (use class A3), new leisure (use class D2) floorspace, residential apartments (use class C3), car park works (including erection of a single storey deck and reconfiguration at ground level) and associated landscaping, surfacing, public realm and shopfront improvement works. Applicant: Hermes Property Unit Trust Date Valid: 24 June 2014 Application target decision date: 23 September 2014 26 week date: 23 December 2014

131


RECOMMENDATION Subject to receipt of an acceptable proposal for the provision of Affordable Housing and subject to receipt of suitable pruning specifications for the retained Holm Oak, delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement to secure: i) Affordable Housing (details to be agreed). ii) The sum of £430,048 to be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to commencement of development iii) The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iv) The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. v) An Employment Skills and Training Plan for construction and end user phases - in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing. vi) A pedestrian route between the new public square and Church Street, to be provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vii) Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. viii) Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity. or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 12 December 2014 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement or submission of amendments). And the following conditions to include: 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. In accordance with approved drawings

132


3. External materials in accordance with approved drawings and submitted sample panel. Block A and C façade construction in accordance with drawing PP-MP-11 Revision –P1. Block B, D and E façade construction in accordance with details to be submitted for approval prior to commencement. 4. Hard and soft landscaping details, including wildlife planting and all trees shown on submitted landscaping and site layout plans, detailed specification of green wall to car park, Tree pit and root barrier details, details of all services, existing and proposed, details of water permeable surfacing.

5. Landscaping maintenance – including watering regime, aftercare

6. Landscaping in accordance with landscaping phasing plan to be submitted prior to commencement. 7. Details of proposed tree planting along Archway Road, with associated tree pit and root barrier specification in consultation with Thames Water prior to commencement – implementation in first planting season after first use of car park – unless otherwise agreed in writing by LPA. 8.Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement for tree works prior to commencement 9. Lighting scheme for all public areas prior to commencement – safety for users of the site, control of light pollution, and to enhance the appearance of the buildings and spaces. 10. Ecological enhancements – bat and bird boxes details prior to commencement. 11. Detailed design of north-south pedestrian route to be submitted prior to commencement – (highway safety and landscaping) 12. Details of access control bollards to public square prior to commencement. 13. Archaeological works in accordance with written scheme of investigation submitted prior to commencement. 14. Details of mechanical ventilation for all new dwellings adjoining Church Street prior to commencement - intake to be at roof level or at rear (air quality). 15. Air quality management travel plan – submitted for approval prior to commencement. 16. Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure submitted to, for approval (in consultation with Thames Water) prior to commencement. 17. Construction Management Statement – prior to commencement 18. Provision of vehicle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation of new floorspace/dwellings.

133


19. Provision of cycle parking spaces in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation of new floorspace. 20. BREEAM – Very good with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each Block, prior to occupation of new build elements of that block 21. Code for Sustainable Homes – Level 3 with a minimum score of 62.5 points – Final certificate to be submitted for each new dwelling, prior to occupation of that dwelling. 22. Evidence of compliance with Lifetime Homes Standard to be submitted for each new dwelling prior to occupation,. 23. Noise mitigation for flats to be provided in accordance with submitted noise assessment – prior to occupation of flats within each Block - (amenity of future occupiers). 24. Hours of Construction. 25. Floor levels of Block A (flooding) 26. Times of Deliveries to Block D service yard and vehicle movement within public space/square to south of Block D - no deliveries or other associated vehicle movements between the hours of 0900 and 1700 (conflict with pedestrians) 27. Times of Deliveries – no deliveries to Blocks A, B and C between the hours of 2000 and 0800 (noise and disturbance) 28. Second Floor, Block C – cinema use only – no other uses within Class D2. 29. External restaurant seating associated with A3 uses not to be used outside of the hours of 08:00 – 23:00. No amplified music. 30. Externally located or externally vented plant - BS4142 Noise assessment to be submitted for approval prior to provision. Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. Holm Oak – long term retention 3. A Thames Water main crosses the development site. Thames Water easements and way leaves run through the north west of the proposed development. 4. Environmental Protection advice 5. Highways licences.

134


1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site fronts onto the south side of Church Street, the main commercial

street in Caversham and is bounded by Archway Road to the east and Abbotsmead Place to the south. The site adjoins blocks of flats in Abbotsmead Place. A national cycle route runs to the west side of the site, separating it from a telephone exchange.

1.2 The site was developed as a retail centre, predominantly in the 1960s,

with more recent 1980s buildings to the north eastern corner housing a supermarket. The ground floor units are predominantly in retail use and form a continuous frontage to Church Street, with the exception of a recessed precinct space which continues the retail frontage away from the street to form a public square. The southern end of the precinct is formed by a two storey building, also occupied by a supermarket.

1.3 Upper floor uses include 10 flats above the westernmost block with

offices and a gym above the supermarket at the eastern end of the site. Elsewhere the upper floors are used as ancillary space serving the commercial units below.

1.4 A large expanse of car park serving the centre exists to the south of the

retail units, together with ancillary facilities such as public toilets and a bottle bank. This is accessed via Archway Road.

1.5 Pedestrian access to the site from Church Street is via the main precinct

space and also a narrow passageway that separates the 1980s supermarket building from the central 1960s built block. There is no formal provision for pedestrians across the car park from Archway Road or Abbotsmead Place.

1.6 The site forms part of the setting of a number of listed buildings, most

notably Caversham Library at the corner of Church Street and Hemdean Road and Caversham Baptist Free Church at the junction of Prospect Street, South Street, Gosbrook Road and Church Street. Listed buildings that are more peripheral to the site include those fronting the junction of Bridge Street and Church Street and West Memorial Hall on Gosbrook Road. The St Peter’s Conservation Area is approximately 100 metres to the west of the site at its closest point.

1.7 The site is subject to TPO 134/01 and TPO 58/13. The protected trees

include 5 Horse Chestnut within the precinct area and a Holm Oak also within the precinct and adjacent to Church Street. These trees have been subject to a TPO since 1966 prior to the construction of St Martins Precinct and were subsequently incorporated into the precinct.

1.8 The 2013 TPO was made to ensure protection of the 2 new Dawn Redwood

which were planted as replacements for felled Sycamore trees at the rear

135


of the buildings and to protect an existing Lime tree sited towards the south west corner of the site.

1.9 Lime and Ash trees close to the south west boundary of the site are also

protected by TPO 125/07. These are outside the site within the grounds of adjacent flats.

1.10 The site is mainly within Flood Zone 1 (at the lowest risk of flooding) with

the southern part of the site (occupied by the existing car park) and a small area at the north western corner of the site falling within Flood Zone 2 (medium risk).

Site Location Plan (not to scale)

Kings Road

136


Site photograph 2. PROPOSALS 2.1 Full Planning Permission is sought for a remodelling of the existing centre

and the erection of a new five storey block on vacant land to the western edge of the site. A new car park arrangement is proposed to the rear to include a decked car park with a single upper level supported on a metal framework which is proposed to be screened by a climbing plant system. A new public square is proposed at the rear of the precinct.

2.2 The new block at the western edge is proposed to contain a restaurant use

at ground floor with 17 flats on the four upper floors. This is referred to as Block A throughout the application documentation. This block has been the subject of revisions in response to officer comments on the design. These include amendments to the design of windows and an increase in the proportion of brick cladding relative to zinc cladding.

2.3 The block of existing shops and flats to the east of Block A is referred to

as Block B and is proposed to remain largely unaltered where it fronts Church Street. The block continues at a right angle to the street and forms the western edge of the precinct. This part of the block is proposed to accommodate an additional floor of residential accommodation comprising 4 flats. The design of this block has also been revised with the

137


introduction of brick clad vertical elements, and a re-ordering and amended design for the windows.

2.4 The existing building at the southern end of the precinct ‘Block C’ is set

back from Church Street and is proposed to be extended with a third storey and a new stairwell arrangement to the east side. The ground floor is proposed to remain as a retail unit with the first floor changing to a restaurant use from storage associated with the retail unit. The new second floor is proposed to house a D2 use, described as a cinema in the application submission. The design has been revised during the application process in response to officer comments.

2.5 The existing building that forms the eastern side of the precinct and

extends along Church Street is referred to as Block D by the applicant. It is proposed to extend the building upwards by two storeys to form a four storey building containing 19 flats.

2.6 Overall 40 new dwellings are proposed, comprising 22 two-bed and 18 one-

bed flats. 10 existing one-bed flats are proposed to remain. 3. PLANNING HISTORY

1960’s Centre permission – record not available.

80/TP1197 – supermarket squash courts offices, 3 maisonettes – approved.

Numerous small advertisement and shopfront applications are listed in the submitted planning statement but have little bearing on the current application.

131711/PREAPP - Proposed Redevelopment of St Martin's Centre. Meetings held but pre-app not concluded prior to application being submitted.

140802/SCR – Request for a Screening Opinion on the need for the submission of an Environmental Statement for Full Planning Permission relating to the regeneration of St Martin's Precinct, Caversham as described in the submitted statement. Decision: Environmental Statement not required.

4. CONSULTATIONS

RBC Transport Development Control 4.1 Analysis of the highway network has been undertaken by using the TRICS

database and from surveys of other Waitrose supermarkets which have been enlarged.

138


4.2 The proposals will result in an increase of 40 flats, a modest increase to the Waitrose supermarket, a refurbishment of the centre which will increase the A3 element together with the addition of a boutique cinema. These additional elements will result in additional trips on the network and the Transport Assessment (TA) has calculated the additional trips all as primary trips, and has assumed that none will be linked. For example a new trip to the enlarged retail units will not come from an existing trip to the gym within the centre. The TA also assumes that all the trips are new to the network and none are existing trips on the network which have just diverted to the centre as part of another trip, which is often the case for trips to such centres during peak times. This again is a robust assessment using the worst case scenario. Based on this scenario the development would be likely to result in an increase of 1358 two way movements in and out of the car park during a weekday (over a 24 hour period) with 23 additional movements in the am peak and 105 additional movements in the PM peak. At weekends there would be a daily increase of 788 two-way movements with 97 during the peak period during the weekends of 12.30pm to 13.30pm.

4.3 These trips have been assigned on to the network based on traffic counts

undertaken around the site and Central Caversham. Following this assignment and in agreement with Transport Officers the following junctions were assessed for the morning and evening peak periods as well as the peak period at the weekend in accordance with Department for Transport guidance.

1) Archway / Gosbrook Road / Prospect Street / Church Street, double mini

roundabout 2) Henley Road / Peppard Road / Prospect Street / Westfield Road , Traffic

Signals 3) Gosbrook Road / Westfield Road junction 4) Church Street / Bridge Street / St Peters Hill signalised junction

4.4 The assessment also took in to account background growth and committed

developments within the vicinity of the site. The analysis showed that on completion there would be minimal increases in delays at junctions 2,3, and 4 above with queue lengths on average increasing by 3 to 4 Passenger Car Units (PCU). These are not material and produce negligible increases in queue lengths.

4.5 The analysis of the junction 1, the double mini roundabout at the site

entrance did show increases in queue lengths over 10 vehicles. This however does not correspond with the analysis of all the junctions above which have to be passed through to reach this junction. Site visits since the double mini roundabout was completed in the summer do not indicate operational issues and the main reason for this junction showing greater queue length increases is due to the limitations of the TRL Computer Program ARCADY used to assess roundabouts. The program is designed for normal roundabouts and can be used for single mini roundabouts, however with a double mini roundabout and the close proximity of both roundabouts the program has difficulty in separating all the possible

139


movements. Given this and the results from above, Transport Officers accept that the proposals will not have a detrimental effect on the highway network.

Car Parking and Servicing.

4.6 Currently car park access is from Archway Road and servicing is to and

from Abbotsmead Place (apart from the service area for Waitrose which is from Archway). As a result of the proposals Waitrose’s servicing area does not change. The proposed servicing changes previously proposed which included an egress on to Church Street have been removed and this is welcomed by Transport. The new arrangements are very similar to current arrangements with access from Abbotsmead Place. A servicing yard with adequate turning for articulated vehices is provided for blocks B and C and a new service area will also be provided behind block D

4.7 The service yard for block D remains the same but the parking area

altered to enable large vehicles to enter the service yard. However for these vehicles to turn round they will have to utilise the public realm area, which during the day when there are large volumes of people present, will be detrimental to pedestrian safety. There are other shopping areas where this practice occurs although restrictions are in place to prevent vehicles coming in conflict with pedestrians. To ensure that the public using the public realm are not in conflict with vehicles a condition is recommended to prevent servicing of block D between the hours of 9am and 5pm.

4.8 Currently there are 254 parking spaces on the site which is an

overprovision when compared to the parking required for uses in Zone 2 as detailed within the Parking SPD. From the information in the planning statement with regards the various uses the existing parking provision should be as follows.

A1 (Food) 2680m2 @ 1 parking space per 40m2 = 67 spaces A1 (non-food) 1297m2 @ 1 parking space per 40m2 = 32 spaces A3 Coffee House / Cafes etc. 283m2 @ 1 parking space per 7.5m2 = 37 spaces D1 Opticians @ 1.5 spaces per consulting room = 3 spaces D2 Gym 1201m2 @ 1 space per 35m2 = 34 spaces 16 flats @ 1 space per flat = 16 spaces

4.9 Total required = 189 spaces resulting in the car park having an over

provision of 65 spaces. 4.10 The additional parking requirement from the extended development is as

follows.

40 additional flats @ 1 space per flat = 40 spaces A1 (Food) 500m2 of additional space @ 1 space per 40m2 = 13 spaces A3 restaurants 524m2 @ 1 space per 7.5m2 = 70 spaces.

140


Total additional spaces required = 123 spaces 4.11 The proposed parking provision on the site is 324 spaces. Following

negotiation with officers the applicant has agreed to a permit scheme securing 40 permits, one per new flat, to allow unrestricted parking for future occupiers anywhere in the new car park. This approach is accepted by Transport DC on the basis that a parking provision below 1 space per each of the new 40 residential dwellings would not be acceptable due to existing pressure on parking in surrounding roads. If all 40 permits were in active use this would leave 284 spaces remaining for retail uses. This is still an over provision of 28 spaces for the retail uses. The applicant claims that 21 spaces need to be used for tenants of the shops and this should be discounted from the retail parking provision thereby reducing the retail parking element to 263 spaces. Even if this is taken in to consideration, when the SPD’s provision for retail parking takes in to account parking for staff there is still an over provision of 7 spaces for the retail parking against the SPD’s requirement of 256 spaces.

4.12 As previously stated, the parking standard for residential dwellings is a

‘required standard’ and takes in to account the accessibility of the site and the levels of car ownership predicted.

4.13 This is especially the case for origin destinations such as a residential

developments and the latest evidence clearly shows that a reduction in residential parking does not result in reduced car ownership but leads to various parking issues. The latest research document published in February 2014 by central government “Space to park” recommends 1 space per 1 or 2 bed dwelling, 2 spaces per 3 or 4 bed dwelling with at least a 20% provision for visitor parking on street. It is the government’s intention that this guidance should be followed.

Pedestrian and Cycle Provision 4.14 Currently the site has no formal cycling parking provision with cyclists

having to secure their bikes to street furniture. These proposals provide 48 cycle parking spaces which is in excess of 35 cycle parking spaces required according to the SPD. 12 spaces will be provided at the Waitrose Entrance, 12 spaces on Archway, 12 spaces in close proximity to the RBC ReadiBike cycle hire station and 12 spaces in a secure environment on the ground floor of the car park. Given the lack of cycle parking provision at present this proposed provision is considered acceptable.

4.15 The TA and Planning statement refer to the new footbridge and claims

that a pedestrian / cycle route linking the centre to Abbotsmead Place and the bridge will be created. The route is approximately 3 metres wide and goes through the car park and while not ideal given the confines of the site this is the only realistic route. However this route will need to be treated in such a way that it is clear to car drivers that this is a pedestrian

141


cycle route and therefore will need to be raised as it crosses the car park, so vehicles slow down when crossing it. This can be covered by condition.

4.16 The existing National Cycle Route 5 passes to the west of the site before

linking with the towpath adjacent to the Thames. Given the location of the RBC cycle hire docking station on this route and the provision of a new Toucan Crossing on Church Street where the route meets it, there is no advantage in diverting this route through the Precinct given that there is likely to be conflict between cyclists and pedestrians within the confines of the busy shopping area.

Section 106 Contribution 4.17 In accordance with Section 5 (Transport) of the Council’s Supplementary

Planning Document on planning obligations, November 2013, developments will be expected to contribute to wider and strategic transport improvements in relation to roads, public transport, and facilities for cycling and pedestrians. The contribution is as follows. The weighted contributions in the SPD have been used as the TA shows the centre has very little impact during the morning peak period.

40 additional flats @ £2,700 per flat = £108,000 A1 (Food) 500m2 @ £56,316 per 100m2 = £281,580 A3 restaurants – 134 additional trips @ £302 per trip = £40,468

4.18 The sum of £430,048 will be used towards schemes identified in the

Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan.

Planning Natural Environment

4.19 The site is subject to TPO 134/01 and TPO 58/13, the latter being made to

ensure protection of the 2 new Dawn Redwood trees (planted as replacements for felled Sycamore trees) and to protect 1 Lime tree not previously included.

4.20 Of the protected trees, 6 are proposed for felling - the 5 Horse chestnut

within the precinct and 1 of the new Dawn redwoods; 2 of these for arboricultural reasons (2 chestnut on the Church St frontage) and 4 in order to facilitate development as shown on Tree Survey & Retention Plan 30-1018.01-B.

4.21 The Horse chestnuts have been subject to a TPO since 1966 prior to the

construction of St Martins Precinct. They were subsequently incorporated into the precinct and have contributed amenity value to the locality since then. The Council has, over the last 10-20 years, been made aware of issues related to tree roots and have consistently resisted the trees’ removal on this basis. However the Natural Environment officer has always been mindful of the possibility that justification for their removal could be made at some point. The removal of the 2 Horse chestnut on the

142


frontage has already been agreed under TPO procedures. In relation to the other 3, whilst two are noted as ‘B’ category trees in good condition, none are in top condition and their long-term retention as healthy trees is limited, particularly with this species currently being affected by several pests and diseases. The Natural Environment officer advises that the proposals provide an opportunity to provide better quality trees, with a longer lifespan and for these to be planted in a manner so as to avoid future root/surfacing problems. Natural Environment Officers accept the removal of all 5 Horse chestnuts on the condition that mitigation planting is secured.

4.22 Concerns remain over a potential conflict between the proposals for Block

A and the retained (protected) Holm Oak. The plans show principal rooms and balconies facing the tree, which will require pruning in order to construct and thereafter will result in pressure for significant pruning as residents will look directly out/into the canopy of this evergreen tree. This is an undesirable situation and significant pruning could be detrimental to the appearance of this tree, hence amenity value it provides. As it is a prominent tree on the Church Street frontage, its safe retention long-term should be ensured.

4.23 The applicant should confirm why both Dawn Redwood trees cannot be

retained. 4.24 It is noted that Caversham Globe have expressed concern over the loss of

two street trees outside Block A (3011 and 3012 on the Tree Survey). 4.25 Caversham Globe has advised that tree 3009 has died – the tree survey

noted the decline of this tree. If tree 3009 and the adjacent dead tree are to be removed (which would seem sensible), replacement planting should be required.

4.26 Tree 3018, whilst indicated on the Soft Landscaping plan (but with no

label confirming its retention) is not included in the Public Realm Sheet as this plan does not extend that far. Confirmation of its retention is required.

4.27 The street frontage to Waitrose is lacking in soft landscaping. The expanse

of building makes the retention of tree 3018 more important. 4.28 The Natural Environment Officer has no objection to the change of

proposed tree species for the central precinct to Tulip (from Japanese Pagoda trees).

4.29 The agent’s letter of 19 September 2014 states that tree planting on the

east side of the car park is not feasible due to the presence of a mains sewer. Tree planting over mains sewers has been secured elsewhere in the Borough (A33 street trees and in Dee Park) with the agreement of Thames Water. This was subject to specific planting details and with the caveat that if access to the sewer in those locations was required in the future and this required the removal of one or more trees that would be

143


accepted. The applicant should therefore demonstrate that they have explored the possibility with Thames Water.

4.30 In relation to the ‘green wall’ planting on the car park, it is necessary for

the applicant to provide details of the proposed system to demonstrate, particularly in terms of maintenance, that it is a tried and tested system.

4.31 In terms of the tree species proposed, the only comment is that

confirmation that the soil is suitable for Quercus palustris is required. This species struggles in alkaline soils and there has been difficulty in establishing it in certain places in Reading.

4.32 Confirmation of service runs is required. Successfully achieving

comprehensive tree planting in this development will be crucial therefore it needs to be ensured that there are no conflicts with any services.

4.33 Confirmation of maintenance arrangements to cope with the large amount

of weekly watering that will be required is required. 4.34 With regard to the remaining trees to be removed, those proposed for

removal on arboricultural grounds are agreed and the loss of those proposed for removal in order to facilitate development has to be accepted if the proposal is approved. In any case, if the number of trees indicated on the Public Realm drawing is feasible, this would provide compensation.

4.34 The Natural Environment Officer agrees that the indicative planting of

trees in the central part of the site, within specifically designed tree pits, should result in an appropriate softening of the revamped precinct area.

RBC Environmental Protection

Noise impact on development 4.35 The noise assessment has identified insulation requirements for the most

exposed façade (Church Street) and subsequent information from the applicant has clarified the requirements for the remainder of the centre. These are deemed to be acceptable.

Noise arising from development 4.36 Noise limits have been specified for the cinema (see page 19 of noise

assessment) and appear to be set as equal to the existing L90 background noise 1 metre from the façade of the nearest residential property. Typical noise levels in a cinema are provided, with maximum noise break out values.

4.37 It is also stated that because cinemas require low levels of noise intrusion

from outside, that the sound insulation of the new section of the building will necessarily be of a high standard. However assuming that the planning permission would be granted on the basis of use class D2 in which

144


case a different use could go into the building e.g. a gym, without the same requirements for sound insulation.

