williams 28 february 2017 - reading 0118 937 2303 . e ... mount properties limited c/o investra...

Councillor Livingston (Chair) Councillors Ballsdon, Brock, Duveen, Gavin, Hacker, Hopper, McKenna, Page, Pearce, Robinson, Singh, J Williams and R Williams

Simon Warren Interim Managing Director Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading RG1 2LU 0118 937 3787 Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Cttee\Agendas\170308.doc Your Ref: Direct: 0118 937 2303 e-mail: [email protected]

28 February 2017

Your contact is: Simon Hill – Committee Services

NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 8 MARCH 2017 A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 8 March 2017 at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Reading. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below. Please note that with regard to the planning applications, the order in which applications are considered will be at the Chair’s discretion, and applications on which members of the public have requested to speak are likely to be considered first. AGENDA ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO

1. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON 8 FERUARY 2017

- 1

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -

3. QUESTIONS - - -

4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 8

5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 11

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 22

CIVIC CENTRE EMERGENCY EVACUATION: If an alarm sounds, leave by the nearest fire exit quickly and calmly and assemble on the corner of Bridge Street and Fobney Street. You will be advised when it is safe to re-enter the building.

www.reading.gov.uk SMS Text 81722 DX 40124 Reading (Castle Street)

WEBCASTING NOTICE

Please note that this meeting may be filmed for live and/or subsequent broadcast via the Council's website. At the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data collected during a webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s published policy.

Members of the public seated in the public gallery will not ordinarily be filmed by the automated camera system. However, please be aware that by moving forward of the pillar, or in the unlikely event of a technical malfunction or other unforeseen circumstances, your image may be captured. Therefore, by entering the meeting room, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

Members of the public who participate in the meeting will be able to speak at an on-camera or off-camera microphone, according to their preference.

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

Planning Applications to be determined

Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page

7 DECISION ABBEY

33

8 DECISION CAVERSHAM

47

9 DECISION CHURCH

57

10 DECISION KATESGROVE

75

11 DECISION NORCOT

103

12 DECISION PARK

113

13 DECISION PEPPARD

147

14 DECISION REDLANDS

157

15 DECISION TILEHURST

175

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 8 March 2017 Item: 7 Page No: 33 Ward: Abbey Application Number 162147 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Atlantis Holdings Ltd Address Kings Walk, King Street, Reading, RG1 2HG Proposal Change of use of 1240 square metres of floor area of existing shopping centre

from A1 (shop) to a flexible A1(shop)/A3(restaurant/cafe)use. Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 8 Page No: 47 Ward: Caversham Application Number 170076 Application Type Request for a deed of variation Applicant Hermes Property Unit Trust Address St Martins Precinct, Church Street, Caversham, Reading Proposal Request for a deed of variation to existing S106 agreement(original appn.

140997/FUL). Recommendation Agree amend the Section 106 Agreement Item: 9 Page No: 57 Ward: Church Application Number 162219 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant University of Reading Address Engineering, University Of Reading, Shinfield Road, Reading Proposal Demolition of the Engineering Building and erection of a 5 storey Health and

Lifesciences Building. Demolition of the Harborne Building. New entrance and external works to the Philip Lyle Building, and associated landscaping and car parking within the Whiteknights Campus of the University of Reading.

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement Item: 10 Page No: 75 Ward: Katesgrove Application Number 161805 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Chamberwell Investment Services Limited Address 79 Silver Street, Reading, RG1 2TN Proposal Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus

basement level) building to provide 65 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated support services, street frontage retail unit (A1, A2 or A3 use class), and landscaping works.

Recommendation Application Refused

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE


Planning Applications Committee – 8 March 2017 Item: 11 Page No: 103 Ward: Norcot Application Number 170039 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address St Michaels Primary School, Dee Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG30 4AS Proposal Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom.

Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 12 Page No: 113 Ward: Park Application Number 162057 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mount Properties Limited C/O Investra Capital Ltd Address Alexander House, 205-207 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4LS Proposal Erection of basement and 4 - 7 storey building comprising 56 (30x1, 18x2 & 8x3-

bed) residential units (Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping, following demolition of existing basement and 2 storey office building (Class B1a)

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement Item: 13 Page No: 147 Ward: Peppard Application Number 170035 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address St Martins Catholic Primary School, Pendennis Avenue, Caversham Proposal Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom. Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 14 Page No: 157 Ward: Redlands Application Number 151407 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Creative Support Address Warwick House, 1 Warwick Road, Reading, RG2 7AX Proposal A single building comprising 10 flats on 2 floors on land adjacent to Warwick

House. Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE


Planning Applications Committee – 8 March 2017 Item: 15 Page No: 175 Ward: Tilehurst Application Number 162331 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address The Avenue School, The Avenue Centre, Conwy Close, Tilehurst Proposal Installation of a temporary demountable modular double classroom unit and

associated external works. Recommendation Application Permitted

KEY TO CODING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1. Planning application reference numbers are made up of 2 parts. 1.1 The number begins with the year e.g. 15 1.2 This is followed by a consecutive number, showing what number the

application is in any year (e.g. 150128).

2. The following is a key to existing officers with their direct dial telephone numbers.

GF1 - Giorgio Framalicco 9372604 KAR - Kiaran Roughan 9374530 LEB - Lynette Baker 9372413 JW6 - Julie Williams 9372461 RJE - Richard Eatough 9373338 JPM - Johnathan Markwell 9372458 BFP - Ben Pratley 9372417 SDV - Steve Vigar 9372980 CR2 - Claire Ringwood 9374545 CJB - Christopher Beard 9372430

SGH - Stephen Hammond 9374424 MDW - Mark Worringham 9373337 AJA - Alison Amoah 9372286 SEH - Sarah Hanson 9372440 RSC - Ralph Chakadya 9372993 BXP - Boja Petkovic 9372352 MJB - Mathew Burns 9373625 JS3 - Jasmine Singh 9372418 HB3 - Heather Banks 9374175 EH1 - Ethne Humphreys 9374085 DM2 - Daniel Murkin 9374237 SKB - Sarah Burr 9374227 SD5 - Sarah Duckworth 9374294 TRH - Tom Hughes 9374150 SFB - Susanna Bedford 9372023

Keytocoding Issue 20/12/2016

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

Use Classes Use Classes (Amendment) Order 1972 Order 2005

Description General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005

A1 Class I Shops

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

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

• Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors

No permitted changes

A2 Class II Financial and Professional Services

• Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies

• Professional and financial services, betting offices

Permitted change to A1 where a ground floor display window exists

A3 Restaurants and Cafes

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

A4 Drinking Establishments

Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or A3

A5 Hot Food Take-Aways

Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or A3

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

No permitted change

B1 Class II Business Class III

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

Permitted change to B8 where no more than 235m

B2 Class IV-IX General industry

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

B8 Class X Storage or Distribution

Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, repositories

Permitted change to B1 where no more than 235m

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

C1 Class XI Hotels

Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change

C2 Class XII Residential Class XIV Institutions

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

C2A Secure residential institutions

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

No permitted change

C3 Dwelling houses

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

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

• No more than six residents living as a single household where the building is managed by a local housing authority, a registered social landlord, a police authority, a fire authority, or a health service body.

Permitted to change to C4

C4 Houses in multiple occupation

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

Permitted to change to C3

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

• Hostel No permitted change


D1 Class XIII Non- Class XV Residential Institutions Class XVI

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

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

exhibition halls • Non-residential education and training centres

No permitted change

D2 Class XVII Assembly Class XVIII and Leisure

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

rinks, gymnasiums • Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure

uses, bingo halls, casinos

No permitted change

Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change


PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 8 FEBRUARY 2017

Present: Councillor Livingston (Chair);

Councillors Ballsdon, Brock, Duveen, Gavin, Hacker, Hopper, McKenna, Page, Pearce, Robinson, Singh, J Williams and R Williams.

RESOLVED ITEMS

58. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

59. SITE VISITS

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

Resolved -

That, unless there were any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Service considered appropriate, no site visits be arranged prior to the next meeting of the Committee.

60. PLANNING APPEALS

(i) New Appeals

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a schedule giving details of notification received from the Planning Inspectorate regarding seven planning appeals, the method of determination for which she had already expressed a preference in accordance with delegated powers, which was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

(ii) Appeals Recently Determined

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

(iii) Reports on Appeal Decisions

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the following appeal decisions in Appendix 3:

i) 152016/FUL & ii) 160820/FUL – 51 CRESSINGHAM ROAD

i) Demolition of existing house & garage. Erection of 4 new dwellings.

ii) Demolition of existing house & garage. Erection of new building containing 4 x 2-bed and 4 x 1-bed flats with associated car parking (resubmission of 152016).

1


Written representations.

Both appeals dismissed.

Resolved –

(1) That the new appeals, as set out in Appendix 1, be noted;

(2) That the outcome of the recently determined appeals, as set out in Appendix 2, be noted;

(3) That the report on the appeal decisions set out in Appendix 3 be noted.

61. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 10 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of 16 applications for prior approval decided between 20 December 2016 and 26 January 2017.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

62. OBJECTION TO A TREE PRESERVATION ORDER - BBC CAVERSHAM PARK, PEPPARD ROAD

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on an objection to Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 22/16 relating to BBC Caversham Park, Peppard Road. A copy of the TPO plan was attached to the report at Appendix 1.

The report explained that the BBC had confirmed that BBC Caversham Park would be sold. The site contained numerous trees of importance locally and for the wider landscape. Given the development potential for the site, a TPO was considered prudent to ensure that all trees were retained until plans for the site were confirmed. An ‘Area’ TPO had been served on 17 November 2016 to protect all trees of whatever species on the site.

An objection to the TPO had been made by Aspect Arboriculture on behalf of the BBC, details of which were set out in the report, along with officers’ comments on the objection.

That report concluded that, in line with government guidance, it was currently considered ‘expedient in the interests of amenity’ for an Area TPO to be retained on the site. It was therefore recommended that the Area TPO be confirmed.

Resolved - That the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.

2


63. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE – QUARTERS 2 & 3 2016/17 AND NEW DESIGNATION CRITERIA

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report providing quarterly performance reports for Quarters 2 and 3 of 2016/17 (Jul – Sep and Oct - Dec 2016), and outlining the contents of a recently published DCLG document, “Improving Planning Performance, Criteria for Designation (revised 2016)”. The document set out new targets for the determination of planning applications against which, in the future, the government would consider the designation of poorly performing authorities, and the report also indicated the Council’s current performance against these new criteria for designation.

Resolved - That the report be noted.

64. CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLICATIONS FOR CHANGES OF USE FROM A DWELLINGHOUSE TO A HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO)

Further to Minute 37(3) of the meeting held on 12 October 2016, the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on planning conditions relevant to future applications for change of use to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO). The report set out current practice, noting the respective roles of Planning as well as Regulatory Services, with the latter ensuring the management of HMOs through the Housing Acts. It then provided advice on the use of planning conditions. Finally, the report also set out, in Appendix 1, generic planning conditions and informatives that could be applied to future applications, as appropriate.

Resolved -

(1) That the report and in particular the separate planning and licensing regimes relating to HMOs be noted;

(2) That the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 be endorsed.

65. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

The Committee considered reports by the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services.

Resolved –

(1) That, subject to the conditions now approved, permission be granted under planning legislation and, where appropriate, under the Advertisement Regulations, as follows:

162323/FUL – RIVERMEAD LEISURE COMPLEX, RICHFIELD AVENUE

Northern extension of the existing Rivermead Leisure Centre to accommodate a new building for leisure purposes (D2 use), with an associated changing village and associated plant, to house a temporary 'demountable' swimming pool (amended

3


description).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out additional consultation responses and information on appearance and landscaping, with an updated site layout plan attached. Two amended conditions relating to landscaping and one additional condition relating to habitat protection/mitigation were recommended.

Granted as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the amended and additional conditions set out in the update report, but with condition 19 regarding landscape replacement if trees failed extended from five years to ten years, condition 4 regarding D2 use (assembly and leisure purposes) to clarify that only sports-related use would be permitted, an additional condition to specify standard construction hours, and an additional informative that the Council would investigate additional tree planting between the site and the river.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objector Nick Haskins, and Lauren Walker representing the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

160944/VARIAT – 84 WATLINGTON STREET

Application for removal or variation of a condition (No.2 – Approved Drawings) following grant of planning permission 141416.

Granted variation of condition as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.

Comments received and considered.

162087/VARIAT – KINGS POINT, 120 KINGS ROAD

Demolition of existing building and the erection of a part seven, part nine, part eleven, part twelve and part seventeen storey building comprising 103 residential units and 351.5 sqm GIA of commercial (A1/A3) floorspace at ground and mezzanine floor level together with parking and associated landscaping (without complying with conditions 2, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 28 of planning permission 150019) to allow the removal of sub-basement, enlargement of basement level and internal and external alterations at the basement, ground and mezzanine levels (amended description).

Granted s.73 variation planning permission as recommended.



(2) That consideration of the following applications be deferred for the reasons indicated:

4


161336/FUL – 36 RUSSELL STREET

Proposed loft conversion with three dormer windows on the rear roof elevation.

Deferred as application not valid.

161337/LBC – 36 RUSSELL STREET

Listed Building Consent for Proposed loft conversion with three dormer windows on the rear roof elevation.

Deferred as application not valid.

162331/REG3 – THE AVENUE SCHOOL, THE AVENUE CENTRE, CONWY CLOSE, TILEHURST

Installation of a temporary demountable modular double classroom unit and associated external works.

An update report was tabled at the meeting setting out a comment from Sport England.

Deferred for further information.

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

160342/FUL – 36 MASON ST (LAND TO THE REAR OF 36-46 MASON STREET & 2-28 LITTLE STREET)

Erection of a part 1, part 2 storey residential (Class C3a) building comprising 5x1-bed units (Supported Housing) with associated landscaping, bin and cycle storage, following demolition of existing office/workshop (amended description).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which summarised an additional public consultation response that had been received.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking by 15 February 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.

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

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with an additional condition to require a communal areas management plan (including waste management), and the condition regarding soft landscaping to specify replacement of any soft landscaping which is removed, dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective for five years.

The applicant agreed at the meeting to meet Ward Councillors and local residents

5


to discuss management of the properties.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objectors Claire McManan-Smith and Malcolm Scott, and Ian Caren on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

150945/FUL – MEADWAY PRECINCT, HONEY END LANE

Redevelopment of the Meadway precinct including partial demolition, refurbishment of existing retail units including creation of additional floor space through extending existing premises, new shop fronts to extended units, extension to existing precinct to create new retail units within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5, laying out of new car park, new servicing arrangements, bin stores, engineering operations including re-profiling of rear of the site and landscaping, re-location of public toilets to within precinct (amended description).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out an objection that had been received.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking by 28 February 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with Condition 20 to be amended to include other improvements to the residential flats including double-glazing of windows.

The car parking management plan and delivery arrangements to be approved in consultation with Ward Councillors.

Comments and objection received and considered.

Councillor Lovelock, and Richard Irving on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

162108/FUL – 452 BASINGSTOKE ROAD

Part retention and refurbishment of the existing Gillette building, erection of a two storey research and development building (Class B1/B8), and erection of a 190 space multi-storey car park, with associated access, surface car parking, servicing, landscaping and engineering works.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out additional information on transport, Section 106 contributions, design matters, conditions and the submission of amended plans. The report recommended amendments to the proposed Heads of Terms, five additional conditions and one amended condition.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section

6


106 legal agreement by 31 March 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report with the amendments set out in the update report.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended in the original report, with the additional and amended conditions as set out in the update report, and with proposed condition 28 regarding car parking to include reference to the Applicant exploring the potential for electric charging points.

That the Applicant also be requested to liaise with Reading UK CIC regarding STEM (as set out in para 5.1.4 of the Planning Statement).


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

162265/REG3 – THE HILL PRIMARY SCHOOL, PEPPARD ROAD

The provision of new single storey prefabricated building to provide a small SEN group and meeting room.

Granted as recommended.


Comments received and considered. (The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 8.43 pm).

7

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

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

Date: 8 MARCH 2017

AGENDA ITEM: 4

TITLE: POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

SERVICE: PLANNING

WARDS: BOROUGH WIDE

AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN

TEL: 0118 9374530

JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER

E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

1.1 To identify those sites where, due to the sensitive or important nature of the proposals, Councillors are advised that a Site Visit might be appropriate before the meeting of the next Committee (or at a future date) and to confirm how the visit will be arranged.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 That you resolve to visit the sites which will be identified by officers in a paper in the update Agenda on the day of the forthcoming Planning Applications Committee and confirm if there are any other sites Councillors consider necessary to visit before reaching a decision on an application.

2.2 That you confirm how the site will be visited, unaccompanied or

accompanied, and if accompanied agree the site visit date and time.

3. THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The potential list of agenda items submitted since the last meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be provided with the update Agenda on the day of forthcoming Planning Applications Committee. Where appropriate, I will identify those applications that I feel warrant a site visit by the Committee prior to formal consideration of the proposals.

3.2 Councillors may also request a site visit to other sites on that list if they

consider it relevant to their ability to reach a decision on the application. 3.3 Officers may also recommend a site visit if they intend to report a normally

delegated application to the Committee for a decision. 3.4 A site visit may also be proposed in connection with a planning enforcement

issue which is before the Committee for consideration.

8

3.5 Site visits in the above circumstances should all take place in advance of a Committee decision and should only be used where the expected benefit is substantial.

3.6 A site visit is only likely to be necessary if the impact of the proposed

development is difficult to visualise from the plans and any supporting material including photographs taken by officers (although, if this is the case, additional illustrative material should have been requested); or, there is a good reason why the comments of the applicant and objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing; or, the proposal is particularly contentious.

3.7 Accompanied site visits consist of an arranged inspection by a viewing Committee, with officers in attendance and by arrangement with the applicant or their agent. Applicants and objectors however will have no right to speak but may observe the process and answer questions when asked. The visit is an information gathering opportunity and not a decision making forum.

3.8 Recently Councillors have expressed a preference to carry out unaccompanied

site visits, where the site is easily viewable from public areas, to enable them to visit the site when convenient to them. In these instances the case officer will provide a briefing note on the application and the main issues to be considered by Councillors when visiting the site.

3.9 There may also be occasions where officers or Councillors request a post

completion site visit in order to review the quality or impact of a particular development.

4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS 4.1 Planning services contribute to producing a sustainable environment and

economy within the Borough and to meeting the 2015 -18 Corporate Plan objective for “Keeping the town clean, safe, green and active.” Under the heading, Neighbourhoods, the Corporate Plan aims to improve the physical environment – the cleanliness of our streets, places for children to play, green spaces, how we feel about our neighbourhood and whether we feel safe, have a sense of community and get on with our neighbours.

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 5.1 Statutory neighbour consultation takes place on planning applications. 6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Officers when assessing an application and when making a recommendation to

the Committee, will have regard to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct

that is prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant

protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it. 9

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 None arising from this report. 8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The cost of site visits is met through the normal planning service budget. 9. BACKGROUND PAPERS Reading Borough Council Planning Code of Conduct. Local Safety Practice 2013 Planning Applications Committee site visits.

10


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

DATE: 8 MARCH 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS

AUTHOR: KIARAN ROUGHAN

TEL: 0118 9374530

JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER

E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 To report notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate on the

status of various planning appeals. 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

2.1 That you note the appeals received and the method of determination as listed in Appendix 1 of this report.

2.2 That you note the appeals decided as listed in Appendix 2 of this report.

2.3 That you note the Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions provided in Appendix 3 of this report.

3. INFORMATION PROVIDED

3.1 Please see Appendix 1 of this report for new appeals lodged since the last committee.

3.2 Please see Appendix 2 of this report for new appeals decided since the

last committee. 3.3 Please see Appendix 3 of this report for new Planning Officers reports on

appeal decisions since the last committee.

4. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS 4.1 Defending planning appeals made against planning decisions contributes to

producing a sustainable environment and economy within the Borough and to meeting the 2015 -18 Corporate Plan objective for “Keeping the town clean, safe, green and active.”

11

5. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 5.1 Planning decisions are made in accordance with adopted local

development plan policies, which have been adopted by the Council following public consultation. Statutory consultation also takes place on planning applications and appeals and this can have bearing on the decision reached by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors. Copies of appeal decisions are held on the public Planning Register.

6. EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 6.1 Where appropriate the Council will refer in its appeal case to matters connected

to its duties Under the Equality Act 2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other

conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a

relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it. 7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Public Inquiries are normally the only types of appeal that involve the use of legal representation. Only applicants have the right to appeal against refusal or non-determination and there is no right for a third party to appeal a planning decision.

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 Public Inquiries and Informal Hearings are more expensive in terms of officer and appellant time than the Written Representations method. Either party can be liable to awards of costs. Guidance is provided in Circular 03/2009 “Cost Awards in Appeals and other Planning Proceedings”.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

9.1 Planning Appeal Forms and letters from the Planning Inspectorate.

12

APPENDIX 1 Appeals Lodged: WARD: KATESGROVE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3162984 CASE NO: 160558 ADDRESS: The Woodley Arms Public House, Waldeck Street RG1 2RF PROPOSAL: Erection of a block of 40 Studio student apartments

including parking, amenity space and landscaping following demolition of existing public house. (Resubmission of 150134)

CASE OFFICER: Stephen Vigar METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 09.02.2017 WARD: KATESGROVE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/16/3165346 CASE NO: E15232 ADDRESS: 84 Bell Street PROPOSAL: Unauthorised development and change of use CASE OFFICER: Chris Beard METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: APPEAL AGAINST ENFORCMENT NOTICE APPEAL LODGED: 09.02.2017

APPENDIX 2 Appeals Decided:

WARD: KENTWOOD APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3154721 CASE NO: 150136 ADDRESS: Land at Oxford Rd PROPOSAL: An outline application with all matters reserved (with the

exception of means of access and landscaping) for a residential development of 8 units

CASE OFFICER: Ralph Chakadya METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 30.01.2017

13

WARD: TILEHURST APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3155586 CASE NO: 160083 ADDRESS: 126 Westwood Rd PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey detached 2 bedroom bungalow on

land at the rear 126 Westwood road. CASE OFFICER: Ben Pratley METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 06.02.2017 WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3158520 CASE NO: 151345 ADDRESS: 7 Blagrave St PROPOSAL: Erection of basement and 5 storey building to provide café

(Class A3) at basement and part ground floor level and 23 bed & breakfast rooms (Class C1) at part ground floor and upper floor levels, following demolition of existing 2 storey building (café and 5 bed & breakfast rooms) barring partial retention of front façade.

CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Markwell METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 10.02.2017 WARD: TILEHURST APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/!6/3160831 CASE NO: 161487 ADDRESS: 44 Park Lane PROPOSAL: Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum

height of 3.5m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level. Notification of the construction of an extension under class A Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

CASE OFFICER: Tom Hughes METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: ALLOWED DATE DETERMINED: 10.02.2017 APPLICATION FOR COSTS REFUSED WARD: BATTLE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/Z/16/3157272 CASE NO: 160805 ADDRESS: 291 Oxford Rd PROPOSAL: Internally illuminated freestanding totem sign CASE OFFICER: Claire Ringwood METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED

14

DATE DETERMINED: 16.02.2016 WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/Z/16/3164603 CASE NO: 161933 ADDRESS: 116 -117 Broad Street PROPOSAL: Display of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign to the upper

floors of the Broad Street elevation CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Markwell METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 16.02.2016 WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/Z/16/3164606 CASE NO: 161982 ADDRESS: 116 -117 Broad Street PROPOSAL: Retention of 1 internally illuminated fascia sign to the

upper floors of the Broad Street elevation for a temporary period of four months.

CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Markwell METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 16.02.2016 WARD: THAMES APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3162360 CASE NO: 160088 ADDRESS: 153 Hemdean Road PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of 4 no.

semi detached (4 bed) dwellings. CASE OFFICER: Daniel Murkin METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 20.02.2016 WARD: PEPPARD APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3160994 CASE NO: 160059 ADDRESS: 26 Woods Road PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 x 4-bed dwellings with associated vehicle

parking and cycle storage. New access from highway CASE OFFICER: Lynette Baker METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: ALLOWED DATE DETERMINED: 20.02.2016

15

APPENDIX 3 Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions. 7 Blagrave Street 116-117 Broad Street Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions attached.

16

Ward: Abbey Appeal No: APP/E0345/W/16/3158520 Planning Ref: 151345 Site: 7 Blagrave Street, Reading, RG1 1PJ Proposal: Erection of basement and 5 storey building to provide café (Class A3) at basement and part ground floor level and 23 bed & breakfast rooms (Class C1) at part ground floor and upper floor levels, following demolition of existing 2 storey building (café and 5 bed & breakfast rooms) barring partial retention of front façade Decision level: Delegated powers Method: Written representations Decision: Appeal Dismissed Date Determined: 10 February 2017 Inspector: Hayden Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The appeal site is located on the west side of Blagrave Street, close to the junction with Valpy Street (to the north-west). The existing building is two-storeys in height and in active use, as a café at ground floor level and bed and breakfast hotel accommodation (5 rooms) above. 1.2 The application was refused for a total of three reasons on 19/05/16, summarised as follows:

1. Height, bulk and detailed design would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the existing host building, streetscene and wider conservation area, and substantial harm to the setting of nearby listed buildings.

2. Loss of access to sunlight and daylight, outlook and be visually dominating and overbearing to existing / future nearby occupiers.

3. Proposed Class C1 accommodation would be sub-standard for future occupiers, by reason of a number of rooms having inadequate outlook and access to sunlight and daylight, and the applicant failing to demonstrate that the proposed rooms would not be sufficiently protected through mitigation measures from noise and disturbance, leading to a significant detrimental impact for future occupiers.

1.3 At the time of the application a total of 4 objections were received from nearby occupiers. Further submissions were made at the appeal stage.

2. SUMMARY OF DECISION 2.1 The main issues the Inspector considered were:

i. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of designated heritage assets;

ii. The effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of Forbury View (9-15 Blagrave Street) and the users of 1a-5a Blagrave Street with regard to sunlight, daylight and outlook; and

iii. Whether the proposal would provide satisfactory accommodation for future users of the premises with regard to sunlight, daylight, outlook and noise and disturbance.

The effect on the character and appearance of the building & designated heritage assets 2.2 The Inspector commented that “the building has a pleasing form and because of its appearance in contrast to the surrounding larger buildings, I agree that it warrants the importance placed upon it by the Council and consider it makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the CA” (conservation area). The Inspector identified a number of shortfalls with the proposals, such as the loss of the existing relationship between the bay window and arch and the poor relationship of the proposed upper floor windows with the building and its neighbours, before concluding “the building would be changed to such an extent that this would substantially diminish its character and appearance thereby also diminishing its contribution to the character and appearance of the CA”.

