Simon Warren Interim Managing Director · Proposal Residential development comprising 57 dwellings,...

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

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

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

Simon Warren Interim Managing Director Civic Offices, Bridge Street, Reading RG1 2LU 0118 937 3787 Our Ref: N:\Plng Apps Cttee\Agendas\161109.doc Your Ref: Direct: 0118 937 2112 e-mail: [email protected]

1 November 2016

Your contact is: Nicky Simpson – Committee Services

NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 9 NOVEMBER 2016 A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 9 November 2016 at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Reading. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below. Please note that with regard to the planning applications, the order in which applications are considered will be at the Chair’s discretion, and applications on which members of the public have requested to speak are likely to be considered first. AGENDA ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO

1. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE HELD ON 12 OCTOBER 2016

- 1

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -

3. QUESTIONS - - -

4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 8

5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 11

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 15

WEBCASTING NOTICE

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

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

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

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

Planning Applications to be determined

Item(s) Action Ward(s) Page

7 & 8 DECISION ABBEY

29

9 DECISION BATTLE

99

10 DECISION REDLANDS

103

11 DECISION TILEHURST

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 9 November 2016 Item: 7 Page No: 29 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160775 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Mrs Christina Meyer Address 173 - 175 Kings Road, Reading Proposal Change of use from office (Class B1a) to 15 (4x1, 10x2 & 1x3-bed) residential units

(Class C3) and associated works, including fenestration alterations at lower ground floor level, balustrade and door at rear first floor level to facilitate external terrace, rooflights and vents

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement Item: 7 Page No: 29 Ward: Abbey Application Number 160776 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Mrs Christina Meyer Address 173 - 175 Kings Road, Reading Proposal Internal and external alterations associated with change of use from office (Class

B1a) to 15 (4x1, 10x2 & 1x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) and associated works, including fenestration alterations at lower ground floor level, balustrade and door at rear first floor level to facilitate external terrace, rooflights and vents

Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 8 Page No: 53 Ward: Abbey Application Number 161205 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant The Bagri Foundation Address 187-189 & 191 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4EX Proposal Change of use of 187-189 Kings Rd from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui

Generis); Erection of 5-storey building to rear of 187-189 to create 35 student units (involving the reduction from 20 to 1 on- site parking space); Erection of single storey roof extension and 2- storey front extension at 191 Kings Rd to increase number of student units from 72 to 89, along with associated external alterations and landscaping (total increase of 78 student units from 72 to 150).

Recommendation Application Refused Item: 8 Page No: 53 Ward: Abbey Application Number 161206 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant The Bagri Foundation Address 187-189 & 191 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4EX Proposal Internal and external alterations associated with change of use of 187-189 Kings

Rd from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui Generis) and associated works. Recommendation Application Refused

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 9 November 2016

Item: 9 Page No: 99 Ward: Battle Application Number 06/00011 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Kingsoak Thames Valley Address Battle Hospital, 344 Oxford Road Proposal Erection of 434 no. dwellings and health care facility with associated car parking,

open space, landscaping and new access arrangements Recommendation Agree the variation to the legal agreement

Item: 10 Page No: 103 Ward: Redlands Application Number 161771 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Kielder Court, Hexham Road, Reading, RG2 7UG Proposal External refurbishment. Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 11 Page No: 111 Ward: Tilehurst Application Number 161390 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Reading Borough Council Address Land At, Conwy Close, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal Residential development comprising 57 dwellings, vehicular, cycle and pedestrian

access, parking, and hard and soft landscaping and open space at land off Conwy Close.