4.38 Noise from A1 and A3 uses: It is recommended that if appropriate the following are controlled by planning condition:

- No amplified music in external seating areas - External seating areas not to be used outside of the hours of 08:00 – 23:00 - A1/A3 units with amplified music to have glazing and doors to shop

frontages providing minimum sound insulation of 40 dB Rw 4.39 Noise limits have been proposed for new plant, based on measured

background noise levels around the site. These provide a useful guideline, however plant selection has not yet been made. EP recommend that no new plant is approved until detailed noise assessments have been made for each location/plant item. It may be that the background noise levels already measured can be used in these assessments, or additional measurements may be needed if background noise levels are not representative for the particular plant location.

4.40 The planning statement refers to the relocation of the bottle bank.

Further detail needs to be provided regarding where this will be relocated to and an assessment made as to the impact of noise from the bottle bank on nearby residential properties.

4.41 EP have concerns about the potential for noise disturbance due to

deliveries and waste collections on occupants of nearby residential properties, particularly late at night and early morning. A restriction on permitted hours for these activities is recommended.

4.42 The noise report states that the new restaurant will have night time

deliveries between midnight and 6 am, three times per week, in service yard no.1 which has previously only been used for car parking. This is to the rear of existing residential flats, and new residential properties. Night time deliveries in this location are unlikely to be acceptable as transient noise events such as this are likely to wake people up and disturb sleep. The background noise levels in these sheltered locations will generally be low at night time, making any noise from deliveries even more noticeable. This is particularly the case because the existing flats will not benefit from the proposed sound insulating glazing that is proposed for the new properties.

4.43 Due to the number of different service yards and the varying impact of

deliveries to these, an overall condition restricting delivery and waste collection times is unlikely to be appropriate for the site as a whole. However, due to the sensitive location of delivery yards to the rear of Blocks A, B and C and the fact that service yard to Block A has not previously been used for deliveries, a condition is recommended that restricts the hours of waste collections and deliveries to these yards.

145


4.44 Properties fronting onto Church Street are to be provided with mechanical ventilation as part of the noise insulation measures. The inlet for this ventilation should be from the cleaner side of the building or the roof and not from the façade fronting onto Church Street.

4.45 The proposed development is located within an air quality management

area and the air quality assessment has concluded that there will be a minor adverse impact on local air quality particularly if the vehicle technology improvements do not lead to the improvements in air quality that were originally predicted by the government.

4.46 It is important to mitigate this adverse impact because despite being

considered minor, a significant number of the receptors around the site are experiencing exceedances of the air quality objectives so are very sensitive to any worsening of the air quality.

4.47 To deal with this minor adverse impact, a travel plan is proposed by the

applicant. It is recommended that the requirement for production and implementation of a travel plan/air quality mitigation plan is required by planning condition. It is recommended that the travel/mitigation plan includes consideration of the following:

• Allocated parking for low emission vehicles • Provision of electric charging bays or low emission fuelling points • Provision of cycling facilities / residents cycles • Improvements to local public transport • Provision of NO2-reducing surfaces such as pavement tiles.

4.48 Further information is requested regarding any proposed external lighting

to be installed as part of the development to ensure that there is no loss of amenity to nearby residents. This could be dealt with by planning condition.

4.49 Details should include a layout plan with beam orientation and a schedule

of equipment in the design (luminaire type; mounting height; aiming angles and luminaire profiles) and an isolux contour map to show light spill levels down to 1 lux and showing neighbouring buildings. The applicants should demonstrate that light levels will not exceed the relevant guidance lux levels specified in the table below. Information should also show how glare will be controlled, and the proposed hours of use.

Environmental Zone - Brightness Light trespass

(into windows) Ev [Lux] Pre-curfew (before 23:00hrs)

Post-curfew (after 23:00hrs)

E1 – Intrinsically dark (national parks etc)

2 1

E2 - Low district brightness (rural / dark)

5 1

146


E3 – Medium district brightness (urban)

10 2

E4 – High district brightness (town centers)

25 5

ILE (2005) guidance notes for the reduction of obtrusive light. 4.50 EP have concerns about odour from the restaurant kitchen extraction

system causing nuisance to the surrounding residents/businesses. Noise from the extraction systems has been addressed in the plant noise section of my comments.

4.51 It is recommended that the applicant refer to the Defra Guidance on the

Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems (January 2005).

4.52 A planning condition is recommended that requires the submission of

details regarding the proposed odour control systems that will be installed.

4.53 A condition restricting the hours of noisy construction, demolition and

associated deliveries is recommended.

RBC Education 4.54 Request £61,482 as a contribution towards education infrastructure in the

North education area of the Borough to meet the additional pressures placed on education infrastructure as a result of the development.

RBC Leisure Service

4.55 Request £2,100 per unit under 75 square metres floor area and £2,800

per unit above this size. The funding would be spent on the continued implementation of the Thames Parks Plan.

RBC Valuer 4.56 Response to Affordable Housing, Section 106 and other financial viability

considerations awaited as negotiations with the developer are ongoing.

Berkshire Archaeology 4.57 The heritage statement provided with the application touches on the

known archaeology of the area – albeit only from data on the Heritage Gateway – and makes no reference to the archaeological potential of the wider area, and the impact of the proposals on buried remains of various periods that may survive across the site. As previously recommended by this office, some archaeological work is likely to be needed, in order to

147


ascertain the survival of archaeological deposits on site; however, this will need to be preceded by some further exploration and documentary assessment in order to target areas for investigation.

4.58 A condition is recommended securing implementation of a phased

programme of archaeological works, in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Authority

Thames Water

4.59 Thames Water advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, they do not have any objection to the planning application.

4.60 The existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Thames Water therefore recommend the following condition be imposed: Development should not be commenced until: Impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

4.61 Thames Water recommend the following informative be attached to any planning permission: There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer’s cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair.

Environment Agency

4.62 The EA Advise that, provided the Council is satisfied that the sequential test and exceptions test are passed then the EA have no objections to the proposed development subject to the development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment, including the finished floor level for Block A (proposed restaurant and residential units) being set no lower than 38.69 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Public Consultation

4.63 Notification letters were sent to all premises adjoining the site on 7 July 2014.

4.64 Site notices were displayed on Church Street at the junction with Archway Road, adjacent to the precinct entrance and adjacent to the telephone exchange. A site notice was displayed at the entrance to the car park on Abbotsmead Place.

148


4.65 A second round of consultation took place on 25 September following the submission of revised proposals in response to officer advice.

4.66 28 Letters of objection, 3 of support and 11 commenting on the scheme

were received. These include objections from Caversham and District Residents’ Association (CADRA) and Caversham Globe. These are summarised below:

i) Responses received following the initial consultation 4.67 Objections:

• What Hermes proposes is essentially the right concept for Caversham. But it's the detailed design and appearance that I, and many others, object to. The proposed architecture is poor and uninspiring. The Local Plan highlights the importance that the quality of the built environment can have on the life of the residents (Adopted Core Strategy, para 11), and Policy CS26 stresses that the vitality and viability of the District Centres, of which Caversham is the largest, should be maintained and enhanced. The bland facades of the frontage of the proposed shops and flats that Hermes are proposing for the new St Martin's scheme provides neither a “quality” environment that the Local Plan requires nor enhances its character or vitality.

• The Caversham library is an Edwardian masterpiece - and it is to be faced by these cheap warehouse-style shop fronts.

• The proposed Block D development, will cut into the existing canopy of the Holm Oak, the only tree in this area to be retained. Occupants of the north westerly flats would receive little light in this area and possibly be able to climb into the tree from their windows if it survived. Scaffolding required to construct these further storeys would cut a further 1.5 metres into the existing canopy.

• The existing canopies of thin steel posts, white steel clapboard fascias and stained and leaking concrete soffits currently exacerbate the poor experience of using St. Martin's Precinct. Clarification of the proposed treatment of these fascias would therefore be welcome.

• The portion of the elevation either side of the street side Waitrose entrance looks weak and nondescipt with unsupported brick panels above glazing. Is the glazing transparent or obscure? Why not continue the canopy which ends for no apparent reason half way along block D, or incorporate a canopy at higher level as per the Pizza Express canopy either side of the Waitrose atrium to strengthen and add interest to this part of the elevation

• The proposed designs reflect current standardized and unimaginative designs that appear to have come from Government guidelines rather than any inspired vision for the centre. The supporting documents are extremely wordy and formulaic. The basics of the scheme - the new stores, car parking and restaurants etc - are not in dispute and are supported.

• It is very difficult to see how they can conclude, as they do in section 9.0 of their “Planning Statement” that the scheme is in keeping with the “character, scale and role”; of the centre and that it will “respect the significant (sic) of the Grade II listed Caversham Library”;. The contrast in architectural styles between the proposed new buildings and the existing buildings, exemplified by Caversham Library, is stark.

149


• The style of the buildings are disappointing and entirely out of character with the architecture of the surrounding buildings. This design is what I'd expect to see in Swindon, Bracknell or Basingstoke, not in Caversham.

• This will be the largest planning application in Caversham, and certainly one of Reading's largest development schemes. Much more time and effort should be spent on getting the details right now, so that people in the future (including Hermes' team and the Council's planners) can look back on a successful and attractive development with pride. The application details at the moment look rushed and amateurish.

• CADRA comments that the design of the new upward extension above Boots and Costa and the new block including Pizza Express appear as standard designs which could go anywhere. They do not reflect the character of the centre of Caversham, and would not enhance the street scene. The new 5 storey block would appear very massive and out of scale as you approach from Caversham Bridge. It protrudes on to Church Street and may obscure sight lines for vehicles. The existing street scene does not contain buildings of height and this is a fundamental part of the ‘village’ character. The bright blue door for Pizza Express is too dominant. The flat roofs are inconsistent with the existing character and appear very unsympathetic. The proposed materials are bland. The Waitrose atrium is out of place in a village centre. It would be out of scale and out of place in terms of style and materials.

• CADRA suggest that the impact on the Heritage Assets and street scene is not neutral and disagree that old and new “together form a harmonious group.”

• CADRA: The signage shown for the Superdrug store is unnecessarily large out of place with other signage. Should be smaller and lower which would allow for some features above, on an otherwise blank and uninteresting wall.

• CADRA: Street trees in front of the current Waitrose store and Block A are not shown to be either retained or replaced. This would leave Church Street with no street trees except the Holm Oak – a highly regrettable change which will detract further from the street scene. More planting is needed on the frontage.

• Object to the loss of the horse chestnut and other trees in the precinct.

• Scale of Block A a threat to daylight availability and privacy of those already living in the closest blocks of Abbotsmead Place.

• There is not enough parking proposed. • Car parking has been reduced from additional 50 to 14. The development will

attract many more people to Caversham and the additional parking will be inadequate.

• Extra traffic and poor air quality – Need to look at biodiversity ie green roofs, organic roofs, living roofs and walls - beautiful to look at and they will take care of some of the poor air quality!

• CADRA raise safety concerns about deliveries to the service area by ‘Caversham Square’, particularly the turning circle and also the need for pedestrian access across the car park from flats on Abbotsmead Place which have a significant retired and elderly population.

• CADRA: 20 cycle parking spaces in the covered part of the car park is an inadequate provision and poorly located. It will not encourage cycle use. Cycle parking is needed close to the shops and in an area with pedestrian flows and well observed, to discourage theft and vandalism.

150


• the only entrance in and out is under the archway which will cause no end of problems, at the moment its chaos, so its just an accident waiting to happen, you cant have all this extra generated traffic going in and out of a tiny little entrance

• One of the objectives to the re-planning of the precinct was to improve access to the river and the new bridge. As far as I can see this hasn't happened; the objective needs re-visiting.

• CADRA: Concerns over loss of availability of public toilets outside Waitrose opening hours – toilets could replace proposed kiosk and be accessed from outside.

• 4/5 storey development will completely dominate Church St, overshadowing the library, a heritage site described as having medium importance, and further down Church St, the baptist church and memorial, hall, both described as having high importance in heritage terms. 4.68 Comments:

• The submitted Economic Development Document purports to provide an assessment of the potential economic benefits that could result if planning permission is granted for the Proposed Development of the St Martin’s Precinct. The report appears to substantially over estimate the economic benefits that the scheme itself will bring to Caversham. At the same time, it provides only a partial assessment of the wider and potentially greater benefits that Caversham as a whole could experience

• CADRA: It is unfortunate that the accompanying reports are unnecessarily long and wordy. It is also notable that no plans show the visual relationship with other buildings. For example, the relationship between the two sides of Church Street is not shown, nor the height of Block A in relation to other buildings. It is also disappointing that the Transport Assessment includes inaccuracies on junction changes in the past few years and in the conclusions on traffic capacity.

• The success of the car park deck structure and the proposed treatment will depend on the type, quality, maintenance and irrigation of the proposed planting on tension wires if these areas are to be improved from the makeshift service and parking areas that are currently experienced.

• Will this decked car park still be free to users within limits as per the current arrangements? The imposition of charges may have wider consequences for parking within Caversham.

• Surely the alleyway next to Waitrose constitutes an established right of way.

• There should be a limit on size of vehicles using the access road. Because Abbotsmead Place is quite narrow there should be a limit on the length (rather than the size) of lorries using this access road.

151


• CADRA have submitted their own heritage assessment by Dr Megan Aldrich FSA – This concludes that the applicant’s heritage statement is flawed and unsound with regard to its assessment of the St Martin’s Precinct site. “The submitted Heritage Statement does not take account of the full extent of the St Peter’s Conservation Area and its ancient structures; does not take account of the streetscapes of Caversham as an important and defining historical asset (in accordance with the Reading Core Strategy of 2008); and has missed the central importance of the Caversham Library, both in terms of its architecture and its architect, to the built environment of Caversham… the submitted designs are completely generic and bear no reference to Caversham’s heritage assets either in scale, materials, or architectural references. These are the designs for a scaled down High Street shopping mall, not the high street of a Thames-side village with a strong architectural heritage. …In summary, it is an unimaginative, overbearing response to this highly sensitive site, and in this author’s view the proposed designs ignore national and local Heritage Planning guidelines cited in pages 22-24 of the Heritage Statement.” 4.69 Support:

• Strongly supportive of the plans as they stand and would like to see them move into delivery and completion at the earliest opportunity. Development of the centre of Caversham in this manner is vital, in particular the adding of additional parking space and also the inclusion of restaurant retail space to be taken by a chain restaurant (Pizza Express)

• The plans are wonderful and long overdue. • I think these proposals will much improve the look and use of central Caversham,

and the inclusion of new restaurants, a cinema and an enlarged Waitrose are in particular elements that I strongly support

ii) Responses received following the second consultation 4.70 Objections:

• The designs are generic, blocky, and already dated, neither in keeping with a Victorian town centre nor an example of sympathetic modern design.

• The new buildings will contrast harshly with the decorative elevations of the Victorian library.

• The use of large areas of galvanised zinc finish seems a poor choice aesthetically.

• While it is excellent news that the dreadful St Martin's Precinct is to be redeveloped, the designs submitted are incredibly disappointing - bland, boxy with cheap and nasty materials.

• The monotone engineering brick and metal fascias (which will soon look dated and scream "early 21st century commercial development") are breathtakingly dull.

• The current plans do not respond to the built environment around them in any way - this could be any building anywhere.

152


• The buildings themselves are not in keeping with the area as they are much taller than existing buildings. They are just uninspiring.

• The plans show a large imposing structure which is not sympathetic with the height of local buildings.

• The massing of Block A is too great – tall and imposing for the location – will overshadow neighbouring buildings – adversely altering the street scene and character.

• CADRA request the scale of Block A be reduced to four storeys and a greater proportion of brick finish to reduce the amount of grey zinc cladding.

• CADRA raise concerns that the additional storey to Block B, overlooking St Martins Square will add to the problem of excessive shade on the square. Also the balcony access to the 2nd floor flats is an outdated approach resulting in poor living conditions

• CADRA welcome the redesigned entrance to Waitrose but are critical of the use of the same brick as used currently on the Waitrose building. The elevations either side of the new Waitrose entrance are weak and nondescript.

• It would be an overdevelopment of the centre. Permitting a large number of new residential properties in an already overcrowded area doesn't seem sensible. This would have an adverse effect on existing residents, for example, there aren't enough primary school places already with a local school having to take a bulge year despite a new school starting and traffic frequently jams over the bridges especially if flooding affects Sonning bridge.

• The traffic survey looked at the bridge traffic congestion, the problems are often getting back into Caversham. The survey already indicates that several junctions are already over capacity.

• The proposals do little to address traffic congestion and pollution. • The car parking spaces being made available amount to a very high number ie

approx 235 + spaces. I am against this very high number. Exhaust fumes and noise pollution. The new cinema will lengthen the times of day that the site is busy with vehicles.

• Assuming that cyclists will not be allowed to use (and indeed should not use) the proposed 'pedestrian link towards the river' marked with zebra crossing markings in the plans in the Design and Access statement. That means that the only access to the cycle parking would be by cycling through the car park, an inherently dangerous undertaking.

• The pedestrian and cycle provision is still poor. • The pavement on Abbotsmead Place should be widened, or alternatively the

new pedestrian route through the car park should run from the south east corner.

• Walking and cycling into Reading - scheme needs improved access that feels safe at night. These plans don't seem to add this and the increased HGVs in the area will only make it less safe for us and our small children.

• There is a large park down by the river and safe pedestrian and cycle routes are hugely important.

• No improvement to the public bridleway bordering the site which is already an important cycle route, allowing cyclists to avoid the crowded roadways of Caversham on their way into Reading or to gain access to the shops in the precinct. When the new pedestrian/cycle bridge over the Thames is open this route will be even more important. Require at least 12 cycle parking hoops

153


- better siting of cycle parking hoops: St Martin's Square is the obvious place, so that cyclists can reach them easily without passing through a car park - widening of the narrow section of the public bridleway bordering the southwestern edge of the site. - improvement of the angle of the existing very acute corner in the public bridleway.

• Sustrans – a national charity promoting sustainable transport has commented that National Cycle Route 5 currently follows a circuitous route around the service yard and Sustrans would like to see a direct cycle route provided through the new development, linking directly into the onward route to the north and the new bridge (when built) to the south.

• It is a really large development with very few green trees. • There is a lack of greenery. Planting, flower displays etc are needed to offset

the harshness of hard landscaping. • The extended canopy of Block A would conflict with existing street trees. • CADRA describe the decked car park as a “large utilitarian structure of steel and

concrete [that] requires considerable softening on all sides with more trees on the edges. The view from the entrance road (and sheltered housing behind School Lane) would be much improved by trees as well as a hedge if this can be accommodated with the position of the sewer”.

• CADRA object to the proposed Block D building due to conflict with the existing Holm Oak. The retention of the Holm Oak is critical to softening the impact of new building on Church Street. Lighting on the ground floor of the car park needs to be of a very high standard to avoid a gloomy and insecure walk through for pedestrians.

• Lack of independent shops: Currently Caversham has many small independent shops and this should be encouraged as it benefits the local economy by creating jobs and keeping the business profits in the locale.

• Don’t need another large chain restaurant. • Lack of public conveniences: Very concerned that there are no public toilets in

the plans. Toilets within Waitrose will only be available during opening hours. This is not enhancing the local area but simply taking away an existing facility which works well.

• CADRA state that it is very disappointing that the applicant is unwilling to recognise the need for public toilets to be available outside the Waitrose opening hours.

4.71 Comment:

• A more broken frontage and/or pitched roof line, multi-coloured brickwork, or a softer more organic modern design might be a better solution.

• The one cycle route nearby (R40/NCR5) is rather indirectly linked to the new development. It is currently a very poor quality route in the immediate vicinity, yet there are no plans to improve and integrate it, despite the clear

154


opportunities. It is part of a key route on the National Cycle Network and should be discussed with Sustrans, the coordinating organisation.

• Better cycle parking in the revised design is welcome. The provision of the ten stands near the "proposed kiosk" only really maintains the current provision, but is well located. The other additional spaces are not very conveniently located for shoppers, though longer stay visitors/workers may use them. Instead or as well, it would be useful to have a small number of spaces provided on the Church St side.

• On the north side, consideration should be given to how the design might integrate with a future pedestrian priority area on Church St which has been mooted.

• CADRA describe the revisions to Block C (cinema) as a welcome improvement.

• The introduction of red brick finish to Block D is welcome as is the greater vertical emphasis to the elevations

• CADRA state that the car park also serves the shops on Prospect Street where the shortest pedestrian route is along Archway Road. The opportunity should be taken to improve the pedestrian and vehicle route in and out of the car park.

• CADRA are very concerned that an appropriate location is identified for a community notice board to replace the current board in St Martin’s Square.

• CADRA argue that parking spaces should not be reduced in order to support the economic success of the High Street. There is already significant pressure for spaces. The car park serves the whole of Caversham Centre and is critical to its economic and commercial success.

• Parking is already a big issue in Caversham as the current parking facilities are already overstretched. Adding a block of flats will create further need for parking. Adequate parking is essential for the community to be able to use the facilities without further impacting on the surrounding residential roads.

• The proposed Block D development, however, 3 storeys at its northern end and 4 storeys to the south replaces the current 2 storey block and will cut into the existing canopy of the Holm Oak, the only tree in this area recommended for retention. Scaffolding required to construct the extra storeys would cut further into the existing canopy than the building itself, this and the requirement for daylight to the flats would mean cutting the tree back on its eastern side nearer to the line of the lamppost on the attached photograph. The tree would also need to be cut back by a similarly drastic amount on its southern side. This clash is not immediately evident due in some cases the tree not being shown on the drawings and in one case the tree being inaccurately positioned on the drawing as set out below. If the bole and existing canopy of this tree were shown on Plan drawings D501, D502, D503, and D504, it would illustrate the extent of this clash and the impracticality of both retaining this tree and building Block D as currently configured. The position of the tree and its canopy shown on the street elevation drawing PP-MP-04 is not correct and is misleading (the existing

155


tree is several metres to to the east of that shown on the drawing). The tree is not shown on the Block D elevation drawings. Block D should be redesigned/ reconfigured to avoid the canopy of the Holm oak by a reasonable margin. This could be done without loss of accomodation by reconfiguring the flats over the shop unit at the east end of Block D, which currently remains only 2 storey. The current proposal will lead either to the destruction of this tree during construction or substantial disfigurement. 4.72 Support:

• Green/brown roofs - glad to see it is being considered. • CADRA welcome the increase in the number of spaces with better locations .