17

2.3 The Inspector, in support of the Council and in contrast to the appellant, also considered that the proposal would be harmful to the setting of the adjacent listed Town Hall Complex. Although the Inspector did not consider this to be substantial harm (as specified by the Council), it was considered to be harmful from a number of views where the buildings are seen in the same context. The Inspector did not consider the public benefits of the scheme to outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, meaning in overall terms the proposals were contrary to design/heritage policies CS7, CS33 and RC5. Impact on neighbouring occupiers 2.4 While critical of the methodology of the sunlight assessment submitted by the appellant at appeal stage (a concern shared by officers), the Inspector was able to reasonably conclude that “there would be a material detrimental effect the amount of sunlight reaching the rear rooms in some of the Forbury View flats”. The Inspector was also critical of a substantial wall proposed having a material effect on outlook for some Forbury View occupiers, concluding this to be “severe and unacceptable”. In terms of the impact on O’Neill’s, the Inspector considered the proposals would not conflict with Policy DM4. Quality of accommodation for future occupiers 2.5 The Inspector was concerned by the lack of outlook and day/sunlight from the rear most first floor rooms (owing to a boundary wall proposed at this point) and the ground floor B&B room, concluding “Although the bed and breakfast element of the proposal would provide only short term accommodation, customers occupying bedrooms 1, 3 and 4 would nonetheless be subject to poor living conditions whilst staying in those rooms”. The Inspector was however content with the outlook and access to day/sunlight in the other rooms and considered that noise/extraction concerns raised by the Council could have been secured by suitably worded conditions. Conclusion 2.6 In overall terms the Inspector therefore concluded that various factors weighed heavily against the proposal. Head of Planning, Development & Regulatory Services Comment: A pleasing decision, although not surprising given the various difficulties with the proposals. Although no issues were raised by officers with the principle of providing additional B&B accommodation at the site, the value of the existing building was misjudged by the appellant, as was the impact on future B&B occupiers and existing nearby residential occupiers in this constrained location.

The two-storey appeal site building viewed from Valpy Street, with Forbury View on the right, O’Neill’s to the left and the listed Town Hall Complex in the foreground

18

Proposed Blagrave Street elevation

Proposed ground and first floor plans Case officer: Jonathan Markwell

19

Ward: Abbey Appeal Numbers: A) APP/E0345/Z/16/3164603 & B) …/3164606 Planning Refs: A) 161933/ADV & B) 161982/ADV Site: Primark, 116-117 Broad Street, Reading, RG1 2BD Proposal: A) 1 X Fascia Sign – Block vinyled glass background with individually illuminated LED PRIMARK letters. B) Retrospective application for fascia sign to Broad Street elevation (individually illuminated LED PRIMARK letters) Decision level: Delegated powers Method: Written representations Decision: Appeals A) and B) Dismissed Date Determined: 16 February 2017 Inspector: Hayden Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 The appeal site is the recently opened Primark store on Broad Street, formerly occupied by

BHS. The building was extended and extensively refurbished under planning permission 151221 (granted in November 2015), with a simultaneous advertisement consent application (151241) granting the display of 4 fascia signs & 2 projecting signs to the Broad Street elevation and 4 fascia signs & 1 projecting sign to the Minster Street elevation. It is noted at this time that all the Broad Street signage approved was at ground floor level and that two originally proposed high level signs (1 fascia and 1 projecting) were omitted during the course of the application following officer concerns.

1.2 Advertisement consent was later sought under application 160100 for adverts including two high level signs on the Broad Street frontage. Negative officer feedback resulted in the applicant withdrawing this application in March 2016 prior to a formal decision being issued.

1.3 Advertisement consent was later sought solely for two high level signs (a separate

application was submitted for uncontentious ground level signage) under application 160567. This was refused advertisement consent in May 2016 for failing to respect the host building and wider streetscene and having a harmful detrimental impact on visual amenity.

1.4 In October 2016 it was observed that, despite the refusal of advertisement consent, a large

fascia sign was displayed from the site at upper floor level on the Broad Street frontage. The agent of the applicant was contacted and two advertisement consent applications were swiftly submitted in October 2016 to avoid Planning Enforcement beginning the process of taking action against the unauthorised signage.

1.5 The first application (Ref 161933) sought advertisement consent for a slightly smaller fascia

sign than that being displayed (unauthorised). The second application (Ref 161982) sought the temporary retention of the existing (unauthorised) signage for 4 months, essentially to cover the period of the opening of the Primark store on 1st November 2016 and the determination of the first application (to enable the sign to continue to be displayed without enforcement action – by virtue of a current application to regularise the work being under consideration). Both applications were refused on 2nd December 2016 for failing to respect the host building and wider streetscene and having a harmful detrimental impact on visual amenity. Appeals against these refusals were lodged in the days after the decisions were issued.

2. SUMMARY OF DECISION

2.1 The main issue the Inspector considered in both appeals was:

i. The effect of the advertisements on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

2.2 The Inspector considered the existing frontage has an assertive and somewhat strident appearance by comparison of the generally more decorative design of the neighbouring buildings. Given the existing advert above the main entrance, the offset and larger first/second floor sign of appeal A “would create a discordant appearance to the façade of the building and because it

20

already stands out in the street scene, the effect would be obtrusive and incongruous. Furthermore, the proposal would be disharmonious with the character and appearance of the area given the general absence of upper floor advertisements on buildings in the shopping street”. 2.3 More specifically, the Inspector acknowledged a small number of exceptions of fascia-type advertisements above their ground floors. The exceptions of John Lewis, The Oracle and Metro Bank were all individually discussed and discounted, with the Inspector specifying these do not formal a notable part of the character of the area or set a precedent (whilst dealing with the appeal on its own merits). 2.4 In terms of both appeals the Inspector recognised the point raised by the appellant that branding plays a key role in making shoppers aware of the presence of a business. However, the Inspector considered that the already existing ground floor level signage adequately achieves this. 2.5 With specific regard to appeal B, the Inspector stated “I consider its effects to be broadly similar to those already described for the proposal forming appeal A. Thus, it is a strident addition to the street scene and has an overall disrupting effect on the character and appearance of the host building’s façade and the surrounding area”. 2.6 The Inspector concluded that the proposals were contrary to Policies CS7 and RC5 (Design based policies) and Policies DM22 and DM23 (Advertisements and Shopfronts).

3. NEXT STEPS

3.1 The unauthorised signage is now being further investigated by the Council’s Planning Enforcement team. Head of Planning, Development & Regulatory Services Comment: A pleasing decision, with the Inspector concurring in full with the long term concerns of officers relating to high level signage at this site. The Council’s Planning Enforcement team will now seek to take the necessary action to remove the unauthorised signage from the building, mindful that the appellant has the option of appealing against any future enforcement notice served seeking for the unauthorised sign to be removed. It is considered that this appeal decision will assist the prevention of other inappropriate signage applications elsewhere in the town centre.

The ground floor level signage shown is authorised. The upper level fascia is unauthorised and has now been dismissed at appeal (together with a smaller version of the same sign) Case officer: Jonathan Markwell

21


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

DATE: 8 MARCH 2017

AGENDA ITEM: 6

TITLE: APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

AUTHOR: LYNETTE BAKER & JULIE WILLIAMS

JOB TITLE: AREA TEAM LEADERS E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 To advise Committee of new applications and decisions relating to applications for

prior-approval under the amended Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (GPDO 2015).

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION 2.1 That you note the report. 3. BACKGROUND 3.1 At your meeting on 29 May 2013 a report was presented which introduced new

permitted development rights and additional requirements for prior approval from the local planning authority for certain categories of permitted development. It was agreed then that a report be bought to future meetings for information and to include details of applications received for prior approval, those pending a decision and those applications which have been decided since the last Committee date.

4 TYPES OF PRIOR APPROVAL APPLICATIONS 4.1 The categories of development requiring prior approval under the Town and Country

Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 are summarised as follows:

• Householder development – single storey rear extensions. GPDO Part 1, Class

A1(g-k).

• Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial & professional, betting office, pay day loan shop or casino to A3 restaurants and cafes. GPDO Part 3 Class C.

• Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial & professional, betting office or pay day loan shop to Class D2 assembly & leisure. GPDO Part 3 Class J.

• Change of use from A1 shops or A2 financial and professional or a mixed use of A1 or A2 with residential to Class C3 residential use. GPDO Part 3 Class M

• Change of use from an amusement arcade or a casino to C3 residential & necessary works. GPDO Part 3 Class N

• Change of use from B1 office to C3 residential. GPDO Part 3, Class O. • Change of use from B8 storage or distribution to C3 residential. GPDO Part 3,

Class P.

22

mailto:[email protected]

• Change of use from agricultural buildings and land to Class C3 dwellinghouses and building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building to the C3 use. GPDO Part 3 Class Q.

• Change of use of 150 sq m or more of an agricultural building (and any land within its curtilage) to flexible use within classes A1, A2, A3, B1, B8, C1 and D2. GPDO Part 3 Class R.

• Change of use from Agricultural buildings and land to state funded school or registered nursery D1. GPDO Part 3 Class S.

• Change of use from B1 (business), C1 (hotels), C2 (residential institutions), C2A (secure residential institutions and D2 (assembly and leisure) to state funded school D1. GPDO Part 3 Class T.

• Temporary use of buildings for film making for up to 9 months in any 27 month period. GPDO Part 4 Class E

• Development under local or private Acts and Orders (e.g. Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845). GPDO Part 18.

• Development by telecommunications code system operators. GPDO Part 16. • Demolition of buildings. GPDO Part 11.

4.2 Those applications for Prior Approval received and yet to be decided are set out in the appended Table 1 and those applications which have been decided are set out in the appended Table 2. The applications are grouped by type of prior approval application. Information on what the estimated equivalent planning application fees would be is provided.

4.3 It should be borne in mind that the planning considerations to be taken into account

in deciding each of these types of application are specified in more detail in the GDPO. In some cases the LPA will first need to confirm whether or not prior approval is required before going on to decide the application on its planning merits where prior approval is required.

4.4 Details of any appeals on prior-approval decision will be included elsewhere in the

agenda. 5. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS 5.1 Changes of use brought about through the prior approval process are beyond the

control or influence of the Council’s adopted policies and Supplementary Planning Documents. Therefore it is not possible to confirm how or if these schemes will contribute to the strategic aims of the Council.

6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION 6.1 Statutory consultation takes place in connection with applications for prior-approval

as specified in the Order discussed above. 7 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Where appropriate the Council must have regard to its duties under the Equality Act

2010, Section 149, to have due regard to the need to— • eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is

prohibited by or under this Act; • advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it; • foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected

characteristic and persons who do not share it. 7.2 There are no direct implications arising from the proposals.

23

8. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 None arising from this Report. 9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 Since the additional prior notifications were introduced in May 2013 in place of

applications for full planning permission, the loss in fee income is estimated to be £733,8229

(Office Prior Approvals - £676,302: Householder Prior Approvals - £46,440:

Retail Prior Approvals - £3900: Demolition Prior Approval - £2135: Storage Prior Approvals - £5045) Figures since last report Office Prior Approvals - £16090: Householder Prior Approvals - £688

9.2 However it should be borne in mind that the prior notification application assessment process is simpler than would have been the case for full planning permission and the cost to the Council of determining applications for prior approval is therefore proportionately lower. It should also be noted that the fee for full planning applications varies by type and scale of development and does not necessarily equate to the cost of determining them.

10. BACKGROUND PAPERS The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order

2015.

24

Table 1 – Prior-approval applications pending @ 22 February 2017 Application type CLASS A - Householder Application type

Application reference number

Address Ward Proposal Date Received

Target Determination Date

Comments Equivalent planning application fee

Householder Prior Approval - Class A, Part 1 GPDO 2015

170192 100 Shinfield Road, Reading, RG2 7DA

Church Rear extension measuring 3.4m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.8m, and 2.85m in height to eaves level.

07/02/2017 20/03/2017 £172


170093 64 Liverpool Road, Reading, RG1 3PQ

Park Rear extension measuring 4.0m in depth, with maximum height of 3.2m, and 3.0m in height to eaves level.

20/01/2017 02/03/2017 £172


170246 30 Liverpool Road, Reading, RG1 3PG

Park Rear extensions measuring 5.37m and 3.3m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.75m and 3.43m, and 2.54m and 2.39m in height to eaves level.

14/02/2017 27/03/2017 £172


170263 25 Norton Road, Reading, RG1 3QH

Park Rear extensions measuring 4.2m and 3.2m in depth, with a maximum height of 4m, and 2.5m and 3m in height to eaves level.

15/02/2017 28/03/2017 £172


170265 122 Cholmeley Road, Reading, RG1 3LR

Park Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.9m, and 2.7m in height to eaves level.

16/02/2017 29/03/2017 £172

25

Office to Residential Prior Approval applications pending Application type





Office use to dwelling house - Class O, Part 1 GPDO 2015

170050 21-23 Union Street and, 49 Broad Street, Reading, RG1 2AA

Abbey Change of use of 2nd and 3rd floors from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 1 X 1-bed and 1 X 2-bed flat.

13/01/2017 10/03/2017 £305


170229 Greyfriars House, 30 Greyfriars Road, Reading

Abbey Change of use from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 43 apartments comprising 23 one bed flats, 19 two bed flats and a single three bed flat.

10/02/2017 11/04/2017 £16090

Demolition Prior Approval applications pending

Application type





Demolition Prior Approval

170166 5 Craven Road, Reading, RG1 5LE

Redlands Application for prior notification of proposed demolition.

03/02/2017 03/03/2017 £305

26

Retail Prior Approvals applications pending Application type





Retail Prior Approval

170023 223 Oxford Road, Reading, RG1 7PX

Battle Change of use of building from Class A1 (Shops) to C3 dwellinghouses) to comprise of 1 studio flat.

05/01/2017 03/03/2017 £305

Retail Prior Approval

162392 675 Oxford Road, Reading, RG30 1HP

Norcot Change of use of part ground floor from Class A1 (shops) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to extend existing living space.

28/12/2016 01/03/2017 £305

Prior Notification applications pending Application type




Comments

Prior Notification

170266 20 Tudor Road, Reading, RG1 1NH

Abbey Notification for Prior Approval for installation of Solar PV equipment.

16/02/2017 13/04/2017

Telecommunications Prior Approval applications pending – None Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications pending – None

27

Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 26 January 2017 to 22 February 2017

Application type CLASS A – Householder

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


170103 123 Wantage Road, Reading, RG30 2SL

Battle Rear extensions measuring 6.0m and 4.7m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.4m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

20/01/2017 17/02/2017 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED


170047 2 Lower Armour Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG31 6HH

Kentwood Rear extension measuring 3.3m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.8m, and 2.8m in height to eaves level.



170003 25 Norton Road, Reading, RG1 3QH

Park Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 4m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

03/01/2017 02/02/2017 Application Withdrawn


170028 12 Kidmore Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7LU

Thames Rear extension measuring 4.87m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m and 2m in height to eaves level.


28

Office to Residential Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


162305 9 Southern Court, South Street, Reading, RG1 4QS

Katesgrove Change of use from Class B1(a)(Offices) to Class C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 16 self contained flats.

13/12/2016 06/02/2017 Prior Approval Notification - Approval

Telecommunications Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision

Telecommunications Notification - Prior Approval

162094 Pavement outside 114 Woodcote Road, Woodcote Road, Caversham, Reading

Thames Notification of Prior Approval of the erection of a 10m slimline Alpha Pole, removal of antenna from lamppost monopole and returned back to use as lampost only. 1 no. additional cabinet

04/11/2016 30/01/2017 Prior Approval Notification - Approval

Retail to Residential applications decided – None Demolition Prior Approval applications decided – None Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications decided – None Prior Notification applications decided – None 29

ABBEY

31

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th March 2017 Ward: Abbey Application No: 162147/FUL Address: Kings Walk, King Street, Reading Proposal: Change of use of 1240 square metres of floor area of existing shopping centre from A1 (shop) to a flexible A1(shop)/A3(restaurant/cafe)use. Applicant: Atlantis Holdings Ltd Application target decision date: 08/03/2017 RECOMMENDATIONS GRANT Full Planning Permission subject to conditions to include: Conditions

1. Time limit for implementation 2. Approved Plans 3. Restriction on use - A1/A3 only

Informatives

1. Terms and Conditions 2. Positive and Proactive engagement 3. Any additional plant or external alterations to the building – further planning

permission required. 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The site comprises the whole of the Kings Walk Shopping Centre, located to the

eastern side of the town centre shopping area. 1.2 The centre has a linear form with the main entrance from King Street and a

second entrance to Yield Hall Place. 1.3 The site is located within the Market Place/London Street Conservation Area.

The site also forms part of the setting of listed buildings at 17-18 King Street (adjoining to the west) and 3-5 King Street (opposite).

33

Site location – not to scale 2. PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 89/00157/FUL - Part 2-storey, part 3-storey development plus basement

comprising 11 retail units in a pedestrian arcade and one 2-bed flat and formation of vehicular access off yield hall place – Approved

2.2 04/00410/FUL – Refurbishment of existing shopping centre including the provision

of two additional retail (A1) units, the extension of an existing restaurant (A3) and alterations to the north and south entrances - Granted

2.2 140551/FUL – Alterations for front and rear elevations - Granted 2.3 140552/ADV – LED display around existing glazed canopy front King Street for the

display of advertisements relating to business within the shopping centre and Atlantis Village & Logo signs on Kings Walk & Yield Hall Place frontages - Granted

3. PROPOSALS 3.1 The application seeks full planning permission for change of use of 1240 square

metres of floor area of existing shopping centre to a flexible A1 (shop)/A3 (restaurant/cafe) use. The existing ground floor pub (A4) unit to the rear of the

34

centre (south) fronting Yield Hall Place is to be retained as part of the application.

3.2 The supporting statement submitted as part of the application sets out that it is proposed to make Kings Walk a recognised culinary destination. The current owner acquired the centre in 2013 when it is stated that 59% of the units were occupied. At the time of making this application the level of occupation was at 45% of units but the applicant states that there are potential new occupiers interested in some of the vacant units as A3 users.

3.3 The original consent for the shopping centre referred to the units as ‘retail’ but was not specific in terms of the precise nature of the uses. The planning permission granted in 2004 (04/00410) noted this and that the development was of mixed A1 and A3 retail space and also that there were no restrictions on the percentages of these individual uses. As set out in the applicant’s design statement accompanying the application a number of individual units within the centre have become A3 use over time, however there is no planning history of specific applications.

3.4 The original permission appears unclear in terms of specific uses of the building however these appears to have been implemented as a mixed A1/A3 use with no restrictions on amount of either use. The applicant is aware and has been advised of this however wishes to proceed with the application to obtain certainty regarding the permitted uses of the building with a flexible A1 (shop) and A3 (restaurant/café) use proposed.

3.2 Information Submitted with the Applications:

Drawing no.s 160709 S [00] 01 – Location Plan Received on 15th November 2016 16079 D [00] 01 – Basement and Ground Floor Plans 16079 D [00] 02 – First and Second Floor Plans Received on 16th November 2016 16079 D [00] 01 – Retained A4 unit Received on 23rd December 2016

4. CONSULTATIONS RBC Transport Development Control 4.1 No objections Environmental Protection 4.2 No objections

35

v) Public Consultation 4.3 Neighbouring premises adjoining the site were consulted by letter whilst a site

notice was displayed outside the application site. The proposals were also advertised in the local newspaper.

4.4 No letters of representation have been received. 5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that

proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

5.2 The application has been assessed against the following policies and guidance: 5.3 National

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Guidance ( NPPG)

5.4 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy

(2008) (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS20 Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan

2006-2011) CS24 Car/Cycle Parking CS26 Network and Hierarchy of Centres CS27 Maintaining the Retail Character of Centres CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources

5.5 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) (SDPD)

SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaption to Climate Change DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters

5.6 Reading Central Area Action Plan (2009) (RCAAP)

RC5 Design in the Centre RC6 Definition of the Centre

RC7 Leisure, Culture and Tourism in the Centre RC10 Active Frontages 5.7 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

36

Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)

6. APPRAISAL

i) Principle

6.1 Paragraph 23 of the NPPF states that planning policies should be positive and promote competitive town centre environments. The Glossary of the NPPF details that the main town centre uses are: Retail development (including warehouse clubs and factory outlet centres); leisure, entertainment facilities, the more intensive sport and recreation uses (including cinemas, restaurants, drive-through restaurants, bars and pubs, night-clubs, casinos, health and fitness centres, indoor bowling centres, and bingo halls); offices; and arts, culture and tourism development (including theatres, museums, galleries and concert halls, hotels and conference facilities). It is considered that the proposed change of use of the premises to a flexible A1/A3 use would retain the site as an appropriate main town centre use.

6.2 Policy CS26 seeks to maintain and enhance the vitality and viability of centres, as

well as widen the range of uses. The site is located within the Reading Centre, Central Core and Primary Shopping Area as defined by the RCAAP (2009). At the time of making the application only 45% of the units within the centre are occupied, 3 of which are in A3 use, whilst the applicant states that further potential A3 occupiers have shown interest in some of the vacant units. It is considered that providing clarity with regard to the approved uses of the building would allow more certainty and encourage future occupiers, particularly those interested in occupying as an A3 use class which would contribute to the vitality and viability of the centre location.

6.3 Policy CS27 seeks to maintain a strong retail character to centres whilst

stipulating that significant groupings of non-retail uses in one part of the centre will not be allowed. The policy states that retail uses form the main contribution to the vitality and viability of centres. The policy identifies a monitoring target of 50% of A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and Sui Generis units within Centres should be in A1 use. However, it is stated that this refers to District and Local Centres only and does not apply to the Regional Centre (Reading Town Centre). In this respect there are no specific policies to protect A1 uses in the Town Centre. This was reaffirmed in the Appeal Decision (ref. APP/E0345/A/14/2228320 – see Appendix) in relation to an application for change of use from A1 to A2 at no. 31 Queen Victoria Street, where the Inspector stated that the 50% monitoring target does not expressly apply to Reading Town Centre. She stated that notwithstanding this, the wording of CS27 with respect to a strong retail character and significant groupings of non-retail uses in one part of the town centre is relevant. It is noted that in relation to this appeal an award of costs was also made against the Council with the Inspector again referencing that the 50% monitoring target in relation to Policy CS27 does not expressly relate to Reading Town Centre. The award of costs related to the lack of evidence from the Council as to why there

37

would be a conflict with policy CS27 i.e. the Council did not demonstrate how the proposal would result in a significant group of non-retail uses which would harm the town centre.

6.4 In terms of considering the current application the predominant use class with

the Regional Centre (Reading Town Centre) would remain as A1. The Centre itself already contains a number of A3 uses and as set out earlier in the report there were no specific restrictions placed upon the balance of the A1/A3 use in the original planning decision and a number of units have already moved to A3 use within the terms of the original permission. In the history of the Kings Walk Shopping Centre the occupancy of the units has never matched the success of other similar developments in Reading such as The Oracle or Broad Street Mall. It is considered that confirmation of potential A3 use for all units within the centre (apart from the existing A4 unit to the rear) would not harm the strong retail character of Reading Town Centre as a whole or Kings Walk and the immediate surrounding area, taking into account the current and historic high vacancy rate of units within the complex.

6.5 It is acknowledged that the proposal could result in a grouping of A3 uses, but in

the context of the Regional Centre (Reading Town Centre) this is not considered to be significant. Furthermore, the application is proposing a flexible A1/A3 use which would allow existing A1 users to remain and would not preclude further A1 occupation of any of the units in the future. The proposal would allow the shopping centre to act flexibly with regard to future occupants and the market demand for the units and again, given the history of vacant units at the site it is considered that the potential benefits of the proposal to the vitality and viability of the town centre economy as a whole outweigh any potential policy conflict with CS27.

6.6 Policy RC6 of the RCCAP states that retail development will take place in the

Primary Shopping Area with other main town centre uses to be located within the Central Core. Policy RC7 seeks to locate leisure, culture and tourism development, such as restaurants in the centre. The proposal would accord in both these respects.

6.7 The site is located within an ‘Active Frontage’ as defined by RCAAP Policy RC10

and this policy states that uses on the ground floor along the designated active frontages will be within one of the following use classes: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, C1, D1, D2 or related sui generis uses, unless it would be an entrance to upper floors. The proposal would therefore respect the aims of this policy. The policy also seeks to retain active frontages in terms of shop fronts and glazing. No external alterations to the unit are proposed as part of this application and the existing active shop fronts to Kings Road and Yield Hall Place would be retained; the proposal would therefore also accord with Policy RC10 in this respect.

ii) Design

6.8 The proposal seeks change of use only and does not include any external

alterations to the building as such there would be no impact in terms of change

38

in appearance of the building or harm to surrounding heritage assets. The proposal would not conflict with Policy RC5 of the RCAAP (2009) or Policies CS7 or CS33 of the Core Strategy (2008, 2015).

iii) Amenity 6.9 No additional plant is proposed as part of the application or as set out above,

any extensions or alterations to the building. It is not considered that the proposed change of use to a flexible A1/A3 use would result in any significant harm to surrounding occupiers above that of the existing situation, including the existing single residential flat located on the second floor of the development. Environmental Protection Officers have raised no objection to the proposed development which is not considered to conflict with Policy DM4 of the SDPD (2012, 2015) or Policy CS34 of the Core Strategy (2008, 2015).

6.10 If any new plant equipment is proposed in the future this would be subject to

consideration under a separate planning application.

iv) Access

6.10 The site is located within Zone 1 of the adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD which is an area at the very heart of Reading Borough, consisting primarily of retail and commercial office developments, with limited residential. This area is well served by rail and bus links and also contains the largest proportion of public car parking spaces. There are no requirements for car parking in this zone as any demand for parking will be met by the town centre public car parks.

6.11 It is considered that in this location the proposed change of use from A1 use to a

flexible A1/A3 use will have a negligible impact in terms of Transport and therefore there are no Transport objections to the proposed development. There are no proposed alterations to the public access arrangements for the shopping centre.

6.12 It is not considered that the proposal would conflict with Policies CS5, CS20 and CS24 of the Core Strategy (2008, 2015) or Policy DM12 of the SDPD (2012, 2015).

v) Equality 6.13 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current applications) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to these particular planning applications.

7. CONCLUSION

39

7.1 The proposal is not considered to harm the strong retail character or vitality and viability of Reading Town Centre, result in any undue harm to the amenity of surrounding occupiers, appearance of the area or have any detrimental transport/access implications. As such the proposal is considered to accord with Policies CS1, CS5, CS7, CS20, CS24, CS26, CS33 and CS34 of the Core Strategy (2008, 2015), Policies RC5, RC6, RC7 and RC10 of the RCAAP (2009), Policies SD1, DM1, DM4 and DM12 of the SDPD (2008, 2015), the Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011).