Recommendation Permitted subject to Legal Agreement

Keytocoding Issue 18/08/2016

KEY TO CODING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

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

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

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

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


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

Use Classes Use Classes (Amendment) Order 1972 Order 2005

Description General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005

A1 Class I Shops

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

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

• Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors

No permitted changes

A2 Class II Financial and Professional Services

• Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies

• Professional and financial services, betting offices

Permitted change to A1 where a ground floor display window exists

A3 Restaurants and Cafes

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

A4 Drinking Establishments

Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or A3

A5 Hot Food Take-Aways

Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or A3

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

No permitted change

B1 Class II Business Class III

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

Permitted change to B8 where no more than 235m

B2 Class IV-IX General industry

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

B8 Class X Storage or Distribution

Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, repositories

Permitted change to B1 where no more than 235m

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

C1 Class XI Hotels

Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change

C2 Class XII Residential Class XIV Institutions

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

C2A Secure residential institutions

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

No permitted change

C3 Dwelling houses

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

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

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

Permitted to change to C4

C4 Houses in multiple occupation

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

Permitted to change to C3

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

• Hostel No permitted change


D1 Class XIII Non- Class XV Residential Institutions Class XVI

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

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

exhibition halls • Non-residential education and training centres

No permitted change

D2 Class XVII Assembly Class XVIII and Leisure

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

rinks, gymnasiums • Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure

uses, bingo halls, casinos

No permitted change

Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 12 OCTOBER 2016

1

Present: Councillor Livingston (Chair);

Councillors Ballsdon, Brock, Duveen, Gavin, Hacker, Page, Pearce, J Williams and R Williams.

Apologies: Councillors Hopper, Robinson and Singh.

RESOLVED ITEMS

31. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 7 September 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

32. SITE VISITS

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

Resolved -

That none of the listed applications be the subject of a site visit, but that any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Service might consider appropriate be the subject of unaccompanied site visits.

33. PLANNING APPEALS

(i) New Appeals

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

(ii) Appeals Recently Determined

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

(iii) Reports on Appeal Decisions

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

160221/TPO – 3B DERBY ROAD, CAVERSHAM

Application to fell one Lime tree on the street frontage.

1


2

Written representations.

Appeal dismissed.

Resolved –

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

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

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

34. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 16 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of 21 applications for prior approval decided between 19 August and 29 September 2016.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

35. QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE MONITORING – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE: Q1 2016/17

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report summarising quarterly performance monitoring for 2016/17 Quarter 1. It provided headline information mainly related to the Council’s 2016/17 corporate performance indicators set.

The report explained that the information showed that the Council’s performance on major applications remained well above the target level. Performance on ‘minor’ applications had improved compared to the performance in the previous two years, and performance on all ‘other’ applications was well above target levels when extensions of time were taken into account.

Enforcement performance was now monitored against targets for different priorities of cases, with target deadlines of between 8 and 26 weeks, and 87% of cases had been resolved within the target timescales. Appeal decisions for the first quarter were above the target of 30% being allowed.

Resolved -

That the report be noted.

36. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MONITORING REPORT – DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE - 2015/16

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report setting out details of performance in development management (applications, appeals, enforcement and associated services) during 2015/16.

Resolved -

2


3

That the report be noted.

37. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

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

Resolved –

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

160997/FUL – 14 BAKER STREET

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Class C3) to 8 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) to include erection of timber cycle storage/shed in rear garden and additional refuse and recycling waste provision.

Granted as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with an additional condition to require submission of a satisfactory management agreement covering the internal and external communal areas and the refuse and recycling storage and collection arrangements, and the requisite dissemination of information to all future occupiers about these communal arrangements.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objector Karen Rowland, on behalf of Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association, and Harman Sond on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

161375/FUL – 4A HOWARD STREET

Change of use from 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) to 10 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) to include internal changes, demolition of existing rear projection and erection of basement and ground floor rear extensions.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which summarised a consultation response that had been received from a nearby resident. The report explained that the issues raised were addressed by the conditions recommended in the original report.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended, with an additional condition to require submission of a satisfactory management agreement covering the internal and external communal areas and the refuse and recycling storage and collection arrangements, and the requisite dissemination of information to all future occupiers about these communal arrangements.


3


4

Objector Karen Rowland, on behalf of Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association, and the applicant Jeremy Ashworth, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

161376/LBC – 4A HOWARD STREET

Change of use from 8 bedroom house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) to 10 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) to include internal changes, demolition of existing rear projection and erection of basement and ground floor rear extensions.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which summarised a consultation response that had been received from a nearby resident. The report explained that the issues raised were addressed by the conditions recommended in the original report.


Conditional listed building consent and informatives as recommended.