• I think that the new design is just what Caversham needs as the precinct has looked tired and dated for many years and without this plan will deteriorate further

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act

1990 requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)

Act 1990 requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

5.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires

that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

5.4 The applications have been assessed against the following policies: 5.5 National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance

5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core

Strategy (2008) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access

156


CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS18 Residential Conversions CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS25 Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture

Development CS26 Network and Hierarchy of Centres CS27 Maintaining the Retail Character of Centres CS29 Provision of Open Space CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.7 Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012

SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM5 Housing Mix DM8 Residential Conversions DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM13 Vitality and Viability of Smaller Centres DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.8 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

Affordable Housing SPD (2013) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Residential Conversions SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2013) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)

157


6. APPRAISAL i) Principle of Development

6.1 Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy states that the vitality and viability of the

centres within the identified network (including Caversham) will be maintained and enhanced, including widening the range of uses, environmental enhancements and improvements to access. These matters are addressed in more detail below.

6.2 Policy CS26 also states that development for main town centre uses in

centres will be of an appropriate scale. Scales are set out in supporting paragraph 8.15 of this policy, with the upper limit for a district centre being 2,500 sq. m. This proposal contains an increase of 1,677 sq m of main town centre uses, and is therefore considered to be of an appropriate scale.

6.3 As the development is proposed within an identified centre, and accords

with the scale limit of that centre, the applicant is not required to demonstrate accordance with the tests for main town centre uses in the NPPF, i.e. a sequential approach or that there would be no impact on existing centres.

6.4 In terms of the residential element of the scheme, the introduction of new

housing into the district centre is considered to be positive in policy terms. The spatial strategy as set out in the Core Strategy (paragraph 3.23) sets out the importance of higher density residential development within identified district and local centres, and Policy CS4 of the Core Strategy links the intensity of development to accessibility by a variety of modes of transport.

ii) Design and Appearance 6.5 Policy CS7 deals with design and the public realm and this is assessed

below, firstly looking at the individual built elements of the proposed scheme and then looking more generally at the scheme as a whole in relation to the individual criteria in Policy CS7.

Block A

6.6 Block A would be the tallest building in the street and would be also be

prominent due to its positioning on the bend in the road, which would result in the building protruding forward of the adjacent Block when viewed from the street. This prominence would be mitigated to some extent by the staggered footprint, with the massing of the building increasing further back away from the street. The recessed fifth floor in particular would serve to emphasise the first four storeys of the building and would be seen in the context of the adjacent large telephone exchange building. On this basis it is considered that the apparent scale would be reasonable within the street and the building would not be overly dominant.

158


6.7 With regard to the architecture and detailing, the window proportions

have been improved compared to the original submission on the advice of officers, with an increase in the amount of glazing. The detailing of the façade has also been improved with details of the façade construction being submitted to show appropriate articulation of the different materials to give an appropriate sense of ‘depth’. The amount of brickwork has also been increased to better reflect the prevailing local character and additional windows have been introduced fronting Church Street.

6.8 With regards to the proposed external materials, the proposed powder-

coated metal originally proposed would not have resulted in a sufficiently high quality appearance and would result in a bland untextured finish and an overly dark colour that would have made the metal clad sections overly dominant. The proposals have been amended on the advice of officers with a higher quality natural zinc cladding product with a lighter tone. This change, together with the increase in the area of brickwork relative to zinc, is considered to result in a reasonable quality finish to the facades.

6.9 In line with many of the objections received, it is agreed that the

architecture is in many respects bland and generic that does little to promote local distinctiveness. However the overall effect of the changes secured by officers has been to improve the architecture to a point at which it would not have a significantly detrimental effect on the street scene and on this basis the proposals for Block A are considered acceptable

Block B

6.10 The building fronting Church Street would remain as existing, with the

main changes being to the part of the Block fronting the precinct. 6.11 The initial design, as originally submitted, appeared functional and

informed more by the interior room layout rather than any particular visual contribution to public realm. Officers required a far more coherent, strongly-defined arrangement of windows fronting the precinct. In addition officers criticised the dominance of large expanses of polyester powder coated aluminium standing seam cladding and a somewhat incongruous area of white render at first floor level on the east façade.

6.12 The applicant has responded to these concerns with vertical brick ‘fins’ in

a regular pattern to help to improve the rhythm of the façade together with an improved window layout. The powder-coated metal has been replaced with a more ‘natural’, higher quality standing-seam zinc cladding.

6.13 It is considered that the external finish to the building would not relate

particularly well with the prevailing architecture within Church Street due

159


to the expanse of metal cladding, but that this should be balanced against the fact that it is most closely related to the existing precinct space which already has a distinct, albeit unattractive, character and that changes in this area would have a lesser effect upon the character of the main street compared to changes fronting Church Street. It is considered that the amendments made by the applicant are improvements and these are sufficient to provide a reasonable quality of building fronting the precinct that represents an improvement upon the existing situation.

Block C

6.14 It is considered that the overall scale of the building would appear to be

appropriate with the layout of the upper floor extension focusing the massing of the building towards the main entrance and precinct frontages.

6.15 Officers advised that the proposed full height glazed stairwell as originally

submitted had the potential to be a strong feature that could define the entrance to the upper floors. However it appeared heavy and lacked refinement.

6.16 As with Blocks A and B, the design of the block was a concern and required

improvements to the quality of the detailing and to relieve the apparent mass of cinema extension and provide a well-proportioned building with more coherence between facade elements.

6.17 In response to these concerns, the applicant provided a revised design

that has provided some simplification to the façade design with more clearly defined proportions. Whilst the architecture is similar to Blocks A and B, concerns over the relationship to local character are arguably less important in this part of the site as main views of the the building would be from the rear of the site within an area that has less of a coherent character. Whilst a more architecturally interesting building that continues the character of Church Street southwards into the site would be far better in this location, the current proposal does represent an improvement to the current poor quality building and would serve as a reasonable backdrop to the upgraded public space within the precinct to the north and the new public space to the east.

6.18 The building (together with the increased scale of Blocks B and D) would

increase the sense of enclosure and shadowing to the precinct space as referred to in a number of objections received. It is apparent that the building would reduce daylight and sunlight within the precinct space. However the increase in the mass of the building is not considered to be so great that it would degrade the quality of the space to a harmful extent or prejudice its use.

Block D 6.19 The recessed third floor and break in the brickwork at second floor level

would give a predominant impression of a three storey, rather than four

160


storey scale viewed from Church Street. It is considered that the apparent scale of Block D would be reasonable in the context of the existing street.

6.20 As with the other blocks referred to above officers advised that greater

depth, detailing and visual interest was needed, especially on the precinct (west) and Church Street (north) façades – more articulation between cladding materials, better alignment of vertical elements between floors. To the south, the small windows, lack of coherent fenestration, large expanses of featureless render wrapped around the upper floors and overall lack of a clear architectural approach was criticised.

6.21 The applicant has responded to these concerns. The window proportions

to upper floors have improved as has the architecture to the southern side of the building. Details of the proposed make-up of the facades is recommended to be secured by condition as only Plot A and C details have been submitted but based on the details provided for these other blocks it is considered that a reasonable amount of articulation can be provided to improve visual interest. The ‘Superdrug’ unit has been amended to include stronger verticals to break up the expanse of the façade.

6.22 The architectural approach originally proposed fell well short of what

could be reasonably expected of a development of this type in this location. The amendments made bring it up to a reasonable standard. The improved palette of materials referred to in respect of other blocks has also been applied to this block and is considered to be of an acceptable standard.

Block E

6.23 The scale of the proposals is the same as existing when viewed from

Church Street, the main difference being an greater projection to the rear and a new architectural approach.

6.24 As originally proposed, the new entrance to Church Street, was considered

to be out of keeping with the scale of the host building and wider street and was criticised by officers as being reminiscent of a retail park or out of town shopping unit rather than the more refined smaller scale detailing typical of a high street location. The thick powder coated framework lacked refinement and the doorway, which failed to align with the framework appeared awkward and functional.

6.25 The applicant has responded to these concerns with a far simpler, more

refined approach with a frameless glazing system around the entrance and an off-white porcelain square feature above that provides a suitable focal point to the entrance. The outwards projection of the entrance has also been reduced resulting in a less obtrusive feature.

6.26 The use of brickwork to match the existing Waitrose to the east of the

new entrance has been criticised in a number of letters of objection. It is acknowledged that this brick is far from ideal due to its dark tone that

161


does not reflect the traditional local orange brick. However as the current proposals involve the extension and remodelling of existing buildings, the existing brickwork cannot be ignored. It is considered that the approach taken by the applicant to continue the darker brick across part of the new extension and change to a more appropriate orange brick to the west of the new entrance serves to integrate the new build elements with the existing parts of the building which are to be retained.

6.27 On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the

amendments made by the applicant are sufficient to avoid conflict with Policies CS7 and CS26.

Car Park Deck 6.28 The proposed car park deck would be approximately 3 metres in height to

the deck surface and 4 metres to the top of the surrounding barrier and screen. It is proposed to soften the appearance of the structure using a green wall climbing plant system. It is considered that the scale and extent of the deck are acceptable to meet the need for increased parking without an excessive increase in pressure on surface parking, thereby allowing spaces such as the new public square to be created and new landscaping provided. The car park deck would replace an existing poor quality car park. However, despite its failings, the existing car park has a good degree of openness with some semi-mature trees within it. The deck would require removal of a number of trees and would interrupt views across much of the southern part of the site. In order to ensure a net benefit in terms of the effect of the deck on the visual appearance of the site, it is considered critical that the deck is well integrated within a planting scheme that, in addition to the proposed green wall, includes tree planting to the eastern side of the site adjacent to Archway Road. A condition to this effect is recommended. Provided that the softening effects of the tree planting are secured by condition, it is considered that the decked car park would maintain the existing character of the immediate area.

iii) Site Layout and Landscaping 6.29 The principle of a public square to the rear of Block D was negotiated at

pre-application stage and is considered to provide a necessary pedestrian space to the rear of the buildings to allow free movement between the car park, pedestrian routes from the south and as a continuation of the existing Precinct as well as providing an opportunity for an appropriately landscaped setting to the rear. This will help to consolidate the currently disjointed and car-dominated space and begin to create a ‘sense of place’ at the rear as well as to the front of the centre. This is especially important given that a high proportion of people visiting the site will arrive by car. The indicative hard landscaping within the square appears to be a reasonable approach, although significantly more detail is required to be secured by condition. This should include measures to reduce the

162


visual impact of the lorry turning space (no deliveries to be allowed between 0900 and 1700) to unify the space and ensure that it functions as single square. This could include seating, planters and other street furniture that help to demarcate the space, to the periphery as well as the centre of the square together with a single surface material that suggests pedestrian priority over vehicles. The soft landscaping, consisting of an existing Dawn Redwood tree to be retained and a number of cherry trees appears to be a reasonable approach, although detailed specifications are required, to be secured by condition.

6.30 The hard landscaping to the existing precinct area is considered to be

reasonable and is in essence an improved version of the existing with hard paving throughout, with a central strip for tree planting. The proposed Tulip trees have been assessed by the Council’s Natural Environment Officer and are considered to be a suitable species in this location. More detailed proposals relating to the planting and establishment of these trees are required, to be secured by condition.

6.31 The hard landscaping proposed within the car park area is a fairly

standard approach of tarmac to the circulation routes and block paving to the parking bays. Whilst the proposals do little to introduce a landscaped space that is more distinctive than a typical supermarket car park, the approach is nevertheless sufficient to offer an improvement over the existing poor quality car park and is considered to be acceptable on this basis. The proposed tree planting will soften the car park area that would otherwise appear as a continuous hard surfaced space, dominated by vehicles. The proposed green wall to the upper storey of the car park deck, formed from climbing plants grown across a metal mesh, would serve to soften the otherwise overly functional appearance of the structure, but requires further softening with tree planting to the eastern edge of the car park.

6.32 The new cycle and pedestrian bridge at Christchurch Meadows will provide

a new link to the centre, with potential for users of the bridge to continue along Abbotsmead Place as the most direct route to the site. A pedestrian route was originally proposed between the south of the site and the new square, however this ran beneath the edge of the car park deck and was considered to be unpleasant and failed to prioritise pedestrians over vehicles. A new alignment has been proposed by the applicant in response to these concerns. This is straighter, 3 metre wide, with an elevated profile. This new alignment is considered to be an improvement however there would be no buffer between parked cars (including opening car doors) and the route. Furthermore trees are shown planted within the route rather than to one side, reducing the width.

6.33 Whilst the width of the north-south route is acceptable in purely

functional terms officers have advised that a more generous route for pedestrians that provides a pleasant environment and that does not feel hemmed in by vehicles is necessary. Omitting the 3 parking spaces to the east of the route to allow it to be widened, to provide more space for the trees and to allow for a greater landscaped ‘buffer’ between pedestrians

163


and vehicles was recommended. The applicant has resisted this, stating that they consider the route to be sufficient and that they are unwilling to reduce car parking to improve landscaping in order to create a better pedestrian environment. Whilst this unresolved matter is considered to be a failing of the scheme, it is considered that the route would nevertheless allow pedestrians to pass through the site and that the proposed tree planting would provide some softening to the extensive and unbroken car park area. On balance the proposals are considered to be an improvement on the poor quality landscaping and layout of the existing car park and are therefore acceptable on that basis.

6.34 The proposed pedestrian route through the extended retail unit at Block E

is intended to replace the existing alleyway on a similar alignment. Whilst it is acknowledged that this would be more limited as access would be restricted to store opening times, this should be balanced against the poor quality, unpleasant pedestrian environment of the existing alley. On balance, the new route, to be secured by Section 106 agreement would provide a wider, more pleasant, better lit and better maintained route for users of the site during peak hours of use and is considered acceptable on this basis. In response to a question raised by one objector, the existing alley is not a Public Right of Way.

6.35 The applicant initially showed tree planting to the eastern edge of the

car park but removed these on the revised drawings due to concerns over proximity to a main surface water sewer and the presence of a Thames Water wayleave related to this. Officers have contacted Thames Water who have advised that they do not object to tree planting in this location in principle, subject to suitable tree pit and root barriers being agreed. Given that the reason for the applicant’s concern has now been overcome it is considered necessary to secure a row of trees along the eastern edge of the car park. This will soften the form of the car park deck (see above) and will also serve to increase the level of tree coverage, in accordance with Policy CS18, within a stretch of road that would otherwise be dominated by hard surfacing with an absence of trees. Following negotiations with officers, the applicant has confirmed their agreement to a scheme of tree planting being secured by condition, provided this includes consultation with Thames Water. If Thames Water cannot agree the planting the condition allows for an alternative to be agreed, for instance the hedgerow currently shown on the submitted plans. This is considered to be a reasonable approach.

6.36 The Natural Environment Officer has confirmed that they do not object to

the proposed Tulip tree species for the central precinct to replace the existing Horse Chestnut trees. The proposed trees are considered to be acceptable on this basis, subject to suitable planting and maintenance details being agreed, to be secured by condition.

6.37 On the basis of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed

landscaping is sufficient to avoid conflict with Policies CS7, CS26 and DM18.

164


iv) Character 6.38 Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) requires all development to be

of high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area of Reading in which it is located. On the basis of the design and site layout assessments above it is considered that the proposals are not of high design quality in terms of the degree of integration with the urban structure or grain beyond the site boundary, where the structure changes to a finer grain informed by a more historic street layout with historic buildings integrated within it.

6.39 It is also considered that whilst the proposals continue the ‘sense of

place’ of the 1960’s precinct, which is distinct from the surrounding streets, in doing so it does little to integrate with, or contribute to, the sense of place of Caversham centre as a whole.

6.40 The layout and design sections above also raise questions over the quality

of the public realm proposed and the degree to which the development would secure pedestrian and cycle permeability enhancements. Both these areas are referred to in Policy CS7 as requirements that contribute to high design quality.

6.41 However these character concerns need to be balanced to some extent

with the character of the current precinct which exists as a visually distinct element within the district centre, and also the wider benefits of the scheme as a whole in terms of enhanced district centre facilities, more car parking and additional residential units. It is of relevance that the nature of the proposed development is predominantly a re-working and remodelling of the existing St Martin’s Centre and therefore has more limited scope for improvements compared to a full redevelopment.

6.42 There is also a degree of enhancement to the character of the existing

centre with renewed facades and shopfronts and improved landscaping. The degree to which the proposals would result in a character enhancement beyond the site is questionable, although the character impact is not considered to be worse than that of the existing centre.

6.43 On balance it is considered that the degree of character enhancement

within the St Martins Centre site, and the neutral impact on the character of the area beyond the site boundary, would be sufficient to avoid conflict with Policy CS7.

v) Effect upon Heritage Assets 6.44 The eastern end of the site, Blocks D and E lie closest to the listed

buildings of Caversham Library and the Baptist Free Church. Given the assessment above, it is considered that the relatively modest increases in scale of Blocks D and E and the somewhat bland detailing would ensure that the proposals would not appear overly obtrusive. This, taken within the context of the poor quality appearance of existing architecture within

165


the site, would ensure that the proposal has a neutral effect on the listed buildings. The negative visual separation resulting from the traffic-dominated street and highway infrastructure also reduces the extent to which the new buildings impinge on the existing historic buildings across the street.

6.45 It is considered that Block A, whilst significantly taller than adjacent

Block B and other surrounding buildings, would have sufficient visual separation from the listed library and church buildings, and also the listed buildings at the junction of Bridge Street and Church Road. This building would be more closely related to the petrol filling station, telephone exchange and road and would not be of such a large scale as to be particularly obtrusive when viewed in the context of these listed buildings.

6.46 It is considered that the street layout, intervening buildings and the

distance from new-build elements of the scheme would ensure that the proposals would have little effect upon the setting of the Grade II listed West Memorial Hall on Gosbrook Road.

6.47 On this basis it is considered that the proposal would preserve the setting

of these listed buildings, especially when compared to the effect of the existing buildings within the site.

6.48 It is considered that the separating distance, the curved street layout and

the scale of intervening buildings, including the telephone exchange, would ensure that the proposals preserved the setting of the St Peters Conservation Area.

6.49 Overall, it is considered that the development would preserve the setting

of nearby listed buildings and the setting of the St Peters Conservation Area and as such the proposals comply with the requirements of heritage legislation, Policy CS33 and national policy within the NPPF and associated guidance.

vi) Transport 6.50 The detailed comments of the Council’s Transport section are set out in

section 4.0 above.

6.51 Following extensive negotiation with Transport officers the applicant has submitted a revised Transport Assessment which demonstrates that, based on worst-case-scenario figures, the proposed development would not result in the capacity of surrounding roads and junctions being exceeded. The proposals are therefore considered to have an acceptable effect on the highway network in terms of capacity and safety. On this basis the proposals comply with Policies CS22, CS23 and DM12.

6.52 The amended proposals omit a service route exit onto Church Street adjacent Block A and opposite the petrol station on the advice of

166


Transport officers due to highway safety concerns. The revised servicing arrangements for Blocks A, B and C are similar to those for the existing units and remain acceptable. A condition restricting servicing to Block D between the peak hours of 0900 and 1700 requested by Transport is considered to be necessary to prevent conflict between goods vehicles and pedestrian users of the square. This strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of retailers and those visiting the centre It also helps reduce the negative effects of the pre-existing service yard which is now in a less than ideal location within the new scheme as it requires vehicles to cross the new public space.

6.53 Taking into account Transport comments, it is considered that the amount of parking proposed is appropriate to meet the needs of future users of the commercial uses. 324 spaces are proposed compared with the 254 existing. The proposed permit approach, with one permit available for each of the 40 new flats allowing them to park one vehicle unrestricted within any space within the car park is considered to be a reasonable approach that will ensure adequate parking for occupiers of the flats, whilst maximising the amount of parking available for other uses when demand for the residential spaces is low, for instance during the day.

6.54 With regard to cycling provision, the Council’s Transport section advise that the proposals represent an improvement on the current situation as currently the site has no formal cycling parking provision. with cyclists having to secure their bikes to street furniture. These proposals provide 48 cycle parking spaces which is in excess of 35 cycle parking spaces required according to the Council’s parking standards SPD. 12 spaces will be provided at the Waitrose Entrance which are in a convenient location in terms of the proximity to the centre. Access to these is relatively poor however as cyclists would be required to either pass under the car park deck, share the north-south pedestrian route, or use the service route. 12 spaces on Archway are more accessible, but not close to the shops. 12 spaces in close proximity to the RBC ReadiBike cycle hire station would require cyclists to dismount and walk around the front of the centre, but there is some logic to providing parking next to the cycle hire point. A further 12 spaces are proposed on the ground floor of the car park. This is not a particularly pleasant environment for cycling.

6.55 It is apparent that many of the proposed spaces are in less than ideal

locations. However, given the lack of cycle parking provision at present, this proposed provision is acceptable.

6.56 A condition requiring details of the design of the north-south pedestrian

route is recommended, on Transport advice. This is necessary to ensure that the route is suitably raised and marked to ensure that it is clear to drivers and to prioritise pedestrians over vehicles.

6.57 Whilst a number of objectors suggest that the National Cycle Route should

be diverted through the site to straighten and widen it and avoid the current dog-leg, Transport DC advice is that given the location of the RBC

167


cycle hire docking station on this route and the provision of a new Toucan Crossing on Church Street where the route meets it, there is no advantage in diverting this route through the Precinct given that there is likely to be conflict between cyclists and pedestrians within the confines of the busy shopping area.

6.58 Objector concerns over the narrow width of the canopy support poles and

the potential for conflict with pedestrians have been referred to the Council’s Transport section. Advice received is that the paths under the canopies are not part of the adoptable highway and are on private land and that they are not on the desire line of pedestrians. Responsibility for painting or other changes to these are the responsibility of the landowner.

6.59 On balance, whilst many aspects of the proposal will not achieve a high

quality environment for pedestrians and cyclists, when compared to the existing site layout, there is a degree of improvement. The proposal would make suitable provision for vehicle access and parking and would have an acceptable effect on the Highway Network. On this basis the proposals are considered to comply with Policies CS4, CS20 CS22, CS23, CS24 and DM12, together with the requirements set out in the Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD 2011.

vii) Tree Protection 6.60 The Holm Oak shown to be retained on the proposed plans has been the

subject of a number of detailed objections. These relate to the extent to which the tree would require pruning to accommodate the additional floors on Block D and the extent to which the design of Block D would result in further pressure to prune or fell the tree in the future.