7.2 Any potential conflict with Policy CS27 of the Core Strategy (2008, 2015) with

regard to groupings of non retail uses is considered to be outweighed by the benefits to the vitality and viability of the town centre location as a whole, given the history of vacant units within the Kings Walk Shopping Centre.

Case Officer: Matt Burns

40

CAVERSHAM

45

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8 March 2017 Ward: Caversham App No.: 170076/MISC Address: St Martin’s Precinct, Church Street, Caversham Proposal: Request for a deed of variation to existing S106 agreement (original appn. 140997/FUL). RECOMMENDATION Delegate the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a Deed of Variation to amend the Section 106 Agreement dated 31 March 2015, as follows: 1. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS to be divided between phases as shown on drawing

PH_01 rev. B 12 November 2015 as approved under Non-material Amendment reference 160018/NMA as follows:

a) Transport contribution (paragraph 1.39 of existing S106) PHASE 1A £86,368 payable prior to commencement PHASE 2 (parts A, B, C, or D) £281,580 prior to commencement PHASE 3 £51,300 prior to commencement PHASE 4 £10,800 prior to commencement Actual amounts payable Index-linked from 31 March 2015 (date of original permission). b) Education (paragraph 1.11 of existing S106) £30,745, payable prior to first occupation of Phase 1A and £30,745 payable prior to first occupation of Phase 3. The actual amounts payable to be index-linked from 31 March 2015 (date of permission). c) Leisure (paragraph 1.26 of existing S106) £42,000 prior to first occupation of Phase 1A £11,200 prior to first occupation of Phase 4 £43,400 prior to first occupation of Phase 3 The actual amounts payable to be index-linked from 31 March 2015 (date of permission). 2. EMPLOYMENT SKILLS AND TRAINING (paragraph 1.15 and third schedule)

47

Submission of a Construction Phase ESP (for approval) for each phase at least one month prior to commencement of that phase. Implementation of ESP in accordance with approved details. Submission of an End User Phase ESP (for approval) for each phase at least one month prior to commencement of that phase. Implementation of ESP in accordance with approved details 3. PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (1.23 and Clause 5 of second schedule of existing S106)

The Owner shall not close or demolish the Existing Public Conveniences until the New Public Conveniences located within the decked car park as shown on drawing PP-MP-04 dated February 2017 have been completed and are open for public use.

If it is not reasonably practicable for the New Public Conveniences to be provided before the closure or demolition of the Existing Public Conveniences the Owner shall not close or demolish the Existing Public Conveniences until:

alternative temporary public conveniences the details and location of which have been approved in writing by the Council have been provided and made open for public use; and a programme for the completion and provision of the New Public Conveniences has been agreed between the Council and the Owner.

The Public Conveniences shall be open for public use between the hours of 0800 and 2100 weekdays 0800-2000 Saturdays and 1000-1600 Sundays. Public holiday opening at the discretion of the Owner.

The Public Conveniences shall be maintained by the Owner to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.

ALL OTHER TERMS AS PER EXISTING S106 subject to any changes required by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to ensure consistency with the variations set out above.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Planning permission 140997/FUL was granted on 31 March 2015. The associated S106 agreement number 4118 secured the following:

i) The sum of £430,048 to be used towards schemes identified in the Northern and Central Reading action plan areas of this Authority's Local Transport Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to commencement of development ii) The sum of £96,600 towards open space, sport and recreation infrastructure as set out in the Thames Parks Plan. Index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iii) The sum of £61,490 towards the provision of education infrastructure within the north education area of the Borough. Payment to be index-linked and payable prior to first occupation of any new dwelling within the development. iv) An Employment Skills and Training Plan for construction and end user phases - in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing.

48

v) A pedestrian route between the new public square and Church Street, to be provided and maintained free of obstructions as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. Accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vi) Toilets as per submitted drawing PP-E-14 Revision P2. To be provided and maintained as accessible to all members of the public during Waitrose (and any subsequent occupier) opening hours. vii) Parking Permit scheme for 40 spaces within the approved car park for the sole use of occupiers of the approved flats. Permits to allow permit holders to park unrestricted within the car park. 1 permit per flat, in perpetuity.

1.2 Since the original permission was granted, Waitrose, who were to occupy the

extended retail space, have confirmed that they no longer require the extension to the existing store. In response to this the applicant submitted a phasing plan to allow unaffected parts of the scheme to progress. This was approved by Planning Applications Committee on 1 June 2016 under reference 160018/NMA. This also altered the conditions attached to the original permission to be consistent with the new phased approach.

1.3 The S106 legal agreement is a separate document and whilst tied to the original

permission it is not updated by the approved Non-material Amendment. There is therefore a need to update the S106 separately to reflect the changes.

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The applicant proposes to vary the S106 agreement to ensure that the S106

obligations are consistent with the phasing scheme. For instance it is necessary to ensure that financial contributions are proportionate to the impacts of each phase.

2.2 It is also apparent that certain requirements, such as the public toilets, which are

currently proposed to be within the Waitrose extension, require relocation to allow the scheme to proceed. The proposed changes are set out in detail in the recommendation section above.

2.3 A drawing showing a new location for the toilets in a room under the proposed car

park deck (previously shown as a store room) has been submitted. These are shown as being accessed from the public square close to the rear entrance of the existing Waitrose store.

2.4 Other requirements such as the pedestrian route through the extended Waitrose and

parking permit scheme are unaffected and are proposed to remain in the S106 unchanged.

3. CONSULTATIONS

Consultees

• RBC Education Service – No comments received. • RBC Housing Development – No comments received • Reading UK CIC – No comments received • RBC Transport - No comments received. • RBC Leisure Service – No comment received.

Public consultation None required

49

4. APPRAISAL

Financial Contributions

4.1 Paragraph 5.25 of the 160018/NMA Committee report explains that “The NMA

procedure does not alter the S106 agreement secured under 140997/FUL. However, as S106 contributions are secured to mitigate the impact of development, it would seem reasonable to link payments to each phase depending on their relative impacts. The applicant has indicated that they intend to apply to vary the agreement to reflect the phased approach, however this would need to be considered under a formal, detailed, request to vary the S106 agreement, or as part of a future planning application for the site.”

4.2 The current proposal reflects this assessment. The contributions have been

considered against the formulae used to calculate them as set out in the Planning Obligations SPD 2013 and it is considered that the correct amounts are apportioned to each phase. It is therefore recommended that the S106 should be varied accordingly.

Public Conveniences

4.3 The existing public conveniences are proposed to be demolished. The existing S106

prevents this occurring until new toilets are provided within the extended Waitrose store. As the extension, and therefore the toilets, is now unlikely to happen a variation is sought to allow the toilets to be provided in place of a store room at the north west corner of the decked car park.

4.4 This change is within an existing structure that has been granted planning permission

and is located close to both the existing toilets and the previously proposed Waitrose toilet location. It is considered that the change would maintain acceptable toilet provision.

4.5 It is recommended that the S106 be varied to allow this relocation and to secure the

hours of opening to be the same as the Waitrose store (as per the current S106 requirements). It is also recommended that the S106 should require the Owner to maintain the public conveniences to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.

Employment Skills and Training

4.6 The existing S106 agreement secures an Employment Skills and Training Plan for the

whole site. This would be impractical for a phased approach and as such it is considered that the S106 should be varied to allow for a EST Plan to be submitted for each phase.

5. CONCLUSION 5.1 The proposed variation is considered to be a necessary response to the changed

circumstances within the site and would allow the development to proceed in a phased manner. The proposed changes would not materially affect the public benefits already secured under the planning permission. It is therefore recommended that the S106 be varied on this basis.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar

50

Proposed Toilet Location

51

Phasing Plan approved under 160018/NMA

52

Toilet location secured by existing S106 in Waitrose store extension (no longer likely to proceed).

53

CHURCH

55

COMMITTEE REPORT

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8 March 2017

Ward: Church App No.: 162219/FUL Site Address: Engineering, University of Reading, Shinfield Road, Reading Proposal: Demolition of the Engineering Building and erection of a 5 storey Health and Lifesciences Building. Demolition of the Harborne Building. New entrance and external works to the Philip Lyle Building, and associated landscaping and car parking within the Whiteknights Campus of the University of Reading. Applicant: The University of Reading Date valid: 25 November 2016 Target Date: 10 March 2017 (agreed extension) 26 Week Date: 26 May 2017

RECOMMENDATION Subject to the further advice of the Council’s Ecologist in respect of Bats: Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should legal agreement not be completed by 10 March 2017 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement). The S106 legal agreement to secure an Employment, Skills and Training Plan relating to the construction phase of the development (to be approved at least one month prior to commencement), or equivalent financial contribution of £18,970 (payable at least one month prior to commencement and index-linked from date of permission) in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013). AND to secure an Employment, Skills and Training Plan relating to the operation phase (End User) of the development (to be approved at least one month prior to first occupation), or equivalent financial contribution of £3590.74 (payable at least one month prior to first occupation and index-linked from date of permission) in accordance with the requirements of the adopted Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013). AND subject to conditions, to include:

1. Time Limit – 3 Years 2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved drawings. 3. Materials – Details and samples to be submitted for approval prior to

commencement (excepting demolition and groundworks). 4. No external lighting except in accordance with a lighting design strategy for

biodiversity that shall previously have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

5. Detailed scheme for Biodiversity Enhancements (invertebrates, hedgehogs, birds, and bats), including a timetable for implementation, to be submitted prior to

57

commencement (excluding demolition). Implementation in accordance with approved scheme.

6. Demolition Method Statement to be submitted for approval prior to commencement. Implementation in accordance with approved details.

7. Construction Method Statement to be submitted for approval prior to commencement (excepting demolition). Implementation in accordance with approved details.

8. Development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted landscaping (including tree pit) details. Planting to be provided in accordance with approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased to be replaced.

9. Development in accordance with submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statements (tree protection during construction).

10. Submission of plans showing the position of existing and proposed services prior to commencement (excepting demolition).

11. Submission for approval of a schedule of landscape aftercare and maintenance covering a minimum of 5 years prior to first occupation. Landscape maintenance to be in accordance with the approved document.

12. The rating level of all plant/equipment to be installed within the development hereby approved, LAr,Tr (specific sound level plus any adjustment for the characteristic features of the sound) as measured at a point 1 metre external to sensitive facades, to be at least 10dB below the existing background sound level, LA90,T when all plant/equipment (or any part of it) is in operation.

13. Submission of scheme to protect the development against the possibility of land gas to be submitted for approval prior to commencement (excepting demolition to existing ground floor slab level). Implementation as approved prior to first occupation.

14. Submission of land gas remediation scheme validation report for approval prior to first occupation.

15. Submission of scheme to protect ground water from contamination to be submitted for approval prior to commencement (excepting demolition to existing ground floor slab level). Implementation as approved prior to first occupation.

16. Submission of groundwater protection remediation scheme validation report for approval prior to first occupation.

17. Reporting of unforseen land contamination 18. Hours of Working restriction (08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Mondays to Fridays, 09:00hrs

to 13:00hrs on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

19. Development to be in accordance with submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement.

20. Completion of the sustainable drainage scheme for the site prior to first occupation in accordance with the submitted and approved details.

21. Details of the implementation, maintenance and future management of the sustainable drainage scheme to be submitted to LPA for approval prior to first occupation. The scheme to be implemented, managed, and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

22. Development as built to meet BREEAM Very Good standard with minimum score of 62.5 points. Post construction review demonstrating compliance with BREEAM Very Good standard with minimum score of 62.5 points to be submitted for approval prior to occupation.

23. Vehicle parking spaces to be provided in accordance with approved drawings prior to first occupation.

24. Details of secure and covered bicycle storage/parking to be submitted for approval and implemented as approved prior to first occupation.

25. Within 3 months of occupation, the Reading University Travel Plan shall be updated to include this application site.

58

Informatives 1. Positive and Proactive Approach 2. S106 advice

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is located within the Whiteknights Campus, close to the Pepper Lane

entrance onto Pepper Lane. 1.2 The site comprises the Engineering Building, Harborne Building and Philip Lyle

Building, arranged either side of an existing car park and access road. All buildings are substantial modern style blocks.

1.3 The site straddles the Borough boundary with Wokingham Borough. The majority of

the site is within Wokingham Borough. Reading Borough Council is Local Planning Authority for the portion of the site within Reading Borough. Applications for planning permission have been submitted to both authorities.

Site location plan including Borough boundary (RBC south west of line) – not to scale

59

Site Photograph

2. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

161155/PRE – Pre-application advice for new health and lifesciences building. Observations sent.

161110/FUL - Erection of substation, erection of materials store and service diversions – Approved

3. PROPOSALS 3.1 Full Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing Engineering

Building and the Harborne Building to be replaced by a five storey Health and Lifesciences (HLS) building in the same location as the Engineering block. The Harborne Building site is to proposed to be left vacant for the time being.

3.2 Minor changes to the Philip Lyle Building are proposed to create a new entrance. New hard and soft landscaping of the site is proposed. Part of the new HLS building and surrounding landscaping falls within Reading Borough and is the focus of this report.

3.3 Information Submitted with the Application:

Drawings 01002 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Site Location Plan 01003 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Block Plan 01000 Rev. PL03 dated 25 November 2016 – Proposed Site Plan 02000 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Level 0 GA Plan 02001 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Level 1 GA Plan 02002 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Level 2 GA Plan 02003 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Level 3 GA Plan 02004 Rev. PL01 dated 14 November 2016 – Level 4 GA Plan 02005 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Level 5 GA Plan 03000 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Proposed North Elevation 03001 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Proposed East Elevation

60

03002 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Proposed South Elevation 03003 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Proposed West Elevation 04000 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Section A-A 04001 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Section B-B 04002 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Section C-C 04003 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 - Section D-D 09000 Rev. PL02 dated 17 November 2016 – Service Yard 60441574/MW/C/GA/002 Rev.P3 - Proposed Drainage Main Works General Arrangement 01001 PL10 dated 6 February 2017 – GA Landscape Plan 01013 PL08 dated 25 November 2016 – Landscape Sections 01040 PL08 dated 25 November 2016 – Soft Planting Plan and Planting Schedule 1of2 01041 PL08 dated 25 November 2016 – Soft Planting Plan and Planting Schedule 2of2 04001 PL11 Typical Tree pit in Soft Landscape (shows tree pits in hard landscape areas) 04002 PL11 and Typical Tree pit in Soft Landscape TPP-CC/1529 AR2862 Rev.0 dated 10 October 2016 Tree Protection Plan 01010 PL08 dated 25 November 2016 Tree Removal and Protection Plan

Documents

- WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff Technical Response – Plant Noise, - WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff Ecological Response Memo (14/2/17) - Planning Application Supporting Statement including Statement of

Community Involvement and Heritage Impact Assessment; - Acoustic Assessment; - Flood Risk Assessment; - Energy Statement; - BREEAM Assessment; - Transport Statement including Travel Plan; - Site Investigation Report; - DAS Appendix 1; and - Materials Sample Board. - Lighting Assessment - Ground Investigation Report - Bat Report

4. CONSULTATIONS RBC Transport 4.1 The new HLS building is to be located on the existing Engineering building site and

its related carpark. The existing floorspace is 12,395sqm (combined Engineering and Harborne buildings) and the proposed floorspace is 10,808sqm resulting in a net loss of 1,587sqm of Class D1 floorspace. The proposed development crosses the Borough boundary with Wokingham Borough.

4.2 The existing access road from Pepper Lane will continue to serve the site. The existing entrance and exit points serving the Engineering building will be repositioned. The existing car park serving the Harborne building will be retained for staff and visitors using the new building.

4.3 The development will result in a small annual increase in student numbers - an overall increase of 178 students and 16 staff (by academic year 2024-2025). Given University restrictions which prohibit students parking on campus and on the local roads within 1 mile of the University, the majority of students will travel to the

61

site by alternative modes of transport (i.e walking, cycling, public transport). Taking into account these alternative modes of transport, the predicted increase in staff and student numbers indicates that the development will generate approximately 40 extra car trips per day. The proposed vehicle trip generation has been based on the results from the University’s Travel Plan (2016). The predicted increase in car trips would not result in a severe impact upon the adjacent transport network and is acceptable.

4.4 The site is located within Zone 3, Secondary Core Area, of the Council’s adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD. These areas are within 400m of a Reading Buses high frequency ‘Premier Route’, which provides high quality bus routes to and from Reading town centre and the University. In accordance with the adopted SPD, the maximum parking standards for the proposed use is 1 space per 1.5 full time equivalent (FTE) teaching staff, 1 space per 3 non FTE teaching staff and 1 space per 20 students. However, where FTE students live within Halls of Residence on site, the student parking provision will be deducted from requirement. The parking provision should be based on the maximum capacity of a building (at any one time).

4.5 The proposal results in an overall loss of parking. Therefore, an assessment of the maximum building capacity and the Council’s Parking Standards has been undertaken to demonstrate that the proposed parking provision meets the maximum standards. The proposed occupancy numbers are shown in the figure below. The total building capacity consists of 73 staff, 65 researchers and 505 UG and PhD students.

FTE staff Number of FTE

Car Parking - 1 space per 1.5 FTE

Academics 50 33 Technical staff 17 11 Administrative staff 6 4 Subtotal 73 48

Non FTE staff Number of non FTE

Car Parking - 1 space per 3 non FTE

Researchers 65 22 Subtotal 65 22

Students Number of students

1 Space per 20 students

UG students 360 360 18 PhD 145 145 8 *Deductions (UG Students) -360 -18 Subtotal 145 8

Total Parking Requirement 79

4.7 The assessment concludes that the development is required to provide a total of 79 parking spaces to comply with the Council’s adopted standards. It is considered reasonable to deduct Undergraduates from the required parking provision on the basis that many live on site within the campus, or would travel to the site by alternative modes of transport.

62

4.8 The development will provide a new area of parking to the east of the HLS building consisting of 12 spaces. The existing car park (car park 13) serving the Harborne building will be retained for staff and visitors using the new building. This car park provides a total of 73 spaces. Therefore, the total parking provision equates to 85 spaces which is marginally in excess of the Council’s adopted standards.

4.9 In respect of cycle parking, a total of 60 cycle parking spaces are proposed as part of the HLS development which complies with the Council’s adopted standards based on the building capacity. In addition, there are over 1,800 cycle parking spaces on campus and these will be retained for continued use and are not restricted for use by any particular building.

4.10 The proposed cycle parking provision is acceptable, however, detailed plans are required confirming that the cycle parking provision meets the Council’s adopted standards in terms of layout. This can be dealt with by way of a condition.

4.11 A Travel Plan exists for the wider University campus and this should be updated to include the new building.

4.12 A Construction Method Statement will be prepared in advance of works commencing on the site. The Construction Management Statement should be in accordance with the Councils Guidance Notes for Activities on The Public Highway and submitted to the Council for approval. The Construction Method Plan should also make provisions for temporary car parking areas during the construction period.

4.13 There are no transport objections in respect of the proposal subject to conditions to secure the vehicle parking, bicycle storage, a construction method statement (and separate demolition method statement to allow for phased demolition and construction), and updates to the existing UoR Travel Plan.

RBC Natural Environment (Trees and Ecology) Trees

4.14 Natural Environment are satisfied with the proposed landscaping scheme as submitted and recommend that this is secured by condition. To include the tree pit details as submitted.

4.15 Further plans are to be submitted showing the position of existing and proposed services and a schedule of landscape aftercare and maintenance. To be secured by condition.

4.16 With reference to the Tree Survey Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Arboricultural Method Statement from Challice Consulting Ltd, ref CC/1529 AR2862, dated 10 October 2016 and associated Tree Protection Plan TPP-CC/1529 AR2862 and to the Tree Removal and Protection Plan PL08 from Stride Treglown: The proposal includes the removal of 3 trees on the southern boundary; a B category mature Poplar (T16), a B category mature Pere David’s maple (T17) and a C category Snowy mespil. All have been given 40+ years life expectancy with no arboricultural defects; T16 being a ‘high’ landscape contribution. All are proposed to be felled to permit development. T17 and T18 are small trees so arguably are easy to replace in terms of amenity value. T16 (Poplar) is large and its removal will have some negative impact and the removal of such a tree would not normally be acceptable. However, it is a mature specimen of a genus that has a relatively short lifespan and boring insect holes are noted at the base. In this case, it would seem reasonable to allow its removal as part of redevelopment of the site, particularly as comprehensive tree

63

planting is proposed. NE team note that this is a memorial tree hence would expect the University to follow appropriate procedures for its felling. NE also note that the existing mixed hedge on the south east corner is to be removed, however replacement planting is proposed.

4.17 The tree protection specifications within the Arboricultural Method Statement and shown on the TPP are acceptable and will need to be secured by condition. Ecology

4.18 The ecological report submitted with the application states that all buildings on the site have moderate potential to host roosting bats and that in order to determine if they host a bat roost one further dusk emergence / dawn re-entry survey undertaken between May and the end of August, and one further dusk emergence / dawn re-entry survey undertaken between May and mid-September would need to be undertaken, with two weeks between surveys. Unfortunately the bat surveys were not carried out in strict accordance with these guidelines and as such it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that the buildings do not host a bat roost. The Council’s ecologist has confirmed that if either building does host a bat roost it is most likely to be a small roost, used by common species, of low conservation status and as such a condition should been imposed to ensure that bats are not harmed. The lighting strategy report states that: “… we will be investigating the use of low intensity in ground uplighters in some areas to highlight tree canopies and key features of the building façade. These luminaires will feature LED light sources and will be scheduled to switch off in the middle of the night when there will be reduced footfall in the vicinity. They will be aimed on site with a tilt towards the tree bases/building so that a cut-off point can be visible ensuring that any upward light is fully controlled” NE are not convinced that this will not have an adverse impact on wildlife (the university already generates a significant amount of light). A condition to ensure that lighting is kept to a minimum with minimal impacts on wildlife will need to be set, together with biodiversity enhancements within and surrounding the site on University land. Lead Flood Authority (RBC Highways)

4.19 The LFA has assessed the SuDs proposals and confirmed that they are acceptable subject to conditions as follows: “No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with the submitted and approved details. In accordance with NPPF Paragraph 103, Core Strategy Policy CS1 and Sites and Detail Polices document Policy DM1” “No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management plan of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan. The plan shall include: i. a timetable for its implementation, and ii. a management and annual maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public

64

body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. In accordance with NPPF Paragraph 103, Core Strategy Policy CS1 Sites and Detail Polices document Policy DM1” RBC Environmental Protection Noise

4.20 The BS4142 assessment indicates that during daytimes, noise from plant will be significantly below background levels at receptor locations. Following submission of further technical data by the applicant, it has also been demonstrated that night time plant noise at receptor locations will be quieter than -10dB below background. A level of -10dB below background is needed to ensure that background creep is avoided and a condition is therefore recommended to secure this.

Air Quality

4.21 The proposed development, although it is expected to have increased numbers working and using the proposed building, there is a proposed reduction in parking and increased cycling storage and the transport statement predicts no significant change in trip generation, hence there are no concerns regarding any worsening of air quality within nearby AQMAs. Land Contamination

4.22 A land contamination assessment has been submitted. The main focus of the assessment is for building design technical specifications for foundations etc, but does address soil contamination. Another submitted report covers land gas in greater detail following some additional monitoring.

4.23 In summary the assessments concluded that generally risks to human health are low. In the case of land gas, only carbon dioxide was found above recommended limits so the report recommends that mitigation for CO2 is installed. A condition securing remediation is proposed.

4.24 Potential risks to ground water by introducing new pathways as part of the new

build construction are also identified in the submitted assessment. A condition is recommended to secure further assessment and remediation as necessary.

Lighting

4.25 EP does not object to external lighting in terms of glare or nuisance.

Construction 4.26 Controls over noise and dust (within a CMS), and hours of construction are

recommended.

Berkshire Archaeology 4.27 Due to previous disturbance within the site from the existing buildings it is unlikely

for archaeological remains to be present. Therefore there are no archaeological issues with this application. Wokingham Borough Council

4.28 Confirmed no objection

Public Consultation 4.29 Neighbours adjoining the site were consulted by letter. 4.30 Site notices were displayed adjacent to the site within the campus and on public

land at the road junction with Pepper Lane.

65

4.31 No objections were received. 5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that


5.2 National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Practice Guidance

5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework:

Core Strategy (2008) (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS4 Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS20 Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS33 Protection of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.4 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaption to Climate Change DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

SA6 Whiteknights Campus, University of Reading 5.5 Supplementary Planning Documents

Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) Employment Skills and Training (2013)

6. APPRAISAL i) Principle of Development:

6.1 Policy SA6 recognises that The University of Reading is a national and international

educational establishment of strategic importance which will continue to adapt and expand over the plan period and supports the development of teaching and research facilities within the Whiteknights campus subject to ecology, safety, residential amenity and open space considerations.

ii) Character, Appearance and Visual Amenity 6.2 It is considered that the appearance of the building would be acceptable within

the campus setting, which is characterised by a distinctively wide range of building

66

forms, sizes, and styles that do not conform to the prevailing character of the suburban townscape beyond the campus. The building would be well set back from the campus boundary and would not appear overly large when viewed from the closest external vantage points on Pepper Lane. It remains important that suitably high quality external materials and finishes are secured. The drawings and materials details submitted suggest that this would be the case and a condition is recommended to secure full details.

6.3 It is considered that a suitable balance between hard and soft landscaping is achieved and that the proposed landscaping would provide an appropriate setting for the building by maintaining the landscaped character of the campus.

6.4 It is considered that the site would be in keeping with the existing character of large buildings within landscaped surroundings and would not be readily visible within, or otherwise affect the setting of listed buildings in the wider vicinity, including Blandford Lodge, the recently listed URS building, and Leighton Park School.

6.5 The proposals are considered to be in accordance with Policies SA6, CS7 and CS33 on this basis.

iii) Trees 6.6 The Council’s Natural Environment team has been consulted on the application and

do not object to the proposals. Where trees are proposed to be removed, this has been appropriately justified and suitable replacements have been proposed, to be secured by condition.

iv) Ecology

6.7 The site adjoins a Local Wildlife Site (LWS), under the control of the applicant. It

is recommended that enhancements to this are secured by condition to mitigate the effects of the development.

6.8 As indicated above, the draft external lighting proposals could result in harm to ecology and excessive light pollution. A condition requiring details of all external lighting to be approved is recommended in order to control this appropriately.

6.9 There are outstanding questions regarding the suitability of the current bat surveys. The Council’s Ecologist is in discussions with the applicant and has indicated that a mitigation strategy is likely to be possible, to be secured by condition. It is therefore considered appropriate to proceed to a recommendation on this basis, subject to the further advice of the Council’s Ecologist, including details of additional conditions, to be provided in an Update Report on the day of Committee.

6.10 Policies SA6, DM17 and CS36 apply. v) Transport 6.11 The comments of the Council’s Transport section are set out above in detail in

Section 4. It is considered that this is an appropriate assessment of the transport impacts of the proposal.