Objector Karen Rowland, on behalf of Baker Street Area Neighbourhood Association, and the applicant Jeremy Ashworth, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

151034/FUL – 35 CHRISTCHURCH ROAD

Conversion of 12 Bedroom HMO into 10 self-contained units comprising 7 x 1 bed studios, 1x 2 bed apartment and 2x 1 bed apartment.


Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.

Comments received and considered.

161496/REM – "WORTON GRANGE", IMPERIAL WAY

Application for approval of reserved matters (residential development) for Appearance, Landscaping, Layout, and Scale pursuant to conditions 2,5,6,7 and 38 of the hybrid application 151944 (Outline Element).

An update report was tabled at the meeting which explained that amended landscaping plans had been submitted with acceptable tree pit details that ensured that some of the adjacent hard structures were not open to potential root damage. Officers were satisfied that the details submitted met the requirements of condition 7 of permission 151944.


Conditional planning permission, obligations and informatives as recommended.


4


5

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

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

Change of use, conversion, extensions and various associated works to former Gas Works Buildings to create a part 4, 5 and 6 storey building adjacent to the River Kennet and a 3 storey building fronting Gas Works Road, providing 20 (10x1, 9x2 and 1x3-bed) residential units (Class C3).

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 legal agreement by 26 October 2016 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the report.

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

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.


161345/FUL – 62 PORTMAN ROAD

Erection of an extension over ground, first and second floors for Class B1 office purposes. Erection of extension over ground, first and second floors for class B8 self-storage purposes. Alterations to existing elevations. Ancillary car and cycle parking. Demolition of approx. 275 m2 of existing Class B8 self-storage space.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which explained that the applicant had agreed to an extension of time for determination of the application from 19 October 2016 to 30 November 2016. The report also stated that Berkshire Archaeology had responded to the consultation to advise that the site had archaeological potential, and an additional condition to secure an archaeological scheme of investigation was recommended.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 30 November 2016 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.


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


152301/FUL – ST GEORGE’S CHURCH, ST GEORGE’S ROAD

Church extension of 88sqm with dedicated parking area, core access road and

5


6

construction of 12 affordable housing units with associated parking and amenity space.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out further information on parking and had attached a plan showing all of the proposed parking spaces, and a diagram showing the tracking of vehicles using those spaces. An additional condition was recommended to require submission of a car park management plan.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 14 November 2016 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the original report.


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

The Construction Method Statement and Car park management plan to be approved in consultation with Ward Councillors.


Objector Sylvia Drever, Ward Councillor Debs Absolom, and Tanya Trayner on behalf of the applicant attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

(3) That, further to the Committee’s consideration of application 160997/FUL in (1) above, the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services submit a report to a future meeting of the Committee on the potential development of a generic template of conditions that could be applied to future applications for change of use to a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), in order to reflect the Council’s Residential Conversions Supplementary Planning Document and help ensure satisfactory management of HMO properties.

38. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC

Resolved –

That, pursuant to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended) members of the press and public be excluded during consideration of items 39-40 below, as it was likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A (as amended) to that Act.

39. ENFORCEMENT ACTION – 49 CUMBERLAND ROAD

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report seeking the Committee’s view on what further enforcement action was considered appropriate following the failure of the owners of 49 Cumberland Road to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice issued on 8 January 2016.

6


7

Resolved -

That the Council pursue the course of action set out in paragraph 4.4 of the report, and that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services be authorised to take any necessary actions to achieve this.

(Councillor J Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item, left the room and took no part in the discussion or decision. Nature of interest: Councillor Williams lived a short distance from the property under discussion.) (Exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7).

40. PLANNING ENFORCEMENT QUARTERLY UPDATE

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report on the current status of all outstanding enforcement notices/prosecutions, including cases where formal enforcement action and/or prosecutions had been undertaken but where the action taken had not yet resolved the breach of planning control. An overview of all outstanding cases involving formal action was attached at Appendix 1. Resolved – That the report be noted. (Exempt information as defined in paragraphs 6 and 7). (The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 9.16 pm).