6.61 The tree pre-dates the existing precinct buildings and it is apparent that

these buildings were provided with little thought or concern for its future growth. The existing tree has grown together with two horse chestnuts fronting Church Street. Permission to remove the two Horse Chestnuts has already been approved under TPO regulations. The Holm Oak has been constrained by these trees and has grown an irregular canopy which extends above the roof of the existing Block D building.

6.62 Given the proximity of the tree to the building, which is a consequence of

the failings of the original precinct layout and design, there is an argument that it would be reasonable to allow some pruning clear of the building regardless of whether any enlargement of the building is proposed. Further detailed information regarding the extent of pruning proposed, the predicted effect of this on the future health of the tree and a better indication of the effect of the re-shaping of the tree canopy on the visual amenity of the area has been sought from the applicant. This will be reported to Committee in an update report. The recommendation for approval is currently given subject to these details being received and found acceptable.

168


6.63 The other three Horse Chestnut trees within the Precinct space are proposed to be removed. The advice of the Council’s Natural Environment officer is that their long-term retention as healthy trees is limited, particularly with this species currently being affected by several pests and diseases and that the proposals provide an opportunity to provide better quality trees, with a longer lifespan and for these to be planted in a manner so as to avoid future root and surfacing problems.

6.64 Three existing street trees on Church Street, two adjacent to Block A and

one adjacent to Block E are now shown as being retained following negotiation with the applicant.

6.65 It is considered that suitable tree protection to BS5837:2012 can be

provided during construction for trees to be retained, to be secured by condition.

6.66 It is necessary for the landscaping details to provide full details of

existing and proposed underground services, tree pits, root barriers, watering schedules in addition to full details of plants to be provided. This will be included in the recommended landscaping conditions.

6.67 The removal of existing trees within the centre of the existing car park

area is considered to be reasonable to allow for provision of the car park deck, this is on the basis that a significant number of new trees will be provided within the non-decked area, including those secured by condition to the eastern side of the deck along Archway Road.

6.68 On this basis, subject to further assessment of the implications of the

scheme for the Holm Oak, the proposals are considered to be acceptable in relation to the retention and protection of existing trees, in accordance with Policies CS26 and CS38.

viii) Amenity of neighbouring occupiers

6.69 It is considered that the proposed extensions and alterations to Blocks fronting Church Street, due to their scale, design and separation distance, would relate acceptably to nearby residential uses across the street in terms of overbearing effects, loss of light, or loss of privacy.

6.70 Concerns have been raised by occupiers of neighbouring flats in Abbotsmead Place that the proposed scale of the new building at Block A would be overbearing on these flats to the south (41 to 60 Abbotsmead Place). Block A would extend to within 15 metres of the closest flats to the south at the closest point, although this would increase to 22 metres due to the angled relationship between the two. It is considered that there would be some impact arising from the new building works and that the outlook northwards from the flats would be altered significantly. However it is considered that the separation distance, together with the screening effects of the intervening trees (subject to a TPO) would be sufficient to prevent harm to the amenity of existing occupiers in terms of loss of outlook, overbearing impact or loss of light. The gap between

169


the buildings also forms part of the public realm with the bridleway running through it. The privacy and amenity requirements across this public area are therefore less than would be the case in a back-to-back relationship separated by private garden.

6.71 Concerns have also been raised regarding the impact of the upwards extension of Block C on the flats at 2 to 40 Abbotsmead Place to the south west. The additional storey would be 22 metres from the flats at its closest point increasing in distance due to the angled relationship and the proposed design which stops short of the southernmost part of the existing building. Whilst the proposals would alter the view from the flats, it is considered that the scale increase at the distances involved would not be so great as to cause harm to the amenity of occupiers of the existing flats in terms of overbearing effects, loss of light, or loss of outlook. The proposals do not involve new windows facing the rear and as such privacy would not be affected.

6.72 With regard to noise, the submitted noise assessment has considered the D2 use in Block C on the basis of cinema use and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council’s Environmental Protection Team that a cinema use would be acceptable in terms of the impact on surrounding noise-sensitive premises. The D2 Use Class includes a wide range of uses including bingo, dance halls, gyms, concert halls etc. Given that these uses can have very different characteristics such of hours of use, the activity associated with the use and the nature of noise generated, it is considered reasonable to restrict the use to a cinema only with any future use to be assessed under a separate application.

6.73 The retail and café/restaurant uses within the development as a whole represents a continuation of the existing situation and it is not anticipated that this would alter the noise environment significantly. A condition requiring a noise assessment for additional plant (air conditioning, refrigeration, air extract etc.) is recommended as the implications of these is not clear at this stage and will depend on the specific requirements of future commercial occupiers of the site.

6.74 On this basis it is considered that the proposals would comply with Policies DM4 and CS34.

ix) Amenity of Future Residents 6.75 The proposed flats comply with the Council’s internal space standards

and it is considered that they would benefit from appropriate daylight, outlook and privacy.

6.76 The site fronts a busy road and the existing noise levels would exceed appropriate residential standards without suitable insulation. It is therefore recommended that the noise mitigation measures set out in the submitted noise assessment are implemented and a condition is recommended to secure this. The Council’s Environmental Protection team are satisfied that this would ensure a reasonable noise environment

170


for future residents and as such it is considered that the proposals are acceptable in this respect.

6.77 In order to meet the noise insulation standards, mechanical ventilation is

required. Given the poor air quality on the street frontage, it is recommended that a condition is included to require air intakes to be located at the rear, or at roof level, where air is cleaner.

6.78 Objector concerns relating to the access arrangements to the second

floor flats are noted. It is apparent that were the proposals to involve an entirely new-build, the proposed arrangement would not be appropriate. However as the proposals are an extension to the existing building, which already has a similar raised walkway access arrangement at first floor, a continuation of this approach is considered to be reasonable.

6.79 It is considered that the proposals would offer an acceptable living

environment for future occupiers of the flats, in accordance with the aims of Policies DM4.

x) Archaeology 6.80 The advice of Berkshire Archaeology is that the site has the potential to

contain archaeology of interest. It is recommended that a condition securing a Written Scheme of Investigation for archaeological works is imposed to avoid harm to archaeology. This is in accordance with Policy CS33.

xi) Flood Risk

6.81 The Sequential Test applies to Block A as it proposes a new residential building within Flood Zone 2. In this particular instance it is considered that the current poor quality appearance of the vacant plot on which Block A would stand and the need for regeneration of the site to improve the appearance of the district centre suggests that the sequential test search area should be limited to the site itself. Within this constraint, it is considered that there are no reasonably available alternative sites and the proposal therefore passes the test.

6.82 It is considered that dry access exists to Church Street and the majority of the surrounding land is within Zone 1. On this basis it is considered that Block A would retain suitable access during a flood.

6.83 The advice of the Environment Agency in respect of floor levels is noted and a condition requiring the minimum floor level is recommended.

6.84 The proposed car park within Flood Zone 2 is considered to be acceptable as it is open sided and would have very little impact on the capacity of area in respect of flood water and minimal obstruction to floodwater flow. The parking at surface level is very similar to existing.

171


6.85 A condition is recommended (included as part of the landscaping condition) to secure water-permeable surfacing wherever possible to reduce surface water runoff and reduce impermeable areas within the flood zone.

6.86 It is considered that the proposals would not result in a harmful increase in flood risk. In accordance with Policies CS26 and CS35.

xii) Sustainability

6.87 The applicant has submitted pre-estimators for Code for Sustainable Homes for the new dwellings and BREEAM for the commercial elements. These indicate that the scheme can meet and potentially exceed the policy requirement for Level 3 / Very Good with a score of 62.5 as an alternative and more practical approach to meeting the halfway split between Level 3 and 4 of the Code and Very Good and Excellent of BREEAM. Conditions securing this are recommended.

xiii) Dwelling Mix 6.88 The proposals consist of 22 two bedroom and 18 one bedroom flats. It is

considered that this is appropriate for the district centre location and is in excess of the requirement of Policy DM8 for a minimum of 25% of the units to be 2 bedroom or larger and complies with the aims of Policy CS15 on dwelling mix.

xiv) Public Toilets 6.89 A number of objections have been received to the removal of the existing

toilet block and its replacement with a facility inside the Waitrose retail unit next to the southern entrance. It is acknowledged that the proposals will result in a change in the amount of toilet provision as the current block operated by the Council is open 06.30 to 23.30, 364 days a year. The new facility would be limited to the opening hours of the retail unit. Benefits are likely to include more regular cleaning checks and inclusion within the store’s security arrangements. The effect of the changed location is minimal as the store entrance is close to the existing toilet block and would remain convenient for all users of the precinct. On balance it is considered that the proposals would maintain a good quality toilet facility during the peak hours of use of the centre. Uses such as the leisure and restaurant uses in Block C, which would have later opening times, would be expected to have their own toilet facilities for customers to use. On this basis it is considered there would be no harmful reduction in the availability of toilet facilities in accordance with Policies CS26 and CS32.

172


xv) Refuse Storage and Collection 6.90 The service yards to the rear of the buildings offer good potential for off-

street collection of refuse and recycling associated with all uses within the site, in accordance with Policies CS2 and DM12.

xvi) Ecology 6.91 The Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposals and confirmed that the

proposed works would not result in harm to protected species or the ecological value of the area, in accordance with Policy CS36 Biodiversity and Geology. The proposals include good potential for ecological enhancements within the buildings and landscaping

xvii) Affordable Housing 6.92 The Planning Statement notes that the Draft Alteration to the Local Plan

on Affordable Housing requires 30% of new residential to be affordable. It is important to make clear that this is emerging policy that has not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State, and is not likely to be adopted until 2015. Whilst it is a material consideration, the development plan policy remains Core Strategy Policy CS16 which sets a requirement of 50% on site provision unless it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that this would not be viable.

6.93 The question of viability and the extent to which a reduction in the policy

requirement can be justified is currently the subject of ongoing discussions between the applicant and the Council’s Valuer. The outcome of these discussions, together with any associated amendments to the recommendation, will be reported to Committee in an Update Report.

xvii) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 & Community Infrastructure Levy) 6.94 In accordance with Policies DM3, CS9, CS20, CS29, CS32 and associated

Supplementary Planning Documents, the following are required to be secured by S106 agreement:

6.95 The sum of £430,048 will be used towards schemes identified in the

Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to commencement of development

6.96 The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation

infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development.

6.97 The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure

within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index-

173


linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development.

6.98 In addition to the financial contributions towards infrastructure set out

above the following are also required to be secured under the legal agreement:

6.99 Affordable Housing, details to be agreed as described above. 6.100 An Employment Skills and Training Plan – in accordance with the Council’s

SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing.

6.101 A pedestrian route between new public square and Church Street, to be

provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours.

6.102 Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and

maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours.

6.103 Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the

sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity.

6.104 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with

the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. These Heads of Terms have been agreed by the applicant and an s106 Legal Agreement is in the process of being prepared to secure these contributions.

xviii) Equality 6.105 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to

its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current applications) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

6.106 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered

there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.

174


7. CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the proposals do not address all the concerns raised by officers or

local residents, the proposed development taken as a whole offers an improvement to the site compared to the existing centre and would not conflict with development plan policy to a harmful extent. On balance and taking into account the benefits of the scheme, the application is recommended for approval, subject to the satisfactory resolution of ongoing negotiations in respect of the provision of Affordable Housing and the retention of the Holm Oak.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar Information Submitted with the Application: Drawings: Masterplan PP-MP-01 Rev. P2 Existing Site Plan PP-MP-02 Rev. P5 Proposed Site Plan PP-MP-03 Rev. P3 Proposed Site Sections PP-MP-04 Rev. P3 Proposed Streetscape Elevations PP-MP-05 Rev. P3 Proposed View along Church St - 1/3 PP-MP-06 Rev. P2 Proposed View along Church St - 2/3 PP-MP-07 Rev. P2 Proposed View along Church St - 5/3 PP-E-01 Rev. P1 Site Location Plan PP-MP-08 Typical Shopfronts and Canopy Detail PP-MP-09 Signage Strategy Plan PP-MP-11 Proposed Façade Build Up Block A: PP-A-01 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor GA PP-A-02 Rev. P3 Proposed First Floor GA PP-A-03 Rev. P3 Proposed Second Floor GA PP-A-04 Rev. P3 Proposed Third Floor GA PP-A-05 Rev. P2 Proposed Fourth Floor GA PP-A-06 Rev. P2 Proposed South Elevation PP-A-07 Rev. P3 Proposed North Elevation PP-A-08 Rev. P2 Proposed West Elevation PP-A-09 Rev. P2 Proposed East Elevation PP-A-10 Rev. P2 Proposed West Elevation (Context)

Block B: B-E1 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor Plan B-E2 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor Plan B-E3 Rev. P2 Existing Second Floor Plan B-E4 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations E&W B-E5 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations N&S B-P1 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan B-P2 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan B-P3 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan

175


B-P4 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations N&S B-P5 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations E&W Block C: PP-C-01 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor GA PP-C-02 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor GA PP-C-03 Rev. P2 Existing Roof Plan PP-C-04 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations PP-C-05 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor GA PP-C-06 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor GA PP-C-07 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor GA PP-C-08 Rev. P2 Proposed Roof Plan PP-C-09 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations Sheet 1 PP-C-10 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevations Sheet 2 Block D: D201 Rev. P2 Existing Ground Floor Plan D202 Rev. P2 Existing First Floor Plan D203 Rev. P2 Existing Roof Plan D301 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations Sheet 1 D302 Rev. P2 Existing Elevations Sheet 2 D501 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan D502 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan D503 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan D504 Rev. P2 Proposed Terrace Floor Plan D601 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevation Sheet 1 D602 Rev. P2 Proposed Elevation Sheet 2 Block E: PP-E-02 Rev. P1 Existing Ground Floor GA PP-E-03 Rev. P1 Existing First Floor GA PP-E-04 Rev. P1 Existing Second Floor GA PP-E-05 Rev. P1 Existing Roof Plan PP-E-07 Rev. P1 Existing Elevations N, S & W PP-E-08 Rev. P1 Existing Elevations East PP-E-14 Rev. P2 Proposed Ground Floor Plan PP-E-15 Rev. P2 Proposed First Floor Plan PP-E-16 Rev. P2 Proposed Second Floor Plan PP-E-17 Rev. P2 Proposed Roof Plan PP-E-18 Rev. P3 Proposed Car Park - Grade PP-E-19 Rev. P2 Proposed Deck Parking PP-E-20 Rev. P2 Proposed Front Elevation PP-E-21 Rev. P1 Proposed Rear Elevation PP-E-22 Rev. P2 Proposed Sections Sheet 1 PP-E-23 Rev. P2 Proposed Sections Sheet 2 PP-E-24 Rev. P2 Proposed Car Park Elevations (1:200) PP-E-25 Rev. P2 Proposed Kiosk PP-E-26 Rev. P1 Proposed Car Park Elevations (1:100) Public Realm L25 Rev. 03 18511-L25 Public Realm Sheet RG-L-AI13 Rev 01 Soft Landscaping

176


Documents Arboricultural Impact Assessment Air Quality Assessment Design and Access Statement Construction Waste and Recycling Drainage Strategy Report Economic Benefit Statement Flood Risk Assessment Ground Conditions Statement Heritage Statement Noise Assessment Phase 1 Habitat and Bat Survey Planning Statement Statement of Community Engagement Sustainability and Energy Statement Transport Assessment Travel Plan Case Officer: Steve Vigar

177


178


179


180


Site of proposed Block A – Block B to left side of frame.

Church Street Block E to left, Block D and Holm Oak beyond.

181


Holm Oak (evergreen) to be retained and Horse Chestnuts to be removed. Library in background.

Rear car park area looking north west – entrance to car park to left of frame – Rear of Block E to right side.

182

CHURCH

183

COMMITTEE REPORT


Ward: Church App No.: 152110/FUL Site Address: University of Reading, Shinfield Road, Reading Proposal: Construction of three tennis courts covered with an air dome including lighting and heating with associated fencing and storage container. Applicant: The University of Reading Date valid: 14 January 2016 13 Week Date: 1 July 2016 (agreed extension of time) 26 Week Date: 15 July 2016

RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should legal agreement not be completed by 1 July 2016 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement). The S106 legal agreement to secure an Employment, Skills and Training Plan relating to the construction phase of the development, or equivalent financial contribution of £4,655, in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013). AND subject to conditions, to include:

1. Time limit for commencement – 3 years 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings. 3. Notwithstanding the approved drawings, details of all external materials and

fencing (2 metre high maximum) to be submitted for approval prior to commencement, including a grey-coloured fabric to dome exterior.

4. Pre-commencement submission and approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement for all adjacent trees.

5. Development in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement 6. Pre-commencement submission and approval of a Construction Method Statement

for tree protection for all adjacent trees. 7. Development in accordance with the approved tree protection CMS. 8. Details of ecological enhancements, to include additional planting, to be submitted

for approval prior to commencement. 9. Submission of Construction Management Statement (highways, noise, dust and

burning of waste) prior to commencement. 10. 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 preliminary details and including details of its implementation and future maintenance, have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 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.

11. Notwithstanding drg. SS1824 03 rev.01: Implementation of the tree planting as shown on Tree Planting Plan SS1824 09 in the first planting season following

185

commencement of development 12. Replacement planting for any tree that dies within 5 years of being planted 13. Notwithstanding the submitted details, the structure of the dome shall be entirely

opaque and shall not allow light to pass through the structure (ecology, landscape impact).

14. No mechanical plant shall be installed except in accordance with the submitted noise assessment. Other mechanical plant shall not be installed until a noise assessment of the proposed mechanical plant has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The assessment shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology. The plant shall thereafter only be installed in accordance with the assessment and shall thereafter be maintained to the same standard.

15. No external lighting to be installed other than in accordance with details to be submitted. (Landscape impact, ecology and residential amenity)

16. Hours of Working restriction 17. Hours of use 07.00 until 22.00 weekdays, 09.00 until 21.00 weekends and public

holidays. Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach 2. Environmental Protection advice 3. S106 advice

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is located on existing playing fields within the Whiteknights Campus. The

site is immediately to the north of existing tennis courts at the SportsPark, to the west of the Windsor Hall halls of residence and to the south of the recently constructed Mackinder Hall halls of residence. The closest dwellings beyond the campus are those on Elmhurst Road approximately 190 metres to the west across the playing fields.

1.2 The site is close to a group of mature trees to the west within the playing field and also a belt of trees to the east on a north-south alignment. This belt of trees is identified as Biodiversity Action Plan habitat on the Proposals Map. The site is also within a ‘Green Link’ as shown on the Proposals Map.


186

Site Photograph – site at red arrow

2. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 141336 The demolition of the existing 2no. floodlights to the eastern and western

edges of the tennis courts at the Whiteknights Campus and the erection of 12no. new floodlights around the perimeter of the tennis courts. Approved.

3. PROPOSALS 3.1 Full Planning permission is sought for the provision of an inflatable ‘air dome’ to

cover three new hard surface tennis courts. The dome would be 38 metres wide by 50 metres long and would rise to a maximum height of 11 metres.

3.2 The dome would be constructed from a high tensile vinyl-coated polyester fabric

outer layer. This has been revised on the advice of officers from white to a darker grey. An inner layer of thermal and acoustic insulation would also be provided, this has been amended on the advice of officers to secure this as opaque, instead of translucent as originally proposed.

3.3 The dome would be inflated and internal pressure maintained through two fans

housed within an acoustic enclosure. 3.4 Information Submitted with the Application:

Drawings SS1824 02 Rev.00 Block Plan of Site, dated 6 November 2015 SS1824 03 Rev.01 Proposed Site Plan, dated 22 February 2016 SS1824 04 Rev.01 Proposed Plan, dated 22 February 2016 SS1824 05 Rev.00 Elevation, dated 25 November 2015

SS1824 09 Rev. 00 Tree Planting Plan, dated 18 April 2016 SS1824 T1 Rev.00 Topographical Survey dated 6 November 2016 Documents Noise Assessment JAE 9019 Rev.0 dated 19 April 2016

187

Design and Access Statement SS1824 First Issue dated 25 November 2015 Tree Survey/Tree Constraints Plan TCP-CC/1303 AR2806 Rev.1 dated 10 December

2015 4. CONSULTATIONS i) RBC Transport 4.1 The proposed tennis court dome will be an extension to the existing facilities at

University of Reading’s SportsPark. The University currently has a row of 5 outdoor tarmacadam tennis courts and the new tennis court dome will enhance this provision by creating an indoor floodlit space providing all year round indoor tennis.

4.2 The SportsPark provides a wide range of outdoor sport and physical activity programmes for the community, however, nearly 80% of members are Reading University students. The Tennis Court will be available for use on a pre-booked basis when the university is open for use to the community.

4.3 In respect of parking, the proposed tennis courts will utilise the existing on-site parking arrangements associated with the University and SportsPark complex. Parking for community use will be in the evening and will therefore not conflict with the university day time use of the parking area and traffic.

4.4 It is considered that the proposed tennis court dome will not generate a significant increase in trips to and from the University during peak periods. Therefore, there are no transport objections to the proposal.

ii) RBC Natural Environment (Trees and Ecology)

4.5 Following negotiations to secure additional trees to screen the development from Elmhurst Road, Natural Environment are reasonably happy with the proposed landscaping, i.e. the addition of 9 new Limes on the Elmhurst Road boundary, particularly as the University’s Head of Grounds has confirmed that these are feasible. A condition is therefore required for:

- implementation of the tree planting as shown on Tree Planting Plan SS1824 09 in the first planting season following commencement of development.

- Replacement planting for any tree that dies within 5 years of being planted

4.6 The issues with existing trees, have not been addressed. A plan should be prepared for construction showing the route of works access, storage etc, alongside tree protection measures, in the form of a tree protection plan or method statement. A specification for the ‘no-dig’ access path is also required.

4.7 Although it is preferable to resolve these matters prior to a decision appropriate pre-commencement conditions could be used:

- pre-commencement submission and approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement

- pre-commencement submission and approval of a CMS, to incorporate tree protection requirements. Thereafter:

- Development in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement - Development in accordance with the approved CMS.

