eastern area planning committee minutes of the...

DRAFTNote: These Minutes will remain DRAFT until approved at the next meeting of the Committee

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ONWEDNESDAY, 20 JANUARY 2016

Councillors Present: Peter Argyle, Pamela Bale, Graham Bridgman, Keith Chopping, Richard Crumly, Marigold Jaques, Alan Law (Vice-Chairman), Alan Macro, Tim Metcalfe, Graham Pask (Chairman), Richard Somner (Substitute) (In place of Emma Webster) and Quentin Webb

Also Present: Stephen Chard (Policy Officer), Gareth Dowding (Senior Engineer), Bob Dray (Senior Planning Officer), Jeanette Guy (Environmental Health), Charlene Myers (Democratic Services Officer), Liz Patient (Solicitor), David Pearson (Development Control Team Leader) and Anna Smy (Team Manager - Environmental Quality)

Apology for inability to attend the meeting: Councillor Emma Webster

PART I

57. MinutesThe Minutes of the meeting held on 9 December 2015 were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:Item 54 (1) – 15/02673/FULD – East Lodge, Bere Court, Pangbourne – (fourth paragraph, second sentence) – She also advised Members that the policy did not specifically define basement space. Item 54 (1) – 15/02673/FULD – East Lodge, Bere Court, Pangbourne – (tenth paragraph, first sentence) – Councillor Alan Macro asked why the certificate of lawfulness had been granted when a single storey extension would be visible from the highway. It was also noted that Councillor Graham Bridgman’s surname had been misspelt within the previous minutes.

58. Declarations of InterestCouncillors Pamela Bale and Tim Metcalfe declared an interest in Agenda Item 4(1), and reported that, as their interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, they would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter.

59. Schedule of Planning Applications(1) Application No. & Parish: 15/01974/FUL - Pangbourne College,

Bere Court Road, Pangbourne(Councillor Pamela Bale declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she was a Governor of Pangbourne College. As her interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, she would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter.)

EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 20 JANUARY 2016 - MINUTES

(Councillor Tim Metcalfe declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he was a friend and supporter of Pangbourne College and his son worked as a teacher at the College. As his interest was personal and prejudicial and a disclosable pecuniary interest, he would be leaving the meeting during the course of consideration of the matter and would take no part in the debate or voting on the matter.)(Councillors Bale and Metcalfe left the meeting at 6.03pm.)The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 15/01974/FUL in respect of the proposed installation of 4nr x 15m high and 4nr x 16m high galvanised steel columns with floodlighting to serve the existing artificial grass pitch on site, together with the installation of a Lucy anti-vandal proof distribution cabinet.Following the Planning Officer, Bob Dray’s, introduction to the report, Councillor Graham Bridgman sought further explanation of the louvres and their purpose. The Planning Officer explained that these served as a hood over the lights and would help to control the emission of light. Councillor Alan Macro referred to a mitigation measure highlighted in the report for tighter weave netting along the existing fence line in order to provide additional screening and sought assurance that this was included within the plans. Councillor Macro also made reference to the trees and hedges proposed to be planted to mitigate impact of light, but queried the time taken for this planting to be established. The Planning Officer clarified that the planting was to protect views from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) rather than to afford protection from the proposed lighting to nearby houses. He also referred to Condition 4 which stated that the floodlighting would not be brought into use until the approved landscape works had been implemented. Councillor Macro would pursue timelines for the planting with the applicant. Councillor Alan Law sought clarity on the comments from Environmental Health Officers on the restriction to the hours of use per week of the proposed floodlights. Jeanette Guy, Environmental Health Officer, explained that the hours of use per week could be restricted to limit negative impact. The applicant was seeking daily use from 16:00 to 22:00 hours. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Michael Reed, objector, and Mr Thomas Garnier, Mr Simon Levine and Ms Lisa Toyne, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.Mr Reed in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

His house and garden were adjacent to the north of the hockey pitch.

The proposed floodlights would be visible from the Thames Valley and would stand out ‘like a sore thumb’. This would include the floodlights being visible from Whitchurch-on-Thames in Oxfordshire. However, Whitchurch-on-Thames Parish Council had not been consulted.

The College was located within the AONB and was external to Pangbourne’s settlement boundary. Therefore, the proposal constituted development in the countryside. In addition, the proposal did not adhere to national planning guidance and would be an ugly addition to the countryside. Great weight should be given to protecting the AONB.

The height of the proposed floodlights was demonstrated at the site visit and Mr Reed stated that he was shocked at their size.


The College had stated that the installation of floodlights was essential in order to compete with other colleges/private schools and to continue to attract pupils. However, Mr Reed questioned this as the College was at maximum capacity and had no difficulty attracting pupils.

The impact on wildlife was a particular concern as the floodlighting would cause stress and confusion, especially to nocturnal animals. Mitigation measures in terms of the impact on bats were at a minimal level only. The impact on the local ecology and wildlife had been underestimated by the survey as it only covered the school grounds and not the surrounding area.

The College had sought support from local schools with a view to them sharing the use of the floodlit facility. However, there had been no indication of when this would be possible.

The greatest use of the floodlights would be in the winter months and at these times the leaves would have fallen from the trees (which were deciduous), therefore limiting the protection afforded by the trees. This would create an unacceptable impact with usage proposed from 4-10pm, seven days a week and threatened to have the same impact as the lights at Bradfield College.

The Landscape Mitigation Plan would not reduce the impact on the landscape for a decade when considering the growth rate of plants/trees, giving no protection to his and his neighbours’ properties.

Mr Reed felt that the floodlights were not essential to the College, they would cause harm to the AONB, create an ugly landmark and have a negative impact on the sleep patterns of wild animals.

The lighting approved for Bradfield College was a concerning example of the impact that this application could have.

Councillor Law recalled from the site visit that concern was highlighted on the impact approval of this application would have to the views from adjacent fields and he queried the purpose of the square structure located close to the copse. Mr Reed explained that this structure and the adjacent field was a manege on which he exercised his horses. Mr Garnier in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

By way of background, Mr Garnier explained that the sports pitch had been in place since 1975. The College had grown since that time and there was a greater need to extend the use of the all weather pitch with the proposed floodlights.

The College took sport seriously and aimed to compete at a high level. Suitable facilities, including lighting, were essential to accommodate this. It was important, for safety reasons, to ensure that hockey fixtures were adequately lit.

220 pupils boarded at the College and space was needed for them to socialise and exercise during the winter evenings. The floodlit pitch would provide this space.

The facility was already shared with schools and youth groups in the local area and approval of this application would allow this to be widened.