6.12 It is considered that the proposal complies with Policies CS20 and CS24 of the Core Strategy and Policy DM12 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document on this basis.

67

vi) Effect on Neighbouring Amenity: 6.13 The main potential impact is considered to be the possibility of noise-generating

plant affecting nearby noise sensitive receptors. As detailed in section 4 above, the Environmental Health are satisfied that the noise source rating level (plant noise level) would be at least 10dBA below the existing background level as measured at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. It is reasonable to secure this by condition as set out in the recommendation above.

6.14 The building is sufficiently distant from neighbouring premises beyond the campus

boundary to prevent harmful overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing effects.

6.15 The proposal is considered to accord with Policies DM4 and CS34 on this basis. vii) Sustainable Drainage 6.16 The drainage proposals are for surface water to discharge to the existing sewer

network which ultimately discharges into Whiteknights lake within the campus. The applicant’s drainage assessment, which includes detailed calculations of surface water flows, indicates that the amount of runoff would remain as existing and that the rate of runoff would be restricted using attenuation tanks and flow control valves beneath the car park to the east of the new building. The detailed design has been assessed by the Lead Flood Authority and is considered to be acceptable. Conditions securing the surface water drainage scheme and future maintenance are recommended. It is considered that the proposal accords with Policy CS35 and national policy and guidance on this basis

viii) Environmental Sustainability 6.17 Policy CS1 requires major non-residential schemes such as this to meet a 50/50

split between BREEAM ‘Excellent’ and ‘Very Good’. In reality this artificial split is often impractical to achieve within a single building and the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD therefore allows for an average of the two to be applied across the site i.e. BREEAM Very Good with a minimum score of 62.5 points. The application indicates that the proposed building will meet this target and therefore complies with this aspect of the policy. A condition is recommended to secure compliance.

6.18 The development should also address the requirements of Policy DM1 in terms of adaptation to climate change. It is considered that the new tree planting and wider landscaping, the proposed sustainable drainage system, together with the measures secured under the BREEAM scheme are sufficient to comply.

6.19 Policy DM2 requires consideration of decentralised energy within the development. The scheme would be connected to the university’s gas-fired CHP district heating scheme, which is considered to address this policy aim.

ix) Archaeology

6.20 The advice of Berkshire Archaeology is set out in detail in Section 4 above. It is considered that this assessment is appropriate and therefore a detailed investigation is not required. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of the impact on archaeology in accordance with Policy CS33 and national policy and guidance in the NPPF.

x) Employment, Skills and Training

68

6.21 The proposal is classified as a Major development and as such the requirements of the Employment Skills and Training SPD (2013) apply. An Employment Skills and Training Plan is required to relate to the construction phase. A plan relating to the ‘End User Phase’ is also justified in this instance because a net increase in staff numbers. The applicant agrees to the principle of an EST Plan or payment in lieu. It is therefore recommended that submission of the detailed plan, or the equivalent financial contribution are secured by S106 agreement as set out in the recommendation above.

xi) Equality 6.22 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, or sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the current application) that the protected groups would have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular planning application.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the development would be acceptable for the reasons set out

above. The proposals are recommended for approval, subject to appropriate conditions and subject to completion of the S106 legal agreement.

Case Officer: Steve Vigar DRAWINGS (please refer to online planning registers for full details)

69

Proposed Site Layout Plan

70

CGI – Birdseye View – Looking West

71

Proposed South Elevation

72

KATESGROVE

73

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8 March 2017 ITEM NO. 10 Ward: Katesgrove App No.: 161805/FUL Address: 79 Silver Street Reading Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus basement level) building to provide 65 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated support services, street frontage retail unit (A1, A2 or A3 use class), and landscaping works. Applicant: Chamberwell Investment Services Limited Date received: 23 September 2016 Major Application 13 week target decision date: Extension agreed to 11 March 2017. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons: 1. The proposed building by reason of its scale, height, rearward massing and proximity to the boundary with No. 1 Mount Pleasant would create an over dominant relationship and thus is likely to result in a reduction of outlook, daylight and privacy plus associated noise disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of residential properties to the south. As such, it is contrary to Policy DM4 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015). 2. The proposed layout fails to demonstrate that it complies with the Local Planning Authority’s standards in respect of vehicle parking. This could result in on-street parking movements on Silver Street, adversely affecting road safety and the flow of traffic, and in conflict with Core Strategy Policy CS24 and Sites and Detailed Polices Document Policy DM12. 3. The applicant has not included adequate provision for waste collection facilities within the site in accordance with the requirements of Department for Transport / DCLG Document “The Manual for Streets”. The development if permitted would therefore be likely to lead to the stationing of waste collection vehicles on the access way causing an obstruction, the collection of waste on verges and carriageway and waste collection vehicles reversing onto or off of the highway to the detriment of public and highway safety contrary to Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12. 4. The proposed canopy reduction works to the Lime and Sycamore tree adjacent to the rear boundary and regular ongoing maintenance required to address nuisance will lead to pressure for heavier reduction or removal in the future. This is contrary to Policy CS38 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and also to Objective 2 of the adopted Tree Strategy for Reading which seeks to protect trees as important landscape features where these preserve the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

5. In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan and use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation (Sui Generis) only, the proposal will not mitigate its impact on

the social and economic infrastructure of the borough, contrary to Policies CS3

75

and CS9 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015), Policy DM3 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Employment, Skills & Training (2013) and Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015). Informatives:

1. Plan numbers & documents (as detailed below the conclusion section of this report).

2. The local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way by clearly setting out concerns relating to the proposal.

3. Without prejudice to any future application or appeal, the applicant is advised that reason for refusal 5 could be overcome by entering into a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking for a scheme that was in all other respects acceptable.

4. The applicant is advised that the refused scheme, had it been able to be approved, would have been a CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) liable development.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application site comprises of an office building (McQueen House) with a retail

furniture outlet at ground floor set back from Silver Street behind a small forecourt. There is an access to the side leading to a car park at the rear. The lawful uses of the building, which has been vacated on the upper floors, is as Class B1 offices and A1 retail.

1.2 Adjoining to the north is Windsor Square, a business centre of 2/3 storey units arranged either side of a cul-de-sac and beyond these are flats in Stirling House, Jubilee Square and Quadrant Court (3-6 storeys). On the south boundary is the residential terraced row of Mount Pleasant, the gardens of which run parallel to the same depth as the site.

76

Site location plan

1.3 The opposite side of Silver Street, a busy one-way thoroughfare leading away from the town centre off the A4 London Road, is a mixture of residential flats (3 storeys) and vacant business premises plus the Rising Sun Arts Centre (a listed former public house). To the rear of the site beyond the east boundary are the gardens of residential properties in Kendrick Road.

1.4 The site lies within easy walking or cycling distance of both the town centre and railway station (10-15 mins.) whilst Reading University’s Whiteknights and London Road campuses (10 mins.) are on the same side of the A4. It is just outside of the Reading Central Core boundary and adjoins the western edge of the Kendrick Road Conservation Area to the rear (east) boundary which includes adjacent TPO trees.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 Permission is sought for demolition of the existing three storey office block and construction of a part 3/4 storey (plus basement) privately operated student accommodation building to provide 65 studio rooms. The proposals also include a reception area, common room, gymnasium and laundry facilities and a small Class A1 retail (or Class A3/A2) unit (30sq.m.) fronting Silver Street. Around the buildings would be a landscaped inner courtyard alongside the south boundary at lower ground level and studio gardens and refuse bin/cycle storage areas to the side/rear.

2.2 The scheme has been amended and follows on from pre-application discussions last year and further design considerations arising at the Council’s Architects Design Review Panel in December. The amendments are summarised as follows:

- reduction of height (by half a storey) to provide single level attic rooms thus replacing the mezzanine “bed-deck” top floor units and deleting the top floor balcony access;

- minor alterations to front (Silver Street) elevation; - re-modelled east end roof gable (with mono-pitch roof gable pushed back); - landscaped/planted street front garden instead of hard paved vehicle area in

Silver Street; and - re-defined semi-private internal courtyard spaces and associated landscaping

improvements.

77

2.3 In support of the proposals the applicant has described the development as a

high specification purpose built student studio accommodation in response to market trends. The connectivity of the site and its separation from other student accommodation (eg. Saxon Court, Kendrick Halls, Queens Court, Central Studios, Fawley Bridge & Windsor Hall) is seen as beneficial in reducing the cumulative effects on a local area.

2.4 Externally the building would be finished in a grey multi coloured brick with recessed windows, aluminium dark grey/brown windows and doors and metallic zinc cladding to the dormer roofs. The windows on the south facing elevation would be fitted with directional and translucent privacy film (2nd Floor) with overlooking from the floor below restricted by a 1200mm trellis fence section fitted on top of the existing boundary wall (with No. 1 Mount Pleasant).

2.5 The application is being reported to your meeting as a Major Application.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 081152 Certificate of lawfulness for existing use PER 22.12.2008

classes: Ground floor A1 and B1, First Floor B1, Third Floor B1 (Certificate of Lawfulness Application)

151742 Demolition and rebuild of McQueen OBS SENT House to comprise circa 60 student units 6.11.2015 with approx.3,000 sqm GIFA in total. Proposals would also include an active retail frontage of the development (Pre-Application Enquiry)

152093 Demolition and rebuild of McQueen House NO OBS (Pre-Application Enquiry)

Excludes telecommunications equipment and shop front signage applications made for existing building (No. 79 Silver Street) since 2000.

4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Statutory:

None.

4.2 Non-statutory:

RBC Natural Environment (Trees/Landscape):

Objects to the application as contrary to Policy CS38 which states that individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodlands will be protected from damage or removal, and the Borough’s vegetation cover will be extended; and to Objective 2 of the adopted Tree Strategy for Reading which seeks to protect trees as important landscape features, particularly where they contribute to preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of areas of the town. The

78

objective makes specific reference to the amenity of Conservation Areas. Makes the following comments: The application extends development further east within the site towards two significant trees, one of which is growing within the boundary of a Conservation Area. The applicant has submitted an Arboricultural Survey which identifies both trees as a category ‘B’. The Survey lists both the trees as having a branch spread of 2m radius (which is clearly not the case) and as having an RPA of 6.2m and 10.2m respectively.

The Tree Constraints plan within the Arb Survey shows two generic circles over the trees which, although not scaled - visually represents neither the identified crown spread nor the RPA.

The rear of the site is surfaced with concrete raft slabs and a brick wall runs along the rear boundary of the site. The design and access statement shows the identified rooting areas as a semi-circle which I do not agree with, nor is any evidence submitted to support this designation in the arboricultural survey.

Due to the age and proximity of the trees and the boundary wall, it is unlikely that the foundations for the wall will have caused any significant impediment to the current rooting area of the trees within the site. The gap beneath such concrete surfaces can often provide a moist and viable rooting area for tree roots with little radial resistance. In view of this an appropriate RPA for these trees will be more or less circular as calculated in the BS:5837 unless any evidence is submitted to the contrary.

In order to facilitate the build and provide viable outdoor rear space, the application proposes a 3m reduction of the trees’ canopies. Both Lime and Sycamore are susceptible to aphid infestation and will drop mildew onto the ground and objects under their canopies. The small rear gardens at the rear of the site will be shaded and subject to sooty mould and mildew. As such they are likely to be unusable as private amenity space without regular cleaning maintenance.

The Borough Council would not usually support a development in close proximity to significant trees where a canopy reduction is necessary in order to facilitate the build. Such a relationship or juxtaposition between the trees and residential dwelling is considered unsustainable as the trees will require regular ongoing maintenance which will be detrimental to their long term health and amenity value.

There is likely to be considerable pressure for the trees to be more heavily reduced in the future or removed in order to address the inevitable nuisance the trees will cause. Once the development is completed it is less likely the trees would meet the criteria for inclusion in a Tree Preservation Order due to their proximity to the building and the ongoing maintenance required.

With regards to landscaping, given the change of use from office to residential, it would be appropriate to get new tree / landscape planting at the front of the site adjacent to Silver Street in order to soften and enhance the development as viewed from the public highway.

Informative: If the concrete slabs at the rear of the site are removed at any point, prior to planning permission being granted immediate steps should be undertaken to prevent the desiccation of the tree roots in this area. If at a later

79

date planning permission is granted for a suitably scaled development, we will require an arboricultural method statement which will protect the trees in accordance with BS:5837 during the course of the building and landscaping works.

RBC Transport Strategy:

Objects to the proposals with concerns regarding the non-provision of staff parking, the non-provision of parking for the retail element, the non-provision of parking for the arrival and departure periods, concerns regarding the number of bins and the servicing from the highway. Makes the following comments:

The application site is outside the town centre area but is within close proximity to frequent premier bus routes that run to and from the town centre and Reading University. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links, town centre services and employment areas.

Silver Street is part of the “A” road network carrying between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles a day. Any proposals must comply with the Council’s Geometric Design Guidance for Accesses onto Classified Roads.

Access & Servicing There is an existing dropped crossover into the site which will be made redundant if all access and serving is removed from the site frontage.

On-street refuse collection will occur and bins will be collected weekly on a contract with commercial operator. However, the refuse store is only large enough to accommodate 6no. 1100 Eurobins. This quantity does not seem sufficient to accommodate the refuse and recycling requirements of the development. Clarification should be provided.

The refuse store is located to the side of the site, approximately 45m from the highway. The applicant has confirmed that refuse bin will be brought forward by the on site management on collection days to minimise kerbside vehicle waiting time. In principle, this arrangement is acceptable but a bin collection point must be illustrated on the submitted plans to ensure there is sufficient space to store the required number of bins within 10m of the highway.

To minimise the potential for delays to collections, the designated collection area should be large enough for all the refuse and recycling bins to be positioned ready for collection at the same time. The space in the collection area must be sufficient to enable operatives to return emptied bins to a position that does not obstruct the manoeuvring of those containers that are yet to be emptied.

Also, it is requested that details regarding the refuse arrangements for the retail use is clarified. Will the retail unit share the refuse bins with the student accommodation?

Further, the Council is proposing to install an on-carriageway cycle lane to front of the site. Without the provision of a loading bay, any deliveries to the retail unit would obstruct the cycle lane forcing cyclist to merge into carriageway.

Parking Provision The site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area, of the Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD. This zone directly surrounds the Central Core Area and extends to walking distances of 2 kilometres from the centre of Reading.

80

The parking standards set for Halls of Residence located in this zone are 1 space per FTE member of staff and no requirements for students, however, there are no adopted parking standards for student accommodation which are provided “off campus” and operate as independent providers of higher education accommodation. Therefore, an application of this type is likely to be considered on its own merits considering local circumstances including access to public transport provisions and the availability of parking and on-street regulations.

The site is proposed to be car-free (except for 1 disabled space). Given that the site has good public transport accessibility and there are a range of frequent bus services within walking distance of the site, the non-provision of student parking spaces is acceptable. In accordance with the Councils Parking Standards and Design SPD, students will be prohibited from bringing vehicles to the site through a tenancy agreement. This will form part of the signed tenancy agreements and communicated to all students prior to moving in.

However, parking provision for staff parking should be made within the site in accordance with the Council’s adopted standards. The application form indicates that the development is expected to have 2 FTE members of staff which would equate to 2 parking spaces. Given that the proposals include 24/7 management of the site, the non-provision of staff parking is impractical. This concern has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Arrival & Departure Given that students will be prohibited from bringing vehicles to the site, the proposed uses would attract very little in the way of vehicular movements. However, the peak demand for parking spaces will be during the arrival and departure periods when students are moving into and departing from the site.

A Student Management Plan has been submitted with this application which outlines the move in process at the start and end of term times. Student arrivals will be a managed process over two weekends each academic year. Students arriving by car would be advised of a date a time to take up occupancy of their room.

Whilst it is stated that the move in process will be meticulously planned, no provisions have been made within the site for the arrival/departure periods. This is not acceptable and is likely to lead to students loading/unloading directly from Silver Street or mounting the footway during the arrival process. As stated above, the Council is proposing to install an on-carriageway cycle lane to front of the site. Therefore, the proposed cycle lane would be obstructed by vehicles during the arrival and departure periods. Adequate provisions must be provided within the site to ensure that the level of vehicular traffic that is expected during these arrival and departure periods can be accommodated without compromising the safety of other Highway users i.e. pedestrians, cyclists etc.

It is stated that the management team will enter into negotiation with the neighbouring office buildings to establish whether use of their car park will be permissible during move in weekends. However, as this provision is speculative with no firm agreement in place, I am unable to consider this as a feasible option. This concern has not been addressed in the amended plans.

Sustainable Travel Travel plans are used to initiate modal shift away from the private car and towards a more sustainable modes. A framework for the Travel Plan has been

81

included within the Student Management Plan which should be formalised prior to occupation.

The travel plan measures include:

1. The appointment of a travel Plan co-ordinator which will be funded for a

period of five years after first occupation of the site. 2. Provision of sustainable travel packs to all residents including bus network

and cycle network maps 3. Restrictions in tenancy agreement for ownership of car in Reading 4. Student travel surveys 5. Monitoring of cycle parking provisions

In accordance with the Council’s Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide 1 cycle parking space per 3 staff and 1 space per 5 students. The proposed cycle storage will be located within a covered area to the rear of the site and equipped with ‘Sheffield’ type stands. The proposed cycle storage provision complies with the Council’s adopted standards and is acceptable.

RBC Waste Minimisation & Recycling Officer: No objection - makes the following comments regarding waste management and storage strategy with capacities based on a fortnightly collection service:

If they are as stated for Studio Student rooms. We have set a ratio of 72 litres per room which for the 65 rooms would equate to the following with regards to bin capacities:

65 x 72 litres - 4680 litres of waste Which means they would require space for 5 x 1100 grey general waste bins and 5 x 1100 green recycling bins emptied on alternate weeks.

RBC Environmental Health (Private Housing): No comments received. RBC Environmental Health (Protection & Nuisance): No objection subject to conditions with the following comments: Noise impact on development A noise assessment should be submitted in support of applications for new residential proposed in noisy areas. The noise assessment will be assessed against the recommendations for internal noise levels within dwellings and external noise levels within gardens / balconies in accordance with BS 8233:2014 and WHO guidelines for Community Noise. The report should identify any mitigation measures that are necessary to ensure that the recommended standard is met.

Where appropriate, the noise assessment data should also include noise events (LAMax) and the design should aim to prevent noise levels from noise events exceeding 45dB within bedrooms at night. Noise levels above 45dB are linked with sleep disturbance.

82

A noise assessment has not been submitted and although the planning statement refers to protection of the front (roadside) façade requiring high quality glazing for noise protection, as the noise levels are not known, and the specifications of the proposed glazing not provided, I am unable to be certain that rooms fronting Silver Street will have acceptable internal noise levels. I therefore recommend a condition is attached to any consent requiring a noise assessment to be submitted prior to commencement of development and any approved mitigation measures implemented prior to occupation to show that recommended noise levels in the table above can be met.

The noise assessment will need to identify the external noise levels impacting on the proposed site. Noise mitigation is likely to focus on the weak point in the structure; glazing. Given that the acoustic integrity would be compromised should the windows be opened, ventilation details must also be provided, where mitigation relies on closed windows. Ventilation measures should be selected which do not allow unacceptable noise ingress and should provide sufficient ventilation to avoid the need to open windows in hot weather, however non-openable windows are not considered an acceptable solution due to the impact on living standards. Recommends conditions for sound insulation from external noise, implementation of approved noise mitigation scheme and noise between residential properties (sound insulation). Noise generating development It is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate any noise that could adversely impact on neighbouring residents.

Air Quality The nearest diffusion tube is located across the road at a similar distance from the roadside and has had recorded levels of nitrogen dioxide of below the national air quality health based objective level, meaning air quality exposure is not of concern. The proposal for there to be no car parking means that there will be no worsening of air quality caused by the development compared with the existing commercial use with associated parking.

Construction and demolition phases We have concerns about potential noise, dust and bonfires associated with the construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses).

Fires during construction and demolition can impact on air quality and cause harm to residential amenity. Burning of waste on site could be considered to be harmful to the aims of environmental sustainability.

Recommends conditions re. control of noise and dust (CMS to be submitted), hours of working (construction and demolition phase) and no bonfires

RBC Housing/RBC Education/RBC Valuation/RBC Sustainability No comments received.

83

Berkshire Archaeology

No objection subject to a condition requiring approval of a written scheme of archaeological investigation is attached to any planning permission granted with the following comments:

We can confirm that there are potential archaeological issues associated with the proposed development as the site is located just to the south of the Civil War defences. Elements of the defences have previously been recorded less than 50m to the north where Stirling House now stands and also running southwest-northeast through the current locations of Aveley House and Rimaud House.

Activity dating to the 17th and 18th centuries was recorded at 32-38 Silver Street, with some of the features possibly associated with the Civil War defences. Given the proximity of the site to these features there is the potential that the site may contain archaeological deposits or features associated with the Civil War period in Reading. Although there is an existing building which will have caused some disturbance on site, the proposals include a basement which has the potential to impact any archaeological buried remains that may be present below the depth of the existing impact of the building. In the first instance we would recommend a small amount of trial trenching, following demolition of the existing building, to evaluate the archaeological potential of the site.

Neighbour Notification: Properties at Nos. 1-31 (All) Alpha House Flats (Kendrick Road); Nos. 26, 26A & 28 Kendrick Road; Nos. 1-16 (All) Hieatt Close, Mount Pleasant (Silver Street); Nos. 1, 3, & 5 Mount Pleasant (Silver Street); Nos. 5-8 (All) Windsor Square (Silver Street); and Nos. 62-68 Silver Street were consulted on 18th October 2016. In addition Conservation Area notice(s) were displayed on 24th October 2016. AMENDED PLANS (Rec’d 7.12.2016, 5 & 11.1.2017) - re-consultations were undertaken with all previous respondents on 6th February 2017 and any additional comments not summarised below will be reported in an update at the meeting. In total there have been 8 objections received and 2 further responses on amended plans with the following comments and issues raised: Scale, design & layout: - ground area of new building would be a huge increase over the existing

building with the back of the premises increasing by two stories - outside courtyard “in the centre” of development yet the illustrations show

its side wall is garden wall (of No. 1) - refuse area located directly behind back fence (of No. 1) would doubtless

become a source of terrible odours and attract rats and other vermin (best to swap this with the cycle area behind it making it the furthest from every affected property)

- new building is an overbearing development with a huge increase in layout and density of the building proposed well in excess of what is in keeping with the area

- building plans appear good (a great visual improvement over the existing building)

84

Impact on character of area: - would make end-of-terrace property into a mid-terrace decreasing the

value/desirability of home Impact on residential amenities: - trellis to this wall for privacy (no permission sought to do this) plus not high

enough/who would be responsible for maintenance? - overlooking into the row of gardens along the adjacent terraced houses from

two additional stories of windows (many of them looking directly across the gardens, removing any privacy).

- the two office windows which overlook will be replaced by multiple windows of many student rooms (chance of some of the rooms being occupied at all times

- at present there is total privacy outside office hours as the building is empty, but if allowed it will change the use from commercial to residential occupied 24/7

- change of use occupied 24/7 would lead to an increase in noise/litter disturbance

- gardens of the terrace, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom will have significantly reduced sunlight

- peace will be shattered as the continued shouting and music will be unrelenting (question the quality of the “24 hour security” of a private company)

- at the moment the buildings are commercial and so fall mostly silent outside of working hours, no impact on local parking, little in the way of overlooking residential gardens when in use

Traffic, highway & car/cycle parking issues: - 65 people in such a small space would also have a hugely detrimental impact

on the community leading to a huge increase in traffic on an already busy ‘A’ road potentially blocking emergency vehicles

- insufficient car and cycle parking. Amended plans are worse with no off-road parking or loading space at all

- car parking in this part of Reading is a daily problem, and bringing more people into the area whilst reducing the available area for parking is simply unacceptable

- applaud the green idea of a no car development in principle however, it would appear that 65 students will live in the new development with only one disabled person having a car (precluding students from bringing cars, we would have a fight on our hands every year until this was accepted)

- in addition to students, there would be deliveries as well as visitors wanting to park on or near the site.

- proposed retail unit would also create traffic and the need for car parking spaces, for both customers and deliveries.

- provision for cycle parking insufficient (16 spaces for 65 students without any access to cars).

- problems already with strangers parking their bicycles in our cycle parking places (Windsor Square) resulting in insufficient spaces being left for our own staff and inconvenience/need to get these removed

- very disruptive to occupiers of Windsor Square and surrounding neighbours. Parking is limited within Silver Street and local neighbours from the flats as well as shoppers feel free to park in office spaces at any time of the day and night.

- proposed 65 unit development will generate considerable extra demand for parking and the proposed scheme has no provision for parking at all. The

85

site in its existing form (under-utilised) has something like 12 to 15 parking spaces.

- although the application states that it will be a car free development, this is unlikely to actually happen in reality and if there are no facilities for on-site parking, cars will be parked along the road or in neighbouring parking areas.

- Windsor Square already has enough problems with cars owned by local residents being parked in the parking spaces. The businesses require all their parking spaces at all times and cannot afford to have local residents using their parking facilities. A new student development is very likely to add to the car parking problem - even if the students don't have cars, what about deliveries, visitors, dropping-off & picking-up of students etc?

Other issues: - no application notice displayed on site - would build within inches of existing wall between the current building and

house (No. 1 Mount Pleasant) where current access is (making further maintenance to Victorian property impossible)

- local community in mind but applicants are a national developer and have no local knowledge

- satellite images used are at least 5 years old (surveys outdated?). - applicant letter is full of inaccuracies and contradictions, motivated by

profit and not to benefit the local area. - Windsor Square, immediately adjacent to the proposed development at 79

Silver Street, is a two and three storey development (not 3/4 storeys as described in application)

Students: - problems with students already with noise, particularly in the early hours

high pitched shrieking, vomit, discarded take away, broken glass, etc.

Alternative sites in locality: - unnecessary as Kendrick Hall is just round the corner and is still advertising

empty spaces well into the start of the term plus currently a massive student development on London Rd. Yet more student accommodation does not seem justifiable.

- why is a building currently in use going to be demolished when at the bottom of Silver Street there is an empty site that has been sat waiting to be developed for years? Much more suitable as it is sited next to existing apartments and student accommodation.

Cllr Rose Williams (Katesgrove Ward Councillor):

- another high density application for student accommodation in Katesgrove (need of family accommodation in the ward);

- confirmed at PAC when the Woodley Arms application was refused that RBC have achieved present quota of student rooms in the town;

- Reading University hope to increase its student accommodation by some 700 units in the future (this application just adds to the number of people in Katesgrove who are in transit with no plans to put their roots down here);

- Reading University with excellent bus service is the ideal dormitory area for young people to live;

- there is a lapsed planning application for a building next to Hawk Cottages opposite; and Silver Street flats with backs to this busy road shows what could be achieved and would be welcomed for this site instead.