188

4.8 The Council’s Ecologist advises that a condition controlling external lighting

should be included. Also ecological enhancements should be provided, including additional planting.

iii) Lead Flood Authority (RBC Highways) 4.9 No objection received. iv) RBC Environmental Protection 4.10 The submitted noise assessment shows that the predicted plant noise is well within

EP criteria and is therefore acceptable.

4.11 The assessment concludes that the noise from the use of the tennis courts will be reduced by the presence of the dome, although this is a qualitative and subjective assessment as no measurements have been taken of this. It should be noted that although the dome will reduce the noise currently emanating from the courts, the presence of the dome is likely to intensify the use of the courts. However, as the tennis courts are a considerable distance from the nearest residents, the indication is that the noise levels will be acceptable.

4.12 A condition is recommended requiring mechanical plant to be in accordance with the noise assessment, or where different, to be subject to further noise assessment.

v) Berkshire Archaeology

4.13 Comments are awaited and will be reported to Committee in an update report.

vi) Sport England

4.14 Sport England is satisfied with the further information received by the applicant which provides confirmation of the new training area for Rugby and detail of its location. Sport England will withdraw the earlier objection and therefore considers that the proposal meets Exception 5 of its playing fields policy.

4.15 [Exception 5 is as follows: “The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor

sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the playing field or playing fields’.”]

Public Consultation

4.16 Neighbours adjoining the site were consulted by letter, including those facing the site on Elmhurst Road.

4.17 A site notice was displayed on Elmhurst Road. 4.18 One objection has been received as follows:

189

• The amount of sports grass lost is not given, but is not minor. • A green colour would help reduce the impact of the tall white building. • The security fence should be selected to reduce its visual impact. • Can interior lighting be designed so that a minimum of light escapes through the

transparent covering to reduce visual impact. • Can any outside lights be designed to maintain this currently dark area. • Is the total carbon dioxide output of interest?

4.19 Two letters of support have been received as follows: • This all-weather facility will be a big improvement on the existing University

tennis courts; it will allow and encourage year-round participation in tennis by the local community.

• As a non-university player on the existing hard courts, the addition of these covered courts will be much appreciated and enable me and my fellow players to play all year round in all weather conditions. The new facility should also help to broaden access to new local players and students to both the hard and covered courts. A great idea, long overdue.

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 National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework:

Core Strategy (2008) (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS20 Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS28 Loss of Open Space CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015): SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaption to Climate Change DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting

SA6 Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading

Supplementary Planning Documents: Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) Employment Skills and Training (2013)

190

6. APPRAISAL i) Principle of Development 6.1 Policy considerations affecting the principle of development are the loss of open

space (policy CS28), the development on sports pitches (national policy) and the further development of the University of Reading Whiteknights Campus (Policy SA6).

6.2 Following negotiations with the applicant as part of this application, Sport England

has confirmed that sufficient space for playing pitches remains and that there is no objection to the proposal on this basis.

6.3 This leaves the harm arising from the loss of open space; to be balanced against

Policy SA6, which states that “The University of Reading is a national and international educational establishment of strategic importance which will continue to adapt and expand over the plan period. The Whiteknights Campus as shown on the Proposals Map will continue to be a focus for development associated with the University of Reading. Such development may include additional student, staff, teaching, research and enterprise accommodation, infrastructure and services, and sports and leisure facilities among other uses…”

6.4 Policy SA6 supports development on the campus, “provided that the loss of

undeveloped areas on the site will be weighed against the benefits of development to the wider community”

6.5 In this instance it is considered that the sporting benefits of the proposal are clear

and that these would be of benefit to the wider community as an extension to the existing SportsPark facilities, enabling tennis practice, coaching and matches to be carried out at all times of year and in all weathers. It is therefore considered that in this instance the support given to further development on the campus by Policy SA6 outweighs any harm arising from the loss of open space.

6.6 On this basis it is considered that the principle of the development is acceptable,

subject to other considerations including the impact on the character of the area, the landscape setting of the campus, ecology, transport and the amenity of neighbours.

i) Character, Appearance and Landscape Impact 6.7 The development would impact visually on the surrounding open space and would

represent a marked change from the existing grass playing field, introducing a somewhat stark, artificial, feature into the landscape. It is considered that without appropriate mitigation this would be harmful to the landscaped character of the area and the visual amenity of surrounding streets.

6.8 A key concern is the potential for the dome, lit from within, to glow in the

landscape. Following negotiations with the applicant, it has been agreed that the dome would be fitted with an opaque inner layer which would prevent light penetrating the structure. It is acknowledged that this would compromise the quality of the interior to some extent due to the need for completely artificial lighting, however it is considered that the proposal would be particularly harmful

191

visually if internal lighting were to be visible from the outside. A condition securing the opaque construction is recommended.

6.9 The original proposal was for a predominantly white coloured dome. It is

considered that this would have accentuated its presence in the landscape and increase the visual harm identified. A more neutral grey colour has now been agreed. A green colour may appear as too dark a mass in the landscape. Precise details are recommended to be secured by condition.

6.10 Although the opaque structure will greatly reduce the landscape impact, views of

the structure from Elmhurst Road remain a concern as this is the main vantage point from outside the campus. Existing trees on the boundary of the campus with Elmhurst Road and also within the playing fields would offer some screening of the development. However gaps would remain and it is considered that further planting is necessary to soften the appearance of the dome when viewed from the Public Realm. A total of 9 additional Lime trees on the Elmhurst Road boundary have been agreed with the applicant.

6.11 The security fencing could appear somewhat stark depending on its precise design

and finish. The applicant has agreed to reduce the height from 3 to 2 metres, which is considered to be an improvement. It is recommended that full details should be required by condition with a view to securing as unobtrusive colour and design as possible.

6.12 On this basis it is considered that sufficient mitigation has been secured to reduce

the visual impact of the dome on the landscape setting of the campus and the visual amenity of the surrounding public realm. It is therefore considered that the development would comply with Policy CS7 and CS28 of the Core Strategy which relate to the effect on the character of the area and on the appearance of open space.

ii) Landscaping and Ecology 6.13 The Council’s Natural Environment team has been consulted on the application and

do not object to the proposals, on the basis that additional tree planting has been secured to screen the development.

6.14 The applicant has been unsuccessful in submitting appropriate tree protection

details to date and as such the conditions requiring submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement and details of methods of tree protection during construction are recommended.

6.15 The proposals would be on the line of a Green Link and adjacent to woodland

identified as Biodiversity Action Plan habitat. The controls on interior light referred to above are important in minimising the impact on these. In addition, a condition requiring controls over any external lighting is recommended. A condition requiring details of ecological enhancements, which may require additional planting around the dome to minimise the impact on the Green Link is also recommended.

6.16 On this basis it is considered that the proposals comply with Policies CS7, CS36 and

CS38 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM18 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.

192

iii) Transport 6.17 The comments of the Council’s Transport section are set out above in detail in

Section 4. It is considered that this is an appropriate assessment of the transport impacts of the proposal.

6.18 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CS20 and CS24 of the Core

Strategy and Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document on this basis. iv) Sustainable Drainage 6.19 The application includes a drainage strategy which explains that the surrounding

boundary of the dome would be provided with a perimeter of permeable stone that would link with the permeable stone sub base of the tennis courts and act together as an attenuation/storage area for surface water and act as a soakaway with surface water dissipating through the underlying soil level. This would be combined with a perimeter perforated drainage system underneath the boundary margin of stone that connects into the existing surface water drainage system to the south east corner of the existing tennis courts. It is considered that this is sufficient to demonstrate that the surface water would be dealt with primarily through on-site infiltration, which is the priority set out in National Planning Practice Guidance. The precise details of construction and maintenance are recommended to be secured by condition.

v) Environmental Sustainability 6.20 Policy CS1 requires Major development such as the current proposal to meet the

BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and ‘Very Good’ standards with at least half the development achieving ‘Excellent’. The Council’s Sustainable Construction and Design SPD explains that for practicality this is best achieved in many cases by securing an average score of halfway between Excellent and Very Good, which equates to 62.5 BREEAM points. In this instance it is considered that compliance with these standards would be difficult as the dome is not a conventional building. It is considered that there is an overriding benefit in providing this facility in sporting and community benefit terms. However it is considered reasonable to secure further details of heating, lighting, thermal insulation and inflation fan power usage by condition, to ensure that opportunities are taken to reduce energy use, including the use of renewable energy where appropriate.

vi) Effect on Residential Amenity 6.21 It is considered that the restrictions on light emanating from the structure, and

also on outdoor lighting would prevent harm arising from excessive light or glare affecting dwellings on Elmhurst Road, and also residents of the University’s nearby halls of residence.

6.22 The Council’s Environmental Protection team have confirmed that the proposals

would not result in noise affecting nearby residents both in terms of plant noise and noise from the use of the facility. The applicant has indicated that the use would be limited to between 0700 and 2200 on weekdays and 0900 and 2100 at weekends and public holidays. It is considered reasonable to secure these hours by condition to avoid noise from comings and goings beyond the site boundary affecting the amenity of residents.

193

vii) Employment, Skills and Training 6.23 The proposal is classified as a Major development and as such the requirements of

the Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013) apply. An Employment Skills and Training Plan is required to relate to the construction phase. It is considered that a plan relating to the ‘End User Phase’, i.e. the ongoing operation of the site, is not justified in this instance because the application form states that staff would only increase by a relatively insignificant amount, from 19.3 to 20.3 (full time equivalent).

6.24 The applicant agrees to the principle of an ESTP. It is recommended that

submission of the detailed plan, or the equivalent financial contribution of £4,655 in lieu of a plan, are secured by S106 agreement on this basis.

viii) Equality 6.25 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, or sexual orientation. 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.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that, although the development would result in a loss of open

space, this is outweighed by the sporting and community benefits of the proposal. Whilst the visual impact would be significant, it is considered that sufficient mitigation in the form of controls over lighting and the provision of additional tree screening are sufficient to allow the development to proceed.

7.2 The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and

subject to completion of the S106 legal agreement. Case Officer: Steve Vigar

194

DRAWINGS

Proposed Layout Plan

195

Proposed Elevations (N.B. fencing to be reduced in height as per recommended

condition)

196

Tree Planting Plan

197

Enlarged extract from Tree Planting Plan

198

View from Queens Drive northwards with proposed dome site between tennis courts in foreground and Mackinder Hall in background.

View south east from Elmhurst Road

Site of dome looking south with existing tennis courts beyond

199

COMMITTEE REPORT


Ward: Church App No.: 160574/FUL Site Address: University of Reading, Shinfield Road, Reading Proposal: Temporary Academic and Office Accommodation Applicant: The University of Reading Date valid: 31 March 2016 13 Week Date: 30 June 2016 26 Week Date: 29 September 2016

RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should legal agreement not be completed by 30 June 2016 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement). The S106 legal agreement to secure an Employment, Skills and Training Plan relating to the construction phase of the development, or equivalent financial contribution of £8,590, in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013). AND subject to conditions, to include:

1. Temporary permission – 5 years. 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings. 3. Materials to be in accordance with Design and Access Statement and submitted

drawings. 4. Notwithstanding drawing 01-1170 Rev C: Submission of Arboricultural Impact

Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan for all trees to be retained, to include T36 Sycamore, within and adjacent to the site, for approval prior to commencement. Development to be in accordance with approved details at all times thereafter.

5. Details of hard and soft landscaping including new tree planting, including a replacement for the False Acacia T46. To include full tree pit details. To be submitted prior to first occupation.

6. Implementation timetable and maintenance details of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted prior to first occupation.

7. The submitted Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8. No development shall be occupied until full technical details of the drainage system for all surface water within the site, in accordance with the submitted preliminary details 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 SuDS 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

200

development. 9. No mechanical plant shall be installed until a noise assessment of the proposed

mechanical plant has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The assessment shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology. The plant shall thereafter only be installed in accordance with the assessment and shall thereafter be maintained to the same standard.

10. Hours of Working restriction 11. Development to be in accordance with submitted Energy and Sustainability

Statement. Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach 2. Environmental Protection advice 3. S106 advice

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is located within the Whiteknights Campus, close to the junction of

Chancellor’s Way with Shinfield Road.

1.2 The site is near to the Grade II listed ‘Lodge to Whiteknights Park House, 31, Shinfield Road’ to the west at Grade II listed ‘Blandford Lodge, Chancellors Way’, to the east.

1.3 The site contains a number of trees of amenity value, and is adjacent to a small area of woodland within the campus to the east.

1.4 Until recently the site contained a large pre-fabricated building housing the Rural History Centre, which has now been demolished to slab level.


201

Site Photograph

2. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 151895/PRE - Temporary Accommodation units comprising 3 400 square metres of

floorspace provided over 2 floors as an initial phase. Observations sent. 2.2 151284/DEM - Application for prior notification of proposed demolition (Rural

History Centre building) – Confirmed Prior Approval Not Required. 2.3 10/01162/EXT (100726)- Application for an extension of the time limit for

implementation of permission 07/00785/OUT for the erection of a 151 guestroom hotel and conference centre with adjacent car parking and a new car park on Queen’s Drive totalling 400 spaces (access, scale, layout and landscaping) (re-submission of 06/01443/OUT) approved 16 September 2010 (expired 15 September 2013)

2.4 07/00785/OUT - Outline application for the erection of a 151 guestroom hotel and

conference centre with adjacent car parking and a new carpark on Queens Drive totalling 400 spaces (access, scale, layout and landscaping) (re-submission of 06/01443/OUT) approved 28 September 2007.

2.5 06/01443/OUT - Outline application for the erection of a 151 guestroom hotel and

conference centre (access, layout and landscaping) – Refused 24 April 2007 3. PROPOSALS 3.1 Full Planning permission is sought for the erection of a large (3436sqm) two storey

pre-fabricated building to accommodate teaching accommodation together with offices for academic and administration staff.

3.2 The proposals are intended to accommodate existing staff and students displaced

by development proposals elsewhere in the campus for a 5 year temporary period. 3.3 The building would be sited on broadly the same footprint as the demolished Rural

History Centre building.

202

3.4 Information Submitted with the Application:

Drawings

01-1101 Existing Topographical Overlay dated 17 February 2016 01-2100.1 Rev D Elevations Option 1 dated 8 March 2016 01-2101.1 Rev D Elevations Option 1 dated 8 March 2016 01-1140 Rev C Proposed Site Plan Showing Services dated 23 March 2016 01-1170 Rev C Site Logistics & Enabling Works, dated 11 March 2016 01-2000 Rev F General Arrangements, dated 9 March 2016

Documents

Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement CC/1459 AR2699 dated 16 March 2016 Tree Protection Plan TPP-CC/1459 AR2699 dated 16 March 2016 University of Reading Rural History Centre Ecology Update Report ref. 855711 Rev 02, dated 18 March 2016 Energy and Sustainability Statement ref. UNIW3010 dated March 2016 Transport Statement ref. DA/AH/sjs/JNY8671-04A, dated 21 March 2016 Design and Access Statement ref. UNIW3010 dated 23 March 2016 Construction Method Statement

4. CONSULTATIONS RBC Transport 4.1 The proposed temporary Academic and Office Accommodation will accommodate

staff and students relocated as part of other Whiteknights Campus extension and refurbishment projects. There is no intention to increase staff or pupil numbers at the University, therefore, the proposal would not increase person trips to or from the University.

4.2 The construction of The Chancellor’s Way Building will require large HGVs and

abnormal loads in order to deliver and erect the modular building structure. This is covered by a Construction Method Statement submitted as part of this application.

4.3 The building would be constructed during the University summer holidays,

minimising impact on students and staff. The modular building construction and fit-out would be undertaken in parallel with the resurfacing of The Chancellor’s Way to minimise disruption to staff and students, and additional re-routing of bus services.

4.4 There are no transport objections in respect of this proposal subject to a condition

securing the implementation of the submitted Construction Method Statement.

203

RBC Natural Environment (Trees and Ecology)

4.5 T36 is a B category Sycamore with no defects noted and was only recommended for removal by the applicant’s tree consultant due to the proximity of the proposal.

4.6 If this had been an application for a full and permanent proposal, whilst the loss of

a B category tree should always be avoided if possible, it may on balance have been acceptable. However, the proposal is for temporary buildings. The removal of good quality trees for a temporary structure is not acceptable. It has been confirmed by the applicant that T36 could be retained and the protection of this tree should be a requirement of a condition.

4.7 The AIA and AMS, along with TPP should be amended to reflect this to ensure that

any facilitative pruning, protection and works within the RPA of T36 are dealt with. This should be requested now.

4.8 The D&A Statement indicates new landscaping will be incorporated, in which case

a condition is required to secure pre-commencement submission of this (standard condition but including tree pit details), which should include a replacement tree on the frontage for the False acacia (T45) to be felled. Subsequent conditions are required for the implementation of this and replacement planting is anything fails with the period of use of the buildings.

Lead Flood Authority (RBC Highways)

4.9 No objection received. Any comments received will be reported in an Update Report.

RBC Transport Development Control

4.10 The proposed temporary Academic and Office Accommodation will accommodate staff and students relocated as part of other Whiteknights Campus extension and refurbishment projects. There is no intention to increase staff or pupil numbers at the University, therefore, the proposal would not increase person trips to or from the University.

4.11 The construction of The Chancellor’s Way Building will require large HGVs and

abnormal loads in order to deliver and erect the modular building structure. This is covered by a Construction Method Statement submitted as part of this application.

4.12 The building would be constructed during the University summer holidays,

minimising impact on students and staff. The modular building construction and fit-out would be undertaken in parallel with the resurfacing of The Chancellor’s Way to minimise disruption to staff and students, and additional re-routing of bus services.

4.13 There are no transport objections in respect of this proposal subject to a condition

to secure implementation of the Constructon Method Statement.

204

RBC Environmental Protection 4.14 No objection subject to a condition requiring submission of a noise assessment and

details of noise attenuation measures for any plant proposed.

Berkshire Archaeology

4.15 The area of impact outside the previous footprint is minimal and it is likely that at least some of this will have been previously disturbed during the construction of the previous building. It is unlikely therefore that archaeological remains will be disturbed during construction of the proposed building in this instance no archaeological work is necessary.

Public Consultation

4.16 Neighbours adjoining the site were consulted by letter. 4.17 A site notice was displayed at the junction of Chancellor’s Way and Shinfield Road. 4.18 One response has been received as follows:

“I would suggest that a new Pedestrian Refuge Island is placed after the junction between Chancellor Way and Shinfield Road as there will be an increase of pedestrian traffic crossing the road to reach the bus stop on Shinfield Road. Often students run across Shinfield Road to catch a bus with a high probability of getting hit by a car speeding on Shinfield Road. Often cars exceed the 30mph limit.”

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that


5.2 National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework:

Core Strategy (2008) (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS4 Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS20 Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS33 Protection of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology

205

CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaption to Climate Change DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

SA6 Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading

Supplementary Planning Documents Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) Employment Skills and Training (2013)

6. APPRAISAL i) Character, Appearance and Visual Amenity 6.1 The proposed buildings replace a single storey building of a similar footprint.

Although the hotel building permissions have now lapsed, it is also relevant that these were for a taller building, which rose to four storeys. The current two storey proposal sits between these two buildings in terms of scale. It is considered that the proposed height and massing is acceptable on this basis and on the basis that the proposal would not appear overly dominant when viewed from the surrounding campus or Shinfield Road.

6.2 It is acknowledged that attempts have been made by the applicant to design a

building with an appearance that is better than a typical pre-fabricated temporary building. The use of coloured cladding panels, some variation in the window design, and provision of canopies does add visual interest to some extent. However it is considered that the proposals would nevertheless remain somewhat bland in appearance and would lack the depth within the facades and quality of fenestration associated with a more permanent structure. It is considered that, given the acceptable scale referred to above, the appearance would be acceptable for a 5 year temporary period. A more permanent building would be expected to have a higher quality architectural appearance.

6.3 Although the building would be visible from Shinfield Road, it is considered that

the building would be seen more within the context of the wider campus, rather than as forming part of the Shinfield Road streetscene. The campus is characterised by a wide range of building styles and the proposal would not appear out of place in this environment.

6.4 The building would affect the setting of two Grade II listed buildings. Whiteknights

Park House and Blandford Lodge. Whiteknights Park House is mainly viewed from Shinfield Road and would be separated from the proposal by approximately 80 metres of open space and a dense barrier of vegetation between. It is considered that the provision of larger buildings nearby would not harm the relatively limited and constrained setting of this historic ancillary building, or its heritage significance. Blandford Lodge is sited approximately 90 metres to the east. This would be separated visually by a small woodland. In this instance the building is surrounded at close quarters by large

206

modern buildings. It is considered that the proposed temporary buildings would have less of an effect than the existing buildings and would not impinge unduly on, or result in harm to, the setting of this building.

6.5 On this basis, taking into account the temporary nature of the proposal, it is considered that the development would comply with Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Core Strategy which relate to the effect on the character of the area and the effect on Heritage Assets.

ii) Landscaping and Ecology 6.6 The Council’s Natural Environment team has been consulted on the application and

do not object to the proposals, other than to raise concerns over the proposed loss of the existing Sycamore tree T36 which fronts Chancellor’s Way and raising the need to secure replacement tree planting for T46, a False Acacia. The current tree protection and landscaping details still refer to T36 as being removed and do not show replacement planting for T46. The applicant has agreed that they are willing to retain T36. On this basis it is recommended that further, revised tree protection details and landscaping proposals should be submitted. Conditions are recommended to secure this.

6.7 The submitted ecology report is an update of the report submitted in support of

the prior approval application for demolition of the Rural Studies building. This update confirms that no further ecological work is required following demolition of the building in 2015. This is considered to be a reasonable assessment given the current condition of the site.

6.8 On this basis it is considered that the proposals comply with Policies CS7, CS8,

CS36 and CS38 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM18 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.

iii) Transport 6.9 The comments of the Council’s Transport section are set out above in detail in

Section 4. It is considered that this is an appropriate assessment of the transport impacts of the proposal.

6.10 The comments received from a neighbour are noted. Although additional crossing

facilities could benefit pedestrians, the current proposals are to accommodate existing staff and students displaced by development proposals elsewhere in the campus. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not necessarily result in additional pedestrian traffic on Shinfield Road and as such a requirement for a crossing linked to this development cannot be justified.

