1. No category

Public Document Pack
Notice of Meeting
Western Area Planning
Committee
Wednesday, 8th April, 2015 at 6.30 pm
in Council Chamber Council Offices
Market Street Newbury
Members Interests
Note: If you consider you may have an interest in any Planning Application included on
this agenda then please seek early advice from the appropriate officers.
Date of despatch of Agenda: Friday, 27 March 2015
FURTHER INFORMATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
Plans relating to the Planning Applications to be considered at the meeting can be viewed in the
Council Chamber, Market Street, Newbury between 5.30pm and 6.30pm on the day of the
meeting.
No new information may be produced to Committee on the night (this does not prevent
applicants or objectors raising new points verbally). If objectors or applicants wish to introduce
new additional material they must provide such material to planning officers at least 5 clear
working days before the meeting (in line with the Local Authorities (Access to Meetings and
Documents) (Period of Notice) (England) Order 2002).
For further information about this Agenda, or to inspect any background documents
referred to in Part I reports, please contact the Planning Team on (01635) 519148
Email: [email protected]
Further information, Planning Applications and Minutes are also available on the
Council’s website at www.westberks.gov.uk
Any queries relating to the Committee should be directed to Jessical Bailiss on
(01635) 503043 Email: [email protected]
Agenda - Western Area Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday, 8 April 2015
(continued)
To:
Councillors David Allen, Jeff Beck, Paul Bryant (Chairman), George Chandler,
Hilary Cole, Paul Hewer, Roger Hunneman, Garth Simpson,
Anthony Stansfeld, Julian Swift-Hook, Ieuan Tuck and Virginia von Celsing
(Vice-Chairman)
Substitutes:
Councillors Howard Bairstow, Billy Drummond, Adrian Edwards,
Mike Johnston, Gwen Mason, Andrew Rowles and Tony Vickers
Agenda
Part I
Page No.
1.
Apologies
To receive apologies for inability to attend the meeting (if any).
2.
Minutes
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of this
Committee held on 18 March 2015.
3.
Declarations of Interest
To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any
Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda,
in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.
4.
Schedule of Planning Applications
(Note: The Chairman, with the consent of the Committee, reserves the right
to alter the order of business on this agenda based on public interest and
participation in individual applications).
(1)
Application No. and Parish: 14/00926/RESMAJ Greens Yard, High
Street, Compton
Reserved Matters following Outline Planning Permission
Proposal:
11/01159/XOUTMA - Matters to be considered layout,
appearance, landscaping and scale for 25 residential
units.
Location:
Greens Yard, High Street, Compton
Applicant:
Persimmon Homes Thames Valley
Recommendation:
To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside
to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the schedule
of conditions (section 8).
5 - 18
19 - 36
Agenda - Western Area Planning Committee to be held on Wednesday, 8 April 2015
(continued)
Items for Information
5.
Appeal Decisions relating to Western Area Planning Committee
Purpose: To inform Members of the results of recent appeal decisions
relating to the Western Area Planning Committee.
37 - 46
Background Papers
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
The West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
The West Berkshire District Local Plan (Saved Policies September 2007), the
Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire and
relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents.
Any previous planning applications for the site, together with correspondence and
report(s) on those applications.
The case file for the current application comprising plans, application forms,
correspondence and case officer’s notes.
The Human Rights Act.
Andy Day
Head of Strategic Support
If you require this information in a different format or translation, please contact
Moira Fraser on telephone (01635) 519045.
This page is intentionally left blank
Agenda Item 2.
DRAFT
Note: These Minutes will remain DRAFT until approved at the next meeting of the Committee
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, 18 MARCH 2015
Councillors Present: David Allen, Jeff Beck, Paul Bryant (Chairman), George Chandler,
Hilary Cole, Roger Hunneman, Garth Simpson, Ieuan Tuck, Tony Vickers (Substitute) (In place
of Julian Swift-Hook) and Virginia von Celsing (Vice-Chairman)
Also Present: Derek Carnegie (Team Leader - Development Control), Paul Goddard (Team
Leader - Highways Development Control), Jenny Legge (Principal Policy Officer), Liz Patient
(Solicitor), Gary Rayner (Development Control Manager) and Jo Reeves (Policy Officer)
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting: Councillor Paul Hewer, Councillor Anthony
Stansfeld and Councillor Julian Swift-Hook
PART I
63.
Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2015 were approved as a true and
correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of the following
amendments:
Item 1, page seven, 3rd bullet point: replace ‘for the east’ with ‘from the east’.
Item 1, page seven, last bullet point: change ‘three dwellings’ to ‘two dwellings’.
Item 1, page nine, penultimate paragraph: ‘build’ to be changed to ‘built’.
Item 2, page eleven, 7th bullet point: amend ‘be chosen’ to ‘been chosen’.
64.
Declarations of Interest
Councillors David Allen, Jeff Beck and Ieuan Tuck declared an interest in Agenda Item 4
(1) and (2), but reported that, as their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a
disclosable pecuniary interest, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and
vote on the matter.
65.
Schedule of Planning Applications
66.
Exclusion of Press and Public
RESOLVED that members of the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the
under-mentioned item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of
exempt information as contained in Paragraphs(s) * of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the
Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to
Information)(Variation) Order 2006. Rule 8.10.4 of the Constitution also refers.
Page 5
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
(1)
Application No. and Parish: 15/00319/FULEXT - Land at Sterling
Cables site, Kings Road, Newbury
(Councillors David Allen and Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5(1)
by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and the Planning
and Highways Committee. Councillor Beck had been present during the discussion of
this item, but would consider the application afresh. Councillor Allen had not been
present when the application was discussed. As their interest was personal and not a
prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate
and vote on the matter).
(Councillor Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5(1) by virtue of the
fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. However, he had not been present
at the debate. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable
pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).
The Committee considered an exempt report (Agenda Item 5(1)) which provided
confidential commercial information corresponding to viability appraisals in relation to
application number 15/00319/FULEXT on the Part I agenda, in respect of the demolition
of all buildings on site, site remediation, new link road, and the erection of 167 flats, car
parking and landscaping on land at Sterling Cables site, Kings Road, Newbury.
67.
Part I - Continuation of meeting: 6.30pm
68.
Application No. and Parish: 15/00319/FULEXT - Land at Sterling Cables
site, Kings Road, Newbury
(Councillors David Allen and Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5(2)
by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council and the Planning
and Highways Committee. Councillor Beck had been present during the discussion of
this item, but would consider the application afresh. Councillor Allen had not been
present when the application was discussed. As their interest was personal and not a
prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest they determined to take part in the debate
and vote on the matter).
(Councillor Ieuan Tuck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 5(2) by virtue of the
fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. However, he had not been present
at the debate. As his interest was personal and not a prejudicial or a disclosable
pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).
The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 5(2)) concerning Planning Application
15/00319/FULEXT in respect of the demolition of all buildings on site, site remediation,
new link road, and the erection of 167 flats, car parking and landscaping on land at
Sterling Cables site, King’s Road, Newbury.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Phil Barnet, Parish Council
representative, Ms Suzanne Davis and Mr Leigh Lindsay, objectors, and Mr Ian Blake,
agent, addressed the Committee on this application.
Derek Carnegie introduced the report to the Members, which took account of all the
relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report
detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was highly
recommended.
Mr Barnett in addressing the Committee raised the following points:
Page 6
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES

Newbury Town Council (NTC) had looked at this application over the last few years
with considerable interest.

They recognised it was an ideal location for housing; close to the town centre and
civic amenities.

They had concerns with previous applications regarding layout, contamination, the
number of blocks proposed and the street scene. However, they now felt that these
initial concerns had been addressed.

They welcomed the inclusion of the link road, which had been a stumbling block, and
recognised the benefit to residents of alleviating congested routes.

However, residents of Gordon Road and Boundary Road would still be affected.

They welcomed the 170 parking spaces, which might seem inadequate, but due to
the siting of the development it was recognised that there would be less of a need for
occupiers to have vehicles.

42 jobs might be lost, however local companies had already moved from the site and
it was hoped that employees would find work in the relocated sites.

The Newbury Town Design Statement (NTDS) called for a mixed development area
to the east of the A339.

The section 106 contributions were welcomed, however NTC queried where the
‘openspace’ identified would be positioned.

He welcomed the cleaning up of the site, including the demolition of the dilapidated
buildings.

The new buildings would have some impact on the street scene. It was hoped that
the building work would be done quickly and with minimal disturbance to existing
residents from dust and noise.
Councillor Hilary Cole asked for clarification as to the guidance in the NTDS. Mr Barnett
explained that it covered King’s Road and Hambridge Road and called for a mixed
development. However, a large amount of industry in the area had already disappeared
and the move was towards more residential properties. He noted that the NTDS was
published a few years ago and might therefore need updating.
Councillor David Allen reflected on the section 106 contributions and wondered if NTC
had discussed the potential loss of these. Mr Barnett explained that there had been a
large discussion regarding affordable housing and there was concern. However, they felt
the project ought to take place. The benefit of gaining the road was a fair balance.
Councillor Jeff Beck inquired if the Newbury Society had expressed concern as to the
proposed timber cladding and how it would erode. Mr Barnett noted that only one
member of the society had specific views on cladding.
Ms Davis and Mr Lindsay in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

Ms Davis lived at 42 Boundary Road. She was concerned about the loss of daylight
and the noticeable negative impact for her property if the development was
progressed.

The stairwell and lift-shaft of Block E would overlook her house and invade her
privacy.
Page 7
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES

If the Committee were minded to approve the application she asked that they
consider obscuring the glass and having no opening vents in the windows that
overlooked her property to help reduce noise and retain privacy.

Mr Lindsay had objected to earlier applications and was grateful that his suggestions
had been acted upon.

His current concern was with the link road and the effect that Heavy Goods Vehicles
(HGV) that would travel along it would have on residents quality of life. He was also
concerned about the mass, scale and impact of the scheme.