7

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Date:

9 November 2016

AGENDA ITEM:

4

TITLE:

POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

SERVICE:

PLANNING

WARDS:

BOROUGH WIDE

AUTHOR: Kiaran Roughan

TEL: 0118 9374530

JOB TITLE: Planning Manager E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

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

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

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

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

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

3. THE PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

issue which is before the Committee for consideration. 3.5 Site visits in the above circumstances should all take place in advance of a

Committee decision and should only be used where the expected benefit is substantial.

8

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

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

3.8 Recently Councillors have expressed a preference to carry out unaccompanied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

characteristic and persons who do not share it. 7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 None arising from this report.

9

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 8.1 The cost of site visits is met through the normal planning service budget. 9. BACKGROUND PAPERS Reading Borough Council Planning Code of Conduct. Local Safety Practice 2013 Planning Applications Committee site visits.

10

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: 9 November 2016 AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS AUTHOR: Kiaran Roughan

TEL: 0118 9374530

JOB TITLE: Planning Manager E-MAIL: [email protected] 1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 To report notifications received from the Planning Inspectorate on the

status of various planning appeals. 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

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

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

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

3. INFORMATION PROVIDED

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

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

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

appeal decisions since the last committee.

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

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

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

development plan policies, which have been adopted by the Council following public consultation. Statutory consultation also takes place on planning applications and appeals and this can have bearing on the decision 11

reached by the Secretary of State and his Inspectors. Copies of appeal decisions are held on the public Planning Register.

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

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

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

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

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

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

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS

9.1 Planning Appeal Forms and letters from the Planning Inspectorate.

12

APPENDIX 1

Appeals Lodged: WARD: Peppard APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3154081 CASE NO: 150889 ADDRESS: 25 Woods Road PROPOSAL: Proposed new house CASE OFFICER: Jasmine Singh METHOD: Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: Refuse Planning Permission APPEAL LODGED: 30.09.2016 WARD: Church APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3154971 CASE NO: 160820 ADDRESS: 51 Cressingham Road PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing house & garage. Erection of new

building containing 4 x 2-bed and 4 x 1-bed flats with associated car parking. Resubmission of 152016

CASE OFFICER: Stephen Vigar METHOD: Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: Refuse Planning Permission APPEAL LODGED: 30.09.2016 WARD: Peppard APPEAL NO: APP/EO345/W/16/3157856 CASE NO: 151773 ADDRESS: 1 The Ridings PROPOSAL: Proposed 2 bed detached dwelling (Appearance and

Landscaping Reserved for future consideration)(resubmission of 150959)

CASE OFFICER: Daniel Murkin METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: Refusal Planning Permission APPEAL LODGED: 13.10.2016 WARD: Thames APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/16/3157693 CASE NO: 160663 ADDRESS: 15 Newlands PROPOSAL: Single storey rear and two storey side extension. CASE OFFICER: Heather Banks METHOD: Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: Refuse Householder Planning Permission APPEAL LODGED: 17.10.2016

13

WARD: Caversham APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/16/3157693 CASE NO: 160622 ADDRESS: 4 Mill Green PROPOSAL: Loft conversion with hip to gable roof, flat roof rear

dormer, second storey rear extensions, single storey rear & front extensions.

CASE OFFICER: Jasmine Singh METHOD: Written Representations APPEAL TYPE: Refuse Householder Planning Permission APPEAL LODGED: 17.10.2016

APPENDIX 2 Appeals Decided: None.

APPENDIX 3 Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions. No reports available this time.

14

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

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

12 October 2016

AGENDA ITEM:

6

TITLE: APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

AUTHOR: Lynette Baker

& Julie Williams

JOB TITLE: Area Team Leaders E-MAIL: [email protected] [email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Householder development – single storey rear extensions. GPDO Part 1, Class A1(g-k).

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

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

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

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

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

Class P.

15

mailto:[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16

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

applications for full planning permission, the loss in fee income is estimated to be £704,777

(Office Prior Approvals - £652,527: Householder Prior Approvals - £43,000:

Retail Prior Approvals - £2680: Demolition Prior Approval - £1525: Storage Prior Approvals - £5045) Figures since last report Office Prior Approvals - £7845: Householder Prior Approvals - £1376

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

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

2015.