86

5. RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. However the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making (NPPF paragraph 12).

5.2 In this regard, the NPPF states that due weight should be given to the adopted

policies of the Local Development Framework (LDF) (Core Strategy and Sites and Detailed Policies Document) according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. The closer the policies in the plan are to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given.

5.3 In Paragraph 7, the NPPF defines sustainable development and the social role of

the planning system in supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations. In Section 6: Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes local planning authorities are advised to boost significantly the supply of housing and that applications for such should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

5.4 Accordingly, the National Planning Policy Framework and the following

development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance are relevant:

Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS4 Accessibility and the intensity of development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car/Cycle Parking CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodland

Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality SA14 Cycle Routes

87

Supplementary Planning Guidance Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013)

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

a) Principle of use/location b) Design, scale & impact on character of the surrounding area c) Impact on amenities of adjoining occupiers d) Highways and transport issues e) Infrastructure (S106, CIL) f) Other (trees, noise, drainage)

Principle of use/location

6.2 The existing office building is of low architectural quality and its retention and conversion is no longer considered as being a realistic viable option given the cost of bringing it back into habitable condition.

6.3 The site is located within a transitional mixed use area where business,

commercial (including retail) and community uses are juxtaposed with old and newer residential development. It is an accessible location on the edge of the town centre with its many facilities, shops and public transport options.

6.4 Policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses) of the Core Strategy

considers in assessing proposals outside of the Core Employment Areas that would result in loss of employment land whether a site is accessible by a choice of means of transport, if continued employment use is viable or detrimental to the amenity and character of the area whilst the need for alternative uses may also be stronger than its retention.

6.5 Given the two vacant sites with obsolete buildings situated on opposite side of

Silver Street it is evident that the immediate locality is still in transition and that future residential use of these redundant employment sites is likely to be an acceptable alternative. Furthermore, there is no specific policy relating to student accommodation whilst the Council’s wider policy objectives to locate office development in the central area would not seem to justify the application sites long term retention in such use.

6.6 As has been done with other recent student accommodation schemes in the

Borough, it is considered necessary and reasonable to restrict the use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation (Sui Generis) only, to be secured via a legal agreement rather than a condition. With the reasons for refusal given elsewhere in this report, this therefore forms an additional reason for refusal.

Design & impact on character of the surrounding area

6.7 Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) of the Reading LDF Core

Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) relates to both new buildings and the

88

refurbishment of existing buildings. Proposals are acceptable where the design of buildings and site layouts use energy, water, minerals, materials and other natural resources appropriately, efficiently and with care.

6.8 Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that development is of a high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. Among the urban design objectives of the policy are that this should make a positive contribution to the character, continuity and quality of the public realm.

6.9 Policy CS33 confirms that historic features and areas of historic importance and other elements of the historic environment, including Conservation Areas and their settings, will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. All proposals will be expected to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located.

6.10 The proposed student accommodation building would undoubtedly provide a high standard of living accommodation with facilities including a gymnasium/cinema room and launderette (on the lower ground floor Level -1) and the necessary secure entrance from the street in a managed and landscaped setting. An analysis of the visual impact of the new building in the street, its scale, massing, form and detailed appearance based for the most part on the conclusions of the Architects’ Design Review Panel (DRP) is made here.

6.11 The proposals would reinforce the prevailing building line in Silver Street, a

welcome improvement over the current condition. The further improvement identified as needed to the building forecourt (which was shown in the submitted plans as purely hard surfacing with bollards denoting a disabled parking bay) has now been achieved in the amended plans with low walls and tree/hedge planting in the street frontage. This should be more engaging to the public and in keeping with the small front gardens of the adjacent pre-war terraces in Mount Pleasant.

6.12 The DRP was of the view that the general footprint of the proposals was

about right in the surrounding context and that the sunken courtyard is a positive feature that could provide a pleasant amenity space for occupants. More definition of defensible semi-private spaces next to studio rooms has been achieved in the revised landscaping plans.

6.13 In terms of the layout, specific concerns were raised to the extent of

positive frontage at ground floor which is constituted of substation, main entrance/reception, undercroft/service access and a commercial use. The small retail space and undercroft areas need considerable attention and the opportunity to use this space as a device to promote more passive surveillance and street interaction, particularly with mind to the possible student use of this area (suggestions included a games room) has not been addressed in the amended plans which mainly involve changes to the upper elevations and courtyard.

6.14 Turning to issues of the scale and massing it is noted that the scheme is

constituted of three main blocks, one part addressing Silver Street (Block A), a central element (Block B) and a third at the rear of the plot (Block C). Block A was considered by DRP to mediate well between the scale of the terraced houses and larger buildings to the north. The design of the return section on the front roof where it would abut the end of terrace property, No. 1 Mount

89

Pleasant, though awkward looking and above the eaves level, was not highlighted as such.

6.15 However Block B, the centre block proposed alongside the north

boundary with Windsor Square, was considered to be less subtle and represented a substantial increase in massing compared to the existing building. The potential detrimental impact upon the amenity value of the gardens to the south was noted and the monolithic 4 storey flank wall to this block identified as in need of articulation. This has been achieved by removal of the mezzanine bed decks on the top or fourth floor (Level 3) and the introduction of landing windows to break up the wall when seen above Windsor Square properties from Silver Street.

6.16 In its form and appearance the street elevation of Block A is acceptable as a

modern infill with stronger reference needed to contextual detailing within the facades. Elsewhere, the logic behind extending brickwork into the full height of the gables is not clear, particularly when this only serves to increase the perceived height especially on blocks B &C. The mono-pitched gable end roof to the rear Block C has been pushed back in the amended plans without especially reducing the perceived height or bulk.

6.17 In summary, the DRP concluded that Blocks B & C need to be reduced in

scale to reduce any detrimental effect to the neighbouring properties whilst the articulation and appearance of the upper floors could also be revisited for cohesion and to reduce the perceived increase in height compared to the existing building.

6.18 With regard to appearance, specific detailed section & elevation

information is lacking in the proposals to illustrate brick detailing, window reveals, louvre arrangements and rain water goods. The use of a grey multi brick, prevalent in the Reading area, is preferred to the buff-like colour in the illustrative drawings.

6.19 A simplification of the overall design, specifically with regard to the roof

forms that are a mix of mono pitch, a-symmetrical pitches and projecting elements was recommended by DRP rather than the jumbled ad-hoc appearance that would be viewed from the neighbouring residential properties. Similarly, the plan arrangement could be more efficient and still provided a building with similar unit numbers but far less challenging massing. The upper floor mezzanines, considered short on headroom, have been deleted in the amended plans. Impact on amenities of adjoining occupiers

6.20 Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) states that development will not

cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing or new residential properties in terms of privacy and overlooking, access to sunlight and daylight, visual dominance and overbearing, noise and disturbance, artificial lighting, crime and safety etc.

6.21 As described above the scheme is essentially constituted of three main blocks. Block B represents a substantial increase in massing from the existing condition (building) that will have a detrimental impact upon the amenity value of the gardens to the south whilst Block C would be a new element on the site compared to the existing building footprint.

90

6.22 It is clear Blocks B & C need to be reduced in scale to reduce any detrimental effect to the neighbouring properties to an acceptable level. In particular, Block C covers most of the width of the plot, presenting a 4 storey high gable wall to the immediate neighbour where there is currently no building. This is a new relationship and is considered oppressive and unacceptable.

6.23 Overlooking of the adjacent gardens from terraces to the uppermost floors was identified as a concern at the DRP. The amended plans for the fourth floor have reduced the likelihood of direct overlooking across the proposed trellis fence line on top of the boundary wall with the neighbouring property (No. 1 Mount Pleasant), the overall height of which would be about 3.5 above metres above garden level.

6.24 In addition to this potential loss of outlook and privacy the other main impact identified would be the general likelihood for noise disturbance as a consequence of the greater number of residents, their transient nature and longer hours of occupation on the site (ie. 24 hours/7 days a week) when compared to the current lawful use as offices, which are vacated during the evenings and weekends. Whilst some student behaviour is unpredictable, occasional intrusions from music and late night congregations with loud talking/smoking (etc.) may be expected which are not possible to control by planning conditions. The courtyard element although welcomed in design terms may tend to encourage outdoor socialising however well this is being monitored.

6.25 The applicant has submitted a Student Accommodation Management Plan which

sets out how in addition to the lockable cycle stands and bin stores, the whole site would be monitored by passive surveillance and installation of CCTV cameras (details of locations not specified). There would be a communal entrance including colour screen access phones plus fob and key code access to all rooms. A property manager would be present during office hours (Mondays to Fridays) and security plus other maintenance and cleaning staff outside of these times connected to a 24/7 management help desk to deal with any reported incidents of anti-social behaviour. Some rooms will be occupied by resident wardens and all on site issues relating to repairs, health & safety (including fire management) suitably reported and dealt with.

6.26 In principle this is welcomed and considered necessary as the change of use on

this site from the previous office and retail uses could potentially lead to amenity concerns and cause harm to the character of the local/wider area.

Highways and transport Issues

6.27 Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) of the Core Strategy

relates the scale and density of development to its level of accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport to a range of services and facilities with sites assessed in terms of their accessibility to a defined district or local centre. A good level of accessibility is considered to be that within 400m of a defined centre with a good range of facilities and within 400m by pedestrian routes of a bus stop served frequently (ie. one bus every 20 minutes in each direction between 0700-1900).

6.28 Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) of the Core

Strategy considers the contribution that proposals make to a balanced transport network whilst Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) applies the maximum car/cycle

91

parking standards applicable in relation to the accessibility of locations within the Borough to sustainable transport facilities in particular public transport.

6.29 Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) considers various

implications including the additional trip generation of proposals, which are permitted where there is no detrimental impact on the functioning of the transport network or to the safety of users including pedestrians and cyclists.

6.30 The site in Silver Street is within walking distance of Reading Central Area and

its full range of shops and other facilities served by regular public transport and thus considered accessible. This would suit the nature of the proposed use for students who would arrive by car on average once at the beginning of each term.

6.31 However, the Council’s Transport Strategy Development Control Advisor has

raised an objection to the amended proposals in particular relating to the deficiency in staff parking provision which are considered impractical for the proposed 24 hour presence and the management of student arrivals due to the potential for obstructing the highway. Neither of these concerns have been satisfactorily addressed and the proposals are therefore contrary to Policies CS24 and DM12.

Infrastructure 6.32 Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) of the Reading

Borough Council LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) states that proposals will not be permitted unless the Council is satisfied that infrastructure, services, resources, amenities or other assets lost or impacted upon as a result of the development will be re-provided. This will require planning obligations entered into by agreement to secure the replacement of social infrastructure, services, resources, amenities or other assets.

6.33 An employment, skills and training plan (construction phase) would be required to be secured via a S106 legal agreement had planning permission been recommended. In the absence of an acceptable scheme, this forms an additional reason for refusal of the application (as with securing the student use as detailed earlier in the appraisal) and this issue can be clarified by an informative.

6.34 Policy DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) confirms that appropriate provision for infrastructure, services, resources and amenities will be made through planning obligations and/or the Community Infrastructure Levy as relevant. A high priority will be given to health provision and where a specific need is identified and justified, to community facilities.

6.35 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they would be necessary, reasonable and related to the development in planning terms. Had the application been supported the scheme would have been liable for CIL payments. An informative to this effect can be added to the decision and under the CIL regulations such payments would be due on commencement and occupation of the development.

92

Other

6.36 Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodland) of the Core strategy seeks to protect individual trees, groups of trees, hedges and woodland from damage or removal. Policy DM18 (Tree Planting) of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document states that provision for new tree planting shall be made within development sites to enhance the character and appearance of the area.

6.37 The Council’s Natural Environment Officer has raised concerns about the impact

of the new building on the long term health of two off-site trees just beyond the rear boundary of the site (one with protected status being in a conservation area). Notwithstanding the other landscape and planting proposals for the street frontage (as amended), the inner courtyard and rear of the site (behind Block C), the long term amenity value of these trees is not safeguarded by the proposals. As such there is a conflict with the wider objectives of Policy CS38.

6.38 Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) of the Core Strategy states that development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air, land, noise or light pollution whilst ground and surface water quality would be preserved and water, sewerage and waste treatment infrastructure are adequate.

6.39 The applicant has submitted a drainage strategy that confirms the proposed

discharge of surface water into the main system in Silver Street and on site drainage (not soakaways) capacity designed to cope with a 1 in 30 year storm and climate change events (+30%). The site is not liable to flooding at present or within the 1:100 Flood Zone) and permeable paving to reduce run off would be included where possible within the site. Accordingly, there are no objections raised on this issue.

Matters Raised in Representation

6.40 None 7. CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal for a student residence is considered acceptable in principle in terms of its general location in the town with proximity to both the town centre facilities and attractions, public transport and Reading University campus buildings. Furthermore a very high standard of student living accommodation would be created with all necessary on-site amenities for the future residents and staff in an accessible location by public transport that is not wholly dependent on parking.

7.2 Nonetheless, there are significant concerns with this proposal in particular the potential impacts on residential amenities and with parking and highways related issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed in seeking various design and layout improvements.

7.3 The potential impacts on neighbouring occupiers and effect on the character of

the street and area as a whole have been considered. The over dominant relationship of the proposed building, in particular the height and proximity of the blocks rearwards of the residential properties to the south is unacceptable. There would be an associated reduction in outlook, daylight and privacy generally for the occupants.

93

7.4 There would also be a deficiency in the on-site parking provision and the arrangements for student arrivals would have an impact on the highway traffic flows. The refuse collection arrangements within the site are not adequate to prevent problems of obstruction and inconvenience on the public highway in Silver Street

7.5 Additional concerns relating to the potential impact on trees to the rear of the

site, within and adjacent to a conservation area have not been resolved.

7.6 The concerns arising from the appraisal and in consultations have been considered against all other relevant material considerations. Accordingly, for these reasons within the context of national and local planning policies, it is recommended that planning application be refused.

Plans:

1609_PL_100 Rev C (Level -1) 1609_PL_101 Rev B (Level 0) 1609_PL_102 (Level 1) 1609_PL_103 Rev C (Level 2) 1609_PL_104 Rev B (Level 3) 1609_PL_106 Rev B (Roof Plan) 1609_PL_201 Rev C (Proposed Elevations - Sheet 1) 1609_PL_202 Rev C (Proposed Elevations – Sheet 2) 1609_PL_203 Rev B (Proposed Elevations – Sheet 3) 1609_PL_204 Rev C (Proposed Elevations – Sheet 4) Received on 7th December 2016 101 Rev C (Landscape Layout) Landscape Design Statement (Issue 5) Received on 5th January 2017 201 Rev B (Planting Plan) Received on 11th January 2017 Supporting Documents:

Design and Access Statement by O’Connell East Architects (August 2016) Purpose Built Student Accommodation Management Plan by Morlet Properties Ltd; Arboricultural Survey by PJC Consultancy (29th April 2016); Drainage Strategy by Westlakes Consulting (26th August 2016); Planning and Heritage Statement by GW Planning (September 2016) Case Officer: Daniel Murkin

94

NORCOT

101

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th March 2017 Ward: Norcot App No.: 170039/REG3 Address: St Michaels Primary School, Dee Road, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal: Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date validated: 13th January 2017 Other Application: 8 week target decision date: 10th March 2017 26 week date: 14th July 2017

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT permission. Conditions to include: 1. Approved plans.

Informatives to include:

1. Terms and conditions 2. Update emergency plan 3. Positive and proactive

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is located as shown on the plan below. The school

buildings are predominantly single storey with brick elevations, flat roofs and a panelled window system. The main school hall is two storey in height and a new two storey teaching block has recently been constructed under planning permission 141151/REG3 for the school’s expansion to 2FE. The school has two existing temporary modular classrooms. The school site is bounded by Dee Road to the north west and housing to all three remaining boundaries.

103

2. PROPOSAL 2.0 The application is for the permanent retention of an existing single storey

modular building that provides two additional classrooms. Planning permission was granted for the modular classroom on 23rd April 2013 for a limited period of 5 years from the date of the permission. This permission expires on the 23rd April 2018. Although the school has recently been expanded the modular building is used as an after school club as it has a separate direct access and as ancillary space for the school.

2.1 The modular classrooms are located to the east of the school grounds on

existing hard surfacing. The modular is formed from composite wall panels finished in a green coated metal with a low pitched roof.

2.2 The modular is proposed to become a permanent inclusion to the schools

accommodation for the life of the unit. 3. PLANNING HISTORY

12/00908/REG3 (Civica Ref: 120731) - Provision of 1 Temporary Classroom unit and associated external works. Permitted 12/07/2012. This permission expires on 11th July 2017. 13/00346/REG3 (Civica Ref: 130570) - Provision of 1 demountable modular double classroom and associated external works. Extension to external hard play space and 4 new staff parking bays. Permitted 23/04/2013. This permission expires on 23rd April 2018. 130732/APPCON - Discharge of condition 3 of planning permission 13/00346/REG3. Condition discharged 05/08/2013. 141151/REG3 - Part two storey part single storey extension with canopy links to main school, entrance extension, removal of 3 modular buildings, associated external works and new free-standing canopy to retained modular. Permitted 12/11/2014. 141910/APPCON - Discharge of conditions 4, 7, 11 and 14 of planning permission 141151/REG3. Discharged 05/04/2016.

104

141950/APPCON - Discharge of condition 17 of planning permission 141151/REG3. Discharged 27/07/2016. 150065/NMA - Non material change to planning permission 141151/REG3 to replace the tree protections measures previously approved. Agree 15/04/2015. 150475/NMA - Non material change to planning permission 141151/REG3 for a change in external wall materials from brick to render. Agree 15/04/2015. 151379/APPCON - Discharge of condition 8 of planning permission 141151/REG3. Discharged 14/01/2016. 151988/APPCON - Discharge of condition 10 of planning permission 141151/REG3. Discharged 22/12/2015. 160901/APPCON - Discharge of condition 2 of non-material amendment 150475 (following original approval 141151/REG3). Discharged 27/05/2016.


Sport England – raised no objection.

Office for Nuclear Regulation – raised no objection subject to an informative advising the school to review their emergency plan.

4.2 Non-statutory:

Development Control Transport – raised no objection. Natural Environment Trees – raised no objection. Environmental Health - raised no objection.

4.3 Public consultation:

Properties at 70, 71, 94-99 (all) Tern Close were consulted. No responses were received at the time of writing.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'.

5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

105

Paragraph 72

Reading Borough Core Strategy (January 2008): CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS24 (Car / Cycle Parking) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012): DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)

Supplementary Planning Documents Revised Parking Standards and Design (Oct 2011)

6. APPRAISAL – Planning Applications (i) Legal context Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (ii) Main Issues 6.1 The main issues are considered to be:

(i) The principle of development; (ii) Character and appearance (iii) Amenity of Surrounding Occupiers (iv) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure

Levy) (v) Other Matters

(i) The principle of development 6.2 Policy CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) of the Reading

Borough Core Strategy states that “Proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable, particularly where this will involve co-location of facilities on a single site.” The site is within an existing school site and would continue to provide additional accommodation for the school. As such it is considered that the general principle of retaining this building is in accordance with policy CS31 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy.

(ii) Character and appearance 6.3 The existing modular is located close to the eastern boundary of the site

adjacent to properties on Tern Close. The modular is partially screened by existing trees and hedging. Being single storey and with a low roof height means that the modular does not significantly affect the character of the area or the visual amenity.

6.3.1 Overall, the retention of the modular building is acceptable and is in

accordance with relevant policy and guidance.

106

(iii) Amenity of surrounding occupiers 6.4 The modular building is approximately 20m from the closest residential

properties on Tern Close and is partially screened by existing trees and hedging. It is therefore considered that the retention of the modular building would not have a detrimental impact upon surrounding residential properties in terms of it physical presence. The proposal is not to accommodate additional pupils and as such there is not considered to be any additional noise associated with retaining the unit. The development would therefore be acceptable in terms of the amenity of surrounding neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.

(iv) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy) 6.5 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was implemented by the Council

from April 1st 2015. Although the proposed scheme would be CIL liable development, because education facilities attract a zero CIL charge in the Borough there would be no CIL payable for this scheme.

6.5.1 No Section 106 contributions are sought.

(vi) Other Matters 6.6 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

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

6.6.1 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered

there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.

7. CONCLUSION The proposed permanent retention of the modular building is considered acceptable in planning terms subject to the imposition of planning conditions. Plans: Drawing No: E03056-P-100-SMPS – Location Plan Drawing No: E03056-P-101-SMPS – Block Plan Drawing No: E03056-P-301-SMPS – Elevations Drawing No: E03056-P-201-SMPS – Floor Plan Received by the local planning authority on 11th January 2017 Case Officer: Claire Ringwood

107

PARK

111

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 12 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th March 2017 Ward: Park Application No.: 162057/FUL Address: "Alexander House", 205-207 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4LW Proposal: Erection of basement and 4 - 7 storey building comprising 56 (30x1, 18x2 & 8x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping, following demolition of existing basement and 2 storey office building (Class B1a) Applicant: Mount Properties Limited C/O Investra Capital Ltd Date Valid: 07/12/2016 Application target decision date: 29/03/2017 (Extension of time agreed by the applicant – original target decision date was 08/03/2017) 26 week date: 07/06/2017 RECOMMENDATION Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to (i) GRANT full planning permission subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 29th March 2017 unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure the following:

- Affordable Housing - Provision of 17 on-site residential units as affordable housing - An Employment Skills and Training construction phase financial contribution of

£13,401. And the following conditions to include:

1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Approved plans 3. Pre-commencement Construction Method Statement (including noise and dust) 4. Pre-commencement (except demolition) details (samples and manufacturer details)

of all external materials 5. Pre-commencement written scheme of archaeological investigation 6. Pre-commencement (except demolition) i) hard and soft landscaping, including: a)

accesses, b) services, c) planting, d) bird/bats, e) green roof; ii) Pre-occupation landscape management plan; iii) Pre-occupation completion of hard landscaping; iv) soft landscaping completion by completion / first planting season following first occupation; v) replacement planting within 5 years.

7. Pre-occupation sustainability dwelling emission rate details 8. Pre-occupation physical security and access control measures details 9. Pre-occupation privacy screen strategy and details 10. Pre-occupation Cycle Parking details 11. Pre-occupation Waste Management Plan details 12. Pre-occupation notification of postal addresses (Parking Permits) (Postal addresses) 13. Parking Permits (Prohibition on entitlement) 14. Pre-occupation provision of parking spaces 15. Pre-occupation provision of sustainable urban drainage measures 16. Pre-occupation provision of noise assessment measures

113

17. Pre-occupation provision of Energy Statement measures 18. Construction hours 19. No fixing or installing of miscellaneous items to the external faces of the building

without the prior approval in writing of the local planning authority 20. Flat roof areas not to be used as roof terraces

Informatives:

1. Building Control 2. Party Wall Act 3. Positive and Proactive Statement 4. Damage to the highway 5. High density residential development and car parking 6. Works affecting highways 7. No burning of waste on site 8. Section 106 Legal Agreement (Ref 4288) 9. CIL 10. Thames Water 11. Terms and conditions 12. Physical security and access control measures details

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site comprises an existing basement and two-storey office building

located on the junction of Kings Road and Rupert Street. The building, which was still partly occupied at the time of the officer site visit in December 2016, was built in the early 1990s (see relevant history below), as part of a wider development which also included the residential units of Saxon Court to the north on the junction of Rupert Street and Norwood Road (see relevant history below). The building is ‘L’ shaped, fronting onto both Kings Road and Rupert Street, with vehicular access from the latter to a basement car park.

1.2 This application site is within Park ward, although the boundary with Abbey ward is

Rupert Street and the boundary with Redlands ward is Kings Road. The site is also within an air quality management area. Kings Road is a major transport corridor into and out of Reading and is also designated as an ‘Existing or potential treed corridor’ in the adopted Borough Tree Strategy. The site is not within a conservation area, although it is relatively close to three. The nearest conservation areas are Alexandra Road (170m to the south), Eldon Square (220m to the west) and South Park (260m to the south-east). The application site is located outside of the designated Reading Central Area Action Plan (the boundary being the grounds of Reading College 80m to the west) and outside the designated Cemetery Junction District Centre (the boundary being Arthur Hill Pool, 75m to the east). The application site does not include any designated heritage assets, although the following are within the vicinity of the site:

- Sardar Palace (149 London Road – Gladstone Club) Grade II listed building 30m to south-east of the application site;

- Wycliffe Baptist Church (233 Kings Road) Grade II listed building 110m to the east of the application site

- Entrance Lodges and Gates to Reading Cemetery (London Road) Grade II listed 240m to the east of the application site

- Reading Cemetery Grade II listed park and garden, 250m to the east of the application site

114

1.3 The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses, predominantly residential, with office and retail/related uses in the wider immediate area. Both neighbouring buildings on the Kings Road frontage are in residential use, comprising The Pinnacle (approved in 2001) and Crossway Point (approved in 2003). Both are up to seven storeys in height, with more details in the relevant history section below. On Rupert Street, the neighbouring Saxon Court residential block is three storeys in height, typical of the more domestic scale in the area to the north of the site.

1.4 The application is referred to committee owing to being a ‘major’ development. The location site in relation to the wider urban area is shown below, together with a site photograph and two aerial views.

Site Location Plan (not to scale)

Existing Kings Road elevation

115

Aerial view looking north towards the Kings Road streetscene elevation

Aerial view looking east towards the Rupert Street streetscene elevation 2. PROPOSALS 2.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a basement and four to seven

storey ‘L’ shaped building at the site. This will provide 56 residential units in total (30x1, 18x2 & 8x3-bed), of which 17 (4x1, 12x2 & 1x3-bed) will be affordable housing units. These proposed works would follow the demolition of the existing basement and two-storey office building which exists at the site at present. As part of the proposals associated car/cycle parking is proposed, together with hard and soft landscaping and associated works to facilitate the proposed residential use.

2.2 More specifically, the proposed building will comprise car/cycle parking, bin

storage and plant at basement level, with residential accommodation at upper ground floor level and above. The residential entrance to the market housing will

116

be on Kings Road, with separate access to the affordable element from Rupert Street. Vehicular access to serve the basement parking/servicing will continue from Rupert Street, as existing. On the Kings Road frontage the building will be basement and five-storeys adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring Crossway Point, rising to seven-storeys further away from this boundary. On the Rupert Street elevation, the building is staggered in height away from the existing neighbouring Saxon Court building from four up to seven-storeys. Areas of green roof are proposed at sixth and seventh floor level on the flat roofed areas fronting Rupert Street, with photovoltaic panels at roof level of the seventh storey element (mainly on the Kings Road frontage).

2.3 During the course of the application a number of changes were made to the

scheme, summarised as follows:

- The cycle storage area originally proposed within the soft landscaping area adjacent to the Kings Road frontage was omitted and relocated at lower ground floor level at the north-east corner of the site.