He felt the inclusion of the Beard’s land would be beneficial to the site and that there
were currently shortcomings in design and standards. He considered that a flawed
scheme had been accepted in order to get the tower removed and the land
decontaminated.
Councillor Cole remarked that HGV’s were already travelling along the King’s Road. Mr
Lindsay replied that the proposed site was of restricted space and the lorries would have
difficulties negotiating the roundabouts.
Councillor Tony Vickers reflected on Mr Lindsay’s view that the scheme was flawed and
asked what he would accept to improve the site. Mr Lindsay explained that if Beard’s
land was included in the proposal, the development could be more spread out.
Councillor Beck returned to Ms Davis’ request for obscure glazing in the stairwell. Ms
Davis explained that the windows were directly looking over and into her property and
anyone who used the stairwell could look in. Derek Carnegie acknowledged this was a
sensible suggestion and local residents were helpful in recognising where Conditions
were needed. This request would be put to the applicant.
Ms Davis wished to bring to the Committee’s attention that she had telephoned Network
Rail and they were unable to confirm that the bridge would be two-way. Paul Goddard
asserted that the bridge would be two-way and have a footway for pedestrians.
Mr Blake in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

Mr Blake declined to give a presentation but was content to be questioned by the
Committee.
The Chairman asked Mr Blake to consider Ms Davis’ proposal to have obscure glazing in
the stairwell of Block E. Mr Blake stated that the distance from Block E to number 42
Boundary Road was 25m, further than the guideline of 21m, and the windows were not to
habitable rooms. If there was real concern for the privacy of Ms Davis then obscure
glazing could be considered, however it would be a shame to put in obscured glass.
Councillor Beck reiterated Newbury Society’s concern regarding the external timber
panelling and asked Mr Blake to comment. Mr Blake explained that if the panelling were
specified and placed correctly the design would work well.
Councillor Garth Simpson inquired as to how long the decontamination and construction
work would take. Mr Blake confirmed that it would take six to nine months to
decontaminate and demolish and following this trial holes would be dug. It was a fairly
lengthy process.
Councillor Allen asked which route would be taken by pedestrians on the east side. Mr
Blake conjectured that the link road would be the most likely route and confirmed that
there would be full pavements on both sides. Councillor Allen further inquired how the
roundabout at King’s Road would be crossed. Mr Blake explained that there was no
Page 8
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
footpath on the southern side of King’s Road to the west of the site and pedestrians
would need to cross to the other side of the roundabout to get to the town centre.
Councillor Roger Hunneman wished to discuss the boundary treatment for Gordon Road
and noted that parking spaces would be displaced from the road. Mr Blake suggested
that the link road would mean that Gordon Road was no longer the most direct route. He
saw no reason that a permanent boundary could not be erected. He noted that it should
not be too high as to impact on the new residences which would be lower than Gordon
Road. Councillor Hunneman inquired if the applicant was prepared to make the boundary
non-permeable. Derek Carnegie confirmed that this could be looked into in detail with
Officers. Councillor Hunneman also requested that two to four parking spaces lost in
King’s Road be reprovided within the new site. Mr Blake acknowledged that this was not
an unreasonable request and that conversations with Officers were continuing on this
matter.
Councillor Vickers noted that there would be an increase in the number of people walking
and cycling, following the improvement to Boundary Road. He was concerned that the
join into King’s’ Road should be improved for pedestrians and cyclists. He considered the
design of the road to be unfriendly to cyclists as they would be in the same space as
HGVs. He was also concerned about the proposed bends in the road. Mr Blake
explained that the road layout had been worked on with the Highways Team to reach a
design solution. He understood Councillor Vickers concerns, as he was a keen cyclist
himself. However, the road was wide enough to take the predicted load of traffic and was
no different to any other road.
Councillor Vickers pointed out that there would be a lack of natural light to the courtyard
and questioned whether the 19m gap would encourage a howling gale. Mr Blake
explained that each flat had a balcony and were therefore set back. He lived in Parkway
and had not experienced a howling gale caused by the proximity of other buildings.
Councillor Paul Bryant queried whether sprinklers had been considered for the eight
storey block. Mr Blake replied that if the Fire Officer recommended sprinklers at the
detailed design stage, the applicant would consider installing them. Councillor Bryant
urged the applicant to consider installing sprinklers as it would save lives.
Speaking as Ward Members, Councillors Hunneman and Allen raised the following
points:

Councillor Hunneman was concerned with the height and impact on the southern
edge of the development and the negative impact on number 42 Boundary Road.

He felt it was regrettable that the Beard unit was being retained

The link road was now part of the scheme and this would improve the conditions for
residents. He would be pressing for the removal of all through traffic from the King’s
Road.

It was time that the site was developed and although some local residents were not
happy, there was a realisation that the site couldn’t stay as it was.

Councillor Allen was concerned about the loss of the section 106 contribution as it
was a huge amount of money and it was needed by Education services. It was a
balanced decision, however he was in favour of it.

He had worked on the Sterling Cables site 25 years ago and it was in need of
demolition then.

He recognised that help was needed for Gordon Road and 42 Boundary Road,
however if this was the last chance, the Committee should take it.
Page 9
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
The Chairman asked Officers to comment on provision for cyclists and the tight bends to
be negotiated by HGVs. Mr Goddard explained that the link road would be a minimum of
six metres wide, which was wider than most sections of Hambridge Road, and was
considered wide enough. The roundabouts would be over-runnable. The junction at
Boundary Road / Hambride road would be replaced with traffic signals and could have
cycle friendly stop lines. There would be a pedestrian phase in the signals. The Chairman
reminded Officers of Councillor Hunneman’s request for improvements to King’s Road.
Mr Goddard noted that these would have to follow on from this application. One of the
purposes of the link road was to reduce traffic on King’s Road and Mill Lane and make
them quieter streets. The intention was to close off King’s Road at some point in the
future.
Councillor Allen questioned whether, as this would become a high density residential
area, there was any possibility of making it a 20mph zone. Mr Goddard confirmed that
this could be sought. He advised that this should be pursued through the normal
processes. A Traffic Regulation Order would need to be applied for as there had to be
public consultation before changes could be made to the existing stretch of King’s Road.
This could be in place when the new road was provided which is due in 2018.
Councillor Beck questioned whether an agreement with Network Rail had been reached.
Derek Carnegie explained that he had wanted to present the Committee with the final
word, however Officers were content that a two-way bridge would be constructed starting
in April 2015. The sliver of land needed for a wider bridge had been denoted by the
developer and the plans had been finalised.
Councillor Beck noted that on page 57, point 6.2.10 stated that, ‘high performance
acoustic suppression glazing is used in the development’, however he could find no
mention of it in the Conditions. Derek Carnegie said he would carry out a check.
Councillor Beck inquired if the provision of displaced parking spaces from King’s Road
could be added as an Informative. Paul Goddard noted that Condition 23 had been
deliberately worded to allow discussions to continue with the developer. Councillor Beck
further suggested that Conditions 8 and 22 be merged rather than deleting Condition 8,
as noted in the Update report. Derek Carnegie agreed to revisit these Conditions.
Councillor Vickers expressed the view that the section 106 regime would end in less than
two weeks and be superseded by the Community Infrastructure Levy. This was one of
the main reasons this application should be approved. The site was currently located in
an employment area, however the owner could walk away and he did not believe there
would be any employment provided. On page 59 point 6.5.3 it states that the Local
Enterprise Partnership had given £2.3m to fund the link road. He was surprised regarding
the traffic projections on the proposal. Paul Goddard informed the Committee that the
applicants’ consultants had used the Trip Rate Information Computer System, which was
a national database of traffic surveys that was used to project traffic flows.
Councillor Hunneman was conscious that, if approved, this application would be referred
to the District Planning Committee and wanted to ensure that it was accompanied by well
thought-out Conditions. He proposed that the following Conditions be discussed at the
proposal:

Obscure glazing in the stairwell in Block E

Parking provision within the site to replace those spaces lost on King’s Road

Boundary treatment on the western edge, next to Gordon Road be non-permeable

Condition 18 be ‘in consultation with Gordon Road residents’
Page 10
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
Councillor Hunneman also enquired if residents in Gordon Road would be eligible for a
grant for acoustic glazing. Derek Carnegie was not confident to answer this question, but
suggested that the Department of Transport might be applied to.
Councillor Simpson asked how wide the footpaths would be. Paul Goddard confirmed
they would be 2m wide.
Councillor Cole expressed the view that in regard to the replacement parking spaces for
King’s Road residents, she would not like to see this development fall for the sake of
three spaces. It was envisaged that King’s Road would be blocked off in the future and
this should be born in mind. This was a much needed development on this site that
needed decontamination and would allow for the link road to be built. However, it was
clearly against policy. If the Committee were minded to approve the application, it had to
be articulated as to why Members were deviating from the policy. It would not set a
precedent for other developers.
Councillor Virginia von Celsing proposed to accept Officer recommendation with the
following additional Conditions:

Obscure glazing in the stairwell for Block E

Provision for replacement parking spaces for the King’s Road

Non-permeable boundary treatment

Consultation on the acoustic barrier on Gordon Road

Conditions 8 and 22 to be rewritten
Councillor Allen seconded this proposal.
The Chairman invited the Committee to vote. The proposal of Councillor von Celsing,
seconded by Councillor Allen to accept Officers' recommendation to grant planning
permission was carried.
RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to GRANT
planning permission subject to the following conditions set out in the agenda with the
additions and amendments set out in the proposal as seconded. It was further
RESOLVED that as such a decision to grant permission was a Departure from
Employment Policy of the Core Strategy; the matter should be referred to District
Planning Committee for a final decision.
Conditions
1. The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission
and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the
development should it not be started within a reasonable time, in accord with the
advice in the DMPO of 2010.
2. No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the
proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the
details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary
include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter
the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved
samples.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy HSG1 of the
West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.
Page 11
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
3. No development shall commence until details of floor levels in relation to existing and
proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved levels.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed building and
the adjacent land in accordance with Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District
Local Plan 1991 – 2006 Saved Policies 2007.
4. The hours of work for all contractors (and sub-contractors) for the duration of the site
development, to include demolition, shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority, be limited to; 7.30 am to 6.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays,
7.30 am to 1.00 pm on Saturdays, and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or
Bank Holidays.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of surrounding residents in accordance
with policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved
Policies 2007.
5. The dwellings shall achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or any such
equivalent national measure of sustainability for house design which replaces that
scheme). Within 3 months of each phase of dwelling occupation, a final Code
Certificate relevant to it, certifying that Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (or
any such equivalent national measure of sustainability for house design which
replaces that scheme) has been achieved, has been issued and a copy has been
provided to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the development contributes to sustainable construction. This
condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework
(March 2012), Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and
Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
6.
No development shall commence on this site until full details of the measures
required to create at least one dark North-South corridor through the site which will
be suitable for bats will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.
Such approved measures will be implemented in full and shall be maintained
thereafter. Measures will be designed using a qualified ecologist and include those
mentioned in paragraph 7.2.5 of the Bat Survey report dated August 2014 by Michael
Woods Associates and expanded upon in the e-mail to West Berkshire Council from
Carter Jonas and dated 20th August 2014.In addition, a bat sensitive lighting strategy
will be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such approved
measures will be implemented in full and shall be maintained thereafter. Such lighting
strategy will also include details of how light spill from windows in the development
will be controlled and an isolux diagram of the dark corridor. Two years after the first
occupation of a flat / apartment, a bat survey of the dark corridor will be undertaken
in suitable weather conditions in the months of June/July to establish whether the
corridor is working or not. A report of the monitoring will be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority in the following August.
Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected by law and to accord with
Policy CS17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the West Berkshire Core Strategy of
2006 to 2026.
7. No development shall commence on this site until:
1) a detailed reptile mitigation plan based on Section 7.6 of the Updated Ecological
Survey By Michael Woods Associates and dated February 2014, has been
submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Such plan will include
Page 12
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
details of the receptor site and any required enhancements at this site to make it
suitable. Such agreed plan will be implemented in full.
2) In addition, a detailed landscape plan will be submitted to the Local Planning
Authority for approval. Such plan will incorporate the recommendations made in
Section 7.4 of the Updated Ecological Survey dated February 2014 by Michael
Woods Associates and Section 7.2.5 of the bat Survey report dated August 2014
by Michael Woods Associates.
3) In addition, detailed plans showing the following will be submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval and such approved plans will be implemented in
full and the boxes incorporated shall be retained and maintained thereafter. The
incorporation of three groups of 5 woodcrete swift nest boxes; 3 woodcrete
sparrow terrace nest boxes; 2 bird boxes suitable for Black Redstarts; 3 Blackbird
nest boxes; 6 built in bat boxes and 2 woodcrete bat boxes suitable for trees.
Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected by law and to accord with
Policy CS17 (Biodiversity and Geodiversity) of the West Berkshire Core Strategy of
2006 to 2026.
8. No development shall commence until a Construction Management Plan has been
submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The plan should detail items such as
phasing of construction, lorry routing and potential numbers, types of piling rig and
earth moving machinery to be implemented and measures proposed to mitigate the
impact of construction operations. In addition the plan should make note of any
temporary lighting that will be used during the construction phase of the
development. The plan shall be implemented in full and retained until the
development has been constructed. Any deviation from this Statement shall be first
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure potential disruption is minimised as much as possible during
construction in accordance with Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy
2006 to 2026.
9. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted to the Local
Planning Authority a scheme of works or such other steps as may be necessary to
minimise the effects of dust from the demolition and construction of the development.
Development shall not commence until written approval has been given by the Local
Planning Authority to any such scheme of works.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accord with
policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy of 2006 to 2026.
10. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than
that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must
not commence until Conditions 1 to 4 have been complied with. If unexpected
contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on
that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified
by the Local Planning Authority in writing until Condition 4 has been complied with in
relation to that contamination.
1. Site Characterisation
An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the
planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the
nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the
site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local
Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by
Page 13
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written
report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of
the findings must include:
(i)
a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii)
an assessment of the potential risks to:
- human health,
- property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes,
- adjoining land,
- groundwaters and surface waters,
- ecological systems,
- archeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iii)
an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's
'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
2. Submission of Remediation Scheme
A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended
use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and
the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in
writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be
undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works
and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify
as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation
to the intended use of the land after remediation.
3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior
to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation,
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning
Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the
remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a
verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must
be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved
development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately
to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be
undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is
necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements
of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a
verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the
Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.
If required:
Page 14
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance
A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness
of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with LPA, and the provision of
reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in
writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the
remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of
the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the
Local Planning Authority.
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's
'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.
Reason : To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and
neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and
ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without
unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. In accord with the
advice in the NPPF
11. No development shall commence until full
details of a scheme of works, for
protecting the occupiers of the development from externally generated noise, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works
forming part of the scheme shall be completed before any dwelling is first occupied.
Reason: In order to protect the amenities of proposed residents/occupiers of the
development, in accord with saved policy OVS6 in the West Berkshire District Local
Plan 1991 to 2006 Saved Policies 2007.
12. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a detailed
scheme for the improvement of the existing sewerage system has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be
implemented as approved. No occupation of dwellings approved by this permission
shall occur until the scheme for improvement of the existing sewage system has
been completed.
Reason: To ensure protection of local public health in accord with the advice in the
NPPF of 2012.
13. No development shall commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and/or off
site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning
authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or
surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage
works referred to in the strategy have been completed".
Reason: The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient
capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid
adverse environmental impact upon the community in accord with the advice in the
NPPF of 2012.
14. No development shall commence until - impact studies of the existing water supply
infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning
authority (in consultation with Thames Water). The studies should determine the
magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable
connection point. The development must be carried out in accord with the
conclusions of the report so approved.
Page 15
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
Reason: To ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope
with the/this additional demand in accord with the advice in the NPPF.
15. No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme
of landscaping for the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The details shall include schedules of plants noting species, plant
sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of
written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub
and grass establishment. The scheme shall ensure;
a) Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season
following completion of development.
b) Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five
years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of
the same size and species.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in
accordance with the objectives of Policy CS18 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy
2006 to 2026.
16. No demolition/ site works/ development shall take place within the application area
until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of building
recording in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the
development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved
statement.
Reason: To ensure that an adequate record is made of these buildings of
architectural, historical or archaeological interest in accord with policy CS19 of the
West Berkshire Core Strategy of 2006 to 2026.
17. No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to
manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall:
a) Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Methods (SuDS) in
accordance with best practice and the proposed national standards and to
provide attenuation to greenfield run-off rates and volumes;
b) Be informed by a full ground investigation survey, details of which shall be
included within the submission;
c) Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all hard
surfaced areas within the site;
d) Include the storage capacity for the proposed surfacing materials based on a 1
in 100 year storm +30% for climate change;
e) Provide benefits, where possible, such as water quality, biodiversity and
amenity.
The sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details before the dwelling(s) hereby permitted are occupied In accordance
with a timetable to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority as part of the details submitted for this condition. The sustainable drainage
measures shall be maintained in the approved condition thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner.
This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy
Page 16
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
Framework (March 2012), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (20062026), and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
18. No development shall commence until the applicant has submitted a scheme
indicating the erection of an acoustic barrier to the south west of the application site
adjoining Gordon Road - to the north of the new link road. This scheme must be
approved in writing by the Council and implemented in strict accord with those details
before any occupation of the first dwelling on the application site.
Reason: To respect the amenities of the occupants of Gordon Road in accord with
policy OVS6 in the Saved District Local Plan for West Berkshire 1991 to 2006, in
respect of the proposed new link road.
19. No development shall commence on the demolition of the Counting House until the
local planning authority has been provided with either:a)
licence issued by Natural England pursuant to Regulation 53 of The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 authorising the
specified activity / development to go ahead; or
b)
a statement in writing from Natural England to the effect that it does not
consider that the specified activity / development will require a licence."
Reason: To protect the local bat population in accord with advice in the NPPF of
2012.
20. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with
the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for
those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant
unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approval details.
Reason: To protect local groundwater in accord with the advice in the NPPF of 2012.
21. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be
permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority,
which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that
there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect local groundwater in accord with advice in the NPPF of 2012.
22. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The
statement shall provide for:
(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
(b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials
(c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
(d) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays
and facilities for public viewing
(e) Wheel washing facilities
(f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction
(g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works
Page 17
WESTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE - 18 MARCH 2015 - MINUTES
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the
interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the
West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire
District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
23. No development shall take place until details of the vehicle parking and turning
space/areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Such details shall show turning areas including for refuse vehicles, how
the parking spaces are to be surfaced and marked out and allocated. Each area of
the development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking and turning
spaces/areas have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The
parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private
motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.
Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in
order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would adversely affect road
safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West
Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire
District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
24. Each area of the development shall not be brought into use until the cycle parking
has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and this area shall
thereafter be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.
Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and
assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles. This condition is imposed in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13
of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West
Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
69.
Appeal Decisions relating to Western Area Planning Committee
Members noted the outcome of appeal decisions relating to the Western Area.
(The meeting commenced at 5.30 pm and closed at 8.15 pm)
CHAIRMAN
…………………………………………….
Date of Signature
…………………………………………….
Page 18
Agenda Item 4.(1)
Item
No.
Application No.
and Parish
Proposal, Location and Applicant
(2)
14/00926/RESMAJ
Reserved Matters following Outline Planning Permission
11/01159/XOUTMA - Matters to be considered layout, appearance,
landscaping and scale for 25 residential units.
Compton Parish
Council
Greens Yard, High Street, Compton
Persimmon Homes Thames Valley
To view the plans and drawings relating to this application click the following link:
http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=14/00926/RESMAJ
Recommendation Summary:
To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to
GRANT Planning Permission subject to the schedule of
conditions (section 8).
Ward Member(s):
Councillor von Celsing
Reason for Committee
Determination:
At the request of Councillor von Celsing and local interest
Committee Site Visit:
Undertaken in October 2014
Contact Officer Details
Name:
Mrs Sue Etheridge
Job Title:
Senior Planning Officer
Tel No:
(01635) 519111
E-mail Address:
[email protected]
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 19
8 April 2015
1.
Site History
02/00317/OUT. Demolition of various buildings and erection of 25 dwellings (siting and
means of access). Approved 22nd December 2004.
07/02647/RESMAJ. Reserved matters for outline consent 02/00317. Approved 4th August
2009.
11/ 01159/XOUTMAJ. Renewal of planning permission 02/00317. Approved 19th April 2013.
14/01746/COND1 condition 17 details (Groundwater contamination risks) of planning
permission 11/01159. Approved 23rd September 2014.
14/03383/COND2 condition 15 details (Sustainable Drainage) of planning permission
11/01159/XOUTMAJ. Approved 19th March 2015.
In addition there is an extant planning permission for conversion and extension of the former
bank, to create one dwelling, to the southwest of the application site (12/01760/XFULD
approved 11th February 2013).
2. Publicity of Application
Site Notice Expired: 30th May 2014
Neighbour Notification Expiry 28th May 2014
3.
Consultations and Representations
Compton Parish
Council:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
First set of plans (drawing 100 rev 14):Objection:Investigation into recent flooding and issues with overstretched
sewerage system required.
Affordable housing should be pepper-potted throughout the site, rather
than confined to one area. (i.e. distributed effectively across
developments, not clumped in one area of development).
This development sits in the heart of the village, which is in the AONB.
A large percentage of the site also falls within the assigned
Conservation area of the village. The Parish Council believes the
reduction of landscaping to the front of the properties, and to the
common space as a result of the siting of no. 23, would fail to enhance
the way the community works within the AONB.
Plots 24 and 25 create urbanisation which is against the Village
Design Statement. See VDS Guideline 2 and 10.
Plots 16 and 22 have 2 ½ storeys. The height of the buildings should
be in-keeping with the rural area. Town houses (2 ½ storeys) would be
deemed unsuitable, the preference being for properties of 1 ½ storeys
with dormers. These plots would be setting a precedent for future
development.
Amended plans (drawing100 Rev 18)::
In addition to previous comments, which still apply to this application,
they object on the following grounds:
1) Parking allocation remains inadequate
a.
The proposed development is designed with a parking allocation
of 1.5 spaces per dwelling. Following extensive consultation the SPD
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 20
8 April 2015
for the adjoining land has been determined as 2 spaces for a 3 bed
house, and 3 for a 4 bed, excluding garages, this is aligned to The
Building for Life industry standard, endorsed by Government,
b.
Parking information for plots 24 and 25 has not been included on
the parking schedule. It is unclear from the drawings where parking is
intended for these plots.
c.
On street parking is likely to occur for plots 3 - 7 due to the siting of
the parking spaces for these plots. A similar arrangement on another
development within the village has demonstrated the considerable and
detrimental effect such parking has on the street scene along with the
lack of enhancement to the AONB. It is important to site parking
spaces adjacent to their corresponding properties rather than a distance
away as for these plots thus improving the way the development works
for the community.
2) Plots 3 - 9 are sited too close to the road. This design is regarded as
poor, lacking in allocation of open space to enhance to the AONB.
3) The comments provided by Thames Water are purely on a
commercial basis and do not take into account the wider impact of an
aging and deteriorating village waste infrastructure, or the flooding
patterns and hazards of the past and importantly very recent
winters/springs.
In addition the Parish comment that they are satisfied with the changes
that have been made to plots 21 and 22, lessoning the impact on
neighbouring properties.
Highways:
To first plans (drawing 100 rev 14), concerns expressed regarding road
and footpath extent and design (2 metre wide margins required).
Concern over provision of garages for parking space provision would
prefer these omitted to ensure sufficient non garage parking spaces.
To amended plans (drawing 100 Rev 18). Further revisions to plans
required including extension of footway fronting plot 24 and dropped
kerb detail where footpath ends.
In addition following Compton Parish Comments, the Highway officer
does have some concern that garages away from the proposed
dwellings may not be used which would encourage road side parking.
Further changes to the road design, including narrowing fronting the
proposed terrace (plots 3 to 7) and plots 24 and 25 could discourage
roadside parking, in addition an additional non garage space for plots 24
and 25 requested. These revisions have been submitted and are shown
on drawing 100 Rev 21.
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 21
8 April 2015
Conservation Officer:
First Plans (drawing 100 rev 14):
Concern at layout and form/ design of dwellings which fail to reflect
character of area, village and site which is partly within the Conservation
Area. Form of plots 24 and 25 needs to be softened. Terraced dwellings
on access road preferred. Larger dwellings on site tend to dominate.
Design features such as chimneys should be considered to reflect
village theme.
To amended plans (drawing 100 Rev 18 now 21)
Terraced units on plots 3 to 7, to echo the converted barns on plots 24
and 25 opposite are welcomed. This will better define the character and
“first impressions” within the site. Re-orientation of plots in the north east
corner of the site, together with smaller (less high) house types, to
improve the relationship with The Dovecote to the east of the site (plots
20-22 now refer); and improved spacing of plots 9-16 is also welcomed.
Concern is now with prominence of two and a half storey units (plots 13
and 17) which appear out of keeping, particularly plot 13.
Further revision requested and received (plan 100 Rev 21) which
addresses this issue.
Materials (traditional) must be very carefully considered.
Thames Water:
Environment Agency:
Waste Management:
No objection. Given local concern further comments sought. Thames
Water have advised that with regard to wastewater, the foul water
infrastructure in the area does have capacity to accommodate this
proposed development. The area suffered in the recent extreme weather
along with a large number of other catchments. The sewers struggled to
cope with the volume of groundwater and surface water entering our
sewers. We are looking at ways to make our network less vulnerable to
these extreme events.
No objection to make on reserved matters application.
No objection providing road design meets requirements for refuse
vehicles Swept path analysis. A collection area for units 17 – 21
required, as carry distance too great.
Environmental
Health:
No comments to make on reserved matters application.
Tree Officer:
No objection, following assurances that T11 and T21 will be retained
and protected through pre-condition detail.
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 22
8 April 2015
Ecology:
No objection to reserved matters. Ecology pre conditions still apply.
Archaeology:
No objection. Archaeology conditions still apply.
Housing:
No objection to proposed layout. Affordable units grouped together is
acceptable given the fact that the numbers are quite low.
Disabled
Access
Panel:
Based on the requirements of the Building Regulations 2010; Approved
Document Part M – Access to and Use of Buildings and BS8300:2009
Design of Buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of disabled
people in terms of good building design.
Level access required.
Are all social housing lifetime homes?
Please identify those that will be capable of easy conversion.
Further hydrant provision may be required.
RBFRS:
Correspondence:
4.
Policy Considerations
4.1
The West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006 – 2026 has been adopted by the Council
and forms the Local development Plan. The following policies carry significant
weight in the decision making process:











4.2
Eleven letters of representation. Some of which support principle but
have concerns. Main areas of concern: Flooding, sewerage issues,
potential overlooking, layout oppressive to residential amenity
(overbearing and overlooking), lack of green space, character of area
and site part within Conservation Area, relationship with listed buildings,
housing mix and size of units, parking provision, pedestrian safety,
problem with dust and disturbance during construction including rodents,
division of the Dovecote to create car port (fire retardant and noise).
National Planning Policy Framework
Area Delivery Plan Policy 1: Spatial Strategy
Area Delivery Plan Policy 5: North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty.
CS 1
Delivering New Homes and Retaining the Housing Stock
CS 4
Housing Type and Mix
CS 5
Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery
CS 13
Transport
CS 14
Design Principles
CS 16
Flooding
CS 17
Biodiversity and Geodiversity
CS 19
Historic Environment and Landscape Environment
The West Berkshire Core Strategy replaced a number of planning polices in the West
Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007. However the following
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 23
8 April 2015
policies remain in place until they are replaced by Development Plan Documents and
should be given due weight according to their degree of consistency with the National
Planning Policy Framework:


4.3
HSG1: The Identification of Settlements for Planning Purposes
TRANS1: Meeting the Transport Needs of New development
Other material considerations for this application which includes government
guidance are:





The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) (NPPF).
Circular 11/95 - The use of conditions in planning permissions.
Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development SPD June 2013
Supplementary Planning Document “Quality Design” (adopted June
2006).
Compton Village Design Statement
5.
Description of Site and Development
5.1
The application site is within the identified settlement of Compton, on the Northern
side of the High Street. The Eastern part of the site lies within the Compton
Conservation Area and the entire site is within the North Wessex Downs Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. To the North and West of the site is the Institute for
Animal Health, this land, along with the application site, is owned by the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The IAH is the
subject of a recent planning policy public consultation exercise in respect of
redevelopment. There are existing dwelling houses and a Doctors Surgery to the
South and East of the application site. Most of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and
3. However the Environment Agency have accepted that following further Flood
Modelling undertaken for the outline application (11/01159/XOUTMAJ), that a
sequential test was not required and raised no objection to the outline application
subject to conditions (including surface water drainage). There are two trees on the
site which are covered by a tree preservation order.
5.2
The application seeks the approval of reserved matters for the erection of 25
dwellings. The details for consideration include layout, scale, external appearance
and landscaping (as required by condition 2 of the outline permission
(11/01159/XOUTMA).
5.3
During consideration of this application the layout and scale/form/external
appearance of the proposed dwellings have been amended to try to address
concerns expressed by consultees and local residents.
The amended layout plan for consideration is drawing 100 Rev 20. For ease of
reference the outline layout is appended (102C). The proposal is for 25 dwellings of
which 5 are terraced (all affordable units); 6 are semi detached (two of which are
affordable units) and the remaining 14 are detached. All dwellings will be two storey
in height. The detached dwellings each have either a detached or integral garage and
parking spaces. Other dwellings have car parking spaces and some with spaces
within car barns.
The dwelling mix proposed is:
6 x two bed
9 x three bed
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 24
8 April 2015
10 x four bed
The previous reserved matters approval was for:
11 two bed dwellings; 3 three bed dwellings; 7 four bed dwellings and 4 five bed
dwellings.
The former barn at the entrance to the site is to be converted into two dwellings. The
Coach House attached to The Dovecote at the eastern side of the site is to be
converted into 6 open fronted garages.
The submitted documents also include landscape proposals, landscape management
details and details relating to pre conditions attached to the outline permission. These
details have not been considered for the purposes of this application and will be
subject of a separate application for the discharge of conditions.
5.4
Each dwelling will have private amenity space. There is also an area of open space
in the centre of the site. This will be maintained by a management company. Plots 18
to 21 will be constructed to the rear of dwellings in Burder Court, the rear to rear
distance (two storey to two storey) is over 22 metres.
6.
Consideration of the Proposal
This application was considered at the Western Area Planning Committee held on 5th
November 2014. The application was deferred at that meeting with a request by the
Committee for an updated Flood Risk Assessment. Further consideration to this
matter is given in point 6.5 below.
The main issues to consider are:-
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
The principle of the development
The impact on the character of the area, Conservation Area and AONB
Impact on neighbouring properties and residential amenity
Impact on highway safety and parking
Flooding and Drainage
Other Matters
6.1
Principle of development
6.1.1
The principle of development of this site has been accepted under the outline
planning permission. The main purpose of this application is to consider the reserved
matters (layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping). These matters are
considered under the headings below. The outline permission includes a legal
agreement to secure required developer contributions to mitigate against the impact
of the development on services, amenity and infrastructure in the local area. This
also includes the provision of seven affordable dwellings. The outline permission
includes a number of planning conditions including the submission of details in
respect of external materials; landscaping and management; tree protection; hard
surfacing and boundary treatment; road layout, parking and turning; ecological
measures; sustainable drainage measures; contamination and ground water
protection; dust suppression.
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 25
8 April 2015
6.2
The impact on the character of the area, conservation area, listed buildings and
AONB
6.2.1
The application site lies with the settlement of Compton and whilst not currently in
use was a former storage yard with associated buildings. The buildings and hard
surfaced areas on the site are falling into disrepair. Two buildings are to be retained:
the barn on the entrance road which is to be converted into two dwellings (Plots 24
and 25) and the barn attached to The Dovecote (which is a grade II listed building) on
the eastern side of the site which is to be converted to create a 6 bay open fronted
car port for plots 20, 22 and 23.
6.2.2
The layout of the scheme and design of proposed dwellings have been amended
during the consideration of the application, to seek to address concerns expressed
by local residents, the Parish Council, Highway Officer and Conservation Officer.
The layout includes a terrace of five dwellings (plots 3 to 7) fronting the new roadway
opposite the converted barn (plots 24 and 25). This change now better defines the
character and first impressions of the site. Concern with this layout has been
expressed as this does reduce the space between buildings across the roadway and,
due to the fact that parking for the terraced units is to the rear of this terrace, may
result in some roadside parking. A further amended plan has been received to
narrow the width of the main access road between the terraced dwellings and plots
24 and 25. The layout of this part of the site is not that dissimilar to the outline
approval drawing 102C (appended).
The external appearance of the converted barn to create plots 24 and 25 has been
amended to include conservation style roof lights fronting the road.
Other dwellings have been altered, re-orientated and reduced in scale to improve the
relationship with existing buildings (see amenity below) and prominence within the
street scene (in particular plots 13, 15, 16, 17 and 22). Three storey dwellings have
now been removed from the scheme. The application includes street scene details
which show that whilst gaps between dwellings along the Northern boundary are in
some instances only two metres (plots 13, 14 and 15), the buildings will work within
the street scene.
6.2.3
It is noted that the proposed dwellings do not have steep pitches of 45 degrees which
is a characteristic of the village. However, the new build fronting the High Street
relates well to Compton Manor (a three storey building) and other frontage
development (including the former bank – subject of a separate planning permission).
The new dwellings within the site, with slightly shallow pitches (40 degrees) will then
have their own identity.
6.2.4
The success of the scheme in terms of relationship with the village, conservation
area and AONB will be dependent on appropriate materials. At present these include,
plain concrete tiles, upvc windows and steel front doors, which are considered to be
far removed from the traditional materials which would be expected for a
development in this important location within and adjoining a conservation area and
close to important listed buildings. The choice of appropriate (traditional) materials is
an important consideration in respect of proposals for this site. Condition 4 of the
outline planning permission requires the prior approval of external materials.
Proposed boundary treatments will also need to be carefully considered, details
being required by conditions 5 and 12 of the outline permission.
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 26
8 April 2015
6.2.5
There are two trees, subject of a Tree Preservation Order, within the site. These are
in the rear garden of plot 15 and in the open space to the rear of plots 24 and 25.
Their retention along with further tree planting, enhancing existing boundary hedges
and landscaping will ensure that the development contributes to the visual character
of the area. Conditions attached to the outline consent will ensure retention,
protection, provision of landscaping and maintenance (conditions 5 to 12).
6.2.6
The proposed layout includes an area of open space. Full details of landscaping and
private management are required by conditions attached to the outline consent
(Conditions 5 and 6). This area will provide additional amenity space for residents
and enhance the public realm, however this area will not become adopted by the
Council.
6.2.7
It is considered that the proposed new dwellings will relate well to the existing built
character of the area, partly within the Compton Conservation Area, nearby listed
buildings and would not demonstrably harm the visual character of this part of the
village or North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This would be in
accordance with Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core
Strategy 2006-2026, advice contained within the NPPF and the Supplementary
Planning Document “Quality Design” (adopted June 2006). Permitted Development
Rights (PD Rights) in respect of extensions to the dwellings were not removed at the
outline stage. However no walls or means of enclosure are permitted forward of the
forward most part of any dwelling (condition 32). Garages are to be retained for
parking of vehicles (condition 31).
6.3
The impact on neighbouring properties and residential amenity
6.3.1
One of the core planning principles of the NPPF (paragraph 17) seeks to secure high
quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of
land and buildings. This is further supported in the Council’s SPD on Quality Design
‘Part 2 Residential Development’.
6.3.2
Overlooking/overbearing/noise
The siting of the new dwellings will relate well to existing dwellings and other
neighbouring uses. Distances between dwellings meet current guidelines (SPD
Quality Design). The originally submitted layout and house designs have been
amended to address concerns relating to overlooking and potential overbearing
impact. All three storey buildings have now been removed.
Burder Court:
The rear to rear distance of plots 18 and 19 with Burder Court properties is in excess
of 22 metres. Whilst the application site is at a slightly higher level this distance is
considered acceptable. The previous reserved matters approval permitted a three
storey building in this position.
The Dovecote
Drawing 100 rev 14 has been amended and replaced with Drawing 100 rev 21. Plots
21 and 22 re-orientated through 90 degrees and dwelling type altered. This has
removed the potential for any direct or even partial overlooking. The dwelling on plot
22 is two storey with rear windows looking in an easterly direction over the garage to
the Dovecote rather than possibly into the windows of the front elevation of the
dwelling house.
The car barn serving plots 20, 22 and 23 is attached to The Dovecote. Previous
concerns relating to potential of noise disturbance and future use for car storage has
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 27
8 April 2015
been addressed through condition 21 of the outline consent which still applies and
requires details of sound insulation; vibration reduction, fire resistance and long term
management.
6.3.3
Disturbance during construction
Concern has been expressed regarding dust and other nuisance during construction.
It is noted that residents at Burder Court are particularly concerned and would like to
see a barrier erected during construction to avoid dust which may affect an existing
health condition. Condition 20 requires submission of dust minimisation details.
Condition 30 limits hours of construction. Other matters, which may result, for
example disturbance of rodents would be addressed through non planning
legislation.
6.3.4
The application is therefore not considered to result in any significant detrimental
impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with the National
Planning Policy Framework as well as Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core
Strategy 2006-2026 and Supplementary Planning Document – Quality Design.
6.4
The impact on highway safety and parking
6.4.1
The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Highway Officer. The Highway
Officer notes the layout approved at the outline stage and the fact that each
proposed dwelling will have at least two car parking spaces either as spaces or within
garages. The larger dwellings have three or four. Whilst the removal of garages
would be preferred to avoid the possibility of garages not being available for the
parking of vehicles it is accepted that as this application relates to reserved matters,
this could not be insisted on. Furthermore the outline permission specified minimum
internal garage dimensions and use for parking of vehicles at all times (condition 31).
Most proposed garages are detached from the proposed dwellings to limit the
possibility of non garage use. Ultimately if garages are not available to park vehicles
a breach of condition would result.
6.4.2
In order to secure a layout which is acceptable in conservation terms (character of
area partly within the Conservation Area and AONB), the layout has been revised.
The layout is similar to that approved at the outline stage and includes terraced units
fronting the road and parking courts away from main entrances to dwellings. Concern
has been expressed by the Parish Council and Highway Officer that lack of off street
parking directly adjacent to individual dwellings would result in on street parking to
access front doors and that this would then detract from the appearance of the
development to the detriment of the character of the village. A further amendment to
the layout has been received introducing road narrowing. Given the fact that the
development does meet current guidelines for two spaces per dwelling, this
application is for reserved matters (detail rather than principle) and an existing
condition will preclude non car parking use within garages, the layout is on balance
considered acceptable.
6.4.3
The layout plan has been amended to address other concerns expressed by the
Highway Officer in terms of verge/footway width, dropped kerb positions and
additional off street parking for plots 24 and 25. Condition 23 attached to the outline
consent requires further detail in respect of road layout, turning and surfacing details.
This will ensure compliance with highway current layout and safety standards.
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 28
8 April 2015
6.4.4
The Waste Services Officer has confirmed that there is no objection in terms of waste
collection. The amended plan shows a collection point to serve plots 17 to 21, to
ensure that the carry distance for operatives does not exceed the 30 metre maximum
set out in the Manual for Streets (MfS).
6.4.5
Given the extent of development it is suggested that any permission for reserved
matters should include a Construction Management Plan. This would ensure
construction traffic is managed and would avoid conflict with existing local residents.
A suitably worded condition is suggested.
6.4.6
The proposal is considered acceptable and would not introduce any significant
concerns in respect of highway safety in accordance with Policies CS13 and CS14
of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policy TRANS1 of the WBDLP
of the West Berkshire Distract Local Plan saved policies 2007.
6.5
Flooding and Sewerage Infrastructure
6.5.1
Most of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. During consideration of the outline
application, further flood modelling was undertaken. The Environment Agency