6.11 The concerns regarding vehicle speeds are covered by separate legislation and not a matter for the local planning authority to enforce.

6.12 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CS20 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document on this basis.

207

iv) Sustainable Drainage 6.13 The current drainage proposals are for a conventional drainage system with

surface water discharging to the existing sewer network. It is appreciated that the building is temporary and sits above the existing foundations of the previous building. There may well be limitations on the extent to which new alternative drainage can be provided, or would be viable for a short temporary period. Indeed this would be further justification for requiring the presence of the building to be limited to 5 years to avoid long term substandard drainage. Notwithstanding these points, the applicant has been asked to look further at the potential for providing a more environmentally sustainable drainage solution. The outcome of this will be reported to Committee in an Update Report.

v) Environmental Sustainability 6.14 Policy CS1 requires Major development such as the current proposal to meet the

BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and ‘Very Good’ standards with at least half the development achieving ‘Excellent’. The Council’s Sustainable Construction and Design SPD explains that for practicality this is best achieved in many cases by securing an average score of halfway between Excellent and Very Good, which equates to 62.5 BREEAM points. A condition is recommended to secure this. 6.15 Policy DM1 requires the design of the building to incorporate measures to adapt to climate change. The submitted Energy Report explains that the proposals will include solar shading glazing to the showroom to reduce the need for air conditioning systems to be used. This is considered to be reasonable and commensurate with the scope of the proposals which are fundamentally extensions to existing buildings.

6.15 The submitted Energy and Sustainability statement explains that the current

proposals would score very highly in terms of energy use due to the precision with which the units can be built in a factory off-site resulting in high levels of air-tightness. Also in terms of the embodied energy of the buildings and the energy and waste associated with construction due to the efficiencies associated with factory pre-fabrication. The submitted statement suggests a 46% reduction in CO2

emissions over the lifetime of the development, compared with a conventional building constructed in situ. However the applicant has suggested that the prescriptive nature of BREEAM does not fit well with the type of modular building proposed, and cannot confirm that the policy standard of 62.5 BREEAM points will be achieved.

6.16 In this instance it is considered that the high levels of energy efficiency are

commendable, however without a more holistic approach to environmental sustainability, including SuDS drainage referred to above, the building is only appropriate for the 5 year temporary period applied for, beyond which its environmental effects would not be acceptable.

vi) Archaeology

6.17 The advice of Berkshire Archaeology is set out in detail in Section 4 above. It is

considered that this assessment is appropriate and therefore a detailed investigation is not required. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on archaeology in accordance with Policy CS33 and national policy and guidance in the NPPF.

208

vii) Employment, Skills and Training 6.18 The proposal is classified as a Major development and as such the requirements of

the Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013) apply. An Employment Skills and Training Plan is required to relate to the construction phase. A plan relating to the and the ‘End User Phase’ – the ongoing operation of the site is not justified in this instance because the staff using the building already exist within the campus and are simply being displaced for a temporary period. The applicant agrees to the principle of an ESP and has been in discussions with the Council’s Economic Development Manager with regard to the requirements. It is recommended that submission of the detailed plan, or the equivalent financial contribution of £8,590 in lieu of a plan, are secured by S106 agreement.

viii) Equality 6.19 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, or sexual orientation. 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.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the development would be acceptable for a temporary 5 year

period for the reasons set out above. The proposals are recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and subject to completion of the S106 legal agreement.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar

209

DRAWINGS

Proposed Site Plan

210

Proposed Floorplans

211

Proposed North (front) and West Elevations

212

Proposed South (rear) and East Elevations

213

Whiteknights Park House at junction of Chancellor’s Way and Shinfield Road

Looking South West towards site

214

Looking south towards site from UoR playing fields

215

MINSTER

217

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 27 April 2016 Ward: Minster App No.: 151924/FUL and 151925/LBC Address: 1 Castle Crescent Proposal: Refurbishment of 3 Castle Crescent to provide 5 residential dwellings including internal and external alterations. Demolition of existing outbuildings including existing coach house and garage. Development of 8 residential dwellings along eastern boundary of the site. All associated works include vehicular and pedestrian access, parking, landscaping and bin store provision. Applicant: Mr R Brown Date valid (151924/FUL): 29 October 2015 Date valid (151925/LBC): 28 October 2015 Major Application: target decision date (extended): 15 June 2016 Minor Application: target decision date (extended): 15 June 2016 RECOMMENDATION 151924/FUL Subject to confirmation from the Council’s Valuations Section that the proposed development would not be viable if affordable housing units are provided on site, or if a financial contribution is made to affordable housing, delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement securing:

• The provision of a continuous footway on the western side of Garnet Hill as per the approved site layout plan. The footway shall be constructed and adopted as public highway through a S278 agreement.

• The works to the listed building shall be completed, and the listed building shall be made ready for occupation, before the 4th new build dwelling is occupied.

• The applicant, their agent or their successors in title, shall provide for the on-going maintenance of the listed building.

If the obligation is not completed by 15 June 2016, delegate to officers to REFUSE as contrary to Policies CS16 and CS33 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies DM6 and DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document, unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement. 151925/LBC GRANT Listed Building Consent.

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE (151924/FUL)

1. Standard 3 year commencement. 2. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the development including all external fixtures, fittings, window frames and details of window and doorway reveals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

219

3. Before the accesses are brought into use signs shall be erected in accordance with the approved plan and drawing SIGN-01, and thereafter maintained in good condition.

4. No dwelling shall be occupied until space for vehicle parking and turning has been provided in accordance with the approved drawing. This area shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the current Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order, the garage accommodation on the site shall be kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times.

6. Secure, covered and lockable bicycle storage spaces shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands in accordance with a layout to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before occupation of the dwellings to which they relate.

7. The residential units hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Council has been notified in writing of the full postal address of the units. Such notification shall be addressed to the Council's Planning Manager (Implementation) quoting the planning application reference specified in this Decision Notice. Reason: In order that the Council can update its records to ensure that parking permits are not issued to the occupiers of the new residential units hereby approved, and thus ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area.

8. Prior to any agreement being entered into for a new occupation of, or transfer of any interest in, the residential units hereby approved the prospective occupier/transferee shall be informed of the prohibition on entitlement to a car parking permit. All material utilised for advertising or marketing the residential units for letting or sale shall make it clear to prospective tenants and occupiers that no parking permit will be issued by the Council to occupiers of the residential units. Reason: In order that the prospective occupiers are made aware of the fact that they will not be entitled to an on-street car parking permit, in the interests of the proper management of parking, and to ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area.

9. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

10. No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before occupation of the development approved and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

11. No development shall take place until an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a competent person, and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site.

12. No development shall take place until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13. The remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A validation report (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to construction of the development.

14. In the event that contamination not previously identified is found at any time when

220

carrying out the approved development, development must be halted on that part of the site and it must be reported in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Following that an assessment of the nature and extent of contamination must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme, together with a timetable for its implementation, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. The land gas remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. A validation report (that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out) must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to any part of the accommodation hereby approved being occupied.

18. No development shall take place before a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise and dust emanating from the site during the demolition and construction phase.

19. The hours of noisy construction, demolition and associated deliveries shall be restricted to the hours of 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Mondays to Fridays, and 09:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays.

20. 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.

21. Works shall not commence until a licence for development works affecting bats has been obtained from the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (Natural England) and a copy has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter mitigations measures approved in the licence shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

22. No development shall take place within the site until the applicant, or their agents or their successors in title, has secured and implemented a programme of archaeological work (which may include more than one phase of work) in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

23. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

24. The hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out before any of the development is occupied or in accordance with a timescale which has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

25. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

26. Standard approved plans condition. INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE (151924/FUL)

1. 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

221

highway. 2. Any works affecting the highway shall be in accordance with Reading Borough’s

Council’s document “Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway within the Borough of Reading”.

3. The occupiers of the residential units will not be entitled to an on-street car parking permit in the interests of the proper management of parking, and to ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS24 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. The site is located close to local facilities, with frequent public transport services on nearby roads. The conditions above place a requirement that the Council be notified of postal addresses of the residential units before occupation and that the occupiers/transferees to be informed of the prohibition on entitlement to a car parking permit.

4. For further information about construction and demolition nuisance law the applicant is referred to: http://www.reading.gov.uk/article/2563/Construction--Demolition.

5. Standard approved plans informative. 6. Standard ‘positive and proactive’ informative. 7. Standard CIL informative. 8. Standard Section 106 Agreement informative.

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE (151925/LBC)

1. Standard 3 year commencement 2. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the development including all external fixtures, fittings, window frames and details of window and doorway reveals have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. Prior to their installation details of new windows (at 1:20 scale showing glazing bar details) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4. Prior to the commencement of any works of demolition measures to protect the building (including protection of existing windows) shall be put in place and retained for the duration of those works.

INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE (151925/LBC)

1. Standard approved plans informative. 2. Standard ‘positive and proactive’ informative.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site comprises a listed building and a series of ancillary

buildings/structures. The listed building, 3 Castle Crescent, is a substantial mid 19th century villa that was originally constructed as a vicarage for Greyfriars Church, Friar Street. A large side extension was added to this building at a later date. The building is currently vacant and has been subject to significant levels of vandalism.

1.2 1 Castle Crescent, located to the east of number 3, is most likely the

remains of servants accommodation above stables. A large proportion of

222

http://www.reading.gov.uk/article/2563/Construction--Demolition

http://www.reading.gov.uk/article/2563/Construction--Demolition

this building appears to have been demolished at some point in the past. It, too, has been subject to significant levels of vandalism.

1.3 To the rear of these buildings are the remains of two rows of garages dating

from the late 1960s and 1970s. The remainder of the grounds to the rear of the main building comprise an overgrown garden area, with a number of mature trees. The site is level, but is at a higher elevation than land to the south and east.

1.4 The site is located within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area

on the junction between Castle Crescent and Coley Hill. Castle Crescent is characterised by late 19th century detached and semi detached houses. The eastern side of Coley Hill, closest to the application site, contains an almost continuous terrace of three storey listed buildings dating from the early 19th century.

1.5 Beyond the junction between Coley Hill and Castle Crescent the land slopes

away sharply, allowing views over Coley and the southern part of the town centre.

1.6 The site was visited by members of the Committee on 3 March 2016.

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is for the demolition of the former stables at 1 Castle

Crescent, and the eastern wing of number 3. In their place it is proposed to erect a mews style development of 8 new dwellings, with a new extension to the listed building to form a new dwelling. The proposal also includes the conversion of the main building to 4 x 1 bedroom flats.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

223

• 960367 (96-00811-FUL). Erection of 2 storey building to contain 4 flats and

conversion of 3 Castle Crescent from 11 bedsits to 5 flats. Granted. • 960368 (96-00812-LBC). Conversion of 3 Castle Crescent from 11 bedsits to

5 flats. Granted. • 970033 (97-00054-CON). Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of

16 garages. Granted. • 071562 (07-01505-LBC). Conversion and modification to no. 3; demolition of

outbuildings; extension to No.3 and construction of 3 new residential buildings. Withdrawn.

• 071563 (07-01506-FUL). Conversion and modification to no. 3 Castle Crescent to form 5 residential flats; and the demolition of outbuildings and construction of 3 residential buildings comprising 9 dwellings, forming 14 dwelling units overall. Refused.

• 081008 (08-00049-LBC). Conversion and modification to existing building, demolition of outbuilding and extensions and construction of new extension. Refused.

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 subject to conditions • Environmental Health – no objection subject to conditions • Natural Environment Officer - no objection subject to conditions • Ecologist – no objection subject to a condition • Archaeologist - no objection subject to a condition

4.3 Public consultation:

213 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by officers. The consultation period expired on 26 November 2015.

8 comments have been received. In summary the comments are:

• Support for application. • That the opportunity to ensure a 1m wide footpath throughout the length of

the west side of Garnet Hill, created by the new frontage onto Garnet Hill, should be enforced.

• A constraint should be placed prohibiting the allocation of any Residents Parking permits to any of the properties.

• Changes should be made to double yellow lines. • The proposed new buildings are out of keeping with the site and its

surroundings. • Highway safety concerns. • Concern regarding noise and disturbance from construction. • Loss of privacy • Loss of light

224

• Detrimental impact on views of listed building.

2 comments have been received as a result of the reconsultation on the amended access arrangements. In summary the comments are:

• Objection to proposed access on Castle Crescent. • Reitteration of points raised previously.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework

Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 – Requiring good design Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

5.2 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy

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) CS16 (Affordable Housing) CS18 (Residential Conversions) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

5.3 Sites and Detailed Policies Document SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development)

DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM5 (Housing Mix) DM6 (Affordable Housing) DM8 (Residential Conversions) DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) DM11 (Development of Private Residential Gardens) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters)

5.4 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance • Revised Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD (November 2013) • Affordable Housing SPD

225

• Parking Standards and Design (Supplementary Planning Document).

6. APPRAISAL Main Issues 6.2 The main issues are:

i. Character and appearance ii. Works to the listed building iii. Housing mix iv. Impact on neighbours v. Transport issues vi. Amenity of future occupants vii. Bats viii. Equalities impact assessment ix. Planning obligations

Character and appearance 6.1 3 Castle Crescent is a large detached listed building that is believed to date

from the 1840s or early 1850s. It has been vacant for at least 10 years and is in a poor state of repair. The site is located within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area. The surrounding buildings are largely Georgian and Victorian, and include large villas, terraces and smaller in fill dwellings. The terrace to the north east of the site is listed.

6.2 The proposal involves the demolition of an existing outbuilding on the

corner of Castle Crescent and Garnet Hill, and its replacement with new dwellings. The existing building has been subject to vandalism and arson, and it is considered to have a detrimental impact on the setting of surrounding listed buildings and the conservation area. The new dwellings will take the form of a mews development arranged in an ‘L’ shape to the side and rear of the main building. They will be 2 storey in height, with materials and fenestration details that match both the principal building and surrounding buildings. They are considered to be appropriately subservient to surrounding listed buildings. The replacement of the existing building with these dwellings is considered to enhance the setting of the listed buildings and the conservation area. It is recommended, however, that the permitted development right that would be enjoyed by these properties to install satellite dishes is removed in order that their installation can be controlled by the Council.

6.3 The proposed landscaping includes new tree and other planting to the front

and rear of the site. Following discussions with officers the ‘carriageway sweep’ mentioned in the list description is to be preserved within the proposed parking and landscaping layout.

Works to the listed building 6.4 The proposal involves the demolition of the east wing of the building, with

the erection of a more modest extension in its place. Research undertaken by the applicant’s agent has demonstrated that the wing is contemporary with the main house rather than a later addition.

226

6.5 The existing east wing is in two parts, a modest hipped roof structure toward the front and a taller, wider structure to the rear of this. This wing, in terms of the excessive width of the rear element (8.4 metres) and the jumble of roofs, is considered to detract from the appearance of the building. Its demolition and replacement with a narrower structure will enable a meaningful amount of space to be provided between the main building and the new dwellings. The proposed extension is considered to complement the appearance and proportions of the listed building.

6.6 The works to the main body of the building include a number of alterations

to the layout to enable it to be converted to four flats. The proposal was initially for 2 x 2 bedroom units and 2 x 1 bedroom units in the main part of the building, and a 2 bedroom unit in the new extension. However, concerns were expressed by officers that the layout appeared quite cramped and would harm the character of the building. The present plans were submitted with 4 x 1 bedroom units proposed in the main part of the building, with a 2 bedroom unit in the extension. The new layout is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character of the building.

6.7 The applicant has confirmed, within the Planning Statement submitted with

this application, that, “The opportunity to restore the listed building in isolation would not be viable given the high associated building costs and as such additional development is proposed which reflects the historic building layout of the site. The introduction of a new build element to the proposals will ensure the sustainable and viable long term use of the building”. In order to ensure the long term viability of the listed building, it is recommended that a Section 106 Agreement is entered into with the applicant requiring that the works to the listed building are completed, and the building is ready for occupation, before the 4th new build dwelling is occupied. It is also considered appropriate for an obligation to be included in the Section 106 Agreement requiring the on-going maintenance of the building.

Housing mix 6.8 Policy DM5 states that, “On new developments for 10 or more dwellings

outside the central area and defined district and local centres, planning decisions will ensure that over 50% of dwellings will be of 3 bedrooms or more, and the majority of dwellings will be in the form of houses rather than flats, having regard to all other material considerations”. In this instance, however, the circumstances of the site mitigate against compliance with this policy. The mews form of development is appropriate in its context. Other approaches, proposing larger dwellings, are likely to be inappropriate with regard to the setting of the listed building, nearby listed buildings and the conservation area. Furthermore, as noted above, the provision of 1 bedroom flats within the listed building is considered to be more appropriate than flats with a larger number of bedrooms. It is therefore considered that, in this case, the housing mix is acceptable.

Impact on neighbours 6.9 45 and 47 Garnet Hill are a pair of semi detached houses located to the east

of the application site. These dwellings are on very small plots, with a small yard to the rear, and a small garden used by the occupants of number 47 to the north. Proposed units 4-7 will be approximately 1.5 metres from the boundary with the garden of number 47. A significant retaining wall

227

forms the west boundary of the garden. The proposed dwellings, set back from the edge of the retaining wall, are not considered to exacerbate the overbearing impact of the wall to a substantial degree. It is also considered that any loss of light would not be significant enough to justify refusal of this application.

6.10 The small back yards to the rear of 45 and 47 Garnet Hill are also bounded

by large retaining walls. The new dwellings would be at least 4 metres from these yards, and again they are not considered to result in significant light loss, or have an overbearing impact. It is acknowledged that occupants of 1-3 Castle Crescent could stand at the top of the retaining walls and look into the side garden and the yards. This, however, is the case at the present time.

6.11 The proposed new dwellings will be no less than 9.5 metres from the rear

boundary of the site. The properties on the far side of this boundary, 2b and 2c Mansfield Road, are 11 metres and 17 metres respectively from the boundary. The intervening distance is sufficient to ensure that there will be no loss of light in the Mansfield Road properties, and the proposal will not have an overbearing impact.

6.12 The only windows in the rear of the new buildings will be rooflights.

Following a request by officers cross sections of these windows were submitted indicating that they would be a minimum of 1.7 metres above ground level. Officers were satisfied that this would be sufficient to protect the amenity of residents of Mansfield Road and Garnet Hill. Nonetheless, residents in Mansfield Road requested that this height be increased to 2 metres. This request was forwarded to the applicant’s agent, and amended plans were received accommodating this request.

Transport Issues 6.13 The application as submitted originally proposed a single vehicular access to

the site. This would not have been wide enough for two-way traffic without demolition of part of the listed boundary wall. Officers were concerned that this would result in a disruption to traffic flow on Castle Crescent. Amended plans have therefore been submitted retaining both the existing accesses from Castle Crescent in an in/out arrangement. The cumulative impact of 8 additional dwellings is not considered to generate a significant increase in traffic during the am/pm peak hours or over the course of the day and therefore the proposed access arrangements are considered acceptable for the level of development. It is recommended that a condition is attached requiring signs to be erected at the entrance and exit points to advise on the direction of traffic.

6.14 Pedestrian access for two of the units will be provided from Garnet Hill.

Therefore, the development provides the opportunity for a continuous footway on the western side of Garnet Hill following the demolition of the outbuildings. The Transport Strategy Section have confirmed that the footway should be constructed and adopted as public highway through a Section 278 agreement.

6.15 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

228

Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide a parking provision of 1 space per 1 or 2-bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces per 3-bedroom unit. In addition, 1 space per 10 dwellings should be provided for visitor parking. Based on the proposed mix of dwellings, the development provides a total of 17 parking spaces which complies with the adopted standards.

6.16 The parking layout includes the provision of 6 parking spaces within a

garage. These parking spaces can be included within the parking provision for the site as the internal dimensions conform to the standard of 7000mm long x 3000mm wide to allow easy access to/from the vehicle and sufficient storage to the rear of the garage. It is recommended a condition is attached requiring the garages to be kept available for the parking of vehicles at all times.

6.17 Whilst the site is accessible to good public transport links and local shops,

the parking demand created by this development should not be accommodated on the surrounding roads where there is significant demand for on-street parking. Therefore, the applicant has been advised that the parking permit conditions and informative would be applied to prevent any future occupants of the development from obtaining a residents parking permit including visitor parking permits for the surrounding residential streets.

6.18 Secure bicycle storage is required to encourage alternative travel by

sustainable alternatives to driving a motor car. The cycle parking standard for a 1/2 bedroom flat is 0.5 spaces per flat and 1 space per 3-bedroom flat or 1 space per 1/2 house. The dimensions of the cycle store is acceptable although the spacing between the stands should be a minimum of 1m. The Transport Strategy Section confirm they are content for this matter to be dealt with by condition.

6.19 The bin store is conveniently located at the front of the site which will

provide easy access for refuse collection. Amenity of future occupants 6.20 All of the proposed dwellings will meet the Council’s minimum size

standards and the majority will have a dual aspect. 6.21 The shortest distance between habitable windows is the 14 metres between

bedroom 3 of apartment 7 and bedroom 1 and the kitchen of apartment 5 in the listed building. This is greater than many comparable situations where habitable windows face each other across a street. The level of privacy in both dwellings is considered to be acceptable.

6.22 The occupants of all of the dwellings will have access to the communal

gardens. Bats 6.23 The house hosts a small common pipistrelle and soprano pipistrelle bat roost

of low conservation significance which will be impacted upon as a result of the development. Having due regard to the EC Habitats Directive 1992 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 it is considered that this application passes the tests set out there in and a licence for

229

development works affecting bats is likely to be obtained from the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation (Natural England). In this instance it is considered that:

• Appropriate mitigation can be provided which will ensure that there will not be a detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of the bat species concerned.

• The development is for an imperative reason of overriding public interest of an economic nature as the development will contribute to a social and economic need of the local community and is in compliance with planning policy

• That there is no satisfactory alternative to the development as without developing the site the aforementioned need will not be met.

Equalities impact assessment 6.24 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.

6.25 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered

there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.