17

Table 1 – Prior-approval applications pending @ 20 October 2016

Application type CLASS A - Householder Application type

Application reference number

Address Ward Proposal Date Received

Target Determination Date

Comments Equivalent planning application fee

Householder Prior Approval - Class A, Part 1 GPDO 2015

161789 79 Henley Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 6DS

Caversham Rear extension measuring 8m in depth, with a maximum height of 4m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

21/09/2016 07/11/2016 £172


161894 4 Stansfield Close, Reading, RG2 7BQ

Church Rear extension measuring 5.21 in depth, with a maximum height of 3.5m, and 3.5m in height to eaves level.

05/10/2016 15/11/2016 £172


161910 63 Thirlmere Avenue, Tilehurst, Reading, RG30 6XH

Kentwood Rear extension measuring 3.52m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.589m, and 2.474m in height to eaves level.

07/10/2016 21/11/2016 £172


161921 25 Grange Avenue, Reading, RG6 1DJ

Park Rear extension measuring 3.8m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.1m, and 3.1m in height to eaves level.

07/10/2016 28/11/2016 £172

18

Application type






161920 49 Cumberland Road, Reading, RG1 3LB

Park Rear extension measuring 4.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.85m nd 2.85m in height to eaves level.

10/10/2016 20/11/2016 £172


161885 1 Upper Redlands Road, Reading, RG1 5JJ

Redlands Rear extension measuring 6m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

04/10/2016 14/11/2016 £172


161875 46 Mayfield Drive, Caversham, Reading, RG4 5JS

Thames Rear extension measuring 4.3m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.3m, and 3m in height to the eaves level.

30/09/2016 10/11/2016 £172


161798 17 Yelverton Road, Reading, RG2 7SU

Whitley Rear extension measuring 4m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.14m, and 3m in height to eaves level.

22/09/2016 03/11/2016 £172


161363 13 Silverthorne Drive, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7NR

Mapledurham Rear extension measuring 4m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.9m, and 2.4m in height to eaves level.

19/07/2016 13/09/2016 £172

19

Office to Residential Prior Approval applications pending Application type





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

161353 34-36 Carey Street, Reading, RG1 7JS

Abbey Change of use of ground and first floor from B1(a)(offices) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise 3 x 1 bed flats and 4 studio flats.

19/07/2016 13/09/2016 £2230


161754 Kings Lodge, 194 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4NH

Abbey Change of use of the building from Class B1(a)(offices) to C3 (dwelling houses)to comprise of 10 apartments and 9 studio flats with 17 car parking spaces.

24/08/2016 24/11/2016 £6850


161648 Tangent House, 16 Forbury Road, Reading, RG1 1SB

Abbey Change of use of first, second and third floors from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 15 one bedroom appartments.

02/09/2016 28/10/2016 £5310


161958 11 Bridge Street, Reading, RG1 2LR

Abbey Change of use of Upper Two Floors from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise three flats.

14/10/2016 12/12/2016 £690

20

Application type






161650 Cadogan House, Rose Kiln Lane, Reading, RG2 0HP

Minster Change of use of ground and first floors from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 19 one bed apartments.

02/09/2016 28/10/2016 £6850


161902 First floor, 65b Brunswick Street, Reading, RG1 6NY

Minster Change of use of first floor only from Class B1(a)(offices) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise of one dwelling.

06/10/2016 01/12/2016 £305

Demolition Prior Approval applications pending Application type





Demolition Prior Approval

161548 Berkshire Fire & Rescue Service, Caversham Road, Reading, RG1 8AA

Abbey Partial demolition of the maintenance garage with maintenance of two walls which will be lowered and retained as the boundary wall.

16/08/2016 28/10/2016 £305

21

Telecommunications Prior Approval applications pending Application type




Comments

Telecommunications Notification - Prior Approval

161821 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 3ES

Abbey Replacement of existing 14.4m lamppost monopole with 14.4m phase 4 monopole and 1 no. additional cabinet.

23/09/2016 23/11/2016

Prior Notification applications pending Application type




Comments

Prior Notification

161918 Burghfield Road Bridge, Burghfield Road, Reading

Southcote Extending height of bridge parapets and anti-climb works (Revised design of 160309)

07/10/2016 02/12/2016

Retail Prior Approvals applications pending Application type





Retail Prior Approval

161865 128 Caversham Road, Reading, RG1 8AY

Abbey Change of use of ground floor from Class A1 (shops) to C3 (dwellinghouses) to comprise 2 self-contained flats.