accepted the findings that the site lies outside the 1 in 1000 year modelled flood plain
and it was confirmed that there would be dry access to the site during a 1 in 100 year
event. The application did not require a Sequential Test. A number of conditions were
attached including full details of a sustainable drainage scheme.
6.5.2
Concern has been expressed during the consideration of this current Reserved
Matters application regarding potential flooding and capacity of existing sewerage
infrastructure for the development. This includes reference to recent flood events
(Winter 2013/2014) in Compton and historic records provided by the Parish Council
regarding ponds on or near the site and historic flooding of basements in nearby
properties.
6.5.3
The outline planning permission considered details in respect of flooding and
drainage including a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and further Flood Modelling
accepted by the Environment Agency. Conditions attached to the permission require
the submission of full details a sustainable drainage scheme. This current application
for Reserved Matters was deferred from the Western Area Planning Committee held
on 5th November 2014 to enable further details to be submitted and to secure a
further FRA. The applicant has not submitted an updated Flood Risk Assessment as
the Environment Agency have confirmed acceptance of the previous FRA and later
Flood Modelling information, subject to conditions (Permission 11/01159/XOUTMAJ).
The applicant has now submitted the proposed Sustainable Drainage Scheme
(Condition 15) required by the Environment Agency to ensure that the development
would not result in an increased risk of flooding within the site and the wider area.
The proposed scheme is based on an analysis of soakage tests carried out in March
2014. The scheme has been accepted by both the Environment Agency and the
West Berkshire Council Drainage Engineer and has been approved (application
14/03383/COND2).
The approved scheme is for a tanked permeable paving system, utilising the road
and footpath areas of the site, with controlled discharge into the existing 450mm
private drain within the site. Due to the high water table, traditional soakaway
drainage techniques would not be effective. The system will be entirely sealed with
impermeable geo-membrane, with a storage capacity of 245 cubic metres and
attenuated discharge at a controlled rate of 5 litres per second, flowing then into the
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 29
8 April 2015
main surface water drain in the High Street. The system will not mobilise existing
contaminants or allow contaminants to enter the surface water drainage system and
will allow effective water quality management. The approved scheme will provide
storage and attenuation and reduce water run off and flood risk both on the site and
locally. This will provide betterment over the existing situation where there is no
management of flow or on site storage.
The proposal has been designed to provide capacity to store and attenuate release
of surface water for a 1 in 100 year event plus 30% for climate change. There will be
no attenuation pond, although the applicant has been advised that this could still form
part of the proposed landscape scheme. Finished floor level of dwellings will be set at
150mm above external levels, to protect residents from flooding. If there is a more
extreme event the site roads will provide a further 200 cubic metres of storage
capacity. The system will be privately managed and detailed maintenance, remedial
action and monitoring is included.
6.5.4
With regard to sewerage infrastructure Thames Water have confirmed that the
existing network does have capacity for the proposal and the recent (Winter of
2013/2014) extreme weather events resulted in the system struggling to cope with
the volume of groundwater and surface water entering sewers. This was not isolated
to Compton and an improvement to the network to make it less vulnerable to such
extreme events is being looked at.
6.5.5
It is considered that the approved SuDS scheme with storage areas, attenuation and
controlled discharge will limit the amount of surface water being released into the
network and provide betterment over the existing situation. The details have been
approved by both the Environment Agency and Council’s Drainage Engineer.
6.5.6
The proposed reserved matters and approved SuDS scheme is in compliance with
policy CS16 of the Core Strategy and advice contained within the NPPF, which seeks
to minimise the risk of increased flooding resulting from proposed development and
resulting surface water run-off.
6.6 Other Matters
Developer contributions
6.6.1
The outline planning permission secured, through a legal agreement, required
developer contributions to mitigate against the impact of the development on
services, amenity and infrastructure. This is in compliance with Policy CS5 of the
Core Strategy, advice contained within the NPPF and Delivering Investment from
Sustainable Development SPD June 2013
Affordable housing
6.6.2
The completed S106 included the provision of 7 affordable dwellings. The Housing
Officer has requested a change to the mix of units, prompted by changes to
Government requirements and the bedroom tax. Such a change would require a
deed of variation. As this application is considering reserved matters rather than the
principle it is not considered reasonable to seek this change. The revised layout has
resulted in a change in location of the affordable units. The agreement allows such a
change subject to written agreement. The Housing Officer has not commented on the
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 30
8 April 2015
most recent amended layout. A response, if received, will be provided in the
Committee Update.
Housing Mix and size of units
6.6.3
Local concern has been expressed regarding housing mix and size of units. The total
number of units has not altered. The sizes in terms of bedrooms has changed
slightly. There are now no five bedroom dwellings. The mix proposed is:
6 x two bed
9 x three bed
10 four bed
compared to
11 two bed dwellings; 3 three bed dwellings; 7 four bed dwellings and 4 five bed
dwellings. (14 smaller units and 11 larger units).
This is not considered too dissimilar providing 15 smaller units (two and three
bedrooms and 10 larger (four bed units).
Lifetime Homes
6.6.4
The Disabled Access Panel have provided comments on the application. All
affordable units will be constructed to lifetime homes standard (or equivalent) as
specified within the completed S106 agreement. In order to meet Building
Regulations requirements the dwellings will have a level access.
National Planning Policy Framework
6.6.5
The NPPF places a strong emphasis on sustainable development. All planning
applications must result in sustainable development with consideration being given to
economic, social and environmental sustainability aspects of the proposal. The
proposed scheme is considered to be in a sustainable location and would not
adversely impact upon the environmental, economic and social sustainability within
the locality for the reasons detailed above. As these have been found acceptable the
development is considered to constitute sustainable development in accordance with
the NPPF.
7.
Conclusion
7.1
Having taken account of all the relevant policies and the other material
considerations referred to above it is concluded that the proposed development is
acceptable and approval of the reserved matters is justifiable for the following
reasons.
7.2
The proposed development respects the existing character of the area in terms of
layout, scale and appearance, whilst providing an opportunity to enable the dwellings
away from the High Street to have their own identity. Residential amenity and that of
neighbouring land uses would not be demonstrably harmed. There would be no
conflict with highway safety in terms of road layout and car parking provision, noting
the concern expressed regarding parking courts and garages. The proposed scheme
and approved sustainable drainage system (SuDS) will not result in an increase in
the risk of flooding of the site or surrounding area. The approved SuDS measures will
provide betterment over the existing situation where there is no control regarding
water run-off from existing buildings and hard surfaces. Amendments secured during
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 31
8 April 2015
consideration of the application have sought to address and limit concerns expressed
by local residents and the Parish Council.
7.3
As such the application is considered to be in compliance with National and Local
Planning Policies as well as Supplementary Planning Document “Quality Design” and
the Compton Village Design Statement.
8.
Full Recommendation
8.1
To GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions:
8.2
Schedule of conditions
Time limit Reserved Matters
1.
This approval relates solely to the reserved matters referred to in Condition No. 02 of
the outline permission granted on Notice of Decision No. 11/01159/XOUTMA.
Nothing contained in this proposal or this Notice shall be deemed to affect or vary the
conditions imposed on that outline planning permission, which must be complied with
in full.
Reason: The reserved matters cannot be considered separately from the permission
to which they relate and the conditions imposed on that outline permission are still
applicable, in order to comply with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire
Core Strategy 2006-2026.
Approved plans
2.
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing
title number(s)
Location Plan
12.086.100 Rev A
(received 30th April)
Site Layout Plan
12.086.100 Rev 21
(received 24th October)
Street Scenes
12.086.100 Rev D
(received 23rd Sept)
Elevations and Floor Plans
Plots 1 and 2
12.086.03 Rev C and 12.086.02 Rev D(received 1st August)
Plots 3 to 7
12.086.13 Rev F and 12.086.14 Rev F(received 1st August)
Plots 8 and 9
12.086.15 Rev E
(received 1st August)
Plots 10 and 17
12.086.05 Rev G
(received 23rd Sept)
Plot 11
12.086.06 Rev F
(received 1st August)
Plots 12 and 13
12.086.10 Rev G
(received 23rd Sept)
Plots 14 and 15
Plots 16 and 22
Plots 18 and 19
Plots 20 and 21
Plot 23
Plots 24 and 25
12.086.24 Rev B and 12.086.25 Rev B(received 1st August)
12.086.11
(received 1st August)
12.086.04 Rev E
(received 1st August)
12.086.01 Rev E
(received 1st August)
12.086.07 Rev F
(received 1st August)
12.086.17 Rev D and 12.086.18 Rev D(received 1st August)
Garages/Car Barns
Plots 1 to 5
12.086.22 Rev E
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 32
(received 24th October)
8 April 2015
Plots 6 and 7
12.086.23 Rev E
Plots 10-13, 16-17,21 12.086.19 Rev D
Plots 20, 22, 23
12.086.21 Rev F
(received 24th October)
(received 1st August)
(received 1st August)
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that this permission relates to the submitted plans only and in
accordance with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 20062026.
Construction Method Statement
3.
No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The
statement shall provide for:
(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
(b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials
(c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
(d) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays
and facilities for public viewing
(e) Wheel washing facilities
(f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction
(g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and
construction works
Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the
interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the
National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the
West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire
District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
DC
West Berkshire Council
Western Area Planning Committee
Page 33
8 April 2015
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 34
14/00926/RESMAJ
Greens Yard, High Street, Compton
Map Centre Coordinates :
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission
of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown
Copyright 2003.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may
lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Scale :
Organisation West Berkshire Council
Department
Comments
Not Set
Date
26 March 2015
SLA Number 0100024151
Page 35
1:4238
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 36
Agenda Item 5.
NEWBURY
14/01955/FULD
6 Market Place
Newbury
Newbury Ltd
Erect third floor
containing two 2
bed flats.
Dele. Refusal
Dismissed
24.3.15
Pins Ref 3000631
Main Issues
Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Newbury
Conservation Area and the setting of the listed Corn Exchange.
Reasons
No. 6 Market Place is a large modern office building on the southern corner of Newbury Market
Place. It houses a betting office on the ground floor and the upper two floors either have been or will
be converted into flats. The proposal is to add a fourth floor on the roof with two more flats.
The building is in a prominent corner location and is highly visible from within the market place
looking out and from the south looking towards the market place. From within the market place
looking south the listed Corn Exchange, with its neo-classical façade has a significant presence
which stands out despite the negative effects of the appeal building. In the context of this appeal
this defines its significance. Looking into the market place the character of the Conservation Area is
made up of the variety of attractive buildings arranged around its perimeter.
In this context the appeal building, described as “quasi-brutalist” by the appellant, appeared in the
Inspector’s view, as a strikingly ugly building. The proposed extra floor would be set back from the
edge so from close to would not be particularly visible from the street, but it would be clearly seen in
longer views.
The appellant argues it would help assimilate the existing stair tower, which sticks up above the roof
level. While this is true, the stair tower is most intrusive in views from the rear, from where the
impact of the building as a whole is limited. The stair tower either cannot be seen from the market
place or, from the south, is less prominent due to its mono-pitched roof. Reducing its impact would
not therefore be greatly positive. The appellant also argues that the building is too low to
successfully turn the corner and the extension would help break up its stark lines.
Ordinarily a taller building on the corner, especially one acting as a gateway to the market place
could be of benefit. However, in the Inspector’s view the current building is so awful that anything
that draws attention to it should be avoided. At least at present in views it is lower than the Corn
Exchange which remains the dominant building of this end of the market place. To increase the
height of the appeal building would add to its prominence and detract from the setting of the Corn
Exchange. From the south when seen, for example from the vicinity of the post office, the long side
of the appeal building is prominent in views towards the market place and again increasing that
prominence and drawing attention to it by adding an extra floor would serve to increase its already
harmful impact on the Conservation Area.
The much taller and even uglier telephone exchange building does not define the character of the
area. It can be seen from the far north of the market place, from where it appears taller than either
the Corn Exchange or the appeal building, but it is considerably further away and does not intrude
into the setting of the Corn Exchange in the same way as the appeal building. From the south it is
not visible in most views. Nor did the Inspector think that the Parkway buildings set a precedent.
They were part of a larger redevelopment scheme, and in any event do not have the particular
relationship the appeal building does to the market place.
Taking this all together, the Inspector considered the proposal is harmful to the setting of the Corn
Exchange and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Although the harm is less
than substantial he did not think there are any positive benefits sufficient to outweigh it. The
proposal is contrary to policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006) which seeks to
Page 37
protect the historic environment to encourage good design and to the NPPF, paragraphs 126 to
141.
Decision
The appeal is dismissed.
Because he was refusing planning permission, the Inspector did not need to consider the issue of
the s106 obligation.
DC
Page 38
NEWBURY