- As a consequence of the change in location of the cycle store, 3 on-site parking spaces originally proposed have been omitted, reducing the on-site parking provision from 35 (including 4 disabled spaces) to 32 (including 4 disabled spaces).

- The external terraces on the Kings Road frontage at lower ground floor level have been reduced in depth.

- The above changes have facilitated increased areas of soft landscaping on the Kings Road frontage. Furthermore, the tree species and general soft landscaping approach has been altered in light of officer feedback.

- The balustrade on the Kings Road elevation at upper ground floor level has been altered in material from timber to glazing with a metal frame.

2.4 These revisions to the scheme were not considered to be of a nature or level to

warrant formal public re-consultation on the application. 3. PLANNING HISTORY

Application site 3.1 87/TP/1249 - Erection of office block with associated car parking and 7 dwellings

with associated car parking. Refused outline permission on 15/01/1988. Allowed on appeal 10/11/1989.

3.2 89-01366-REM (891332) - Construction of office building together with associated

car park and 7 no. dwellings with associated car parking. Reserved Matters Approved 28/03/1990.

3.3 90-00531-FUL (901103) - Erection of two storey office block with semi-basement car

park for 50 cars and two storey block of 7 flats with associated parking. Granted 23/08/1990.

3.4 A series of pre-application meetings were undertaken with officers in 2015 and

2016 prior to the submission of this planning application. Neighbouring sites 3.5 The Pinnacle - 99/01128/FUL (992352) - Erection of a five, six and seven storey

residential property comprising flats, amenity space, car parking and ancillary

117

accommodation following demolition of existing buildings. Granted following completion of legal agreement 05/01/2001.

3.6 Crossway Point – 03-00950-FUL (030376) - Demolition of existing and erection of 98

'affordable' units (30 no.1,60 no.2, 6 no.3 & 2 no.4 bedrooms) within 7 storeys of accommodation with 66 car parking spaces and communal on-site amenity space. Granted following completion of legal agreement 11/11/2003.

4. CONSULTATIONS i) RBC Transport Development Control 4.1 The Transport Development Control section advises that the site is located to the

north of Kings Road (A329), a major transport corridor into and out of Reading. The site is accessed to the east of Rupert Street, which forms a left-in/left-out vehicle crossover with Kings Road (A329). The A329 Kings Road is a major bus route with bus stops located on both sides of the carriageway and dedicated bus lanes allowing for bus priority in both eastbound and westbound directions.

4.2 Considering first the access and traffic generation element of the proposal, it is

initially noted that a Transport Statement and Framework Travel Plan have been submitted with the application. With regard to access, the existing vehicular access onto Rupert Street will be retained. The pedestrian access to the residential use would be at ground floor level from the existing footway from King’s Road. The proposed cycle store will be located at the lower ground floor level, close to the access point from Rupert Street. Although it would have been preferred for the originally proposed location of the Kings Road frontage to have been maintained (from a Transport perspective), this has been considered inappropriate from a design perspective. Accordingly, in itself it is considered that the lower ground floor location is satisfactory from a transport perspective.

4.3 An assessment of the likely trip generation of the residential development has been

submitted using trip rates obtained from the national TRICS1 database, which is a valid way to ascertain likely trip generation. It is accepted that the existing office use would potentially generate significantly more vehicular trips in the peak hours than the proposed residential use. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed residential development will not increase traffic in the vicinity of the site.

4.4 In terms of parking, the site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area, of the Revised

Parking Standards and Design SPD. This zone directly surrounds the Central Core Area and extends to walking distances of 2 kilometres from the centre of Reading. In accordance with the adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide a parking provision of 1 space per unit. A lower parking provision can be considered when the development poses no detriment to highway safety.

4.5 During pre-application discussions it was agreed that a lower parking provision may

be acceptable considering the sustainability of the site. It is proposed to provide 28 standard car parking spaces as well as 4 accessible spaces, totalling 32 spaces (it

1 TRICS is the national standard system of trip generation and analysis in the UK and Ireland, and is used as an integral and essential part of the Transport Assessment process. It is a database system, which allows its users to establish potential levels of trip generation for a wide range of development and location scenarios, and is widely used as part of the planning application process by both developer consultants and local authorities and is accepted by Inspectors as a valid way to ascertain likely trip generation.

118

was originally proposed to incorporate 35 spaces, but 3 were removed to accommodate cycle parking at this point). Whilst this parking provision is lower than the Council’s adopted parking standards, it does take into account the accessibility of the site and expected levels of car ownership in the area, which is accounted for in national policy. As such, a lower than policy compliant level of on-site parking is considered appropriate in this specific instance. In terms of the parking itself, this is provided within the basement area. The proposed parking layout is acceptable with 6.0m aisle widths and 1.0m clearance spaces at the end of the aisles.

4.6 In addition, it is recognised that the site is located within an area designated as a

Residents Parking Permit Area Zone 12R, where parking is restricted for permit holders only (with a small amount of shared use bays). Therefore, the lower parking provision is only considered acceptable if the standard parking conditions and informative are applied. This is to prevent any future occupants of the new flats from obtaining a residents parking permit (including visitor parking permits) for the surrounding residential streets, where parking is under considerable pressure. Furthermore, a condition will also stipulate that the parking spaces provided on-site are provided prior to first occupation and kept available for parking at all times thereafter.

4.7 In terms of cycle parking, in accordance with the Parking Standards and Design SPD,

cycle parking should be provided at a ratio of 0.5 spaces per 1/2 bedroom flat and 1 space per 3-bedroom flat. This equates to 32 cycle parking spaces. During the course of the application the applicant (as well as altering the location of the cycle store – as mentioned above) also specified that Carlisle Cycle Racks would be proposed in a secure and sheltered store at the rear of site accessed via Rupert Street. Although it would have been preferred for Sheffield stands to be provided, on this occasion transport officers are content with the principle of the proposed racks. The dimensions of the store can accommodate the required number of racks with the minimum corridor width of 1000mm. However, it is recommended that a corridor width of 1500mm is provided. Given that this distance can be accommodated within the site, the recommended corridor width should be increased to 1500mm, with details to be required prior to first occupation via condition.

4.8 Turning to consider refuse collection and servicing matters, sufficient provision

(11no. landfill 1100 litre bins and 11no. green waste 1100 litre bins) is shown at both basement and ground floor level, adjacent to the Rupert Street elevation. A sufficient provision is shown to serve the development, but during the course of the application the applicant was asked to specify how these arrangements would operate in practice, to allay possible concerns about highway safety when refuse vehicles are stationary on Rupert Street at collection time. In this regard, there is approximately 45m between the Kings Road/Rupert Street junction and the bin collection point, which provides queueing for approximately 9 cars whilst the refuse vehicle is stationary. The applicant has confirmed (by email) that site management will ensure that the bins are moved from the internal bin store to the collection point prior to bin collection day. No Council refuse collection workers will be required to enter the site beyond the road-side bin-collection point, to minimise time spent emptying the bins. In the circumstances it is considered necessary to secure all components into a waste management plan, which will be required to submitted to and approved (and maintained thereafter) via pre-occupation condition. This will also assist in helping ensure future occupiers/managers of the site are aware of the management plan processes.

119

4.9 Finally from a transport perspective, there would potentially be significant transport implications constructing the proposed building in this prominent location. Accordingly, it is considered completely necessary and relevant in this instance for a pre-commencement (including demolition) Construction Method Statement to be secured via condition. This will assist highway safety and the amenity of local land uses during the demolition and construction phases.

4.10 As such, in overall terms from a transport perspective, the proposals are considered

appropriate subject to conditions related to: the provision of parking spaces; bicycle parking; parking permits; construction method statement; waste management plan. A range of transport related informatives are also recommended.

ii) RBC Waste Minimisation & Recycling Officer 4.11 Concur with transport officers that a waste management plan is required to prevent

possible highway safety issues at collection times. iii) RBC Environmental Health – Environmental Protection (EP) 4.12 EP has considered the scheme in terms of the following potential impacts: noise

impact on development; air quality impact – increased exposure / new receptors; air quality impact – increased emissions; contaminated land and; the construction and demolition phase of development. Accordingly, each is considered in turn below.

4.13 Considering first the noise impacts, a noise assessment has been submitted with the

application. This satisfactorily demonstrates that the recommended standard for internal noise can be met (in line with BS 8233:2014), if the recommendations from the assessment are incorporated into the design. Accordingly it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission specifying that the glazing (and ventilation) recommendations of the noise assessment will be followed.

4.14 Turning to consider air quality matters, the applicant has duly submitted an

assessment as part of the application. In terms of increased exposure, the assessment submitted satisfactorily concludes that air pollutants will not be of concern at the site. With regard to potential increased emissions, it has been demonstrated that there will be no increased emissions above those associated with the existing use of the site. As such, the proposals are considered satisfactory in this regard.

4.15 With regard to contaminated land, it is confirmed that there is no historic land use

of concern, so no assessment is considered necessary in this instance. Finally, in terms of the construction and demolition phases, possible concerns are raised regarding potential noise, dust and bonfires associated with the construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses). For example, fires during construction and demolition can impact on air quality and cause harm to residential amenity. Similarly, the burning of waste on site could be considered to be harmful to the aims of environmental sustainability. As such, as part of the CMS condition recommended by Transport DC (see section 4 i) above), a specific element will secure details of noise/dust control measures during demolition and construction. In addition, the standard working hours during construction condition will be included (0800-1800 Mondays to Fridays and 0900-1300 on Saturdays only), as will an informative restricting the burning of waste at the site.

120

4.16 Therefore, in overall terms from an EP perspective, the proposals are satisfactory

subject to the conditions recommended above. iv) RBC Housing Strategy 4.17 The affordable housing proposed (see table below) on this scheme is a result of

early consultation and feedback to the applicant at pre-application stage to provide affordable housing that meets the needs of the housing register.

4.18 Taking into account the Housing Officer’s comments at pre-application stage, the

schedule of affordable accommodation proposes the following mix:

Dwelling Types Number of apartments 1 bedroom flat 4 2 bedroom flat 12 3 bedroom flat 1 Total affordable units 17

4.19 In discussions during the course of the application, the applicant has agreed for 70%

of the units to be within the affordable rented tenure, with the remaining 30% being shared ownership. In practice, this equates to 12 affordable rent and 5 shared ownership units. The affordable housing provision will be secured in full via the Section 106 Legal Agreement. On this basis, Housing Strategy strongly support the proposed scheme and look forward to supporting and working with the applicant to deliver the affordable units on this scheme with a housing association.

v) RBC Planning Natural Environment 4.20 Original observations: Kings Road is one of the principal vehicular routes in

Reading, providing the main route from Reading to the east of the town and Borough. It supports an almost continuous flow of vehicles and buses which inevitably leads to congestion daily at peak times. As such, trees along the Kings Road are very important for the local environment and amenity of this area of Reading. The trees adjacent to the highway also provide screening for residents living adjacent to the road. Kings Road is designated as an ‘Existing or potential treed corridor’ in the adopted Borough Tree Strategy and the Borough Council has a commitment to retain and enhance the tree cover along these routes.

4.21 Alexander House is also located in an area which has been identified in the Tree

Strategy as having poor tree cover (10% or less). Objective 6 of the adopted Tree Strategy expects new development to make a positive and sustainable contribution in supporting the objectives of the strategy in enhancing the town’s urban environment. Such planting should be used to enhance streets and other public realm as part of planning permissions for all new relevant developments, particularly higher density urban developments.

4.22 Alexander House currently has a broad landscaped area along the frontage of Kings

Road, comprising some low-level shrubs and two small trees. Initial concerns were raised with the originally proposed frontage, including a much reduced potential for planting along Kings Road (owing to the increase in depth of the basement, provision of upper ground floor terraces and the cycle store). As such, it was questioned whether the landscaping enhances or improves the quality of the street frontage. This was not just in terms of the reduced space, but also the quality of the provision, with small growing ornamentals selected to be planted along the

121

Kings Road frontage. In short, the species stated would be visually lost against the building frontage, providing no notable long term amenity value or environmental benefit to the area. As such, the applicant was advised of the shortcomings of the originally proposed landscaping at the site.

4.23 Revised observations: The now inclusion of two ultimately large trees (one Plane

and one Liquidambar) on the King’s Road frontage is positive. More specifically, although the Liquidambar will be on the corner junction, given the curved nature of the wall and that traffic only comes from the west, visibility is not anticipated to be an issue. However, it is noted that there is a large road sign on the frontage at that point which has the potential to be obscured in the future by tree branches. Trees should therefore be set back as far as possible. The same applies to the proposed Plane and adjacent road sign in that vicinity. Accordingly, further details will be secured via condition, in conjunction with discussions with highways colleagues.

4.24 It is noted from the revised Principles Statement that the depth of the soil where

the trees are proposed is 5m, which is sufficient. At the approval of details stage it will be necessary for future tree pits details to confirm the total soil volume available. It will also be required for section drawings to be provided so that the ‘planters’ and levels for the landscape area can be fully appreciated. Furthermore, in order to improve rooting areas for the larger trees along the front of the property, it is recommended that engineered soil cells should be incorporated under the access path and lift steps areas, which will allow roots to extend completely across the front of the site without damaging the hard landscaped access areas. Information will need to be provided on the planters over the parking areas particularly with regards to irrigation and drainage to ensure seasonal drought resistance (and improved resilience to pests).

4.25 With regard to the proposed use of Prunus subhirtella ‘Autumnalis Rosea’, the

reason for its choice is understood (to provide winter interest, which in principle seems like a good choice). However, having planted and viewed a number of these trees, officers consider that they are highly susceptible to a bacterium known as Pseudomonas syringae, the causal agent of bacterial cherry canker which result in ‘shotholes’ in the leaves and cankers on the branches/limbs/trunk, resulting in an overall poor appearance. Accordingly, at the condition stage it will be anticipated that an alternative would be prudent.

4.26 It is considered in overall terms that the landscaping is, although not ideal, the

maximum achievable within the proposed scheme and therefore Natural Environment officers are content with the proposals, subject to the following conditions:

- Pre-commencement submission and approval of hard and soft landscaping,

including services and tree pit specifications - Pre-occupation submission and approval of a schedule of landscape aftercare and

maintenance covering a minimum of 5 years. Maintenance to be carried out as per the approved document.

- Implementation of approved soft landscaping in the planting season following or at the time of completion, whichever is soonest.

- Replacement planting for anything that dies within 5 years of planting. vi) RBC Ecology

122

4.27 The Council’s Ecologist has considered the Ecological Appraisal and subsequent Phase 2 Bat Survey submitted with the application. It is confirmed that the information submitted is sufficient and satisfactory from an Ecology perspective. This is subject to full details of the hard and soft landscaping, together with these details subsequently being implemented and maintained (consistent with the Natural Environment observations above). Furthermore, in this instance, it is considered necessary to specifically seek details of the biodiversity enhancements (including bird and bat boxes, tiles or bricks on and around the new building) via condition too. This is to ensure that biodiversity enhancements are provided, in line with policy CS36 and relevant sections of the NPPF.

vii) RBC Leisure and Recreation 4.28 Officers accept that despite the requirements of Core Strategy Policy CS29, and the

applicant’s understanding of these, it is not possible to provide open space within the development given the constraints of the application site. Policy CS29 states that “All new development should make provision for the open space needs of the development through appropriate on or off-site provision, or through contributions towards the provision or improvement of leisure or recreational facilities, including open space. New provision will be sought on residential sites of 50 or more units, or for developments where the availability and quality of existing provision has been identified as deficient in the provision for open space.”

4.29 Accepting that new provision is required in this instance as there is in excess of 50

residential units (as CS29 stipulates), it is recognised that the proposal does not provide sufficient amenity space for a development of this size (whilst also acknowledging that individual external balconies are provided). People living in urban areas need access to open spaces, to parks, to sports pitches, places to relax in and places to play. In the current era of high density developments the need for proper open space provision, and safe and easy access to such spaces, is even more imperative. With a growing population resulting from new residential developments across Reading, there is continued pressure on our existing leisure facilities.

4.30 In this instance, it is considered that the contribution will be captured through CIL,

rather than through a S106 contribution as it would have in the pre-CIL era. viii) RBC Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) (Via RBC Transport, in

conjunction with RBC Streetcare Services Manager – Highways) 4.31 The SuDS proposals by Price and Myers have been considered and considered

appropriate. The existing site is 90% hardstanding and 10% landscaped. The applicant has demonstrated that there will be no increase in flood risk from surface water on-site or elsewhere. It has also been demonstrated that the density of development makes it unfeasible to discharge all the surface water on site to the ground, while there is insufficient space for a soakaway. Accordingly, below ground attenuation storage is proposed in the north-east corner of the site to reduce peak surface water run off rates. The applicant has also submitted a SuDS maintenance programme, which is also considered to be appropriate. Accordingly, the proposals are acceptable in this regard subject to a condition seeking to ensure that the SuDS measures specified are completed prior to first occupation and maintained as such thereafter.

ix) Berkshire Archaeology

123

4.32 A Heritage Desk-Based Assessment which considers the effects of the proposal on the buried archaeological remains has been submitted. Immediately to the east of the site the Historic Environment Records record a number of burials discovered during the late 19th century and originally thought to be Roman and Saxon in date. In addition, fragmentary remains of a building were also recorded.

4.33 Recent research suggests that these burials are actually Medieval in date and may

be associated with a leper hospital nearby. Archaeological investigations carried out at 209 to 223 Kings Road in 2004 recorded the presence of disarticulated human remains, presumably associated with the burials found in the 19th century, and a number of ditches and pits. Finds recovered from the features date to the Iron Age, Roman and Medieval periods indicating activity within this area for all three periods. The presence of medieval glazed and ridge tiles recovered during these excavations supports the view that the building found in the 19th century was also likely to have been Medieval in date.

4.34 In summary the assessment concludes that based on the available evidence the site

is located within an area which has proven potential for archaeological remains dating from the Prehistoric, Roman and Medieval periods, in particular features (including burials) associated with a Medieval leper hospital about which little is known.

4.35 However the report also states that the construction of Alexander House, which

includes a basement car park, will have removed most archaeological remains. Nevertheless, there is the potential for isolated pockets of archaeological remains to survive and these are likely to be of local interest. It is suggested that archaeological investigations could be carried out under a condition attached to any permission granted.

4.36 Berkshire Archaeology is in agreement with the conclusions of the Desk-Based

Assessment and recommends that a scheme of archaeological work is undertaken. This is in order to identify the areas where potential for archaeological remains survive and to ensure that these are adequately investigated and recorded. Therefore a written scheme of archaeological investigation condition is recommended to be attached to any planning permission granted, to mitigate the impact of the development.

x) Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) at Thames Valley Police 4.37 Original observations: In overall terms there are no objections to the development

in principle. In particular, it is welcomed that the internal design that does not link residential cores (promoting excessive permeability). However, it was considered that there were further opportunities to design out crime and/or the fear of crime and to promote community safety. This was in terms of measures to assist the physical security of dwellings, through robust access control (at the main entrances, between floors, at individual front doors, to the car park and from the car park to the residential access), postal delivery, cycle parking and car park ventilation details. Submission of more details in these regards would assist in the proposals according with parts 7 and 8 of the NPPF and related NPPG. The applicant submitted further details during the course of the application, responding to matters raised by the CPDA.

4.38 Revised observations: The applicant has clarified postal delivery arrangements

(through the wall letterboxes on the Kings Road and Rupert Street elevations, with collection by occupiers from within the building), which are considered

124

appropriate. In terms of the physical security of dwellings, the CPDA is pleased to learn that the development will be designed to incorporate measures to provide robust access control (as confirmed by the applicant), with full details recommended to be secured via planning condition. In relation to cycle storage, the CPDA recommends that the store is secured by either a key operated lock or electronic release on a single leaf door. Planning officers consider this can be secured as part of the cycle parking details recommended in section 4i) by Transport. Finally, in terms of car park ventilation the CPDA recommends that the metal railings adjacent to the ventilation areas be increased from 1.2m high to 1.5m, to prevent access (or increased landscaping). It is considered that these details are covered by the hard and soft landscaping details recommended by the Natural Environment and Ecology officers at sections 4v) and 4vi) above.

xi) Reading UK CIC 4.39 The applicant is required under the Council’s Employment Skills and Training SPD to

submit details of a local Employment and Skills Plan, or financial contribution for employment and training projects in the borough. In this instance the applicant has specified a preference to make a financial contribution, which equates to £13,401 (SPD formula of £2,500 x 5360sqm / 1000) for the construction phase of the development. This will be secured via s106 legal agreement and need to be agreed with Reading UK CIC, who deliver ESPs on behalf of the Borough Council. Given the nature of the proposals UK CIC do not consider there is any scope for an end use requirement.

xii) Thames Water 4.40 Advise that the applicant will be required to separately submit a Pre-development

enquiry to Thames Water. The Thames Water sewer records do not indicate any shared drainage within the site however there may be newly transferred sewers that we do not yet have mapped and are not aware of. If the site owner does encounter shared drainage then the sewers may need to be diverted as we do not allow new builds over public sewers. The site owner will need to submit their Pre-development application and discuss any potential diversions with the engineer dealing with their application.

vi) Public consultation 4.41 Notification letters were sent to nearby occupiers, including occupiers of Saxon

Court (Norwood Road), Crossway Point, Sovereign Court and The Pinnacle (all Kings Road) and Kingdom Hall (Kingsgate Street), on 07/12/16. Site notices were erected on Kings Road and Rupert Street on 09/12/16. A press notice was published on 15/12/16. A total of 4 objections have been received, from 3 separate occupiers of The Pinnacle. A summary of the issues raised are:

- Proposed height should be a maximum of five floors - Too many windows on the Rupert Street elevation, resulting in a lack of privacy for

those living opposite in The Pinnacle. - The Kings Road/London Road one way system is already under pressure with the

increase of residential properties. It is difficult to access the main roads from side streets such as Rupert Street. If Alexander House becomes residential then the pedestrianised sections of Orts Road and Kingsgate Street are reopened, as two way roads, so that there is an alternative route onto main roads such as Kings Road, London Road and Queens Road and improving access to St John’s Primary School

- Overlooking to the penthouse floor of The Pinnacle, causing a loss of privacy.

125

- Loss of sun and light, impacting on the plants grown at the penthouse level of The Pinnacle

- Given the existing parking is hardly used, the proposals will lead to more cars, more traffic, more noise and more pollution, which is bad enough as it is.

- Devaluation of The Pinnacle residential units (Officer note: Not a material planning consideration)

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

5.3 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that


5.4 The application has been assessed against the following policies: 5.5 National

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Policy Guidance (2014 onwards)

5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008)

(Altered 2015)

CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS14 Provision of housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS29 Provision of Open Space CS30 Access to Open Space CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding

126

CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.7 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM5 Housing Mix DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM16 Provision of Open Space DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.8 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

Affordable Housing SPD (2013) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)

5.9 Other relevant documentation Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (Historic England, 2015a) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2015b) Reading Tree Strategy (2010) DCLG Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015) BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A guide to good practice, 2nd edition (2011)

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

i) Principle of development and land use considerations, including provision of affordable housing

ii) Demolition, scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets iii) Quality of accommodation for future occupiers iv) Amenity for nearby occupiers v) Transport vi) Trees, landscaping and ecology vii) Sustainability, energy and SuDS viii) Other matters – Archaeology, S106, CIL & Equality

i) Principle of development and land use considerations, including provision of

affordable housing 6.1 The starting point in the assessment of these proposals is establishing whether the

loss of existing office use at the building is justified. With this in mind, the

127

applicant has submitted commentary responding to each component of Policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses), including a Reading Office Market Report by local surveyors Campbell Gordon. The information submitted provides what is considered to be robust justification for the loss of the existing use at the site. In addition, officers are also mindful that the more recent (in comparison with the Core Strategy) NPPF specifies at paragraph 51 that local planning authorities should normally approve planning applications for change to residential use from commercial buildings where there is a identified need for additional housing and there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate. With all of the above in mind, the loss of the existing use is considered to be justified.

6.2 With regard to the principle of providing a residential use at the site, this is

considered to satisfactorily align with the broad objectives of Policy CS14. The residential units created shall assist in the delivery of houses in the borough to help meet annual targets over the plan period.

6.3 Turning to consider the density, policy CS15 specifies indicative density ranges

which were based on the now defunct draft PPS3 (superseded by the NPPF). For an urban location such as this, there is a dwellings per hectare density range of 40-75. In this instance 56 units are proposed on a site specified by the applicant on the application form as being 0.163ha. On this basis the density of development equates to 343 dwellings per hectare, far exceeding the indicative density range. However, the policy also specifies that density will be informed by (amongst other factors) the area characteristics and accessibility. As such, given the existing context of the neighbouring The Pinnacle and Crossway Point residential blocks, in addition to the highly accessible location of the site, the density of development is therefore considered appropriate in this instance. Furthermore, the proposal aligns with more recent NPPF principle of encouraging the use of brownfield land.

6.4 In terms of the mix of units proposed, Policy DM5 states that outside the central

area and defined district and local centres (as is the case in this instance – see paragraph 1.2 above for details), over 50% of dwellings will be 3-bed or more, and that 50% or more will be houses rather than flats. Considering the latter houses/flats matter first, given the existing context of the existing neighbouring residential blocks of flats (The Pinnacle and Crossway Point), it is considered in this specific instance that an exception to this part of the policy can be justified.

6.5 As a result of officers considering that a flatted development is more appropriate

in this specific location, as a consequence it is accepted that the applicant would have difficulties complying with the 50% 3-bed or more requirement. Furthermore, in pre-application discussions regarding the affordable housing component, RBC Housing Strategy specifically advised the applicant to minimise 3-bed units and maximise 2-bed units to meet existing housing needs. Accordingly, only a single 3-bed unit is proposed in the affordable element. In overall terms 8 of the 56 units will be 3-bed, equating to 14.3%. Naturally, this falls significantly below the 50% policy requirement. However, officers consider that owing to the aforementioned context, the accessibility of the site and a market report by Haslams submitted by the applicant (which broadly suggests demand for 3-bed apartments in Reading is limited) mean that the lower provision of 3-bed units is justified in this specific instance.

6.6 In addition, it is also recognised that the percentage of 1-bed units is slightly

higher than anticipated (at 53.1%), but nevertheless within the context of policy DM5 (also noting that the Reading Central Area Action Plan Policy RC9 cannot be

128

applied in this instance as the site is outside of this area) a mix of one, two and three bed units are provided, aligning with the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities stated in the NPPF. Accordingly, on balance, the proposed mix of units is considered to be adequate.