It was not envisaged that the school would utilise the sports pitch between 6pm and 8.30pm, and it was between these times that the pitch would be made available externally.


The College was operating in a competitive market and it was important that the facilities offered by nearby colleges were at the very least matched at Pangbourne College.

Ms Toyne in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

The proposed design of the floodlights was of a modern and highly technical standard.

It was recognised that the impact on surrounding views needed to be managed and the design of the lighting would ensure that there would be no upward light spill, with all light directed downwards.

The hockey pitch was already well contained by dense vegetation and woodland.

A landscape and visibility impact study had been produced and this had demonstrated that negative views would be kept to a minimum. Mitigation measures were also proposed which would strengthen screening of the site and this included the planting of a large evergreen tree. The proposals had been met with approval by West Berkshire Council’s landscape consultant.

As already referred to, louvres would be fitted to the floodlights and mesh netting along the existing fence line, again measures to reduce the impact.

Councillor Macro queried the time anticipated for additional planting, including the evergreen tree mentioned, to mature and provide the required extra screening. Ms Toyne explained that this tree, a Norwegian Spruce, would serve to cover a small break in existing vegetation. Post planting, it would almost immediately help to screen the site when considering the view from that side of the site.Councillor Richard Crumly questioned whether the pitch would be made available to third parties during school holidays. Mr Garnier gave his expectation that external sport clubs could continue their use, but as stated this would only be between the hours of 6pm and 8.30pm. There would be no use by the pupils who boarded at the College during school holidays as they would be residing at home during those times. Councillor Quentin Webb referred to the concerns raised in relation to the impact on wildlife and queried whether the ecology survey was conducted in line with the required standards. Mr Levine stated his understanding that the survey was conducted in line with the necessary guidelines and standards. Councillor Keith Chopping queried whether the proposed lighting was unnecessarily high. Ms Toyne explained that the proposed height would ensure the floodlights better met their purpose. It was felt that lower level lighting would in fact have a greater negative visual impact. As described a landscape and visibility impact study had been produced to the satisfaction of West Berkshire Council’s Landscape Consultant and this study gave consideration to all surrounding views together with ways in which negative impact could be minimised. Councillor Chopping then queried whether a greater number of lower floodlights would lessen the impact. Mr Levine advised that professional guidance on this matter from the Institute of Lighting Professionals (ILP) recommended that higher floodlights be erected where possible as this would reduce glare external to the site. Ms Toyne added that this guidance adhered to dark sky requirements. In terms of louvres, Members were advised that the requirement for these was in addition to the ILP guidance, they would serve to reduce light spillage external to the pitch and reduce the impact on surrounding views of the site. Mr Garnier added that the lighting


was designed to enable light to be directed downwards and to minimise horizontal light spillage. Councillor Marigold Jaques questioned whether it would be necessary to keep the lights on until 10pm. Mr Garnier referred to the number of pupils who boarded at the College and the need to keep them occupied after school/study hours. As described earlier the floodlit pitch would provide an area to exercise etc before boarding pupils were required to return to their rooms. Mr Garnier also reiterated that external use would not be available to this hour (restricted from 6pm-8.30pm). Councillor Bridgman queried whether the lighting columns, which would be observable from some views during the day, could also be viewed by night when the lights were turned on. Mr Garnier explained that it would be possible to observe a glow of light reflected off the surface of the sports pitch and the lighting columns would be visible as a narrow line against the landscape. Mr Garnier also acknowledged that the beam of light would likely be seen in some conditions, although reiterated that light would be directed downwards. Members then commenced their debate on the planning application. Councillor Webb returned to the concerns raised in relation to the ecology survey and its level of completeness. The Planning Officer explained that the Council’s Ecologist was content with the proposal subject to conditions. These included a condition that the floodlights not be used in the months of May to August inclusive as this covered the main flight time of bats. In terms of the completeness of the survey, David Pearson added that the Ecologist had raised no concerns with regard to the methodology of the survey or its level of content. Councillor Crumly fully accepted the reasoning given by the College for the application. He was aware of similar lighting already in place in other areas, e.g. Thatcham, and in terms of this application, there were a limited number of nearby properties who would be disadvantaged compared to a number of properties in Thatcham. The objector’s concerns had been more in relation to the impact on the AONB and on views within and external to the AONB as a result of the lighting, rather than the impact caused to his own property. Councillor Crumly went on to state that he was not concerned by the proposal. The proposed lighting was sophisticated and would prevent light spillage beyond the sports pitch. In terms of harm to wildlife, the lighting would be turned off at 10pm and he therefore felt this level of harm to be minimal. Councillor Crumly added that he was minded to vote in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission. Councillor Webb added his support to the Officer recommendation when considering the mitigation measures put forward. He referred to floodlights in place in Mortimer, efforts had been made to shield this lighting and he was not aware of any concerns being raised since this lighting was erected. Councillor Chopping stated that a key consideration was the level of light spillage and he was prepared to accept the expert advice on this aspect as already described. In addition, the objector’s house and garden was a little way distant, some 200 metres, from the pitch. While Councillor Chopping continued to hold concerns over the height proposed of the floodlights, he too was supportive of Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Law stated that he was concerned by the application, with light pollution a factor in this. He had no doubt that people living in Whitchurch-on-Thames, South Oxfordshire would be able to view the lights and he was concerned that they not been adequately consulted. A suggestion from the AONB Board was that lighting should be turned off at 7pm.