14/00234/FULD
Pins Ref
2223037
Dolmans,
Shaw Hill,
Shaw, Newbury
Charles Smith
Homes
Erection of three town houses,
Dele.
rearrangement of car parking
Refusal
layout for the extant approval
11/01689/FULD for the erection of
a block of 8 no. apartments.
Allowed
25.3.15
Procedural Matters
The decision notice listed five reasons for refusal. Reason three related to the lack of evidence to
suggest that the development could be constructed so as to achieve Code Level 4 of the Code for
Sustainable Homes, as required by policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2012) (the
CS). The Council are satisfied that Code Level 4 can be achieved on the basis of the preassessment report that has been submitted with the appeal. Consequently, they no longer wish to
pursue this reason for refusal and have recommended that a condition be attached to any approval
to secure Code Level 4, if the Inspector were minded to allow the appeal. The appellant has no
objection to such a condition and the Inspector was satisfied that such a condition would be
necessary, in line with policy CS15, in the interests of achieving sustainable development, and that
it would meet the tests set out in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework).
The fifth reason for refusal alleges that the proposal would fail to mitigate its impact on local
infrastructure, services, amenities and affordable housing need, as a result of the lack of a planning
obligation. A signed and executed unilateral undertaking (UU) has been submitted with the appeal.
This would require financial contributions to be made towards the provision of education
(£3,800.59), adult social care (£2,262), library facilities (£1,227), public open space (£5,730),
transport facilities (£16,500) and waste and recycling (£168.60). The UU also includes provision for
an ‘administration fee’ which is stated as being either £675 or £1,350. In response to the document,
the Council consider that the figure should be £675.
Notwithstanding the fact that they have submitted the UU the appellants dispute whether any of the
contributions requested by the Council would comply with the tests of regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and paragraph 204 of the Framework. They also
consider that the proposal falls below the threshold for which planning obligations should be sought,
having regard to current Government policy relating to schemes of 10 units or less, as set out within
the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)1. Furthermore, the appellants consider that the development
falls below the threshold for which affordable housing provision should be required under the terms
of policy CS6 of the CS and, consequently, they have made no provision for affordable housing
within the UU.
The Council consider that the rationale for the requested infrastructure contributions is clearly
justified within their statement of case and consistent with the requirements of policies CS5 and
CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 (the CS) and the adopted supplementary
planning document Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development (2013) (the SPD). In their
view, current Government policy within the PPG does not amount to a material consideration that is
sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favour of the Development Plan, as established by section
38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004). Whilst the proposal of itself falls below
the threshold for which affordable housing provision will be sought under policy CS6, the Council
considers that it forms part of a larger development relating to the same site, in combination with the
previously approved scheme for 8 apartments. As such they consider that three affordable housing
units should be provided as a result of the proposal.
The Council have indicated that the development would be liable for a charge under the Community
Infrastructure Levy if a decision is made after 01 April 2015. If the development is issued after that
date, they would no longer seek the infrastructure contributions that are contained within the
submitted UU.
Page 39
In order to avoid any potential ‘double counting’ of contributions Regulation 123(2) of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL Regulations) makes clear that a planning
obligation which seeks to provide funding or the provision of infrastructure which is intended to be
funded, wholly or partly, by CIL, may not constitute a reason for granting planning permission. I
have taken account of this in my decision below.
Main Issues
In view of the above, the main issues in relation to the appeal are:
i) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including its
effect on protected trees;
ii) Whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future residents with regard
to the level of external amenity space;
iii) Whether contributions contained within the submitted UU are necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; and, if so, whether those contributions
should be sought, having regard to the requirements of the CS and current Government policy
within the Planning Practice Guidance.
iv) Whether the proposal should make provision for affordable housing, having regard to the
requirements of policy CS6 of the CS and current Government policy within the Planning Practice
Guidance; and
v) Whether the proposal would represent sustainable development, having regard to the policies of
the Framework, taken as a whole.
Reasons
Character and Appearance of the Area
The appeal site relates to the garden area of Dolmans, a substantial dwelling set to the side of
Shaw Hill as it rises past the site. Mature trees within gardens and those in the highway verge
combine to create a verdant and attractive setting for the substantial detached dwellings on either
side of the carriageway. Dolmans has a substantial garden to the south of the house. The house
itself is an attractive building, even in its present condition, but is due to be demolished to allow
construction of 8 flats under a planning permission granted by the Council in 2011. Work has
commenced on the implementation of that permission.
In the immediate context, the site is within a section of Shaw Hill dominated by large dwellings, of
varying age and architectural style, in substantial plots. However, that character is not universal to
the wider area within which the site is located; immediately to the north of the site, around the
junction with Love Lane, the built form becomes more tightly packed, with detached dwellings on
smaller plots. When viewed from the public highway, including the raised pavement on the western
side of Shaw Hill the mature trees and landscaping are the predominant features in the character of
the immediate area. Even in the winter months the planting provides a dense screen, with fleeting
views through to the dwellings beyond.
The appeal site conforms to this pattern and established trees create a high degree of enclosure.
This enclosure is provided not only by the trees within the site but the coniferous trees immediately
beyond the site boundary on the highway verge. The majority of the protected trees run alongside
the western boundary, with the exception of a mature beech, which is located on neighbouring land
beyond the south-east corner of the garden, and a Himalayan birch which is relatively central.
A tree survey has been submitted, including a tree constraints plan which defines the root protection
area (RPA). Reference has been made to the location of the highway and potential impact on the
RPA but this would have been apparent to the author of the tree survey when the site survey was
being undertaken. No compelling written evidence has been submitted that would lead the Inspector
to question the validity of the professional evidence provided by the appellant in this respect.
Page 40
Of the 16 trees within the group TPO, three were identified as being unsuitable for long term
retention, including a Yew (T104-U) and Laurel (T106-U) close to the gable of the proposed building
and a Sycamore (T95-U) adjacent to the site entrance. The survey identifies the deficiencies of
these three specimen, including defects that the Inspector was able to observe at the time of his
visit. Subject to suitable replacement planting being secured by an appropriate condition to secure a
suitable landscaping scheme, he was satisfied that the loss of these three specimen would not
cause harm to the integrity of the group TPO or the wider character and appearance of the area. In
addition to securing adequate replacement planting, a landscaping scheme would also secure
additional planting and screening along the boundary of the site to supplement the screening
offered by existing vegetation.
Furthermore, on the evidence before him, he was satisfied that the remaining trees could be
protected through the imposition of a condition requiring that the development is carried out in
accordance with an arboricultural method statement that should first be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Council, as local planning authority.
Internally, the gently stepped layout of the garden relates intimately to the south facing aspect of the
existing dwelling; the layout of the garden clearly relates to that of the house. The redevelopment of
the house for apartments will alter this historic relationship, in terms of the type of accommodation,
and the fact that a car parking area is proposed immediately to the south of the new apartments.
Thus, much of the historic character and ambiance of the internal environs will be lost, in any event,
as a result of the existing approval.
The principal façade of the proposed dwellings would face onto the south-facing elevation of the
new flats such that the two buildings would have a direct relationship with one another. To the
Inspector’s mind, this is a reasonable design response, particularly in the context of the adjacent
dwellings which do not front directly onto Shaw Hill. The distance between the two blocks would
also be sufficient to prevent a cramped form of development. Furthermore, the internal arrangement
would have little impact on the wider street-scene, given the existing tree cover and the fact that this
can be retained and enhanced through additional planting. As noted, there is no prevailing
architectural style within the area and, consequently, there is no reason to find that the townhouse
design would cause harm to the established pattern of development.
Therefore, whilst the proposal would result in an increase in the built density of the site, it would be
well-screened from surrounding vantage points and well designed, of itself. Thus, the proposal
would not result in any significant harm to character and appearance of the surrounding area and
would conform to the need for good design, as set out at section 7 of the Framework. It would also
comply with the design related requirements of policies CS14 and CS19 of the CS and saved policy
HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (2007).
In reaching his conclusions in this respect, the Inspector noted the previous appeal decision, dated
08 December 2010, relating to the site. He was not provided with the plans or drawings that
accompanied that proposal and it is unclear how that scheme compared in terms of scale and
appearance to the current proposal. In any event, each appeal must be determined on its individual
merits and he considered the proposal on the information before him, taking account of the fact that
planning permission for the redevelopment of Dolmans has been approved since that appeal
decision was issued.
Whether the Proposal Would Provide Satisfactory Living Conditions for Future Residents with
Regard to Outdoor Amenity Space
The Council’s Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (the Residential SPD)
recommends that houses above 3 bedrooms should be provided with a garden area of 100 square
metres. This is put forward as a general guide as opposed to an absolute rule. The proposed rear
gardens would be approximately 10m in length with a width ranging from 6 to 7 metres. This would
Page 41
be below the recommended standard but would be sufficient for basic amenities such as sitting out,
drying washing, play for small children etc. The gardens would also be south-facing and, therefore,
would benefit from good levels of natural light. The Inspector was satisfied that this would provide
adequate living conditions for future residents, commensurate with the type of accommodation
proposed.
Residents of the apartment block would benefit from a substantially reduced area of external space
in comparison to the layout, as originally approved. However, the approved plans demonstrate that
outdoor space would be available around the perimeter of the apartment block, including a decking
area for outdoor seating. This area benefits from a pleasant setting, amongst mature landscaping
and would provide opportunities for outdoor seating and recreation. Neither party has calculated the
space available in numerical terms and the Council have not referred specifically to the living
conditions of residents of the apartments within their statement. To his mind, this would provide an
acceptable level of amenity, commensurate with the type of accommodation proposed; apartments
in close proximity to the town centre and its amenities.
Consequently, the Inspector was satisfied that the level of external amenity space would meet the
likely needs of future occupants and, accordingly, that living conditions would be acceptable in this
regard. In this respect, the proposal would conform to advice within paragraph 17 of the Framework.
The Need for Financial Contributions Towards Local Services
The PPG makes clear that all planning obligations, including where tariff style charges are sought,
must be fully justified and evidenced, and that they must meet the tests laid out within regulation
122 of the CIL regulations and paragraph 204 of the Framework. The introductory text to the SPD
notes that the guidance is intended to provide consistency and transparency with regard to the type
and scale of contributions that the Council is likely to seek. It also notes that planning obligations will
be considered on their merits and negotiated on the basis of regulation 122 and paragraph 204 of
the Framework. Thus, whilst the SPD provides guidance on the Council’s approach, it does not
negate the need to justify contributions in any given case.
In terms of transport, the Local Highway Authority (LHA) have suggested that the requested
contribution of £16,500 would be used towards supporting the two local bus services that pass close
to the site (5 and 6/6a), upgrades to local bus stops, and improvements to facilities at Newbury train
station. Whilst the development may increase patronage of bus and train services to a modest
degree, commensurate with its size, the site is in a sustainable location, within walking distance of
the town centre, where residents would have good access to a full range of shops and services.
Given the inherently sustainable location of the site the proposal would not give rise to any transport
related effects that would need to be mitigated in order to make it acceptable in planning terms.
Increased patronage of local services is not evidence of harm; in fact, it is reasonable to expect that
increased usage would have beneficial impacts by reducing the subsidy required to sustain existing
bus services. The Inspector also noted that the SPD states that the Council will seek revenue
contributions in appropriate circumstances ‘to fund the running of a service made necessary by the
development’. That is not applicable to the proposal before him which would not generate a need for
a bus service by virtue of its scale and sustainable location. Whilst he noted the desire to upgrade
existing bus stops to include real time passenger information systems, there is no evidence to
suggest that the bus stops are currently unsuitable for use or to suggest that the upgrades are
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Similarly, he had not been
provided with any specific evidence to suggest that Newbury train station is presently unsuitable for
use without passenger safety improvements, or that those improvements are necessary to
accommodate any increased usage that would stem from the proposal. In view of the above, the
Inspector was not satisfied that the requested contribution of is necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms.
Page 42
The Council has undertaken an exercise to determine the likely child yield from the development
and set that against capacity within local primary and secondary schools. On the basis of that