6.7 In relation to affordable housing, the proposal seeks to provide 17 on-site

affordable units, equating to a 30.6% provision in total. These units will be separately accessed from Rupert Street and comprises 4x1, 12x2 and 1x3-bed units, with the applicant willing for the tenure split to be 70% rented and 30% shared ownership. This is in full compliance with Policy CS6, SPD and up to date housing need, is strongly welcomed by officers and is considered to be a key tangible planning benefit of the proposed development. As per the comments from Housing Strategy above at section 4iv), this proposal is also particularly welcomed in providing the 70/30 tenure split, which is reflective of current needs in the borough. In addition, it is noted that this element of the proposals has benefitted from early engagement during pre-application discussions with officers. As with all applications providing on-site affordable housing, this will be secured in full in the usual manner via Section 106 Legal Agreement.

ii) Demolition, scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets

6.8 Firstly considering the demolition of the existing building, this is not historic and

in-fact is a modern build from the early 1990s. In short, the existing building is not considered to be of any particular special architectural merit to warrant its retention in its own right. Accordingly, its demolition is considered to be appropriate subject to the proposed replacement building being suitable in design and related terms.

6.9 In terms of the proposed building, the footprint closely follows that of the existing

building, with the ‘L’ shaped perimeter block aligning with the junction of Kings Road and Rupert Street. In terms of the Kings Road frontage, it is considered important for the front building line to be respected, especially considering the road is a designated tree corridor in the adopted Tree Strategy. Accordingly, although part of the frontage is slightly forward of the existing, it is nevertheless considered to generally align with the front building line of the immediately neighbouring buildings and in itself is considered appropriate. Elsewhere the footprint of the building follows that of the existing building, with small divergences (both within and outside the current footprint) at various points. Given the context of the footprint of the existing building, the proposed footprint is also considered appropriate.

6.10 Turning to consider the scale of development proposed, on the Kings Road

frontage the height of the building is comparable with the neighbouring The Pinnacle and Crossway Point buildings. Like the proposed building, the immediately adjacent buildings rise to seven-storeys at the highest points. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed scale responds satisfactorily to the local context. More specifically, the above basement element of the proposed scheme is set at five-storeys on the boundary with Crossway Point, to respond to the three-storey, set back four-storey boundary of this building. As such, the scale at this point gradually increases away from the boundary. The proposed upper most floor is also set back slightly from the lower floors, in order to differentiate and reduce the overall mass.

6.11 A similar stepped approach is proposed on the Rupert Street elevation, with the

proposed height staggered away from the existing neighbouring Saxon Court

129

building from four-storeys (one more than the three-storey Saxon Court) up to seven-storeys towards the junction with Kings Road. It is considered the proposed scale does not over dominate Saxon Court or other nearby buildings on Norwood Road, with the gradual increase in height of the proposed building away from those existing assisting in this regard. In overall terms the scale of the proposed building is considered appropriate in itself and within the context of the prevailing scale of buildings in the local immediate area.

6.12 In terms of the detailed design, appearance and choice of materials, the applicant

has intentionally applied elements from nearby buildings to help inform the proposed design approach at the application site. The primary material proposed is brickwork, with a combination of red/brown and buff brick seeking to mirror Crossway Point, The Pinnacle and Saxon Court. This is interlinked with elements of render, upper level aluminium cladding and glazed balconies. The finished appearance evidently takes cues from the existing neighbouring buildings and, in itself, is considered appropriate in design terms. On the Kings Road / Rupert Street junction a corner feature is created with the inclusion of recessed balconies at this point, which is considered to result in a degree of visual interest and richness to the overall design approach. It is also relevant to note that the building is designed to be ‘tenure blind’, in that there is no differentiation in the design approach or finished external appearance of the market and affordable housing proposed. This approach is welcomed by officers.

6.13 In terms of the effect of the proposals on the nearby heritage assets specified at

paragraph 1.2 of this report, it is considered that the proposals would result in no harm to the setting of any nearby listed building, nor the listed park and garden. In this regard officers concur with the evidence and conclusions stated at section 4 of the Heritage Desk-Based Assessment submitted as part of the application.

6.14 In overall terms it is therefore considered that the overall design approach is

suitable and appropriate, both in itself and also within the context of the wider area. It is nevertheless still considered appropriate and necessary to secure full details of all facing materials via a pre-commencement (except demolition) condition. This is owing to finished visual appearance of the development being considered to be of key importance. When considered within the context of the existing building, the proposal is considered to represent a visual improvement to the site and wider area. To help safeguard this improvement being maintained in the future, a further condition will prohibit the fixing/installation of miscellaneous items (such as lights, meter boxes, flues, vents or pipes, telecommunications equipment, alarm boxes, television aerials or satellite dishes) unless permission is granted by the local planning authority. This is as the gradual inclusion of such items, without careful management, can undermine the design quality of a scheme in time.

iii) Quality of accommodation for future occupiers

6.15 The internal layout of the units has been carefully considered in an attempt to

optimise the quality of accommodation provided for future occupiers. A high proportion of dual aspect units are proposed, with no single aspect north-facing units proposed in the development. The size of the overall flats and primary bedrooms all comply with the national guidance produced by DCLG in 2015. The rooms themselves are all regularly shaped, include sufficient floor to ceiling heights and have been stacked between floors as appropriately as is possible. In addition, the Crime Prevention Design Advisor is largely satisfied with the proposals subject to a condition (as per section 4 x) above), with conditions also

130

considered to be necessary in relation to cycle storage / waste management (see section 4 i) and 4 ii) above) and noise (see section 4 iii) above).

6.16 In terms of open space, each unit includes its own private terrace, either in the

form of a recessed or projecting balcony. This provision is welcomed in itself. As per Policy CS29 (Provision of Open Space), given this proposal seeks to create more than 50 residential units, new provision of open space should be sought on site. However, acknowledging the relatively small size of the site, the existing on-site and surrounding context (The Pinnacle and Crossway Point in particular), it is not considered feasible in this specific instance for open space to be provided on site. Instead, as per the Leisure and Recreation comments at section 4 vii) above, it is considered that the open space contribution will be captured through CIL in this particular case.

6.17 Furthermore, a number of other flat roof areas are also proposed at the site. More

specifically these are the green roof areas on the Rupert Street elevation, the main roof fronting Kings Road containing an array of photovoltaics and the lower roof area adjacent to Crossway Point on the Kings Road frontage. These spaces, individually and cumulatively, cover a substantial space. It is considered necessary to include a condition specifying that these flat roof areas shall not be used as roof terraces. This is for the protection of both future occupiers and existing/future nearby occupiers from potentially harmful noise and disturbance and overlooking.

6.18 Turning to consider overlooking between different flats proposed at the site, this

is possible owing to the ‘L’ shaped nature of the proposed building. However, the applicant has taken steps to minimise the most harmful overlooking by making the inner corner part of the building one dual aspect unit (to ensure overlooking at close quarters is not proposed). In addition, the use of a combination of recessed and projecting balconies also assists to reduce direct overlooking opportunities. However, there will still be some areas where overlooking between units would occur. As such, a condition will secure a privacy screen strategy (including details of the design and appearance of such screens – in order to ensure they do not undermine the overall design approach), to secure details of where screens will be required to satisfactorily minimise harmful instances of overlooking between units. In terms of overlooking from the proposed units towards existing residential units in the area, please refer to the amenity for nearby occupiers section below.

6.19 The applicant has submitted an internal daylight assessment which assesses the

amount of daylight future units will achieve. This has been considered using appropriate BRE methodology, with just two rooms falling below the average daylight factor guidance figures. In both instances, this is partly attributed to the rooms being connected to recessed balconies. In overall terms though, the vast majority of rooms are seen to comply with the daylight guidance test, meaning when the proposals are considered as a whole, the small shortfalls specified are not considered significant enough to compromise the overall standard of accommodation proposed.

6.20 Finally, the applicant has also submitted a superfast broadband statement and

utilities strategy, which are both considered to be suitable in providing the essential services required in any new build scheme. Accordingly, taking into account all of the above, subject to a number of conditions the quality of accommodation for all future occupiers is considered suitable and appropriate.

iv) Amenity for nearby occupiers

131

6.21 The provision of any taller replacement building, within the context of existing neighbouring and nearby residential buildings, has the potential to cause a loss of amenity to existing occupiers. As such, this element of the proposals has been carefully considered.

6.22 Considering first the impact on Crossway Point to the east, the west side elevation

of this existing building is a blank façade, meaning there are no adverse amenity impacts at this point. Furthermore, the footprint of the proposed building is such that at the nearest point to Crossway Point, the proposal will not extend beyond the front or rear building lines of the neighbouring building. This downplays and possible privacy / overlooking / visual dominance concerns. It is however acknowledged that the rear (east) elevation of the proposed accommodation fronting onto Rupert Street includes units which will look across at Crossway Point. The distance to the boundary is 13.3m, beyond which is a shared amenity space and the north-facing rear elevation of Crossway Point. In light of this context, in particular the oblique angle at which overlooking between habitable rooms would occur, the loss of amenity to existing Crossway Point occupiers would not be significant. In terms of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing, the assessment undertaken by the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that there would be no significant harmful impact on Crossway Point as a result of the development.

6.23 With regard to the impact on The Pinnacle, to the west of the application site, it

is noted that section 4 vi) above specifies that privacy and day/sunlight concerns have been raised during the public consultation period. In terms of overlooking/privacy issues, there would be a minimum 17.2m distance between the buildings at the King’s Road / Rupert Street junction, rising to 18.2m as the proposed building is set in further to the north along Rupert Street. Although this is acknowledged to be below the 20m back to back distance specified by Policy DM4, given the existing context and the separation of the Rupert Street highway, this is considered to be an individual instance where residential units can be provided without a significant detrimental effect on privacy. This is similarly considered to be the case in terms of visual dominance/overbearing impacts. Although the height of the building will increase compared with existing, the proposed height is comparable with The Pinnacle. Therefore, although levels of outlook will be reduced by the proposed scale, this is not of a level which warrants a sustainable reason for refusal of the application on this sole basis, when considering all other material considerations.

6.24 Turning to consider the impact on daylight/sunlight of The Pinnacle occupiers, in

the vast majority of instances the BRE criteria guidance is shown to be fully met. There are however a number of rooms within The Pinnacle which will experience a loss of daylight/sunlight as a result of the proposed development. These are located on the east side elevation facing the application site, with a number serving rooms with recessed balconies, which inherently reduce day/sunlight levels. It is considered that the rooms impacted are small in number within the context of the study as a whole. Furthermore, the BRE information is guidance which should be applied flexibly and is not a strict test. With this in mind, together with the other tangible planning benefits of the scheme (as discussed elsewhere), it is considered that some flexibility can be afforded in this particular instance (as prescribed in the BRE guidelines) and therefore these impacts are not sufficient enough to warrant the refusal of the application on this basis.

6.25 With regard to the nearby buildings to the north and south of the site, no

significantly harmful amenity impacts are envisaged at these points. In terms of Saxon Court to the north, the south elevation (on the northern boundary of the

132

application site) is the side elevation of this building and does not serve habitable rooms. Consequently, the overbearing / overlooking impacts of the proposed building would not be significantly harmful. 25-45 Norwood Road, to the north-east of the site, is over 20m from the site, downplaying the possible overbearing / overlooking impacts. The daylight and sunlight tests are also comfortably satisfied in relation to these properties, as specified within the submitted assessment. To the south, the width of Kings Road downplays any potentially harmful amenity impacts.

6.26 In respect of other amenity impacts which could impact on any of the nearby

occupiers specified above, such as noise and disturbance, lighting, dust/fumes/smells and crime and safety, the transport (section 4 i), environmental protection (section 4 iii), crime prevention design advisor (section 4 x) and quality of accommodation (section 6 iii) parts of this report already confirms these elements are satisfactory, subject to conditions. Accordingly, in overall terms, the proposals are considered to sufficiently safeguard amenity in accordance with Policy DM4.

v) Transport

6.27 In line with section 4i) of this report, the proposals are considered to be

satisfactory from a transport perspective, subject to a number of conditions. In particular, it is noted that proposed residential development will not increase traffic in the vicinity of the site, as the existing office use potentially generates significantly more peak hour vehicular trips than the proposed residential use. This is considered to satisfactorily downplay the public consultation traffic concerns, including the wider point of requesting the reopening of pedestrianised sections of nearby roads.

vi) Trees, landscaping and ecology

6.28 As per section 4v) above, initial concerns were raised with the amount and quality

of replacement soft landscaping proposed, specifically along the Kings Road frontage. Following revisions during the course of the application, the Natural Environment officer is now content that the landscaping is the maximum achievable within the proposed scheme. Accordingly, the proposals are considered appropriate from this perspective subject to various details being secured via condition.

6.29 In line with section 4vi), the Council’s Ecologist is satisfied with the information

submitted in this regard, subject to a condition for biodiversity enhancement measures to be submitted and approved.

vii) Sustainability, energy and SuDS

6.30 Although a formal code for sustainable homes pre-assessment is no longer required

(as a result of this being withdrawn by the Government on 27/03/2015) a sustainability statement is nevertheless required. This has been duly submitted within the Design & Access Statement and follows the guidance within the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD, specifying energy, water and material measures amongst others. The level and nature of information submitted is fairly general, but follows the established and expected principles for developments of this nature, in line with Policies CS1 and DM1. It is however considered necessary, as is required for all new build dwellings associated with major developments (such as this), for a condition to be included to secure further details. More

133

specifically, this will seek the pre-occupation submission of written evidence demonstrating that 50% of new build dwellings achieve a minimum 19% improvement in the dwelling emission rate over the target emission rate, as defined under Part L of Building Regulations (2013). With this condition secured it is considered that the proposals comply with the sustainability elements of policies CS1 and DM1.

6.31 The applicant has also submitted an Energy Strategy, which again follows the SPD

guidance, with a variety of energy demand reducing and energy efficiencies referenced. Sections of the submitted document discuss the Part L Building Regulations referenced above. Accordingly, due to the level and nature of information submitted at application stage the sustainability condition referenced above is a pre-occupation condition rather than pre-commencement of condition. The energy strategy, with reference to policy DM2, also considers all renewable energy options, with an array of roof-level photovoltaics proposed as part of the development (as shown on the proposed plans), while the other technologies have justifiably been discounted. Furthermore, the linkage of the site to an existing decentralised energy provision has also been explored, but the lack of nearby operational heat networks prevents this. It is considered in overall terms that the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposals accord with the principles of policies CS1, DM1 and DM2. In order to ensure that the measures stipulated within the Energy Strategy are implemented, a condition will be included specifying this.

6.32 In terms of SuDS, as per section 4iii above, the proposals (incorporating below

ground attenuation) are considered to be acceptable subject to a condition stipulating these features to be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained accordingly thereafter.

viii) Other matters – Archaeology, S106, CIL & Equality

6.33 Archaeology – As per the consultation response from Berkshire Archaeology (see

section 4 ix) above), a pre-commencement condition requiring a written scheme of archaeological investigation is necessary in this instance.

6.34 Section 106 Legal Agreement – In addition to the matters already discussed above in

terms of affordable housing requirements, this major development is also required to contribute to employment, skills and training in the borough. In this instance the applicant has requested this to be in the form of a financial contribution, equating to £13,401 (as detailed at section 4xi above).

6.35 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the

National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.36 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - The applicant duly completed a CIL liability

form as part of the submission of this application. It was seen from the officer site visit in December 2016 that part of the building was still in active use, and therefore it is likely that at the time of any future permission the existing floorspace will be able to be deducted from the CIL liability (providing the building was occupied for 6 of the previous 36 months at the time of the permission). On this basis, the CIL liability is estimated (using the 2017 indexation) as being £446,725.30 (uplift in floorspace of 3319.2sqm).

134

6.37 It is also acknowledged that the CIL liability is likely to decrease in practice, should

the applicant subsequently apply for social housing relief for the affordable housing element of the proposals. The applicant will be required to complete a CIL Form 2 prior to commencement to seek this. Accordingly, if planning permission is granted the local planning authority will in the first instance serve a CIL liability notice in order to progress this matter. Accordingly, the standard CIL informative is recommended to be included on any planning permission decision notice.

6.38 Equality - In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to

its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular application.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposals are considered to be acceptable within the context of national and

local planning policies, as detailed in the appraisal above. More specifically, although there are some shortfalls in the proposals, such as mix of units (in particular the lower than required percentage of 3-bed units), the provision of on-site affordable housing is considered to be a particular tangible benefit of the scheme. This means that when applying an overall critical planning balance of all material considerations, the benefits are considered to outweigh the conflicts. As such, full planning permission is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions and completion of the S106 Legal Agreement.

Drawings: Existing Location Plan SK – 711 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Existing Site Plan SK - 720 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Topo Survey of Alexander House in Reading 1 of 2 & 2 of 2 - DB1541-TOPO-Rev A, as received 07/12/16 Topo Survey of Alexander House in Reading Underground Car Park DB1541-TOPO-Rev A, as received 07/12/16 Existing Kings Road Elevation SK – 721, as received 31/10/16 Existing Rupert Street Elevation SK - 722, as received 31/10/16 Existing Rear North Elevation SK - 723, as received 31/10/16 Existing East Elevation SK – 724, as received 31/10/16 Existing Car Park Level SK – 726, as received 07/12/16 Existing Ground Floor Level SK – 727, as received 07/12/16 Existing First Floor Level SK – 728, as received 07/12/16 Existing Roof Plan SK – 729, as received 07/12/16 Existing Section A-A SK- 715, as received 07/12/16 Proposed Site Plan SK – 740 Rev B, as received 31/10/16 Car Park Level SK - 749 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Upper Ground Floor Plan SK – 750 Rev D, as received 10/02/17 First Floor Plan SK - 751 Rev B, as received 10/02/17 Second Floor Plan SK - 752 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Third Floor Plan SK - 753 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Fourth Floor Plan SK - 754 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Fifth Floor Plan SK - 755 Rev A, as received 31/10/16

135

Sixth Floor Plan SK - 756 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Roof Plan SK - 757 Rev B, as received 07/12/16 Proposed Street Elevations SK - 765 Rev D, as received 10/02/17 Proposed Street Elevations with Existing Building in Outline SK – 766 Rev A, as received 10/02/17 Proposed South Kings Road Elevation SK - 770 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Proposed West Rupert Street Elevation SK - 771 Rev D, as received 10/02/17 Proposed Rear North Elevation SK - 772 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Proposed East Elevation SK - 773 Rev D, as received 10/02/17 Kings Road Detail Elevation Extract SK - 780 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Rupert Street Detail Elevation Extract SK – 781 Rev A, as received 10/02/17 Rear North Elevation Detail Extract SK – 782 Rev A, as received 10/02/17 East Elevation Detail Extract SK – 783 Rev A, as received 10/02/17 Proposed Section A-A SK - 790 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Proposed Section B-B SK - 791 Rev B, as received 10/02/17 Proposed Section C-C SK - 792 Rev B, as received 10/02/17 Landscaping Principles Layout – King’s Road Frontage PP - 525 Rev C, as received 10/02/17 Landscaping Principles Layout – Rupert Street frontage PP - 526 A, as received 31/10/16 Proposed Basement Drainage Layout 23635-600 Version 1, as received 31/10/16 Other documents submitted with the application: Affordable Housing Statement by Savills (UK) Ltd, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Superfast Broadband Strategy Statement by PBA Ref 33001-2502 V1.0, dated September 2016, as received 31/10/16 SUDS Drainage Strategy by Price and Myers Ref 23635 Rev 2, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Reading Office Market Report by Campbell and Gordon, dated 19/09/2016, as received 31/10/16 Heritage Desk-Based Assessment by Orion Ref QU-0204, dated August 2016, as received 31/10/16 Daylight/Sunlight Assessment by Hawkins Environmental Ref H2067 V11, dated 20/05/2016, as received 31/10/16 Utilities Assessment by Price and Myers Ref 23635 Rev 2, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Noise Assessment by Cass Allen Associates Ltd Ref RP01-16242 Rev 01, dated 21/10/2016, as received 31/10/16 Landscaping Principles Statement by DarntonB3 Architects Ref 9844-SK-520 Rev B, dated February 2017, as received 10/02/17 Ecological Appraisal and Building Inspection Report by Ecological Planning & Research Ltd Ref EPR10 Issue 04 P16/35-1A dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Phase 2 Bat Survey Report by Ecological Planning & Research Ltd Ref EPR10 Issue 04 P16/35-2A dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Air Quality Assessment by Redmore Environmental Ref 1286r3, dated 26/10/2016, as received 31/10/16 Energy Statement by PBA Ref 33001-2501 Rev 2, dated 17/10/2016, as received 31/10/16 Proposed Scheme Areas SK - 730 Rev B, as received 10/02/17 Design & Access Statement Planning Application Stage by Darnton B3 Architecture Ref 9844-PP - 510 Rev A, as received 31/10/16 Design & Access Statement Pre-Application Stage by Darnton B3 Architecture Ref 9844-PP - 500 Rev b, as received 31/10/16 Transport Statement by PBA Ref 33001/5501 V1.5, dated 25/10/16, as received 31/10/16 Planning Statement by Savills, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16

136

Report on Community and Stakeholder Engagement, by Instinctif Partners dated September 2016, as received 31/10/16 Framework Travel Plan by PBA Ref 33001/5501 V1.3, dated 05/10/16, as received 31/10/16 Open Space and Communal Amenity Space Statement by Savills, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Internal Daylight Assessment by Hawkins Environmental Ref H2067 V03, dated 05/09/16, as received 31/10/16 Draft Heads of Terms for Section 106 Planning Agreement by Savills, dated October 2016, as received 31/10/16 Clarifications in response to Crime Prevention Design Adviser at Thames Valley Police by DarntonB3, dated 02/02/17, as received 03/02/17 Information submitted on a private and confidential basis: Reading Apartments Sector Report by Haslams dated August 2016, as received 31/10/16 Case Officer: Jonathan Markwell

Aerial view looking east

137

Aerial view looking south showing the rear elevation of the existing building

Proposed Upper Ground Floor Plan

138

Footprint of the existing building shown in red, overlaying the proposed footprint and the context of the neighbouring buildings

Proposed visualisation of the building and Kings Road streetscene

139

Kings Road elevation, with the existing building line shown in red

Rupert Street elevation, with the existing building line shown in red

Proposed north (rear) elevation

141

Proposed east (side) elevation and section

Existing Kings Road streetscene. Above, looking east towards Cemetry Junction (The Pinnacle in the foreground, the existing building in the mid point and Crossway Point in the background). Below, looking west towards the town centre.

142

Existing Rupert St streetscene looking south. Saxon Court (left) and The Pinnacle (right)

Existing Kings Road / Rupert St frontage showing the application site and The Pinnacle

Existing Kings Road frontage showing the application site and Crossway Point

143

View from Norwood House showing the existing rear elevations of Crossway Point, the existing application site building and Saxon Court in the foreground on the right

Existing Rupert Street elevation and vehicular entrance (Crossway Point in the background through the vehicular entrance)

144

PEPPARD

145

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 13 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th March 2017 Ward: Peppard App No.: 170035/REG3 Address: St Martins Catholic Primary School, Pendennis Avenue, Caversham, Reading Proposal: Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date validated: 11th January 2017 Other Application: 8 week target decision date: 8th March 2017. The time has been extended to the 10th March 2017. 26 week date: 12th July 2017

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT subject to acceptable landscaping proposals being submitted. Conditions to include: 1. Approved plans

Informatives to include: 1. Terms and conditions 2. Positive and proactive

1. INTRODUCTION 1.0 The application site is located as shown on the plan below. The school

building is single storey with a flat roof and there is an existing modular building on the green space. The school has a frontage onto Caversham Park Road and is situated on a compact site and adjacent to residential properties along Pendennis Avenue.

147

2. PROPOSAL 2.0 The application is for the permanent retention of an existing single storey

modular building that provides two additional classrooms. Planning permission was granted for the modular classroom on 8th December 2009 for a limited period of 10 years from the date of the permission. This permission expires on the 8th December 2019. From discussions with the applicant it is unclear why a temporary permission was originally applied for as a permanent unit was always required to accommodate the number of children at the school.

2.1 The modular classrooms are located to the north east of the school grounds

partly on existing hard surfacing and partly on a grassed area. The modular unit is formed from composite wall panels finished in a mix of white render panels and vertical European Larch cladding.

2.2 The modular unit is proposed to become a permanent inclusion to the

school’s accommodation for the life of the unit. 3. PLANNING HISTORY

09/01912/REG3 (Civica Ref: 090090) - Provision of modular double classroom united and associated services. Permitted 08/12/2009.

10/00211/APPCON (Civica Ref: 100181) - Discharge of conditions 3, 5 and 6 of planning permission 09/01912/REG3. Discharged 24/02/2010.

10/00597/APPCON (Civica Ref: 100513) - Discharge of condition 4 of planning consent 09/01912/REG3. Condition not discharged 13/12/2010. 140830/REG3 – Classroom and library extension. Permitted 14/10/2014. 141658/APPCON - Discharge of conditions 4 and 7 of planning permission 140830/REG3. Discharged 12/12/2014. 151037/APPCON - Discharge of condition 8 of planning permission 140830. Discharged 03/08/2015.

4. CONSULTATIONS

148

4.1 Statutory:

Sport England - do not wish to comment on this particular application. 4.2 Non-statutory:

Development Control Transport – raised no objection. Natural Environment Trees – raised no objection as the modular classroom is already in place. However Condition 4 of planning permission 09/01912 (Civica Ref: 090090) required details of landscaping to be submitted. Details were submitted to discharge this condition (10/00597 or 100513) but the landscaping proposal did not address the need to improve the setting of the classroom building when viewed from Caversham Park Road and the condition was not discharged. The decision on this discharge of conditions application suggested that the landscape plan should show a hedge comprised of native species to be planted along the boundary with Caversham Park Road. The applicant is hoping to provide these details prior to planning committee but no details have been submitted at the time of writing. An update will be provided.


Properties at 1-16 (all) Pendennis Avenue were consulted. No responses were received at the time of writing.



5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Paragraph 72

Reading Borough Core Strategy (January 2008): CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS24 (Car / Cycle Parking) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012): DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)

Supplementary Planning Documents Revised Parking Standards and Design (Oct 2011)

149


(i) The principle of development; (ii) Character and appearance (iii) Amenity of Surrounding Occupiers (iv) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure

Levy) (v) Other Matters

(i) The principle of development 6.2 Policy CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) of the Reading

Borough Core Strategy states that “Proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable, particularly where this will involve co-location of facilities on a single site.” The site is within an existing school site and would continue to provide additional accommodation for the school. As such it is considered that the general principle of retaining this building is in accordance with policy CS31 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy.

(ii) Character and appearance 6.3 The existing modular unit is located close to the boundary with Caversham

Park Road and is visible from Caversham Park Road and Pendennis Avenue. The unit is partially screened by existing trees and hedging. The landscaping details submitted under condition 4 of planning permission 09/01912/REG3 (Civica Ref: 090090) for the temporary building did not address the need to improve the setting of the classroom building when viewed from Caversham Park Road. It is therefore reasonable to ask for this planting now, particularly as the application is to make the unit permanent. The applicant has agreed to provide additional hedging but details of the proposed planting have not been submitted at the time of writing. An update will be provided.