Councillor Law also noted that Officers had opted not to impose a restriction to hockey only for the pitch and queried why this was the case. Use of the pitch for external football clubs was a particular concern. Enhanced use by external clubs would bring with it additional traffic. This was an area of concern of the Ward Member and villagers. Councillor Law did not feel this concern was adequately covered off in the report by the Highways Officer. Councillor Law stated that he would be prepared to support the granting of planning permission on two conditions. Firstly, that no organised football leagues/tournaments be allowed to take place and secondly, that the lighting be turned off at 8.30pm. David Pearson then sought to respond to Councillor Law’s points. In terms of consultation, there was no statutory requirement to consult the neighbouring authority and/or parishes across the river due to the distance of the application site from their boundaries, and there had therefore been no deviation from planning law. However, he did accept that in hindsight it might have been appropriate to conduct this consultation. Mr Pearson was satisfied that the landscape consultant had sufficiently considered the impact of the proposed lighting on the surrounding landscape, including on the far side of the Thames. In terms of restricting use to a particular sport, Mr Pearson stated that conditions needed to be reasonable and precise to ensure they could be enforced. It would be difficult to enforce a condition which prevented use of the pitch for organised football events. Mr Pearson also made the point that any condition of this nature was unconnected to the application for lighting. Bob Dray added that the application was not seeking a change of use, the site was already established as a sports pitch. In terms of traffic concerns, Gareth Dowding explained that traffic connected with external clubs would be in the evening (off-peak traffic times) and the traffic impact created was considered to be minimal. The school’s use would be during peak traffic times, but this would be during the day/largely when the lights were not in use. Councillor Macro felt that a comparison to the floodlights in place in Henwick, Thatcham was not feasible when considering the differing natures of the two locations. He was aware that other schools turned their floodlights off at 8pm and questioned whether Pangbourne College could not do likewise and adjust their study time. Councillor Macro was also concerned in relation to the noise impact from football. Councillor Richard Somner clarified that the existing use was not restricted to hockey only. He added that he would not want to limit the youth activity that could take place on this facility. Keeping student use to the later time proposed by the applicant would help alleviate traffic concerns.Councillor Peter Argyle did not feel it would be effective for the students who boarded at the College to have leisure time followed by studying. Councillor Bridgman referred to the points made by the Council’s Ecologist. The Ecologist had stated that he would be content with the proposal if a condition was added to either not allow use of the floodlights from May to August or for the floodlights to not be used beyond 8pm. A condition had been added for no lighting between May to August and therefore the Ecologist’s requirement had been met. Councillor Bridgman proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Crumly. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:


Conditions1. Full planning permission time limit

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. Standard approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing number BM25260 – Pand/03 RevB and Design and Access Statement received on 23 July 2015 and 25424-L9B received on 11 January 2016.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

3. Materials

No development shall take place until a schedule of the materials to be used for has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application. Samples of the materials shall be made available for inspection on request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), and Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

4. Landscaping (scheme submitted)

All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, schedule of planting and retention, programme of works and other supporting information including drawing numbers 25424-L9B received 11 January 2016. The approved landscape works shall be implemented within the first planting season following commencement of development. The floodlighting hereby approved shall not be bought into use until the approved landscape works have been implemented.

Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this development shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies ADPP, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design


(June 2006), and the Village Design Statement for Pangbourne.

5. Installed and maintained

The proposed lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Environmental Zone E1 (as shown on the approved documents and as specified by the Institute of Lighting Professionals). The lighting scheme shall not thereafter be altered without the prior permission in writing from the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason: In the interests of protecting biodiversity and the character of the rural area and North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, defined in the locality with dark skies. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies ADPP5, CS17, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

6. Hours of Use

The floodlighting hereby approved shall only be used between the hours of 4:00pm and 10:00pm. The floodlighting hereby approved shall be turned off when the courts are not in use.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and in the interests of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies ADPP5, CS14, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

7. No lighting May - August (bats)

The floodlights floodlighting hereby approved shall not be used in the months of May to August inclusive.

Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

8. Bat Boxes

No development shall commence until the locations of the bat boxes as specified in the Design and Access Statement (Mitigation 3) received 23 July 2015 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the floodlighting shall not be brought into use until the bat boxes have been implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

9. Mitigation – as detailed (bats)


The proposed lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved mitigation measures details and the Design and Access statement received 23 July 2015. The lighting scheme shall not thereafter be altered without the prior permission in writing from the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason: In the interests of protecting biodiversity and the character of the rural area and North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, defined in the locality with dark skies. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies ADPP5, CS17, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

10. Lighting Scheme

No development shall commence until details of the proposed louvers have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the floodlighting shall not be brought into use until the louvers have been implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.

Once installed the approved lighting shall not thereafter be altered, other than for routine maintenance that does not change its approved appearance and lighting levels, unless permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of a planning application.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area, and in the interests of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies ADPP5, CS14, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

(2) Application No. & Parish: 15/02681/FUL - Jackaways Cottage, White House Green, Sulhamstead

(Councillors Pamela Bale and Tim Metcalfe rejoined the meeting at 7.00pm). The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 15/02681/FUL in respect of a proposed outbuilding for the sale of Koi carp and supplies.In response to the Officer’s presentation, Councillor Pamela Bale queried the purpose of detailing the opening hours for weekdays and weekends separately. David Pearson acknowledged that the opening hours were the same and stated that the report detailed them separately for the avoidance of doubt.Councillor Keith Chopping asked whether the proposed conditions presented a method for monitoring the number of visitors to the site. He noted that the applicant suggested the business offered seasonal trade and that this would impact the volume of traffic at certain times of the year. David Pearson advised that the conditions covered the principle of traffic and that Officers could not see any significant issues relating to a small increase in traffic during the trading season.Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that the position of the public footpath differed between the applicant’s plans and those provided by Officers. David Pearson advised that the Public Rights of Way team considered the application and did not find any reasons for objection. The team reported that the footpath was well used and that


signage should be provided to indicate the location of the path – if the application was approved.Councillor Bale asked whether the sale of Koi Carp, as detailed within condition 4, was enforceable. David Pearson explained that the recommendation for approval was this particular use only and would not allow any other sales or storage use under classes A1 or B8 of the Use Classes Order. He reassured Members that the applicant would be required to submit another application if they wished to extend usage.It was highlighted that condition 6 should state that the temporary planning consent should cease on or before 25th January 2019. David Pearson explained that the temporary consent provided the Council with an opportunity to assess the impact of the business over a set period of time before reaching a decision on whether or not permanent planning permission should be granted. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Smith, Parish Council representative, Mr John Baxter, objector, and Mr Dominic Taylor, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.Mr Smith in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

The Parish Council was predominantly concerned with the principle of the application. They considered that the development was not well suited for a secluded part of the village – which was served by narrow roads.

The business would attract more traffic to the area to the detriment of walkers, cyclists and residents which meant that the supplication did not conform with Policy CS13

There was no reason to assume that the number of potential customers would not be higher than predicted by the applicant and there did not appear to be a mechanism in place to control this.

The report stated that the applicant would collect the goods at the beginning of each season and that supplies would be sold by the business also. There was no mention of how the supplies would reach the premises or how frequent deliveries would be and what type of vehicles would be used. The potential delivery of goods would also increase the volume of traffic. Furthermore, the roads were not suited for heavier vehicles.

It would be most likely that customers would not know the area which would add to the risk of traffic using the narrow roads.

The proposed parking arrangements were not sufficient to avoid encroaching onto neighbouring properties’ land or causing an obstruction.

In response to questions asked by the Committee, Mr Smith advised that there was no bus route nearby and that the properties received a refuse service. Mr Baxter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He lived on the opposite side of the road to Jackaways Cottage.