exercise, they have determined that there would be sufficient capacity within those schools to
accommodate the expected number of children. As a result, contributions towards primary and
secondary provision have not been requested. The expected child yield of the development for
pupils with special educational needs is 0.04, some way short of an additional pupil.
The SPD notes that such provision is organised on a district wide basis, as opposed to more local
catchments. To his mind, that does not avoid the need to demonstrate that a contribution is required
to make the development acceptable on its own merits. No information has been provided with
regard to the capacity within the district to accommodate additional pupils with special educational
needs that would be likely to arise from the proposed development. As such, on the information
before him, he could not conclude that the requested contribution is necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms.
The SPD refers to a ‘Child Sufficiency Assessment Report’ (2010) with regard to early years’ child
care. The summary of that report in the SPD identified that there were limited places available
across the district, taken as a whole, with very limited provision in outlying rural locations. The SPD
states that contributions will be sought from all developments on the basis of the district wide need,
as identified in the 2010 assessment. However, that report is now approximately 5 years old and no
current analysis has been provided of the capacity for childcare provision. Furthermore, the scarcity
of rural provision, as identified in that report is not necessarily indicative of a lack of early years’
provision within Newbury. The Inspector could see no reason to apply a district wide approach to
early years’ provision in contrast to the evidenced based approach used by the Council regarding
primary and secondary education which looks at capacity in locations relevant to the proposed
development. The PPG requires contributions to be fully justified and evidenced. For the reasons
given, insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that a contribution towards early
years’ provision is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, or that the
need for the contribution is directly related to the proposed development.
The library contribution was requested on the basis of the potential borrowing capacity of residents
of the proposed development, based on the number of residents and the fact that each would be
permitted to borrow 15 books per visit. Further evidence was provided regarding the number of
books loaned by Newbury library in the year spanning 2012/2013, usage of public computers, and
the level of stock carried by the library, put at 84,215 items. However, no supporting evidence has
been provided to suggest that this level of stock is insufficient to accommodate any increase in
borrowing or to suggest that the facilities will be unable to accommodate any extra demand.
Therefore, he was not satisfied that the contribution has been adequately supported by evidence to
demonstrate that it is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
The statement from the Council’s adult social care services team notes, in generic terms, the nature
of services provided within the District and considers that a contribution is justified on the basis that
any increase in population will add pressure on the demand for those services. However, no specific
detail about the capacity of local services is provided and no detail is provided as to how the
suggested contribution would be spent in a way that would mitigate any need generated by the
proposed development. Therefore, he was not satisfied that the contribution is necessary on the
basis of the information provided, nor can he be certain that it is directly related to the development
proposed.
Topic Paper 7 of the SPD identifies that the Council is satisfied that the quantity of public open
space within the district is adequate, in line with local standards, but notes that there is a need to
improve its quality. The Council have stated that the requested contribution of £5,730 would be
used to improve existing public open space within 400m of the site. However, no information has
been provided to show where those spaces are and no analysis has been provided in terms of the
existing quality of those spaces. Consequently, from the evidence before him, he was unable to
Page 43
determine whether the public open space within the vicinity of the site has any qualitative deficiency
that would need to be improved in order to accommodate the modest increase in usage that would
result from the proposed development. As such, he could not conclude that the contribution is
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
The Council have put forward a condition to require that refuse and recycling facilities shall be
provided for each dwelling. The Inspector was satisfied that a condition to secure such provision is
necessary to ensure that adequate facilities are in place, in the interests of the character and
appearance of the area and in the
interests of re-using existing resources, in line with paragraph 17 of the Framework. Consequently,
adequate provision for waste and recycling facilities on site can be achieved through the imposition
of a condition and the financial contribution of £168.60 is not necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms.
No detail is provided within the UU regarding the purpose of the ‘administration fee’, or how it is
intended to be spent by the Council. As such, the Inspector could not be certain that the contribution
would meet the tests of regulation 122 of paragraph 204 of the Framework.
In view of the above, he concluded that the provisions of the UU are not necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms and, with regard to early years’ childcare and adult social
services, he was not satisfied that the contribution is directly related to the impact of the proposed
development. The Council have supplied two previous appeal decisions where inspectors have
accepted requests for infrastructure contributions. However, each appeal must be determined on its
individual merits and he was unaware of the information that was submitted to the respective
Inspectors in support of the request for contributions in those cases. The Inspector also noted that
those decisions were made prior to the adoption of the CS, publication of the current SPD, and
publication of the Framework and PPG. Thus, the policy context has evolved since those decisions
were issued and he considered the proposal on the information before him.
Policy CS5 does not, of itself, require that contributions are made for all developments of 1 dwelling
or above. That threshold is set within the SPD and, as such, is not an absolute requirement of the
development plan. As set out above, the adoption of the SPD does not negate the need to consider
requests for contributions based upon the specific impact of an individual scheme, in view of
regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and paragraph 204 of the Framework. In view of his findings
on those matters, the contributions within the UU are not required for the development to comply
with policy CS5.
The provisions of the development plan and the PPG are both material considerations in the
determination of this appeal. He found that there is no requirement in policy CS5 for the financial
contributions contained within the UU, and no requirement within the development plan that
infrastructure contributions will be sought on a threshold dependent upon the number of dwellings
proposed. Paragraph 12 of the PPG is clear that contributions should not be sought for schemes of
10 dwellings or less. The Inspector attached significant weight to the PPG in this regard as it
represents current Government policy. Given this, and the lack of any justified need for
contributions, based on policy CS5 of the CS, he took no account of the provisions of the UU in
reaching his decision to grant planning permission.
National Westminster Bank PLC is a signatory to the UU and the Council have highlighted that their
interest, as ‘mortgagee’ is not referred to within the recitals of the document. In addition, the
company registration number and registration number are absent from the UU. Section 106(9) of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that an obligation must identify the person
entering into the deed and state what his interest in the land is. Whilst it may be assumed that
National Westminster Bank PLC is the mortgagee, this is not stated within the UU. In any event, as
Page 44
set out, he took no account of the UU in reaching his decision. Therefore, the highlighted drafting
issue does not have any bearing on his decision.
The Council have indicated that the development would be liable for a charge under the CIL
regulations, if his decision is issued after 01 April 2015. In such circumstances, it would be unlawful
for the contents of the UU to be taken into account as a reason for granting planning permission.
However, for the reasons given, he took no account of the UU in reaching his decision. The
collection of any CIL contribution is undertaken by the relevant charging authority on service of a
notice that planning permission has been granted in relation to chargeable development. As such,
the requirement for, and enforcement of, the payment of any contribution in relation to the proposed
development is not a matter for consideration in this appeal.
Whether the Development Should Provide for Affordable Housing
Policy CS6 of the CS identifies that affordable housing provision will only be required on sites
providing 5 dwellings or more. The proposal before him was for 3 dwellings and therefore falls under
that threshold, albeit that it would result in a total of 11 units at the site, when taken in the context of
the 8 apartments that already have approval.
However, as acknowledged by the Council, the scheme of 8 apartments was approved in 2011 at a
time when the Council’s policy position was different. Whilst he was mindful of the Council’s
concerns regarding the sub-division of sites as a means of avoiding the threshold, it seemed to him
to be unreasonable to retrospectively apply an altered planning policy position by taking into
account a scheme that already has approval. Permission was granted in 2011 for that scheme on
the basis of Local Plan policies as they applied at the time, prior to the adoption of the CS. The
development complied with those policies and can legitimately be constructed without providing
affordable housing. The fact that no affordable housing was provided is through no fault of the
appellant; it is simply a reflection of the policy position at the time. At his accompanied site visit, both
parties confirmed that work on the extant permission for 8 flats had commenced, following the
discharge of relevant conditions.
Consequently, the current proposal cannot be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid the affordable
housing threshold. It is a new planning application submitted under different policy circumstances.
Any applicant for planning permission can only address the policies as they exist at the time of
making an application. The proposal does not seek a complete redevelopment of the entire site. It is
for an additional three dwellings. On that basis, the Inspector concluded that the proposal falls
below the threshold of 5 dwellings set by policy CS5. He also attached significant weight to the
current Government policy within the PPG which is that affordable housing contributions should not
be sought for schemes of 10 dwellings or less. As such, there is no basis in development plan or
national policy for affordable housing to be provided as part of the scheme.
Whether the Proposal Would Constitute Sustainable Development
Paragraph 7 of the Framework identifies three, mutually dependent, strands to the definition of
sustainable development; economic, social and environmental. The proposal would add to the
supply of housing in a sustainable location, within walking distance of the town centre and its shops,
services and employment opportunities. The construction of three new houses would bring shortterm economic benefits as a result of employment in the local economy and the eventual occupants
would bring additional spending capacity for local shops and services. The proposal would therefore
have modest economic benefits, commensurate with its scale.
Providing the supply of housing to meet the needs of present and future generations is a recognised
social benefit and this would apply to the proposal before him. In environmental terms, the site is in
a sustainable location, the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding
area and trees can be protected during the course of development. The dwellings would also be
constructed to Code Level 4, reflecting the need for sustainable construction within the CS.
Page 45
No harm has been identified that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of
granting planning permission, when assessed against the policies of the Framework, taken as a
whole. Therefore, he concluded that the proposal would represent sustainable development and
that the presumption in favour of sustainable development at paragraph 14 of the Framework is
applicable.
Conditions
The Inspector considered the suggested conditions and have included those that meet the statutory
tests, as detailed at paragraph 206 of the Framework, making changes to the wording, where
necessary, for clarity and to avoid repetition. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, a
condition is required to ensure compliance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt. He
also attached a condition to ensure that the access arrangements and car parking/ turning areas are
implemented in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of highway safety. For the
same reason, a condition is necessary to ensure that any access gates are set back at least 5
metres behind the highway and that any such gates open inwards into the site.
Cycle parking would be available within the proposed garages and he could see no specific need for
a condition in this regard. For the reasons given above he was satisfied that a condition is
necessary to secure appropriate facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling.
As discussed above, a condition is required to secure tree protection and a detailed schedule of
work to retained trees, in line with an arboricultural method statement. A landscaping condition is
necessary to provide a planting scheme, including replacement tree planting, in the interests of the
character and appearance of the area. Details of the finished materials and boundary treatments
should also be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority for the same
reason.
A condition to ensure that the dwellings would achieve a minimum of Code Level 4 is necessary, in
the interests of achieving a sustainable development, in line with development plan policy. Given
the proximity to surrounding residential uses, and the need to protect the living conditions of those
residing nearby, he was satisfied that a condition is necessary to limit the hours within which
construction can take place at the site. Finally, a condition to ensure that the proposal is constructed
in line with a construction method statement is necessary in the interests of neighbouring amenity
and highway safety.
Conclusion
The Inspector concluded that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area would be acceptable, subject to the imposition of necessary conditions, as
described above. It would also provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers.
Financial contributions towards infrastructure provision and an obligation to provide affordable
housing are not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. No harm has
been identified that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning
permission and he was satisfied that the proposal would represent sustainable development.
For the above reasons, and taking all other matters into account, the Inspector concluded that the
appeal should be allowed.
Decision
The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of three town houses,
rearrangement of car parking layout for extant approval 11/01689/FUL for the erection of a block of
8 apartments at Dolmans, Shaw Hill, Shaw, Newbury RG14 2EL in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 14/00234/FULD, dated 24 January 2014, subject to the conditions set out in the
schedule attached to this decision.
DC
Page 46