Planning obligations 6.26 Policy CS16 states that, “All developments of 15 dwellings and above will

provide 30% of the total number of dwellings in the form of affordable housing to meet the needs of the area”. Given the very substantial cost of repairing the building to a high standard as befits its listed status, the applicant contends that the scheme will not be viable if affordable housing is provided. They also state that the scheme would not support a financial contribution. A viability assessment has been submitted by the applicant and assessed by the Council’s Valuations Section. The Valuations Section have raised a number of detailed questions about the assessment, which, at the time of writing, remain outstanding. An update on this matter will be provided at your meeting.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 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.

Plans: SL02 (Rev A), APT-10, APT-11 SE 01 (Rev A), SK 01

230

Case Officer: Ben Pratley

232

PARK

233

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1st JUNE 2016 Ward: Park App No.: 160538 App Type: VARIAT Address: 89 Whiteknights Road Proposal: Application for Change of use of an existing licensed HMO to a children's care home without complying with condition no. 4, of planning permission 141799, to allow children aged 4-17 years to be able to stay in the premises. Applicant: Mrs Luthra Date valid: 23rd March 2016 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date: 18th May 2016 Agreed Extension of time date: 8th June 2016 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 21st September 2016 RECOMMENDATIONS GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to conditions and informatives

CONDITIONS AS ON 141799 (nos. 1-3 and 5) and with changes to condition 4 as follows: 1. Standard 3yr time limit for implementation - met 2. Plans – met 3. This permission provides for the specific change of use to C2 - children’s care

home. Notwithstanding the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended and any subsequent amendments to it, any other proposed changes within the C2 use class are not permitted.

4. New 4 - Maximum of four children aged 4-17 years (up to day before 18th birthday) to be living at the premises at any one time.

5. The ground floor bedroom shown on Drawing no: A-1100 Rev B is to be retained as a bedroom for staff and as ancillary accommodation to the use of the dwelling as a Children’s Care Home.

INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 1. Terms and conditions. 2. Positive and proactive. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The property is on the corner of Whiteknights Road and Melrose Avenue and is

currently a children’s home under C2 use Class managed by a private company permitted for a maximum of five children from 4-14 years.

1.2 The immediate area is residential and the property lies opposite the Whiteknights

Campus. 1.3 This application is being referred to Planning Application Committee as it has been called in by Cllr White, further to concerns raised by local residents.

235

2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND 2.1 A variation is sought (Section 73 application) to condition no. 4 of permission 141799 to increase the maximum age from 14 to 17 years. 2.2 The reasons provided as a justification are as follows: “1- Originally, it was envisaged that children between ages 4-14 would

stay at the property, however since the opening of the children’s care home, from time to time two children from the same family i.e.brother and sister or vice versa have come to stay at the property, who are 4-17, rather than splitting the family, it was felt that it would be more appropriate to keep them in the same property. This idea has the backing of social services.

2- Other occasions has arisen that where two non-related children between the ages of 4-17 have known each other, and was felt it would be more appropriate to keep them together rather than splitting them.

3- Other occasion has been where simply a home is required for the children of age group between 4-17."

236

2.3 Discussions have been held between the Planning Officer and the Manager of the

Children’s home (The Responsible Individual) to ascertain further information regarding the operation and day-to-day running and management of the premises.

2.4 The Manager confirmed that the premises has actually been registered by Ofsted for a maximum of four children from 5-17 years of age (up to 18th birthday) and since the home opened a few months ago they have had two children aged 12 and 15 years (at the time of writing).

2.5 An enforcement case has been opened, however as is usual practice this is being held in abeyance until the determination of this planning application.

2.6 It should be noted that the recent Ofsted Inspection has rated the premises as good.

2.7 The following plan was received on 21st March 2016: • Site Location Plan & Block Plan – Drawing no: A-1000, Rev A

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1

• 95/00656/FUL (Civica Ref: 950361) – Erection of rear conservatory, Approved 22/9/1995

• 141799 - Change of use of HMO to Children’s Care Home (C2) – Approved with conditions 27/2/2015- including restriction for a maximum of 5 children within 4-14 year age range and to remove the permitted development rights to change the use to any other within C2 use class.

4. CONSULTATIONS

(i) Statutory 4.1 None.

(ii) Non-Statutory Police

4.2 In terms of reported crimes/ incidents the Planning Officer confirmed with the Police that since 10th March 2016 there have been nine cases reported to the Police by the Home mostly with regard to adhering to requirements of the safeguarding plan for the specific young people in the home. Of the three reported by a neighbour two related to items being thrown into the garden and onto the property and the third regarding anti-social behaviour. There were no reported crimes on Melrose Avenue during this period.

(iii) Public Consultation 4.3 The following addresses were consulted: no 41 & 48 Melrose Avenue, and 83, 85,

91, 93, and 99 Whiteknights Road. A site notice was also displayed. 23 No. objections and one comment were received, summarised as follows:

• I have witnessed disruptive behaviour, including foul language audibly coming from this property, damage to my car, probably caused by the residents as this occurred while the students were on vacation.

237

• Having troubled older teenager peer groups will attract drugs and drink problems which will increase bad behaviour. Concern that older children will lead to more anti-social behaviour and criminal damage, so far experienced, which will impact the neighbouring homes.

• The owners have breached the original planning consent by allowing a 15 year to stay at the premises, so therefore cannot be trusted; shows a disregard to the community

• Feel that the original application with younger age group was used to make it easier to get approval with the intention of them applying for this variation.

• Concerning that Council have not made this public knowledge to the residents, it seems very underhand.

• Most worryingly there have already been criminal damage incidents that made police involvement necessary. Those incidents are associated with the residents aged 4-14. This makes it quite clear that the care team employed by the business is already overwhelmed by their task. That the care team advises us, their neighbour to keep items out of sight is extremely upsetting and shows no care towards the neighbourhood. It indeed reflects very badly on the operation.

• Many children walk home from school past the property and these children are likely to be intimidating.

• It is well know that looked after children have an increased risk of these problems, especially at older ages who will have increased independence and therefore less adult supervision. Older children are likely to be more difficult to supervise.

• [comment provided following a leaflet drop by a resident] Whilst I see that the presence of the home has raised some anxieties, I think it is a real shame to see these children, first and foremost as a problem. They are likely to have already had really difficult lives without the support and love most of us have experienced. They are no less deserving of a nice home than we are and that home has to be somewhere. Why shouldn’t that home be here in this community? If not here where do you feel they should be? Is there are different approach that could be adopted? Is there a way to work with the home and other agencies to resolve any difficulties? And perhaps if we got to know these young people they might seem like less of a threat. I feel that we are all valuable human beings and our need for a home and security is no more important than theirs. Could we find another way around this rather than rejecting them when they have probably experienced so much rejection already?

• I would like to draw your attention to that fact that lessons [at Hamilton Centre] were often disrupted by teenagers who used the back of the building for smoking and chatting etc. Had I known that there was a change of use of the residential house into some form of troublesome home taking place I would have acted even earlier. Now I can only suspect that our troubles [at the Hamilton Centre] are somehow connected with the new set up.

• I visited the website and found strangely incomplete information. • I am disappointed that the council has not consulted more widely. • How did the property come into its present use without any form of advice or

notification being given to neighbouring properties? • It seems highly inappropriate that vulnerable youngsters should be placed in a

residential area where there are many families with children and others living alone.

• Considerable damage has been caused to my property by one of the children in residence. The Home has apologised, accepted liability and I hope will pay through the insurance. However, the aggravation and disruption has been considerable and I have been left feeling vulnerable. In addition various items were thrown into the garden of the neighbour the same day and on other occasions litter, including fruit, eggs and plastic packaging has also been found on the pavements, road and cars at the side of the Home in Melrose Avenue.

238

• These incidents have already caused a great deal of distress and worry to neighbours many of whom have small children or live along including the elderly. With the summer coming, and more time spent in the gardens these incidents are likely to increase.

• I am interested to know how local residents will know if their terms of the planning have been exceeded? How will these be enforced? What is to say that they will not breach this again? We had not been aware that this had already been breached until informed by the police. Clearly this is unacceptable.

• It is clear that the people who run the home are not appropriately supervising the children in their care and are content to adversely impact on their neighbours. I believe that the staff at the home are not taking proper steps to control behaviour of the children and are not offering any viable solutions. Increasing the age I believe would only serve to exacerbate those issues in a residential area with a high proportion of young families.

• Had I foreseen the behaviour of the current occupants and often low standard of supervision afforded to them I would have objected to the original application.

• I do not believe it is right to reward such a breach of the current conditions, taking together the evidence there is inability to properly supervise by allowing children up to the age of 17.

• I believe it should be a duty of the Council to protect its local residents, rather than encourage and support the import of problems to our area.

• In my opinion the upper age limit was too high. After the age of 12 children become more independent and more difficult to control. This application is basically a way for the property managers to overcome the breach.

• In my experience this type of property in town location with direct access to public transport are very difficult to manage. The children are exposed to all the issues of society. I suggest you reduce the age limit.

• When the home was opened it was on the strict understanding that it would be limited to 4-14 year olds who would be looked after in a family environment. This has not proved to be the case.

• The existing planning permission should be enforced. It is my opinion that planning decisions must be adhered to and applicants must not be able to ease their way into more relaxed conditions by drip feeding amendments into the system. It also seems to me that if the owners cannot achieve an acceptable level of residency within the current limitations then the clear needs of local residents rather than the viability of the business must take priority.

• We are having trouble sleeping from the noises. I have heard children smoking and other things. I see children shouting during school hours and I couldn’t understand why.

• The application is being undertaken by stealth not transparency. The proposers of the original application would have been aware that siblings could prefer to be kept together as could best friends, so this application is disingenuous, and underhand.

• Documentation relating to the original application suggested that there would be no material change in trips, but this has not been the case. On occasions there have been illegally parked vehicles. Should the age limit be increased to 17 there is the potential need for further spaces, significant increases in traffic and parking problems.

• In the short time that Kennet Care has placed children in this home we have been at risk of damage and harm, leading me to request police assistance on a number of occasions. I cannot conceive that increasing the age will have any positive impact on the residents.

• The information provided by the agent is not accurate. • They could house children of an older age in their other home in Reading. • I moved to this part of Reading because it was a peaceful environment where I

should be able to bring up my children in safety.

239

• The PCSO advised us that the carers said that the children were not being supervised when these incidents occurred [items being thrown into the garden]

• Constantly hear violent verbal and physical outbursts and shouting through closed windows; The boys shout profanity at passers-by; my family witnessed the young boys attempting to attack their carers, swearing at the carers, running away, jumping over the high garden gate to escape and running over the road and intimidating university students; witnessed police cars with sirens when one of the boys became uncontrollable and violent. My children witnessed him walking out with a bloodied hand after punching and hitting. These are not rare occurrences these occur on daily basis. After informing all relevant authorities there has been no improvement. The situation is unbearable.

• The carers cannot cope with two boys aged 12 and 15. They do not cope with or manage the out of control, violent aggressive behaviour. They will not manage 17 year olds. I have 17 years’ experience of working with 11-18year olds from a broad range of backgrounds. Allowing older children will escalate the level of dangerous behaviour we are experiencing. These children need special care by professionals in a safe environment. The Human Rights Act states that every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property this includes my family and neighbours.

Many of the concerns raised above are in relation to the Children’s Home use affecting their use of their property and one has referred to the Human Rights Act. It is well established in planning that residents’ fears and apprehensions about the impact of a development on their welfare are capable of amounting to a "material consideration”. In light of this fact, the Head of Legal Services has advised that the objections submitted engages the issue of whether rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) would be infringed if the proposed change to the planning condition was approved. This matter is covered in Appendix 1 at the end of this report. 5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that


5.2 The following national and local planning policy and guidance is relevant to this

application:

National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

National Planning Policy Guidance

Reading Borough Local Development Framework - Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) DM4: Safeguarding Amenity

Other Documents:

• Ofsted Report 2016 • Information provided by the Manager of the Home • Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 • Introduction to Children’s Homes, Ofsted, April 2016 • Guide to the Children’s Homes Regulations including the quality standards,

Department for Education , April 2015

240

6. APPRAISAL

(i) Impact on Residential Amenity 6.1 The key issue raised by objectors is the noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour,

including criminal damage to property, that has been experienced since the opening of the children’s home in February 2016, and the view that varying the condition to increase the age from 14 to 17 years will exacerbate the issues already experienced. The view of residents is that looked after children have an increased risk of these problems, especially at older ages, who will have increased independence and therefore less adult supervision, and are likely to be more difficult to supervise. Additionally the view of residents is that the carers employed by the company who runs the Home cannot cope with the two children, do not manage behaviour, and will not be able to manage 17 years olds.

6.2 The current residents are aged 12 and 15, and therefore the Home is currently in

breach of its planning permission. As set out above it should be noted that the Ofsted registration is for a maximum of 4 children up to 18th birthday and the Manager (Responsible Individual) has been operating within the terms of the Registration.

6.3 The key issue for consideration is whether increasing the age to 17 years would

have a significant detrimental effect on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, specifically crime and safety, not the consideration of the principle of whether the property should be a Children’s Home.

6.4 In terms of the day-to-day management, the Home, run by Kennet Care, is

regulated and overseen by Ofsted, and is accountable to the placing authority of the young people and RBC, the latter who have a statutory duty to oversee the management and safety of young people and children within the Borough.

6.5 Ofsted is the registration authority for children’s homes and regulates and inspects

children’s homes. The purpose of which is to assess the quality of care being provided for children. It tests compliance with the relevant Children’s Homes (England) Regulations, and the Guide produced by the Department for Education (April 2015).

6.6 Ofsted is required to inspect each children’s home at least twice per year and at

least one of these will be a full inspection. Following a full inspection, inspectors will make a number of judgements, including a judgement on the overall progress and experiences of children living in the home. The other inspection will usually be an interim inspection. If inspectors identify a failure to meet a regulation, Ofsted will set requirements that the registered person must meet. In determining whether a regulation has been met, Ofsted will take into account how the registered person is following this Guide. Any failure to meet regulations may lead to consideration of enforcement action. Inspectors will also make recommendations for improvement. The most recent inspection in April rated the Home as Good.

6.7 There is a requirement for the Home to document any incidents whether the Police

have been involved or not and there are specific serious events which, must be notified to Ofsted in accordance with the relevant Regulations. A log has been provided to the Planning Officer which identifies all the incidents which have occurred and this has been cross-checked with information provided by neighbours of incidents which have been reported to the Police. The log also sets out actions taken to resolve matters. A neighbouring property was visited following accidental damage to property, and the Home agreed to pay for the damage. With regard to

241

another neighbour, following an incident where the police were called, a letter was sent by the Home offering to meet with them, along with the cared for children, and provided full contact details of the Manager and offered to provide details of the Home’s complaints procedure. To date no formal complaint has been made.

6.8 It should be noted that the Police have been called to the Home by staff a number

of times due to specific safeguarding requirements related to these children, in line with the safeguarding procedures and specific individual care plans for the young people, not with regard to anti-social behaviour and/ or criminal incidents.

6.9 It is considered that although there are incidents occurring, measures have been

taken by the Home to address these, and Ofsted, in their inspection report recognise that there are efforts to establish relationships with the neighbours. The Home has sought to address the issues raised by neighbours and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) are in constant liaison with the Home and neighbours regarding addressing incidents and improving behaviour.

6.10 The Home can take children with a range of needs and a specific care plan is

produced for each individual child. The Manager has explained verbally to the Planning Officer that for the specific individuals there at present they have supervised activities throughout the whole day. They are currently home schooled and attend a variety of activities accompanied outside the home as well as having visitors to the home including PCSOs. Any time where the children would not be supervised would therefore be extremely limited.

6.11 The staffing levels are 1:1 at the moment, and a typical shift would be 3-4 in the

house at a time. All staff are qualified to a minimum QCF level 3, and the range of experience of individual staff ranges from 2 years to 40 years. This is one of two homes managed by Kennet Care.

6.12 As well as specific recording that the Home has to undertake, they are visited

monthly by an independent consultant who assesses the home and prepares a report which is sent to Ofsted, Reading Borough Council commissioning team and the placing authority. The RBC’s Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) would have involvement with the Home if a specific issue were raised with regard to concerns and allegations against staff or volunteers that work with children and young people. RBC, through the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, would be involved if there were issues with regard to the safety of the children.

6.13 It is clear that the incidents which have occurred have had a detrimental effect on

the amenity of neighbouring residents, specifically those properties immediately adjacent, which is clearly distressing for those families. Increasing the age in itself is not considered to be the key issue regarding generating anti-social behaviour, rather the nature of a specific individual, irrespective of their age. The more significant consideration in the officer’s view is the number of children who are cared for, the level of staffing available for those children, and the overall management of the Home.

6.14 This current Variation of condition application provides the Council with the

opportunity to review and amend the conditions as originally attached to the permission.

6.15 As the principle of the children’s home has been established the ongoing and

effective management of the Home is the key matter, which should be addressed through the existing regulatory processes for children’s homes, and not through the planning process. At present the registration from Ofsted enables a maximum of four up to the age of 18 years (i.e. last day before turning 18). The officer’s

242

recommendation, therefore is that the permission be granted for the age as requested, but with a reduction to four children.

(ix) Equality 6.16 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 an indication from consultation that the young and old people could have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application with regard to perceived crime/ fear of crime and safety from cared for young persons.

6.17 The recommended condition is intended to restrict the numbers of looked after

young persons. 7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The issues raised through consultation have been carefully considered in the

context of the requested variation. The view is that increasing the age will not lead to a significant change to the effect on residential amenity and that the principle of the Children’s home has already been established as acceptable through the granting of the original permission. As a result the amended scheme is recommended for approval.

Case Officer: Alison Amoah

243

APPENDIX 1: Human Rights Act (HRA) Article 8; Legal Advice The objections submitted engage the issue of whether the right under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) applies (Respect for Home and Family Life). The grant of planning permission for development which may have sufficiently serious effects on the enjoyment by local residents of their home life may in principle affect Article 8 although such cases are likely to involve extreme facts. In addition Article 8(2) allows public authorities to interfere with the right to respect the home if it is “in accordance with the law” and “to the extent necessary in a democratic society” in the interest of “the well-being” of the area. In the light of the objection received it is considered appropriate to assume that (for the sake of the objections) an interference with the neighbours’ human rights is relevant and Article 8 is engaged. Under S.70 of the 1990 Planning Act, Parliament has entrusted planning authorities with the statutory duty to determine planning applications, and has said (S.70(2)) that in dealing with such an application the authority “shall have regard” to the development plan and to “any other material considerations” which will include HRA issues. The courts have held that a “balance” has to be struck in planning decisions between the rights of the developer and the rights of those affected by the proposed development. This involves the balance between:

(a) on the one hand the specific interests of the individual objector as documented (see above), and

(b) on the other hand, the interests of the applicant to obtain the planning permission he has applied for, and lastly

(c) the interests of the wider community, as expressed in Lough (2004) in the following terms “in an urban setting it must be anticipated that development may take place” and that it “is in the public interest that residential developments take place in urban areas if possible”.

The recommendation made to grant permission has balanced the understandable concerns raised by the objectors against the fact that planning permission has been granted for a Children’s home in this location and that the children at the home are also entitled to live in the community. Officers therefore consider that, the amended condition would not conflict with the HRA.

244

SOUTHCOTE

245

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 16 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 1 June 2016 Ward: Southcote App No.: 160628 Address: Former Elvian School, Bath Road, Reading Proposal: Removal of the existing temporary classroom accommodation, the erection of eight no. temporary accommodation units to provide classroom and staff accommodation, temporary hard play space, access and parking arrangements, and the removal of a limited number of trees over a 2 year period. Applicant: Kier Construction Date received: 4 April 2016 Major Application 13 week target decision date: 2nd June 2016 Planning Guarantee (26 weeks) Date: 6th October 2016

RECOMMENDATION: Delegate to the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services to: GRANT Full Planning Permission.

Conditions to include: • Temporary time limit of two years and restoration of site to playing fields • Approved Drawings & Documents • Materials • Programme of archaeological works • Access constructed before occupation (approved drawings) • Roads to be provided • Footway provision • Vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans • Bicycle storage • Travel Plan • Travel Plan Annual Review • Development in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment

KIER20477aiaC dated 6/6/16, received 6/5/16, and Arboricultural Method Statement KIER20477amsB dated 4/4/16 incorporating Tree Protection Plan KIER20477 03B

• Development in accordance with Construction Method Sequence Rev 7, dated 17 May 2016 and plans (PL) 006 Temp 2A Traffic Management and (PL) 007 Temp 2B Traffic Management

• Licence for development works affecting badgers • No bonfires on site during demolition or construction.

Informatives to include:

• Terms and conditions. • Building regulations. • Pre-Commencement conditions • Emergency Plan as a primary countermeasure for an incident at the AWE site • Access construction • Damage to the highway • Works affecting the highway • Environmental protection information regarding the control of nuisance during

construction and demolition. • Positive and proactive.

247

1. Site Description and Surrounding Area:

1.1. The application site is to the far western side, on an area earmarked for the future Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) (as approved under the Outline permission 151175) on the former Elvian School on Bath Road. The wider site extends to approximately five hectares. Following granting of Outline permission 151175, the school site would be redeveloped to provide a new 1200 pupils secondary school and 119 residential dwellings.

Aerial photo of the overall site (source – submitted DAAS)

Location map (not to scale – source: submitted Planning Statement).

1.2. Although not in active use, the school buildings remain and for planning

purposes the existing use of the site is still a school. Some of the former school buildings, Rotherfield Grange and Oakland Hall, existing onsite, are locally

248

listed. However, outline permission 151175 was granted for a new 6 form entry secondary school that includes the demolition of these locally listed buildings.

2. Proposal: 2.1. Permission is sought for the erection of eight no. temporary accommodation

units to provide classroom and staff accommodation, temporary hard play space, access and parking arrangements, and the removal of a limited number of trees over a 2 year period, following the removal of the existing temporary classrooms permitted under application 150816.

2.2. This application is ahead of the submission of reserved matters application for the proposed WREN Secondary Free School (Outline permission 151175), to be constructed as part of the redevelopment of the site.

2.3. The proposals would constitute Phase 2 of the Temporary School comprising temporary phases 2A and 2B of temporary teaching accommodation. They would replace Phase 1 of the temporary school (opened in September 2015) which will be removed to allow the new secondary school to be built.