The public footpath was regularly used by people walking from Theale to Ufton Court. The proposed development would be positioned adjacent to the footpath.

He hoped that the business would be successful but feared that it would encourage more traffic to the area.

The proposed development would be just under 50% of the overall footprint of the existing Jackaways Cottage. There had been no new developments introduced to


the area in many years. He stressed that this would be the first additional build to a property in the area which was situated within a rural community.

He questioned where the commercial effluent would be discharged to. He highlighted that the conditions made reference to the removal of effluent but reminded the Committee that the property was situated within a rural location which was not served by a mains sewage network. The property would therefore require a bowser which would add to the volume of traffic.

Mr Taylor in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He thanked the Officers who had contributed towards the report and assisted him with the development of his application. He reminded the Committee that the Officer recommended the application for approval.

The design was in-keeping with the character of the existing property and the proposed development would be less then 50% of the overall footprint of the dwelling on the site.

A Koi carp house required specialist equipment and was a hobby/interest undertaken by very few people due to the expense and equipment required. The product had a low level of demand and operated on a seasonal basis which, in turn, created a low footfall. Therefore, the impact from customers visiting the site would be minimal.

Visitors would be invited by appointment only and there would be ample parking to facilitate visits coordinated in this manner.

The business would not collect supplies or store supplies on site. He advised that customers could purchase the necessary equipment through the business but the delivery would take place straight from the wholesaler to the customer.

The local area had a historic connection to Koi carp and there was evidence to suggest that Koi carp ponds featured within the grounds of properties nearby. He was pleased to offer an opportunity to reinstate the local heritage.

Planning Polices supported the growth of enterprises within rural settings and he felt that his application conformed to the necessary policies.

He had extensive knowledge and expertise regarding his proposed trade and of Koi carp. His trade would contribute to the local area and reinstate its local heritage.

In response to questions asked by Members, Mr Taylor advised that the proposed developed would be 8 by 6 metres and therefore less then 50% of the overall footprint on site.Councillor Chopping asked for more detail regarding the removal of trade effluent. Mr Taylor stated that the Environment Agency had taken a view that they would not require discharge consent because the pond would be a closed water system. The pond would require minimal cleaning as the nutrients were beneficial for the fish. Mr Taylor was asked whether he had considered access from Foley Lane to minimise disruption to neighbours. He stated that the option had been considered but he was advised that the existing access route was suitable.Councillor Alan Law asked whether the proposed business would be the sole source of income for Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor explained that the trade operated for 6 months a year so he expected to find alternative means for work during the remaining months. He offered a consultancy service alongside the sale of Koi Carp and informed Members that this


would take him away from the site during his core trade months. He informed Members that he did not have plans to employ additional staff.Councillor Bridgman asked how the supplies would be delivered to the site. Mr Taylor advised that items would be advertised through his company but delivered directly from the supplier to the customer.Councillor Macro asked what security arrangements Mr Taylor had considered. Members heard that there would be a motion detector and alarm on site.Councillor Keith Chopping, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

The application concerned the use of Jaques Lane onto the site and the request to sale Koi Carp was secondary to this issue.

The Parish Council felt that the application proposed inappropriate use of the countryside however, CS10 encouraged diversity within a rural setting.

Officers developed a good report and proposed robust conditions but he felt that they could go further to address the issue related to the additional traffic in the area.

Concerns had been noted regarding the potential number of visitors to the area – which could increase if the business was successful. Members heard that it would not be possible to condition the volume of clients.

He was not particularly concerned about the size of the proposed building and felt that the design reflected the character of the existing building.

Councillor Bale highlighted that the report mentioned the implementation of a shop which appeared to contradict the application request for Koi Carp sales only. David Pearson advised that Officers used generic language in the report but this did not detract from the sole purpose of the application – the sale of Koi Carp; the application was not requesting general retail or business use. He acknowledged concerns regarding the storage of equipment and considered that it would be reasonable to include a condition regarding outside storage restrictions. Councillor Law respected the entrepreneurial approach taken by the applicant but he considered that the proposal did not adhere to CS10 of the Planning Policy. He queried the sustainability of the business due to the lack of nearby public transport. In summary he felt the application presented three key challenges:

Social Impact - the increased volume of traffic would have a detrimental impact to neighbours and the general area.

Environmental Impact – the volume of traffic would impact the environment.

Economic Impact – the business did not require additional staff so it was questionable whether the application provided any economical benefits to the local area.

Furthermore, he considered that the temporary business permission failed to address the issue at hand and avoided the need to make a firm decision from the offset.He concluded that he would not support the application due to the businesses lack of sustainability. He proposed refusal of Officers recommendation.David Pearson explained that case law indicated that conditions could be used to grant temporary planning permission on occasions where the appetite to approve/refuse an application were marginal - in order to review acceptability.


Councillor Law stated that he was not clear how the situation would be managed if an assessment of acceptability concluded that the planning consent should be withdrawn. Councillor Bale was equally concerned by the prospect following a reassessment.David Pearson advised that, if the planning consent was withdrawn, then the applicant would need to resubmit an application for business use – assuming they wanted to continue trading from the site. He stated that the building had dual use and that the applicant could decide to use the property as a dwelling if the business element was considered unacceptable. Members heard that the business would not fully operate from the site for 6 months a year and this would offer an insight into the variation between business and private use.Councillor Somner asked whether the application could run their business from the site without planning permission – using their existing property as a work base. David Pearson advised that trading from a home to a certain level of activity might not require planning permission – unless the business involved a larger scale impact in which case an assessment might be required.Councillor Quentin Webb felt that the business was positioned in a challenging location. He seconded the proposal to refuse planning permission. In considering the above application Members voted against the Officer’s recommendation.RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:1. The proposed building is too high and bulky for this sensitive location. Would be too

prominent and inappropriate in appearance and would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings and of walkers using the footpath that runs across the site.

2. The proposed use is unsustainable as it would have a negative social and environmental impact and would bring no economic benefit to the local rural economy.