30/09/2016 25/11/2016 £305

22

Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications pending Application type





Prior Approval CoU from storage (Class B8) to Dwellinghouse (Class C3)

161917 930 Oxford Road, Tilehurst, Reading, RG30 6TJ

Kentwood Notification of Prior Approval for a Change of Use from Storage or Distribution Buildings (Class B8) and any land within the curtilage to Dwelling houses (Class C3). The proposed development comprises the change of use from storage (B8) to Residential (C3), converting 99.87sqm of Storage into 2 x 1 bed dwellings.

10/10/2016 05/12/2016 £305

23

Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 29 September 2016 to 20 October 2016

Application type CLASS A – Householder

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


161590 16 Newport Road, Reading, RG1 8EA

Abbey Rear extension measuring 6.0m in depth, with a maximum height of 4.0m, and 3.0m in height to eaves level.

24/08/2016 04/10/2016 Prior Approval Notification - Refusal


161643 29 Norfolk Road, Reading, RG30 2EG

Battle Rear extensions measuring 4.95m and 4m, with maximum heights of 3.5m and 3.7m and 2.35m in height to eaves level.

01/09/2016 10/10/2016 Prior Approval Notification - Approval


161517 2 Barclose Avenue, Caversham, Reading, RG4 5DR

Caversham Rear extension measuring 4m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 3m in height to eaves level.

12/08/2016 03/10/2016 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED


161563 37 Green Road, Reading, RG6 7BS

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

18/08/2016 11/10/2016 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED

24

Application type



Decision Date

Decision



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




Park Rear extension measuring 2.6 m in depth, with a maximum height of 2.85m, and 2.85m in height to eaves level.

25/08/2016 06/10/2016 Application Withdrawn


161619 5 Parkhurst Drive, Reading, RG30 2BG

Southcote Rear extension measuring 6 metres in depth, with a maximum height of 2.6 metres, and 2.3 metres in height to eaves level.


Office to Residential Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


161601 Building 1, New Century Place, East Street, Reading, RG1 4QJ

Katesgrove Change of use from Class B1(a) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 75 individual, self-contained studio and twodio apartments.


25

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


161602 Building 2, New Century Place, East Street, Reading, RG1 4ET

Katesgrove Change of use from Class B1(a) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise of 58 individual, self-contained studio and twodio apartments.



161650 Cadogan House, Rose Kiln Lane, Reading, RG2 0HP

Minster Change of use of ground and first floors from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 19 one bed apartments.


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

26

ABBEY

27

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 7 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 9 November 2016 Ward: Abbey Application No’s: 160775/FUL and 160776/LBC Address: 173-175 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4EY Proposals: 160775/FUL: Change of use from office (Class B1a) to 15 (4x1, 10x2 & 1x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) and associated works, including fenestration alterations at lower ground floor level, balustrade and door at rear first floor level to facilitate external terrace, rooflights and vents. 160776/LBC: Internal and external alterations associated with change of use from office (Class B1a) to 15 (4x1, 10x2 & 1x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) and associated works, including fenestration alterations at lower ground floor level, balustrade and door at rear first floor level to facilitate external terrace, rooflights and vents. Applicant: Ms Christina Meyer Dates Valid: 160775/FUL: 13/06/2016; 160776/LBC: 08/06/2016 Application target decision dates: Extensions of time until 23/11/2016 have been agreed with the applicant for both applications. 26 week dates: 160775/FUL: 12/12/2016; 160776/LBC: 07/12/2016 RECOMMENDATIONS 160775/FUL - Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to (i) GRANT full planning permission subject to completion of a S106 legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 23 November 2016 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure the following:

- A financial contribution of £2,835 towards Employment, Skills and Training in the borough, in accordance with the Council’s SPD.