Phases of the school (source; submitted Planning Statement)

2.4. The table below shows the pupil and staff figures over the application period for

the temporary phases of the proposals:

2.5. As the final WREN Secondary Free School will be located in the eastern/central section of the site (outline permission 151175) where the phase 1 temporary accommodation and existing buildings are currently located, Phase 2A (Sept 2016 – July 2017) consisting of 5 units would be located to the far western side, on an area set aside for the future MUGA and Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) (as approved under the Outline permission 151175). The western side location is intended to facilitate construction work of the permanent school without interference from the functioning temporary school. This will also ensure the safety of the pupils. This area will be constructed in such a way to ensure that it can be converted for the future MUGA and AGP. This will be a permeable sub base with Tarmac finish and will also form the hard play areas for the temporary school.

Year Pupil Numbers Staff Numbers 2015/16 (Phase 1) 71 15 2016/17 (Phase 2A) 241 28 2017/18 (Phase 2B) 409 51

249

Phase 2A Masterplan

2.6. The temporary accommodation will benefit from the vehicle drop off area

approved under outline permission (151175). Vehicle access to and egress from the site is provided via the two existing accesses from A4 Bath Road. Phase 2A will provide 28 demarcated parking spaces plus 1 disabled space.

Proposed site of the temporary school

2.7. Temporary Phase 2B (Sept 2017 – July 2018) accommodation comprising an

additional 3 units will be sited north of the temporary phase 2A

250

accommodation. In total, for phase 2A and 2B, the 8no. temporary accommodation units will provide the following teaching facilities:

• 17 teaching classrooms which include a store and cloak hanging facilities • 2 Specialist science rooms • 1 Art room • 1 IT room • 1 Changing room • 1 no. 2 storey admin block with staff room, admin room, entrance lobby,

store, plant and head teacher offices • 1 Single storey dining room. • Separate boys and girls WC provisions will be provided within the

temporary accommodation including ground floor accessible WC’s

2.8. Phase 2B of the temporary accommodation will include the drop-off loop centred within the permanent school scheme, and will be accessed via the new road to be installed by Taylor Wimpey as part of a legal requirement taken from the overall site agreement. Vehicular access will continue from the new spine road off Southcote Lane. A further 14 car parking spaces will be created to provide for 52 car parking spaces in total (including 1 disabled space).

Phase 2B Master plan

2.9. Secure and sheltered bicycle parking will be provided with at least 45 cycle

spaces provided on site for use of staff and pupils.

2.10. New footpaths for pedestrians under temporary phase 2A would be provided. This includes paths from Bath Road in the north and west of the sunken garden and from the south via Southcote Lane on the western boundary of the site. The path via Southcote Lane requires the provision of steps down to the road at the southern end of the path.

251

3. Plans and Documents Considered

• The following plans: received 04th April 2016 • 6311 PL (001) B – Location Plan • 6311 PL (002) F – Temps 2A Site Masterplan (Sept 16) • 6311 PL (003) F – Temps 2B Site Masterplan (Sept 17) • 6311 PL (004) C – Temps 2A Proposed Site Plan (Sept 16) • 6311 PL (005) B – Temps 2B Proposed Site Plan (Sept 17)

Temporary Accommodation Drawings and Spec (ELIIOTT DRAWINGS) Phase 2A:

• L160078 - 101 C – Hall (Phase 2A) • L160078 - 111 C – Admin (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 121 C – Classroom (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 131 C – Classroom & Science (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 141 B – Classroom & Changing (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 201 B – Hall (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 211 B - Admin (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 221 B - Classroom (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 231 A – Classroom & Science (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 241 A – Classroom & Changing (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 311 C – Admin (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 321 C - Classroom (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 331 C – Classroom & Science (Phase 2A) • L160078 – 341 B – Classroom & Changing (Phase 2A)

Phase 2B:

• L160078 - 151 B – Classroom (Phase 2B) • L160078 - 161 B – Classroom, ICT, Food Tech (Phase 2B) • L160078 - 171 B – Science Classroom (Phase 2B) • L160078 – 251 A - Classroom (Phase 2B) • L160078 – 261 A – Classroom, ICT, Food Tech (Phase 2B) • L160078 – 271 A – Science Classrooms (Phase 2B) • L160078 - 351 B – Classroom (Phase 2B) • L160078 - 361 B – Classroom, ICT, Food Tech (Phase 2B) • L160078 - 371 B – Science Classroom (Phase 2B)

• ELM (Admin Block) Specification • S2000 (Classrooms) Specification

Revised Construction Methods Statement details received 17th May 2016

• Construction Method Sequence dated 17th May 2016 • (PL) 006 Temp 2A Traffic Management • (PL) 007 Temp 2B Traffic Management

Documents

• Planning Application Forms • Planning and Heritage Statement • Design and Access Statement • Plans/Elevations • Arboricultural Method Statement • Tree Report • Tree Protection Plan • Tree Reference Plan

252

• Transport Assessment • Travel Plan • Planning Statement • Archaeological Assessment • Lighting Plan and Schedule • Drainage Plans • Drainage Strategy Statement • Statement of Community Involvement • Contaminated Land Study • Flood Risk Assessment • CIL forms

Revised details below received on 18th April 2016 • Revised Ecology Appraisal • Revised Bat Roost Survey • Revised Bat Activity Survey • Revised Badger Survey • Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment received 06th May 2016

4. Relevant Planning History

4.1. The relevant planning history for the Elvian site is as follows:

• 151175 - A Hybrid application seeking outline planning permission for a new 6 form entry secondary school with all matters other than access reserved for consideration at a later date and detailed permission for 118 dwellings, access, car parking, landscaping and amenity space, following the demolition of the existing buildings. Permitted (04/04/2016).

• 150816 – Erection of three temporary modular units to provide temporary

teaching facilities, to remain on site for 2 year period. Permitted and implemented.

• 12/01233/FUL - Redevelopment to provide 193 residential units (173 new

build and 20 through conversions) with associated access, parking, landscape and open space provision, following the demolition of existing school buildings. Application refused and appeal dismissed. High Court challenge also not accepted.

• 12/01294/SCR - Request for a Screening Opinion for 193 dwelling units

with associated access, parking, landscaping and open space provision following demolition of existing school buildings. Observations were sent 12/09/2012. The screening opinion of the Council concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required.

• 09/01184/OUT - Hybrid planning application relating to a full application

for a replacement school and a racquets club and an outline application for the development of up to 95 residential units (with all matters reserved except access to the site). Submitted by the Society of Licensed Victuallers (Licensed Trade Charity). Application Refused 09/10/2009.

• 09/00511/SCR - Request for Screening Opinion in respect of a proposed

development for a replacement school, leisure club and residential development of up to 110 houses, and vehicular access. Observations sent 30/04/2009. The screening opinion of the Council concluded that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required.

253

• 041377 - Temporary modular buildings to provide social, teaching and

study areas for 6th form. Permitted.

5. Consultation Responses

Four letters of support were received from consulted residents.

5.1. Statutory Sporting England – No objection subject to a condition requiring the removal of the temporary buildings after a specified period and restoration of the site to playing fields. Non-statutory responses

5.2. RBC Transport – No objection subject to appropriate conditions (full comments on appendix 1).

5.3. RBC Leisure – No objections

5.4. RBC Natural Environment (Trees) – No objection subject to appropriate tree protection conditions

5.5. Natural Environment (Ecology) – No objection.

5.6. RBC Environmental Health – No objection to the proposals following clarification on the implications of the proposal on noise and land gas contamination.

5.7. Thames Water – No objection subject to an informatives on surface water drainage and the presence of Thames Water pipelines.

5.8. Berkshire Archaeology - No objection subject to a condition requiring approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation.

5.9. RBC Emergency Planning – No response received.

6. Relevant Planning Policy and Guidance 6.1. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that


6.2. National: • National Planning Policy Framework

6.3. Reading Borough Core Strategy (January 2008): • CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) • CS5 (Inclusive Access) • CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • CS22 (Transport Assessments) • CS23 (Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans) • CS24 (Car / Cycle Parking) • CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) • CS32 (Impact on community facilities) • CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)

254

• CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) • CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

6.4. Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012):

• DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Relates Matters) • DM18 (Tree Planting) • DM19 (Air Quality) • SA9b (Elvian School)

6.5. Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Elvian School Site Planning and Development Brief (2011) • Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) • Sustainable Design and Construction (2011)

7. APPRAISAL

The main issues are considered to be:

• The principle of the temporary classroom accommodation • Appearance and Impact on character of the area • Neighbouring amenity • Transport Issues • Trees • Other matters • Equality Impact

The principle of the temporary classroom accommodation

7.1. The use of the site remains as educational (D1) and therefore the continued use as a school would not require planning permission save for the physical changes in terms of the introduction of the additional temporary modular buildings.

7.2. The introduction of temporary classroom accommodation would accord with policy CS31 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy, policy SA9b of the Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012), Elvian School Site SPD (2011) and meets the local education authority’s need to increase the number of school places in the borough.

7.3. However, to prevent accumulation of temporary structures on the site, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition requiring the removal of the temporary classroom structures after the expiry of the period applied for. This, as also recommended by Sporting England, would ensure the provision of the MUGA and AGP sporting facilities following the temporary loss of the sports facilities as a result of the temporary school. Subject to other planning considerations, the principle of the proposal is considered acceptable. Appearance and Impact on character of the area

7.4. The temporary structures would be screened by existing mature trees along Bath Road and at 2 storey-level would be of size and scale that would not be visually prominent and therefore not detrimental to the appearance and character of the area. The proposed temporary structures would be located further away from the locally listed buildings on the site than the existing Phase 1 temporary school and it should be noted that the loss of the locally listed buildings has

255

already been considered acceptable. In addition, as already highlighted above, a condition requiring the removal of the temporary classroom structures after the expiry of the period applied for would be imposed. Neighbouring Amenity

7.5. The site as a school has co-existed for a number of years with adjoining residential properties without adversely impacting onto their amenities in terms of noise and disturbance and the proposed temporary school pupil numbers would be less than the previous school use. The proposed two-storey temporary classrooms would be sited further away from the nearest residential properties (100m), Pendragon Court, than the existing temporary phase 1 school so should not result in any harm to the amenities of these residential properties.

7.6. Whilst no information has been submitted with regards to light spill, the Council’s Environmental Health officer has assessed the proposal and concluded that the luminaires proposed are unlikely to be of significant concern with regards to light nuisance impacting neighbouring residents due to their design. In addition the future floodlighting for the MUGA will be dealt with under the reserved matters application for the permanent school. Transport issues in terms of parking, highway capacity and safety will be addressed below. Transport Issues

7.7. To assess the traffic impact of the proposed Phase 2 A and B temporary school, a comparison between the proposed development and the consented permanent school (Hybrid permission 151175) has been undertaken. The Council’s Transport Development Control Manager has assessed the proposals and the comparison details demonstrates that the proposed Phase Two A and B operations will generate vehicle trips considerably below that consented for the permanent school for the AM (08:00 – 09:00) and School Peak (16:00 – 17:00) hours. The principle for a temporary school in transport terms is therefore considered acceptable.

7.8. Access to the site for the duration of Phase 2A will remain as per Phase 1 temporary school with vehicular and pedestrian access gained from the A4 Bath Road. However, to secure the site and to ensure there is no conflict between pupils and staff with construction activity associated with the permanent school works, access to the site for Phase 2B will be from Southcote Lane. The vehicular access for Phase 2B will be constructed as per the requirement of the permitted residential scheme (Hybrid permission 151175) along with the pick-up and drop-off area associated with the permanent school.

7.9. To avoid the congested times during construction of the temporary school phases, the Council’s Transport Development Control Manager has recommended that day deliveries should only be undertaken between the hours of 9am and 5pm, being scheduled so as to avoid the drop off and pick up of school children. As this was not reflected within the submitted Construction Method Statement, the Council’s Transport Development Control Manager had recommended a condition to ensure the submission of an amended Construction Method Statement. The applicant has now submitted an amended Construction Method Statement to reflecting the appropriate day delivery times that also avoid the drop off and pick up of school children

7.10. Pedestrian access to the site will be gained from both the A4 Bath Road and Southcote Lane. The Bath Road pedestrian access will be as per that

256

permitted for the permanent scheme (Hybrid permission 151175) and the Southcote Lane access will be provided along the western boundary of the site and is a temporary measure. The access from Southcote Lane is to be 1.8m in width and includes steps close to Southcote Lane (with a bicycle wheeling ramp) and a kissing gate. The pedestrian access onto Southcote Lane will be removed following the opening of the new spine road in January 2017. These access arrangements to the site have been deemed acceptable by the Council’s Transport Development Control Manager

7.11. The car parking provision for the site is to be 1 space per FTE staff for Phase 2A and 2B equating to a provisions of 38 and 51 spaces respectively and this is complies with Policy. All the car parking spaces are to the correct dimensions.

7.12. The proposal requires a minimum of 45 cycle parking spaces (23 Sheffield stands) provided onsite for use by pupils and staff. The site includes 24 Sheffield stands providing 48 spaces. This provision will be sheltered and in a secure location and therefore complies with Policy.

7.13. A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application, but there are no set objectives or targets listed within it. The Council’s Transport Development Control Manager has recommended that a revised Travel Plan is provided that includes the targets for the school to achieve as set out in the Framework Travel Plan submitted with the application for Phase 1. To ensure transport sustainability of the temporary school, conditions would be added to ensure that a revised travel plan for the temporary school is submitted to and approved by the Local Authority within 3 months of occupation and an annual review of the plan is undertaken. Trees and biodiversity

7.14. Following consultations with the Council’s Natural Environment Officer (Trees), subject to the development being in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment KIER20477aiaC dated 6/5/16, Arboricultural Method Statement KIER20477amsB dated 4/4/16 incorporating Tree Protection Plan KIER20477 03B and Construction Method Sequence Rev 6, dated 5 May 2016, the proposed temporary classrooms would not result in harm to trees of amenity value on the site. To provide the accommodation a number of Category C and U trees are required to be removed. This is to facilitate the installation of the accommodation units and provide access to the location on site. These trees have been granted approval to be removed under the hybrid consent (ref. 151175). It is therefore recommended that appropriate conditions be imposed in connection with tree protection, tree works and arboricultural supervision.

7.15. In terms of biodiversity issues on site, the Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposal and highlighted that there are a number of badger setts on the site, two of which will be affected by the proposals. Subject to a condition to ensure the protection of the affected badger setts, the Ecologist has considered the proposals acceptable. Archaeology

7.16. The site has potential for archaeological remains. To ensure that any archaeological remains within the site are adequately investigated and recorded or preserved in situ in the interest of protecting the archaeological heritage of

257

the borough, Berkshire Archaeology has recommended an appropriate condition to secure and implement a programme of archaeological work. Other Matters

7.17. This proposed development sits on the outskirts of the AWE consultation zones and is within an area of extendibility approximately 4300m from AWE Burghfield. Whilst no response was received from the Emergency Planner, no objection was raised in relation to the recent previous temporary application 150816. In previous comments, the RBC Emergency Planning Officer highlighted that the site has always been a school and therefore to ensure the safety of the pupils and staff, recommended addition of an informative advising the need for an Emergency Plan as a primary countermeasure for an incident at the AWE site.

7.18. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was implemented by the Council from April 1st 2015. Although the proposed scheme would be CIL liable development, because education facilities attract a zero CIL charge in the Borough there would be no CIL payable for this scheme.

7.19. No Section 106 contributions are sought. Equality Impact

7.20. In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. There is no indication or evidence that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to these particular planning applications.

7.21. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of these developments.

8. CONCLUSION

8.1. The proposed temporary modular classrooms are considered acceptable in planning terms subject to the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

258

Typical Plans considered

Typical single-storey elevation of the modular (not to scale).

Typical two-storey elevation of the modular temporary buildings (not to scale).

259

Typical Floor Plans (not to scale).

Existing Phase 1 Temporary Modular Buildings (not to scale).

260

APPENDIX 1 Detailed Transport Comments. Memo From: (e)Transport Development Control Floor 1 North Rear Civic Offices Bridge Street Reading RG1 2LU To: Ralph Chakadya 0118 9372993 [email protected] Date: 13th May 2016 Re: Consultation on Planning Application Application Number: 160628 Application Type: Full Planning Approval Address: Wren, formerly known as Elvian 61 Bath Road Reading, RG30 2BB Proposal: Removal of the existing temporary classroom accommodation, the erection of eight no. temporary accommodation units to provide classroom and staff accommodation, temporary hard play space, access and parking arrangements, and the removal of a limited number of trees over a 2 year period. The proposed development relates to the provision of temporary classroom facilities on the site to provide an increase in capacity compared to the existing Phase One facilities. In addition, it is a prerequisite for the demolition and construction of the permanent school. This will serve to accommodate pupils across three year groups (Year 7, Year 8 and Year 9) between September 2016 and July 2018, prior to completion of the permanent school. Upon completion of the permanent school building, the existing year groups will transfer to permanent school. The temporary classroom facilities are proposed to be located on the site from July 2016 onwards to enable the transfer of pupils and staff from the Phase One facilities, and be operational for a duration of two years. The classroom facilities are to be formed from modular units identified and be located on areas of temporary surfacing on the south western side of the site. The schedule of temporary units is set out as follows, split between the 2016 and 2017 intakes:

• 2016 (Phase Two A) – 16 modular units (including 5 classrooms transferred from the Phase One operation). The units will provide 11 classrooms, one changing room area, two admin areas and a single ground floor dining room area;

• 2017 (Phase Two B) – 26 modular units. The units will provide an additional four classrooms (standard size) and six large classrooms for Science / Food Technology / Information Computer Technology. Access to the site for the duration of Phase 2a will remain as per Phase 1 with vehicular and pedestrian access gained from the A4 Bath Road. However, to secure the site and to ensure there is no conflict between pupils and staff with construction activity associated with the permanent school works access to the site for Phase 2 b will be from Southcote Lane. The vehicular access for Phase 2b will be constructed as per the requirement of the permitted residential scheme along with the pick-up and drop off area associated with the permanent school.

261

Pedestrian access to the site will be gained from both the A4 Bath Road and Southcote Lane. The Bath Road pedestrian access will be as per that permitted for the permanent scheme and the Southcote Lane access will be provided along the western boundary of the site and is a temporary measure. The access from Southcote Lane is to be 1.8m in width and includes steps close to Southcote Lane (with a bicycle wheeling ramp) and a kissing gate. The pedestrian access onto Southcote Lane will be removed following the opening of the new spine road in January 2017. The car parking provision for the site is to be 1 space per FTE staff for Phase 2a and 2b equating to a provisions of 38 and 51 spaces respectively and this is complies with Policy. All the car parking spaces are to the correct dimensions. The proposal requires a minimum of 45 cycle parking spaces (23 Sheffield stands) provided onsite for use by pupils and staff. The site includes 24 Sheffield stands providing 48 spaces. This provision will be sheltered and in a secure location and therefore complies with Policy. A comparison between the proposed development and the consented permanent school has been undertaken and this is highlighted in the table below, it should be confirmed that this does not include any of the residential vehicle movements that were permitted as part of the permitted permanent scheme.

The table above demonstrates that the proposed Phase Two operation will generate vehicles trips considerably below that consented for the permanent school for the AM (08:00 – 09:00) and School Peak (16:00 – 17:00) hours. Vehicle movements in the PM peak hour (17:00 – 18:00) show a minor increase compared to the consented full scheme. This increase is primarily down to Wren’s ‘wrap around care’ which enables pupils to remain onsite after school until early evening. Given the nature of wrap around care it is anticipated that the vast majority of these vehicle trips will be linked and passby trips by parents / guardians already on the network and therefore are not considered to be new trips to the network.

262

A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application but there are no set objectives or targets listed within it. A revised Travel Plan is therefore required that provides a set of targets for the school to achieve as set out in the Framework Travel Plan submitted with the application for Phase 1. However I am happy for this to be dealt with by condition. Construction Method Statement So as to avoid the congested times of the day deliveries should only be undertaken between the hours of 9am and 5pm, but should also be scheduled so as to avoid the drop off and pick up of school children. Until the above is addressed we would require a condition requiring a CMS. In the circumstances there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to the below conditions. Access constructed before occupation (approved drawings) Phase 2b shall not be occupied until the access onto Southcote Lane has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority for work carried out within the public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. Roads to be provided Phase 2b shall not be occupied until the roads serving it has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. Reason: In the interests of road safety. Footway provision Phase 2a shall not be occupied until a 1.8 metre wide footway has been constructed on the western boundary of the site between Southcote Lane and the school in accordance with the approved drawing/scheme. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure adequate provision for pedestrians in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. Vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans No building shall be occupied until the vehicle parking space for each phase has been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The space shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which could be a danger to other road users in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS24 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. Bicycle storage The covered bicycle storage spaces shown on the approved drawings for each phase shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands before occupation of the dwellings to which they relate. Reason: To encourage travel by sustainable alternatives to driving a motor car in accordance with the Local Planning Authority's approved transport policies in accordance with Core Strategy Policies CS23 and CS24.

263

Construction Management Statements No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority to provide for:

(A) The parking of vehicles and site operatives and visitors – to be shown on a Plan not less than 1.500.

(B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500

(C) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500

(D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding if required. (E) Wheel washing facilities (F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads

during construction. (G) Footpath Closures /Road Closures needed during construction (H) Traffic Management needed during construction. (I) Times, routes and means of access into and from the site for construction traffic

and delivery vehicles (including the removal of waste from the site and methods of preventing deposition of materials on the public highway). The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring residents and highway safety in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. Travel Plan The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The plan shall include a full analysis of the existing / proposed modal split for staff at the Wren School, reasons for the modal choice and detailed proposals for future transport provision with the aim of securing reduction in car trips generated to and from the Wren School. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS23. Annual Review On the first anniversary of the Travel Plans approval and yearly thereafter an annual review of the Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a detailed survey of the number of movements generated by the Wren School and shall be compared with the initial survey carried out under the terms of the condition above (the control level) and in the event of any reduction not being secured the Wren School shall undertake whatsoever measures, as may first have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority, as are necessary to cause a reduction in the number of car borne trips to, as a maximum, the control level. This may include such options as a greater provision of subsidised transport. Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS23 Darren Cook Transport Development Control Manager

264

To all members of the Planning Applications Committee Your ...

Documents

Transcript of To all members of the Planning Applications Committee Your ...