(3) Application No. & Parish: 15/02065/FUL - Compound rear of James Farm, James Lane, Grazeley Green

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 15/02065/FUL in respect of a proposed change of use of a vacant former agricultural site for the installation and operation of a 20MW gas fuelled capacity mechanism embedded generation plant to support the National Grid. Thereafter, upon cessation, the restoration of the land back to agricultural use. Following the Planning Officer, Bob Dray’s, introduction to the report, Councillor Graham Bridgman asked for clarification on Condition 9 – Maximum noise levels and the maximum noise level permitted. Anna Smy, Environmental Quality Team Leader, clarified that the primary consideration was the impact of noise from the plant on existing background noise levels at neighbouring residential properties. If the noise from the plant was the same as the existing background noise level it would create a greater cumulative impact than if noise from the plant was below the existing background noise level, this was the purpose of the condition. A lower level than the existing background noise would not be perceptible. Councillor Bridgman then queried how the noise level could be monitored, i.e. by those living in a nearby property. Anna Smy advised that the applicant could, with the permission of neighbours, conduct an assessment. In addition, Environmental Health


legislation allowed Officers to enter a property and conduct their own assessment of the noise level. Councillor Alan Macro queried whether the vibration caused by the generators was an area for concern. In response, Jeanette Guy explained that she had assessed similar applications and the matter of the vibration caused had not been an issue elsewhere. Councillor Pamela Bale queried how the interior lighting would be operated. The Planning Officer confirmed that this would be remotely operated. Councillor Bale then queried whether any external lighting would be required. The Planning Officer explained that it was a condition of approval for no external lighting to be installed without prior approval. Councillor Bale noted that upon cessation of the proposed use, the land was to be restored to agricultural use and queried whether there was a time limit for this to happen. The Planning Officer advised that decommissioning conditions were included which was a benefit of the application, but these did not contain a particular end date. Councillor Quentin Webb returned to the matter of noise levels and queried whether the noise impact had been considered for the fully functioning plant or just for a single generator. The Planning Officer referred to Condition 9 (Maximum noise levels) and explained that this condition needed to be adhered to regardless of how the plant operated. Anna Smy clarified that the noise assessment was based on all generators running. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Richard Thorne, adjacent Parish Council representative, and Mr Alan Dempsey, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.Mr Thorne in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

Some of his concerns had already been highlighted by Members of the Committee, including noise levels. A further particular concern was pollution from emissions.

Since the Eastern Area Planning Committee found this application to be invalid in 2014, no other 20MW generation plants had been approved.

Lay persons did not have the ability to measure the impact of noise. He also believed that the assessment of noise referred to was only based on the impact of an individual generator.

Eight businesses were located approximately 100 metres away and would suffer a negative impact, particularly as many of these had employees working outside. There was likewise a concern for nearby dwellings. Mr Thorne felt that an understanding of the health and safety impact of the proposal was needed in addition to the Environmental Health assessment.

A lack of complaints was referred to in relation to the vibration impact of an existing facility, however this was not relevant as this proposal was for a larger facility.

A trench would need to be dug alongside and through James Lane to lay a cable. However, this was an inefficient and expensive option. An agreement for the resurfacing of James Lane would be some compensation to residents should permission be granted.

The land was to revert to agricultural use upon cessation, but Mr Thorne queried who would be responsible for its reinstatement.


In response to questions from Members, Mr Thorne confirmed that he resided in and operated his classic car/car body shop business from James Farm at a distance of around 100 metres from the application site. He accepted that his business did generate a level of noise but pointed out that this was during daytime/working hours rather than during the evening. Mr Dempsey in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He confirmed that no overhead cables were required as part of the application, with all necessary cabling underground.

An anti-vibration mechanism would be fitted which would serve to minimise vibration external to the site.

Some external lighting was felt to be necessary (as noted, subject to prior approval), but this would be set at a minimal level during the night.

An engineer would be on site daily to ensure that equipment was operating correctly and safely.

A lifespan of 20 to 25 years was anticipated for the plant.

The location chosen for the plant was necessary in order to best serve its purpose of supporting the National Grid, i.e. access to electricity/gas sources.

Councillor Alan Law queried the level of use of the plant during the day. Mr Dempsey confirmed that the purpose of the plant was to support the National Grid during peak times. Councillor Macro asked for further detail on the operation of machinery. Mr Dempsey explained that the generators would run on a gas reciprocating engine for optimum efficiency. He added that a quarterly emissions analysis would be conducted and reported to the manufacturers. Councillor Macro queried if this report could be provided to the Council and Mr Dempsey felt this would be possible if requested. Councillor Richard Crumly queried whether it was difficult to identify a suitable site for the proposed plant. Mr Dempsey explained that it was difficult to find a site that was capable of running the 20MW gas reciprocating engine. Councillor Keith Chopping sought to further clarify the operation of the generators, i.e. whether they would all operate at once or on an individual basis to meet the demand from the National Grid. Mr Dempsey confirmed that other than a minor discrepancy in starting up, the generators would all start up and operate as one. As a way of understanding noise impact, Councillor Chopping queried the difference in noise between a tractor and the generators. Mr Dempsey gave the view that an open engine tractor running on a diesel engine would be significantly louder then the gas powered generators. Mr Dempsey added that the noise of the cooling fans would be greater than the generators themselves. Councillor Bridgman queried the frequency of use anticipated for the generators. On average, Mr Dempsey estimated this at three hours per day between the peak times of 4-7pm. Mr Dempsey also explained that maintenance of equipment would be conducted 2 to 3 times per year and equipment would be subject to an annual service. Councillor Bale queried whether site security had been considered. Mr Dempsey confirmed that security would take the form of a touch sensitive fence, security cameras and trigger alarms. Security would be monitored remotely.


Councillor Bale then referred to the intention to dig up James Lane to lay cables and questioned when the lane would be returned to an acceptable condition. Mr Dempsey advised that it was the intention to return the lane to its current serviceable condition. Councillor Graham Pask then asked Officers to comment on the reinstatement of James Lane post works. In response, the Planning Officer referred Members to the informatives within the report. Based on these he was satisfied that relevant legislation, the Berkshire Act 1986 and the Highways Act 1980, would be adhered to. Gareth Dowding added to these comments by explaining that if a utilities company was to dig up a road, highways legislation would ensure the road was returned to an adequate state. The wear and tear caused to the land in question would also be monitored and there was potential to claim back costs via the Berkshire Act if necessary. Councillor Webb stated that he was satisfied that noise concerns and other areas of concern were adequately covered by conditions, and did not feel there were any objections not captured within conditions. He therefore proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission subject to conditions. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Chopping. Councillor Law was of the view that this was an appropriate location for this operation which would generate economic benefits to the area. He did however note that approval of the proposal would result in minor environmental and social impacts to local residents particularly between peak times. Councillor Bridgman remained concerned with regard to emission and noise levels. He had a particular issue with the emissions that would come from the ‘exhaust pipe’ at the top of the unit. Emissions and noise levels would need to be closely monitored to assess the impact of the proposal should permission be granted. Councillor Bridgman also stated that he would abstain from the vote on the item. Councillor Macro queried if a condition of approval could be added to ensure that the emissions analysis report was provided to the Council. Councillor Pask followed this up by querying if concerns regarding emissions could be reported to the Council. Anna Smy explained that the Environmental Protection Act covered any statutory nuisance and required a response from the local authority to concerns of a local business/local resident. Jeanette Guy added that in terms of polluted emissions, this development was unlikely to have a detrimental impact on local air quality objectives set to protect health. Councillor Macro stated that he would want to ensure that emission levels were not exceeded as it would not necessarily be apparent to local residents that there was an issue. Bob Dray pointed out that conditions needed to be necessary to make the development acceptable, and that there was no demonstrable need for the Council to monitor emissions under the planning regime. David Pearson agreed that it would not be an appropriate condition to require monitoring reports. Mr Pearson also advised Members that Government guidance in terms of conditions was that they should not cover issues which were controlled by non-planning legislation. Environmental Health held appropriate powers in terms of controlling different forms of pollution. Councillor Webb queried whether the applicant could be asked to keep a record of emission levels and for this to be made available for inspection on request, although he accepted this could not be a condition of approval. Anna Smy acknowledged this was an option, but questioned its purpose unless an issue had been highlighted. Jeanette Guy advised that the Council was required to review and assess air quality across the District against air quality objectives set to protect health every three years. Some checks were also made each year. This site would be included as part of that assessment process, but it was unlikely that any issues would arise in respect of the operation of this plant.