6.3.1 Notwithstanding the above the modular building is single storey in nature

with a low roof height, the materials are now weathered having been in situ for approximately 8 years. The additional hedging will be a positive contribution and as such the proposal is not considered to significantly affect the character of the area.

6.3.2 Overall, the permanent retention of the modular building is acceptable and

is in accordance with relevant policy and guidance. (iii) Amenity of surrounding occupiers 6.4 The modular building is approximately 30m from the closest residential

properties along Pendennis Avenue. It is therefore considered that the retention of the modular building would not have a detrimental impact

150

upon surrounding residential properties in terms of its physical presence. The development would therefore be acceptable in terms of the amenity of surrounding neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and policy DM4 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document.

(iv) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy) 6.5 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was implemented by the Council

from April 1st 2015. Although the proposed scheme would be CIL liable development, because education facilities attract a zero CIL charge in the Borough there would be no CIL payable for this scheme.

6.5.1 No Section 106 contributions are sought.

(v) Other Matters 6.6 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its


6.6.1 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered

there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.

7. CONCLUSION The proposed retention of the temporary modular building is considered acceptable in planning terms subject to the imposition of planning conditions. Plans: Drawing No: E03056-P-100-STMA – Location Plan Drawing No: E03056-P-101-STMA – Block Plan Drawing No: E03056-P-201-STMA – Floor Plan Drawing No: E03056-P-301-STMA – Site Sections and Elevations Received by the local planning authority on 10th January 2017 Case Officer: Claire Ringwood

151

REDLANDS

155

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 14 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8 March 2017 Ward: Redlands App No.: 151407 Address: Warwick House, 1 Warwick Road Proposal: A single building comprising 10 flats on 2 floors on land adjacent to Warwick House. Applicant: Creative Support Date valid application received: 25 August 2015 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 24 November 2015 (extension agreed) RECOMMENDATION Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to GRANT subject to no objection from the Council’s Natural Environment Officer subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement requiring:

(i) That at least 50% (five of the dwelling units) hereby approved will be provided as affordable housing. (ii) an Employment, Skills and Training Plan relating to the construction and operational (End User) phases of the development, or Equivalent financial contributions of £1372.50 (Construction Phase) is provided.

If the obligation is not completed by 31 March 2017 delegate to officers to REFUSE as contrary to Policy CS16 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the agreement. CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE

1. TL01 – Full time limit (3 years). 2. NSTD – Approved Plans. 3. M2 – Materials – Details to be submitted. 4. AM1 - Obscure glazing – specified windows 5. That the premises shall be used for care and support services for individuals with

learning disabilities, mental health needs and physical disabilities only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in the same Use Class of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes Order 1987) (as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

6. No dwelling shall be occupied until the access has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing and in compliance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority for work carried out within the public highway.

7. Any part of the existing vehicular access to the site no longer required shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the new access has been brought into use. The footway(s) and verge shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

8. No building shall be occupied until all the visibility splays shown on the approved

157

drawings have been provided. All areas shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above the carriageway level.

No dwelling shall be occupied until vehicle parking space has been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The space shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. 9. The covered bicycle storage spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands before occupation of the dwellings to which they relate. 10. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 11. No development shall take place before a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise and dust emanating from the site during the demolition and construction phase. Thereafter, the use shall not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. 12. The hours of noisy construction, demolition and associated deliveries shall be restricted to the hours of 08:00hrs to 18:00hrs Mondays to Fridays, and 09:00hrs to 13:00hrs on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and Bank or Statutory Holidays without prior approval from the Local Planning Authority. 13. No materials or green waste produced as a result of the clearance of the site, demolition works or construction works associated with the development hereby approved shall be burnt on site. 14. L11 - Boundary treatment – to be submitted (including provision of wall between the site and 7 Warwick Road). 15. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. 16. Details of SUDS measures to be approved. Implementation of SUDs measures as approved & monitoring of SUDS. 17. No development until an Energy Statement is submitted demonstrating how compliance with 9.5 % reduction based on Part L for the whole development or 19 % reduction for 50 % of the development can be achieved. 18. Evidence of energy reduction compliance to be provided before occupation. INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE 1. The Council's Highways section should be contacted at 19 Bennet Road, Reading, RG2 0QX, telephone: 0118 937 2138, 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 4 weeks notice to obtain details of underground services on the applicants` behalf. 2. The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to damage caused by extraordinary traffic. 3. Any works affecting the highway shall be in accordance with Reading Borough’s Council’s document “Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway within the Borough of Reading”. The applicant should be made aware that compliance with this document is mandatory and licences to work on the highway will only be issued if the

158

requirements contained within it are met. 4. For further information about construction and demolition nuisance law the applicant is referred to: http://www.reading.gov.uk/residents/environmental-health-and-protection/construction-demolition/ 5. Standard positive and proactive informative. 6. Standard Section 106 Agreement informative. 7. Standard conditions precedent informative 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land positioned to the east of

Northumberland Avenue and the north of Warwick Road. It includes the existing flatted block at Warwick House, the semi-detached dwelling at 9 Northumberland Avenue and the former rear gardens of 3 and 5 Warwick Road.

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to erect a two-storey hipped roof building to be situated

between Warwick House and 9 Northumberland Avenue. The building will be approximately 24 metres long and up to 16 metres deep. The building will contain 10 flats that will be used for supported living. A total parking provision of 11 spaces is proposed.

2.2 Access will continue to be taken from Northumberland Avenue and the

majority of the parking will be provided in the north east corner of the site. 2.3 Warwick House and 9 Northumberland Avenue are both owned and operated

by Creative Support (formally Manchester Housing Consortium). Creative Support is an exempt charity already providing supported housing to

159

http://www.reading.gov.uk/residents/environmental-health-and-protection/construction-demolition/

http://www.reading.gov.uk/residents/environmental-health-and-protection/construction-demolition/

Reading Borough Council to young people in need of assisted accommodation.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

• 880049 (88-01359-FUL). Erection of three storey building containing 10 flats with associated car parking. Granted. 18 January 1989.

• 100255 (10-00245-FUL). Construction of 2.5 storey building containing 8 no. flats with associated landscaping, car parking and works. Application withdrawn. 30 April 2010.

• 111798 (11-01455-FUL). Construction of 2-storey building providing Student Accommodation for 16 students in four flats with associated landscape, car parking and works. Granted. 14 March 2012.


• No statutory consultations were required given the nature of the application.

4.2 Non-statutory:

• Transport Development Control – No objections • Housing – No objections – supports proposal - subject to affordable housing

being provided • Environmental Health – No objections • Ecologist – No objections • Natural Environment Officer – No objections • Waste Minimisation & Recycling Officer – No objection received


• 44 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by officers. The consultation period expired on 12 October 2015. 5 responses to the applications and a petition containing 12 names was received. In summary the comments are:

• Insufficient parking • Concerns over the use/users of the building. • A fox family live on site. • Hours of working should be restricted for the reasons of road safety. • Conditions attached to the previous permission, relating to boundary

treatment and the provision of a bay tree, should be added again. • The proposal could have an impact on the privacy of neighbours.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant

160

policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework

Part 4 – Promoting sustainable transport Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 – Requiring good design Part 8 – Promoting healthy communities Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

5.2 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy

CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) CS2 (Waste Minimisation) CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) CS16 (Affordable Housing) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

5.3 Sites and Detailed Policies Document SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development)

DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity)

DM5 (Housing Mix) DM6 (Affordable Housing) DM7 (Accommodation for Vulnerable People) DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) DM11 (Development of Private Residential Gardens) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters)

5.4 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Supplementary Planning Guidance).

• Parking Standards and Design (Supplementary Planning Document). • Affordable Housing SPD

6. APPRAISAL Main Issues 6.1 The main issues are:

i. The principle of development ii. Housing mix &Affordable housing

161

iii. Design and layout iv. Transport issues v. Amenity of future occupiers and neighbours vi. Ecology, landscaping, sustainable development & SUDS

The principle of development 6.2 Planning permission 111798 granted consent for a 2-storey building

providing accommodation for 16 students in four flats. During the assessment of this application officers stated that ‘PPS3 continues to encourage making best use of land to provide for housing demands whilst maintaining the character of the area. Therefore there is no objection to the principle of development on the site provided that there are no adverse effects on the adjoining properties, the street scene or the character of the area’. The assessment went on to conclude that the proposal did not have any adverse effect on adjoining properties, the street scene or the character of the area.

6.3 PPS3 has been now been replaced by the NPPF. The NPPF states that,

“Local planning authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area”. Policy DM11 states that development within private residential gardens, or former residential gardens, will be acceptable where the proposal makes a positive contribution to the character of the area. This is considered in detail below.

6.4 After some deliberation by Officers and the applicant the proposed use is

confirmed to fall within Class C3a residential accommodation (use as a dwellinghouse by a single person or by people to be regarded as forming a single household). Initially, given the applicant’s charity status and the use of Warwick House, it was not clear if the proposed accommodation would fall into Class C2 (Residential Institutions). The applicant has confirmed that although some support can be available to occupants this is not considered to be of a nature which constitutes institutional care. Furthermore, physically none of units include institutional features, such as shared facilities and all units are fully independent and self-contained.

6.5 However, given the above explanation, consideration against policy DM7 is

relevant in this case. The applicant already provides housing for vulnerable adults at 1 Warwick House and 9 Northumberland Avenue so the proposed development on this site would assist in the overall management of their service. The principle of the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms.

Housing mix & affordable housing 6.6 Policy DM5 states that, “On new developments for 10 or more dwellings

outside the central area and defined district and local centres, planning decisions will ensure that over 50% of dwellings will be of 3 bedrooms or more, and the majority of dwellings will be in the form of houses rather than flats, having regard to all other material considerations”.

6.7 The applicant has supplied the following explanation for why it would not

be appropriate to meet the requirements of this policy:

162

This development has been designed to provide accommodation for people with a special need; be that mental health, learning disability, autism etc. As part of the support we offer we will be helping the service users to manage their tenancies with a view that, in future, they will be able to obtain and manage a tenancy with a lower level of support from, maybe, a different landlord.

For these user groups a larger property is inappropriate as it would defeat part of the purpose of the support we provide as it would require us to let the units as shared housing which is a model that we and some other care and support organisations are withdrawing from providing as it tends to no longer meet the needs of the service users.

6.8 The intentions of the applicant noted above are considered to be a material

consideration in the assessment of this application. Officers are satisfied that the explanation provides sufficient justification for non-compliance with Policy DM5 which is outweighed by the merits of providing affordable accommodation for vulnerable people in accordance with Policy DM7.

6.9 Policy DM7 details that affordable specialist housing for vulnerable people

that meets the needs of the most up to date Housing Strategy may count towards affordable housing provision in line with policies CS16 and DM6.

6.10 The Council’s Housing Section have confirmed that the applicant currently

provides supported housing services to Reading Borough Council and that it is the intention that Reading Borough Council would be able to informally nominate clients to the new units created here should it wish to. They also confirm that the proposed development would meet an identified housing need in the Borough and that, if rents are set at or below the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates (unless a higher rate is agreed with the commissioning officer), the proposal will constitute affordable housing. Accordingly, Officers conclude that the development can be classified as a form of affordable housing.

6.11 In order to meet the requirements of Policy DM6 normally four of the

proposed units (30%) would be required to be secured as affordable housing. However, as Officers consider that meeting the housing mix target of Policy DM5 is outweighed in this case by merit of meeting an identified affordable housing need it is appropriate to have a legal agreement securing a more than policy compliant level of affordable housing of at least 50% (5 units). The applicant has confirmed that this is acceptable to them. The applicant has also confirmed that all of the units will be rented at an affordable rent and it is intended that all future tenants will be referred to them by the local authority.

Design and Layout 6.12 This section of Northumberland Avenue comprises a variety of building types

and sizes. To the north the properties comprise two storey hipped roof semi-detached houses. Warwick House itself is a 2.5 storey structure with steep gables to the front and rear and wider gables to the sides.

6.13 The plans originally submitted in 2011 proposed a forward facing gable

projecting approximately 5 metres forward of the front elevation. Officers considered this to be an unacceptably intrusive and discordant feature within the streetscene. During the course of the application amended plans

163

were submitted which set this front gable two metres further back. This was considered sufficient to overcome the initial concerns, and would form a suitable transition between Warwick House and the buildings on Northumberland Avenue.

6.14 The design and layout of the current proposal is very similar to that granted

permission by the Council in 2011. In terms of its overall design the proposed development replicates the form of Warwick House in that it has two wide gables facing Northumberland Avenue, but is lower in height and has a hipped roof, reflecting the form of the semi-detached dwellings to the north. In the context of the surrounding area the overall design is considered acceptable. The set back of the building from Northumberland Avenue together with the separation distance between the neighbouring properties to the north and south is considered sufficient to allow the building to sit comfortably within the streetscene.

Transport Issues 6.15 The parking provision on site for Warwick House is currently 1 parking space

per flat. A car parking accumulation survey undertaken as part of the previous submission ascertained that there are approximately 6 / 7 cars parked in the car park at any one time. The Transport Strategy Section have confirmed that a provision of 7 spaces is therefore required solely for Warwick House.

6.16 The site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area and the maximum parking

requirement for use by residents with support needs is 1 space per 4 residents. This equates to a provision of 2.5 spaces which the Transport

164

Strategy Section confirm can be rounded down to 2 spaces. A provision of 2 spaces should also be provided for the retained adjacent dwelling (9 Northumberland Avenue). The requirement in total for the development is 11 spaces. Following discussions with officers this number of spaces is now proposed.

6.17 The Transport Strategy Section confirm that the dimensions and layout of

the spaces are acceptable and that appropriate visibility splays have been demonstrated.

6.18 The proposed cycle storage for the flats is in the form of a lockable covered

store conveniently located and equipped with 12 Sheffield type stands, equating to 24 cycle spaces. This is in excess of the required provision and therefore deemed acceptable.

6.19 Refuse storage is located within 10m of the Public Highway, which is

acceptable for collection. Amenity of Future Occupiers and Neighbours 6.20 Section 5.6 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) of the Sites and Detailed

Policies Document states that, in the past, the Council has sought an amenity space provision of 25 square metres per 1 or 2 bedroom flat, and 40 square metres for each 3+ bed flat.

6.21 The ten existing units within Warwick House and the 10 new dwellings

would therefore be expected to have 500 square metres of amenity space. The proposal will provide approximately 400 square metres. Nonetheless, the amenity space proposed will be of a reasonable size and will include planting a number of trees. Subject to conditions securing a good quality landscaping scheme the quantity and quality of amenity space is considered to be acceptable.

6.22 The delegated report for 111798 states, “It is recognised that the properties

at 3 and 5 Warwick Road have sold off most of their back gardens and that these areas have been fenced off and now form part of the application site. This has reduced the area of private amenity space for those properties to a level which would not ordinarily be considered acceptable. However, as this land was ‘sold off’ some time ago and is unlikely to ever be reclaimed; and having regard to the fact that the area directly to the rear of these properties will continue to be ‘undeveloped’ amenity space (and therefore retain the outlook for 3 and 5 Warwick Road) the inclusion of this land within the application site is considered acceptable in this instance”.

6.23 As it is now over three years since the above assessment has been made it is

considered that the chances of this land being re-incorporated into the rear gardens of 3 and 5 Warwick Road is even more remote. Their inclusion in the application site has already been accepted by the Council, and is considered acceptable in the assessment of this application.

6.24 The applicant proposes the erection of a two metre high wall along the

boundary of 7 Warwick Road. This is considered to mitigate the potential adverse impacts of vehicle parking spaces located along this boundary. It is recommended that the provision of the wall is secured by condition, as requested by the occupant of 7 Warwick Road.

165

6.25 9 Northumberland Avenue falls within the application site boundary and is owned by the applicant. The reduced rear garden area for 9 Northumberland Avenue will be in keeping with similar residential plots in the immediate vicinity. An acoustic fence is proposed along the side boundary to number 9 and the flank elevation of the house currently abuts the existing car park. Therefore the impact of the proposal is considered to be comparable with the existing situation.

6.26 The proposed building will be approximately 7.7 metres from Warwick

House and 14.8 metres from numbers 3 and 5 Warwick Road. The windows in the side elevation of the proposed building will serve bedrooms and living rooms. However, these windows will be secondary, with much larger front and rear facing windows serving these rooms. The applicant’s agent has confirmed that these windows will be fitted with obscure glazing. It is recommended this is secured by condition.

6.27 At their closest, the rear facing windows in the proposed building will be

12.8 metres from the boundary with 7 Warwick Road. This distance is sufficient to ensure privacy within the garden of this property.

Ecology, landscaping, sustainable development and SUDS 6.28 The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that an ecology assessment submitted

as part of this proposal is acceptable. 6.29 The Natural Environment Officer has stated that that a certain level of

detail relating to landscaping should be provided by the applicant. The applicant’s agent has now been able to provide the required information and officers are satisfied that the landscaping proposals are acceptable and their implementation can be secured by condition.

6.30 On sustainable development it should be noted that energy requirements

for new developments were streamlined by the Deregulation Bill 2015 but there remains a local plan policy requirement for major developments to reduce energy requirements. The applicant has confirmed that the previous Code for Sustainable Code levels will be achieved but it is only appropriate for the Council to require that they can demonstrate energy performance. Appropriate planning conditions are recommended.

6.31 Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) of the Core Strategy states that

development will only be permitted where it would not be damaging to the environment through air, land, noise or light pollution whilst ground and surface water quality would be preserved and water, sewerage and waste treatment infrastructure are adequate. Confirmation has been provided by the applicant in their submitted Flood Risk Assessment with Drainage Statement that the site has a very low risk of flooding and that a Sustainable Urban Drainage System will be integrated with the development to ensure that surface water run-off will be no greater than the current rate. Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed drainage complies with the requirements of the NPPG, NPPF and Core Strategy policy CS34.

Other matters – S106, CIL & Equality

6.32 S106 - Given the nature of the proposals (10+ residential units) an Employment, Skills and Training contribution is required in line with the SPD. This can take the form of a financial contribution or a commitment to

166

a scheme on site. As discussed above it has been negotiated that at least 50% of the dwellings should be provided as affordable housing. These obligations should be secured via a s106 legal agreement.

6.33 It is considered that these obligations would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they are: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.34 CIL - The CIL Regulations allow developments by charities or those providing

affordable housing to qualify for CIL relief. The development as highlighted above is for 100% affordable units and the applicant has charitable status and therefore qualifies to apply for CIL relief. The applicant has provided the requisite CIL form 2. It should be noted that the CIL Regulations provide for a ‘CIL Relief disqualification event’ if any of the affordable units become private within a period of 7 years.

6.35 Equalities impact assessment - In determining this application the Council is

required to have regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that the local planning authority has taken all due consideration of its obligations in determining this application.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant

Development Plan Policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to suitable conditions.

Plans: 1423/6B – Ground floor plan 1423/7B – First floor plan 1423/9A – Roof plan 1423/10 – West elevation 1423/11B – East elevation

1423/12 – North and South elevation 1423/13A – Site plan 1423/15 – Street scene 7089/01 – Landscape plan, schedule of plans and landscaping specification

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT WITH DRAINAGE STATEMENT - ISSUE 3 Case Officer: Ben Pratley

167

TILEHURST

173

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 15 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8th March 2017 Ward: Tilehurst App No.: 162331/REG3 Address: The Avenue School, The Avenue Centre, Conwy Close, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal: Installation of a temporary demountable modular double classroom unit and associated external works. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date validated: 20th December 2016 Other Application: 8 week target decision date: 14th February 2017. An extension of time has been agreed to 10th March 2017. 26 week date: 20th June 2017 RECOMMENDATION Grant Conditions to include:

1. Temporary permission for 5 year period – reinstatement to playing field 2. Approved Plans 3. Bicycle storage 4. Construction Method Statement (pre-com)

Informatives to include:

1. Pre-commencement condition 2. Terms and conditions of permission 3. Building Regulations 4. Construction and demolition 5. Damage to the highway 6. Works affecting the highway 7. Positive and proactive

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is The Avenue School Academy, a three storey building on

Conway Close adjacent to Churchend Primary School and The Meadway Sports Centre. The school caters for students with special educational needs (SEN).

1.2 The application is brought back to committee after it was deferred in February as

confirmation was required from the Governors of the school that the proposed modular was acceptable.

175

Site Plan – not to scale 2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is for temporary planning permission for a period of five years for a

modular double classroom unit. The green coloured and low pitch roof structure will contain 2 classrooms and WCs, and be located to the west of the school adjacent to the playing fields. The proposal will involve the relocation of an existing wooden gazebo and play equipment. The proposal includes an external timber ramp and associated steps with areas of hardstanding around the unit to facilitate level access. The building area would be 149m².

2.2 The Avenue School accommodates at present 120 pupils and the proposal will

create additional space for 12 pupils and a maximum of 12 staff. The Local Authority is currently experiencing a significant demand for spaces for pupils with complex SEN. Reading has traditionally used 3 complex needs/ASD special schools, The Avenue, Brookfields (in West Berkshire) and Addington (in Wokingham). Following recent admissions panels, these schools were all either full or over their published number and there is subsequent difficulty placing young people. Without local provision children will need to access suitable placements out of the borough. The proposal will therefore help to meet the local demand by allowing temporary space to be created in the short term.

3. PLANNING HISTORY

12/01387/FUL (Civica Ref: 120519) - To create 11 additional parking spaces, with associated landscaping. Permitted 09/11/2012. 150833/NMA - Non material amendment to planning permission 12/01387/FUL (Civica Ref: 120519) for alterations to the circulatory system outside the front of the school. Agree 16/09/2015.


Sport England – do not wish to comment on the application.

4.2 Non-statutory:

176

Development Control Transport raised no objections subject to conditions and informatives. Natural Environment Trees raised no objection. Environmental Health raised no objection.


Properties at 4 Chandler Close, The Nook Routh Lane and Churchend Primary School Usk Road were consulted and no comments have been received. Should any comments be received an update will be provided.



5.2 The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Paragraph 72

Reading Borough Core Strategy (January 2008): CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS22 (Transport Assessments) CS24 (Car / Cycle Parking) CS28 (Loss of Open Space) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012): DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) SA16 (Public and Strategic Open Space)

Supplementary Planning Document Revised Parking Standards and Design (Oct 2011)


(i) The principle of additional classroom accommodation;

177

(ii) Loss of open space (iii) The effect upon visual amenity and the public realm (iv) Impact on neighbouring amenity (v) Traffic generation and parking (vi) Other matters

(i) The principle of additional classroom accommodation 6.2 The Local Authority is currently experiencing a significant demand for spaces for

pupils with complex SEN. Policy CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) of the Reading Borough Core Strategy states that “Proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable, particularly where this will involve co-location of facilities on a single site.” The site is within an existing school site and would provide extended and improved community facilities which would meet an identified need within the Borough. As such it is considered that the general principle of the temporary modular double classroom provision is in accordance with policy CS31 of the Reading Borough Core Strategy.

(ii) Loss of open space 6.3 The proposal would occupy part of the existing playing field on land currently

occupied by a timber gazebo. Sport England advised that as there are no existing pitches marked out on the playing field and there has not been any over the past five years the proposal does not meet the definition of a playing field and therefore they do not wish to comment on the application. Policy CS28 (Loss of Open Space) of the Reading Borough Core Strategy states that: “Development proposals that will result in the loss of open space or jeopardise its use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted. In exceptional circumstances, development may be permitted where it is clearly demonstrated that replacement open space, to a similar standard, can be provided at an accessible location close by, or that improvements to recreational facilities on remaining open space can be provided to a level sufficient to outweigh the loss of the open space. The quality of existing open space should not be eroded by insensitive development on adjoining land.”

6.3.1 The proposal is for a temporary period of 5 years to help meet current demand.

Whilst Policy CS28 seeks improvements to remaining open space where space is to be lost, it is considered that the absence of such improvements in this instance would be acceptable given the temporary nature of the proposal, the overriding need for the facility and that the land is currently occupied by a timber gazebo.

6.3.2 Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states that ‘The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

• Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and • Work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before

applications are submitted.’ 6.3.3 Taking all these factors into account, it is considered that the temporary loss of

open space would be acceptable in this case. (iii) The effect upon visual amenity and the public realm 6.4 The modular double classroom will be formed from composite wall panels finished

in a green coated metal with a low pitched metal deck roof. The modular

178

classroom will not require foundations and will use jack and pad support only. An external timber ramp and associated steps to the modular entrance are proposed along with areas of macadam around the modular to facilitate level access. The proposal will be visible from Churchend Primary School and from properties to the west of the playing field however the double classroom will be seen against the backdrop of the 3 storey school and as such is not considered to affect the visual amenity of the area.

(iv) Impact on neighbouring amenity 6.5 The nearest residential properties to the proposal are to the west of the playing

field and a minimum of approximately 55m away. Although the modular classroom will be visible from the rear of these neighbouring properties in comparison to the 3 storey school the proposal is not considered harmful to the residents of these neighbouring properties in terms of visual dominance or overbearing effects.

6.5.1 The proposal will increase the number of pupils at the school by 12 which could

increase the potential for noise associated with it. However within the context of the established school use it is unlikely that any additional noise would result in significant harm to neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise or disturbance.

(v) Traffic generation and parking 6.6 The classrooms will be able to accommodate 12 pupils and a maximum of 12 staff.

No additional car parking is proposed for the school but given the existing numbers of parking spaces and the provision of 12 minibus spaces that could transport up to 180 pupils Transport is happy that no additional car parking is required. Given that this is a temporary permission and a proportion of pupils will travel by mini bus reducing the total number of vehicles on the Highway there are no objections to the proposal in terms of traffic generation.

6.6.2 The submitted information does not show that cycle parking has been proposed.

To ensure that alternative modes of travel are provided for staff a provision of 1 space per 5 additional staff should be provided and this can be dealt with via a condition.

(vi) Other Matters 6.9 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its


6.9.1 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would

be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development. 6.9.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was implemented by the Council from

April 1st 2015. Although the proposed scheme would be CIL liable development, because education facilities attract a zero CIL charge in the Borough there would be no CIL payable for this scheme.

7. CONCLUSION

179

The proposed development is considered acceptable in planning terms and for the reasons given above and it is therefore recommended that temporary planning permission for 5 years be granted subject to conditions. Plans: Drawing No: E03367-P-100 - Location Plan Drawing No: E03367-P-101 – Block Plan Drawing No: E03367-P-201 – Proposed Floor Plan Drawing No: E03367-P-301 – Proposed Elevations Received by the local planning authority on 15th December 2017 Case Officer: Claire Ringwood

180