Councillor Tim Metcalfe acknowledged that there was potential, with a prevailing wind, for low level noise/pollution to be an issue for local residents. However, this was a rural area with noisy tractors in operation which had a greater negative impact than this plant would have. Councillor Crumly felt this was an appropriate location for this plant which would serve an important purpose. Members voted in favour of the proposal to accept Officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission subject to conditions. Councillor Bridgman abstained from the vote. RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:Conditions1. Full planning permission time limit



2. Standard approved plansThe development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

GF Energy Location Plan 095/002 Revision D GF Energy Existing Site Plan 095/003 Revision B GF Energy Proposed Site Plan 095/004 Revision C GF Energy Site Survey and Section Drawing 095/005 GF Energy Background Noise Data Plan 095/007 Revision A GF Energy Transformer Drawing STD/010 GF Energy Containerised Generator Drawing STD/011 GF Energy Gas Governor Kiosk Drawing STD/013 Revision B GF Energy PIR Pre Insertion Resistor Drawing STD/014 GF Energy 12m Long Switchroom Drawing STD/019 GF Energy Welfare Cabin Drawing STD/021 Revision A GF Energy Acoustic Fencing Drawing STD/023 Indicative Drainage Scheme Drawing dated 18/02/2014 Heras UK Fencing Systems Zenith System Document (90.3) JH2 October

2010 GF Energy Design and Access Statement Revision E dated 30/06/2015 Clover Acoustics BS4142 Noise Assessment 3057-R3 dated 04/07/2014 GF Energy Noise Data Readings 095/008 dated 08.04.2014 GF Energy Agricultural Impact Assessment 095/009 dated 22/04/2014 GF Energy Contextual Photos 95/006

GF Energy 33Kv Substation Drawing STD/012 Revision A is not an approved plan. A smaller building (lower height) is subject to pre-approval pursuant to


Condition 3.


3. Pre-approval of smaller substationNo development shall take place until details of a smaller substation building, with a reduced height, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no substation building shall be provided except in accordance with the details approved pursuant to this condition.

Reason: The currently proposed substation is considered excessive in height, such that it would be a prominent addition. The height is not justified by its function, and it has been stated that an alternative design is being developed. Given that the redesigned building would be smaller, its approval can reasonably be given pursuant to a condition without causing prejudice. This condition is imposed in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

4. Pre-approval of lightingNotwithstanding the approved plans, no development shall take place until details of any external lighting to be provided within the application site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details shall include information on the location, type and luminance of such lighting. Any lighting installed pursuant to this condition shall be provided in strict compliance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid intrusive external lighting that would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

5. Acoustic fence (amended)The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use (including the operation of plant or generation of electricity) until the acoustic fence has been fully provided in accordance with the approved details. The noise barrier shall be 4 metres in height and meet the recommended specification as detailed in the Clover Acoustics BS4142 Noise Assessment Report Ref 3057-R3. The acoustic fence shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To protect the living conditions and amenities of residents in the vicinity of the application site, by preventing excessive noise impacts generated from the development. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning


Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

6. Surface water drainageThe development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use (including the operation of plant or generation of electricity) until surface water drainage measures have been provided in complete accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include pre-treatment measures to prevent fuels and any other potential pollutant stored within the site entering local watercourses.

Reason: To prevent pollution of the environment from potential pollutants stored on site. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policies OVS.5, OVS.7 and OVS.8 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

7. Materials as specifiedThe materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall be as specified on the plans and/or the application forms.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials do not detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

8. No external lighting without prior approvalNotwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no external lighting (except that expressly authorised pursuant to Condition 4) shall be installed within the application site without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority in respect of a formal application made pursuant to the details reserved by this condition. The submitted details shall include information on the location, type and luminance of such lighting. Any lighting installed pursuant to this condition shall be provided in strict compliance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid intrusive external lighting that would detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (June 2006).

9. Maximum noise levelsNoise arising from the use of plant, machinery or equipment from the


development hereby permitted shall not exceed a level of 5dB(A) below the existing background level when measured according to British Standard BS4142-1997, at a point one metre external to the nearest noise sensitive premises.

Reason: To protect the living conditions and amenities of residents in the vicinity of the application site, by preventing excessive noise impacts generated from the development. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

10. Decommissioning – restoration to agricultureThe development hereby permitted shall be removed in its entirety and the land restored to agriculture within six months of the development failing to generate electricity for 12 consecutive months. The land shall be restored to agriculture in accordance with a scheme of decommissioning work and land restoration that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the land is restored to its original undeveloped condition once the development fails to generate electricity, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11. Decommissioning – removal of operational developmentAs part of the decommissioning process of Condition 10, all operational development in, on, over or under the land within the application site (red and blue lines) associated with the development hereby permitted (including, but not necessarily limited to: plant, machinery, buildings, security fence, acoustic fence, hard-standing, cabling/pipework, external lighting and security columns) shall be completely removed from the application site within six months of development failing to generate electricity for 12 consecutive months.

Reason: To ensure the land is restored to its original undeveloped condition once the development fails to generate electricity, in the interests of protecting the amenity of the open countryside. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

12. Retention of earth bundNo development shall take place unless the earth bund surrounding the development on the western, northern and eastern boundaries of the application site is retained in its current form (the levels shall not be reduced). The earth bund shall be retained in its current form for the lifetime of the development, and the levels shall not be altered in any way until the development has been decommissioned and all operational development has been removed from the


site in accordance with Conditions 10 and 11.

Reason: To ensure the retention of the earth bund that visually screens the development from the surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies ADPP1, ADPP6, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

INFORMATIVES

1. Proactive actions of the LPAThe Local Planning Authority (LPA) has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems arising in relation to dealing with a planning application. In particular, the LPA:[Specific examples to be completed by officers after committee resolution]

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

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

4. Foul drainageFoul drainage should be connected to the main sewer. Where this is not possible and it is proposed to discharge treated effluent to ground or to a surface watercourse the applicant may require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. The granting of planning permission does not guarantee the granting of a permit under the Environmental Permitted Regulations 2010. A permit will only be granted where the risk to the environment is acceptable.

5. Fuel storageAny facilities for the storage of fuels, oils and/or chemicals will need to comply with the requirements of the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001 (OSR England).

Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with secondary containment that is impermeable to both the oil, fuel or chemical and water, for example a bund.

The minimum volume of the secondary containment should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank in the secondary containment the capacity of the containment should be at least the capacity of the largest tank plus 10% or 25% of the total tank capacity, whichever is greatest.


All fill points, vents, gauges and sight gauge must be location within the secondary containment. The secondary containment shall have no opening used to drain the system. Associated above ground pipework should be protected from accidental damage. Below ground pipework should have no mechanical joints, except at inspection hatches and either leak detection equipment installed or regular leak checks. All fill points and tank vent pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

This is a requirement of the: Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001; The Control of Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural Fuel Oil)

Regulations 2010; Building Regulations 2010;

More information on the minimum legal requirements is available in ‘Above Ground Oil Storage Tanks: Pollution Prevention Guidelines (PPG) 2’:https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290118/pmho0811bucr-e-e.pdf

6. WasteIf any controlled waste is to be removed off site, then the site operator must ensure a registered waste carrier is used to convey the waste material off site to a suitably permitted facility.

The Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 for dealing with waste materials are applicable for any off-site movements of wastes. The developer as waste producer therefore has a duty of care to ensure all materials removed go to an appropriate permitted facility and all relevant documentation is completed and kept in line with regulations.

(4) Application No. & Parish: 15/02419/FULD - Land Adjacent To 1 Durant Way, Tilehurst

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(4)) concerning Planning Application 15/02419/FULD in respect of the proposed erection of one detached dwelling and integral garage.In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Graham Rolfe, Parish Council representative, Mrs Yvonne Lee, objector, and Mr Tony Thorpe, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.Mr Rolfe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He was pleased to hear that the land had been considered Green Infrastructure and believed that this application set a precedent for identifying CS18.

The Parish Council was concerned about the associated loss of space if the application was approved. He stressed that the application was set within an urban area and the Parish Council often received applications to ‘shoe-horn’ properties in small areas.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/


The land currently harboured an abundance of wildlife

Mrs Lee in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

The land to the east of 1 Durrant Way was included in an application of an earlier development – submitted by TA Fisher and it had been agreed at that time that the land should be left to support local wildlife.

The Council had an opportunity to purchase the land but despite the importance of the wildlife using the land this was not pursued and subsequently the land was not adopted.

The introduction of one home would not address the local or national housing issue but it would directly disadvantage the local wildlife; The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recorded that wildlife had reduced by 60% over the past 50 years.

It was designated as open space in 1998 for a very good reason and these reasons had not changed – the case for retaining Green Infrastructure was very strong.

Mr Thorpe in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

He considered that there were two main issues associated with the application – the impact on local wildlife and whether the land was Green Infrastructure. These had since been addressed.

The update report indicated that the Land could be considered Green Infrastructure.

Since the previous meeting there had been a further three conditions added to ensure the protection of wildlife; he supported the inclusion of the additional conditions.

In response to questions asked by the Committee Mr Thorpe advised that condition 13 addressed concerns that the development would impede the movement of wildlife.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

He was disappointed to know that the Council had failed to adopt the land – an investigation was taking place with Council Officers to understand how the oversight had been allowed.

The land should still be considered Open Space – as originally identified. The land was ‘thrown away’ due to the oversight by the Council – which failed to consider the need for a consultation when the legal agreement relating to the land was removed.

He believed that although the Council was legally able to transfer the use of land it was morally wrong to do so.

Members were reminded that the Council agreed to discharge the agreement because the obligations within the agreement were no longer enforceable, due to the passage of time they were statute barred.

Councillor Alan Law was frustrated to read that Officers could not provide a direct response to the question raised at the last meeting – the identity of the land associated with the application. David Pearson acknowledged the feedback and advised that Officers had considered whether the land was Open Space/Green Infrastructure and their conclusion had been provided within the update report where it concluded that a reason for refusal on this basis would be difficult to defend at appeal. Councillor Graham Bridgman echoed the concerns voiced by the Committee and stated that the key question was still unanswered.

David Pearson explained that, in his view, if challenged, the Council would struggle to identify the land as Green Infrastructure. He understood comments regarding the biodiversity of the land but considered that the current land owner could decide to strip the space of its current vegetation, so long as the trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) were not damaged, which would remove the support network for local wildlife - this could occur without the need to consult or for


permission. The proposed conditions addressed concerns regarding the protection of local wildlife and the level of control over the use of the land could increase if the application was approved. Bob Dray referred to the definition of Green Infrastructure in the supporting text to Policy CS18, and explained that the land did not fall comfortably within any of the example land uses.

Councillor Richard Crumly supported the application. He acknowledged the concerns but considered that the existing Tree Protection Orders provided an assurance that there would continue to be suitable levels of greenery. He stated that there was a national need for housing and this development would contribute towards the current demand.

Councillor Crumly proposed acceptance of Officers recommendations. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Alan Law.

In considering the above application Members voted in favour of Officers recommendation to approve planning permission. Councillor Graham Bridgman and Councillor Pamela Bale abstained from voting on the matter.RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:Conditions1. Full planning permission time limit



2. Standard list of approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and other documents listed below:

(i) Application form received on 01 October 2015;(ii) Design and access statement received on 01 October 2015;(iii) Proposed site plan drawing No 12939-103 REVISION A received on 01 October

2015;(iv) Proposed plans drawing No 12939-104 REVISION B received on 01 October

2015;(v) Proposed plans drawing No 12939-105 REVISION A received on 01 October

2015;(vi) Proposed front and side elevations drawing No 12939-106 REVISION A

received on 01 October 2015;(vii) Proposed rear and side elevations drawing No 12939-107 REVISION A received on

01 October 2015;(viii) Proposed Site Sections A-A drawing No 12939-108 received on 01 October 2015;(ix) Proposed Site Sections B-B drawing No 12939-109 received on 01 October

2015;(x) Proposed Site Sections A-A and B-B drawing No 12939-110 received on 01

October 2015;(xi) Proposed parking plan drawing No 12939-111 received on30 November 2015



3. Materials

The construction of the dwelling hereby permitted shall not take place until samples and an accompanying schedule of the materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application. Samples and details of materials shall be provided for all external surfaces of the dwelling and hard surfaced areas hereby permitted. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies ADPP4, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

4. Hard landscaping

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the hard landscaping of the site has been completed in accordance with a hard landscaping scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping scheme shall include details of any boundary treatments (e.g. walls, fences) and hard surfaced areas (e.g. driveways, paths, patios, decking) to be provided as part of the development.

Reason: A comprehensive hard landscaping scheme is an essential element in the detailed design of the development, and is therefore necessary to ensure the development achieves a high standard of design. These details must be approved before the dwellings are occupied because insufficient information has been submitted with the application, and it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is of a high standard. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

5. Soft landscaping

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, and any other supporting information. All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first occupation of the new dwelling (whichever occurs first). Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: A comprehensive soft landscaping scheme is an essential element in the detailed design of the development, and is therefore necessary to ensure the development achieves a high standard of design. These details must be approved


before the dwellings are occupied because insufficient information has been submitted with the application, and it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is of a high standard. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

6. Spoil removal

No development shall take place until full details of how all spoil arising from the development will be used or disposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall:(a) Show where any spoil to remain on the site will be deposited;(b) Show the resultant ground levels for spoil deposited on the site (compared to existing

ground levels);(c) Include measures to remove all spoil (not to be deposited) from the site;(d) Include timescales for the depositing/removal of spoil.

All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

7. Finished floor levels

No development shall take place until details of the finished floor levels of the dwelling hereby permitted in relation to existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

8. Tree protection

Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved drawing Tree protection 794-01-03 dated Aug 2015 and supported by the tree report by SJ Stephens ref 794 dated 26th August 2015. Within the fenced area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policy CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006 - 2026).


9. Hours of work (demolition and construction)

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

7.30 am to 6.00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays 8.30 am to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays and no work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

10. Temporary parking and turning

No development shall take place until details of a temporary parking and turning area to be provided and maintained concurrently with the development of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved parking and turning area shall be provided at the commencement of development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details until the development has been completed. During this time, the approved parking and turning area shall be kept available for parking and used by employees, contractors, operatives and other visitors during all periods that they are working at or visiting the site.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking and turning facilities during the construction period. This condition is imposed in order to minimise the incidences of off-site parking in the locality which could cause danger to other road users, and long terms inconvenience to local residents. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11. Sustainable drainage

The construction of the dwelling shall not take place until detailed proposals for surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposals shall incorporate sustainable drainage principles to deal with surface water run-off within the application site, as detailed by the Glanville Drainage Strategy Report. The proposals shall be informed by a site investigation that confirms ground conditions, and verifies infiltration rates, a report of which should be included within the submission. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the surface water drainage has been implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design – Part 4 Sustainable Design Techniques (June 2006).

12. Parking and turning

The dwelling shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans. The parking


and turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

13. Fencing gap to allow movement

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no new fences, walls or other means of enclose shall be erected on the south eastern boundary unless they include a 200mm gap between ground level and the bottom of the fence.

Reason: To ensure the protection of badger species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

14. Excavations during construction

During construction any excavations left open overnight will include a means of escape for any animals which fall in.

Reason: To ensure the protection of badger species known to be located within the area, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

15. Bat box

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the A Schwegler 1FR built in bat box (or Ibstock Enclosed Type ‘C’ or Habibat built in bat box) is incorporated in the south (rear) elevation at the west end just below eaves height (4m minimum height above ground level).

Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

16. Windows to be top hung and obscure glazed

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows at first floor level in the east elevation have been fitted with obscure glass and top hung casements. The obscure and top hung glazing shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.


Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).

17. Restriction on permitted development for windows on side elevation

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no windows/dormer windows/roof lights (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B or C of that Order shall be constructed on the west and east elevations of the dwelling, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

Reason: In the interests of the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

18. Restriction on permitted development for fences, gates and walls (front elevation)

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no fences and gates or other means of enclosure exceeding 1 metre in height, which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Parts 2 (Class A) of that Order shall be constructed forward of the dwelling hereby permitted, between the front elevation and public highway, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the construction of high panel fencing and gates that could detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area and block the public highway and in the interest of road safety and flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS13, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and the Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

19. Restriction on permitted development for gates and fences

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no gates, fences or other means of enclosure which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Parts 2 (Class A) of that Order shall be constructed, within the site or around its boundaries, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the construction of gates or other means of enclosure that could detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).


20. Restriction on permitted development for extensions and outbuildings

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no extensions, alterations, outbuildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, C and E of that Order shall be constructed, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority in respect of an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

Informatives

1. Proactive action by the local planning authorityThis decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2. Access constructionThe Highways Manager, West Berkshire District Council, Highways & Transport, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD, telephone number 01635 – 519803, should be contacted to agree the access construction details and to grant a licence before any work is carried out within the highway. A formal application should be made, allowing at least four (4) weeks’ notice, to obtain details of underground services on the applicant’s behalf.

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

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

5. Surface Water DrainageWith regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009


3921. Reason - to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system. Legal changes under The Water Industry (Scheme for the Adoption of private sewers) Regulations 2011 mean that the sections of pipes you share with your neighbours, or are situated outside of your property boundary which connect to a public sewer are likely to have transferred to Thames Water's ownership. Should your proposed building work fall within 3 metres of these pipes we recommend you contact Thames Water to discuss their status in more detail and to determine if a building over / near to agreement is required. You can contact Thames Water on 0800 009 3921 or for more information please visit our website at www.thameswater.co.uk

6. WaterThames Water would advise that with regard to water infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application. Thames Water recommends the following informative be attached to this planning permission. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development

60. Appeal Decisions relating to Eastern Area PlanningMembers noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the eastern area.

61. Site VisitsA date of 3 February 2016 at 9.30am was agreed for site visits if necessary. This was in advance of the next Eastern Area Planning Committee scheduled for 10 February 2016.

(The meeting commenced at 6.00pm and closed at 9.32pm)

CHAIRMAN …………………………………………….

Date of Signature …………………………………………….

eastern area planning committee minutes of the...

Documents