And the following conditions to include: 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Approved drawings 3. Pre-commencement (barring the six units already commenced) Construction Management Statement to include noise and dust controls 4. i) Pre-commencement (barring the six units already commenced) final design stage BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment Pre-assessment (minimum 50% ‘excellent’, remainder ‘very good’); ii) Pre-occupation final BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment certification (minimum 50% ‘excellent’, remainder ‘very good’). 5. Pre-occupation details of refuse collection management 6. Vehicle Parking provided in accordance with the approved plans 7. Cycle Parking provided in accordance with the approved plans 8. Hours of demolition / Construction 9. No parking permits – addresses 10. No parking permits - information 11. Ventilation scheme in accordance with the approved plans 12. Noise mitigation scheme proposed in the noise assessment to be implemented. 13. Tree protection measures in accordance with the approved plans

29

14. Arboricultural Method Statement in accordance with the approved plans 15. Hard & soft landscaping in accordance with the approved plans. Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. Terms & conditions and clarification regarding pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions requiring approval of details applications to be submitted in the future. 3. The applicant is advised that an application for building regulations may be required. 4. Parking Permits – The occupiers of the dwellings will not be entitled to an on-street car parking permit. 5. Damage to the highway 6. Works affecting the highway 7. A Section 106 Agreement ref. 4263 relates to this permission. 8. To minimise the disturbance by noise of future residential occupiers of the flats and its effect on neighbouring residents, residential accommodation must be designed and constructed or converted so as to achieve the insulation requirements set out in Building Regulations Approved Document E. 9. No materials or green waste produced as a result of the clearance of the site, demolition works or construction works associated with the development hereby approved shall be burnt on site. 10. CIL 11. Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. You are advised by Thames Water to take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development. 160776/LBC - GRANT Listed Building Consent Subject to conditions to include: 1. Listed Building Time Limit – 3 Year 2. The following, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before the relevant part of the work is begun: a) Plan, elevation and section drawings, with materials annotated, of new windows and window openings (including surrounds) at a minimum scale of 1:10; b) Plan, elevation and section drawings, with materials annotated, of all new doors at a minimum scale of 1:10 with typical moulding and architrave details; c) Samples and/or manufacturer's details of new glass balustrade materials for the proposed works to be provided on site and retained on site during the course of the works. d) Typical details of new terrace railings at a scale of 1:10, including materials, finish and method of fixing. The relevant part of the works shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the details thus approved. Informatives: 1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. No works other than those detailed in application without further LBC 3. List of plans and documents considered. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is located to the east of the town centre, fronting Kings Road with

vehicular access to the rear from Orts Road. The site comprises two connected buildings (No’s 173 & 175) on the north side of Kings Road, close to the junction with Eldon Road (to the south). No. 173 is five-storeys in height, including a lower ground and roof levels. No. 175 is three-storeys, also including a lower

30

ground and roof level space. The applicant is also the owner of the neighbouring No. 177 Kings Road (although this building forms no part of these proposals).

1.2 The lawful use of the building is considered to be a Class B1 office use, although

the first, second and third floors of No. 173 are in the process of being converted to residential as a result of a 2015 permission at the site (based on the officer site visits on 21/07/2016 and 13/10/2016). The remainders of the buildings are currently vacant, in preparation for being converted to residential in the future. A landscaped front garden steps down from the building to road level. A large hard surfaced car park exists to the rear, the some of which is within the demise of No. 177 (and therefore not within the red line of the application site).

1.3 As alluded to above, the application site has been subject to recent

planning/listed building applications. First, the application site was subject to planning/listed building applications in 2014 for 13 dwellings. These were resolved to be granted by Planning Applications Committee on 15 October 2014, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement. However, the legal agreement was not completed and instead the applications were withdrawn by the applicant on 27 March 2015. This was owing to the applicant requiring more time to resolve a restrictive covenant at the site at the time. Once this issue was resolved a near identical submission was made and approved in 2015 for 13 dwellings at the site (see planning history section below for details of these applications).

1.4 The buildings are Grade II* listed, as part of a list entry that covers Nos. 173 to

183 Kings Road (odd), a terrace dating from after 1832. There are three separate blocks of two houses each joined together by single storey links of varying design. Each block has three storeys and basement, Nos 173-179 with attics. They comprise Bath stone and slate roofs, with central chimney stacks with many pots. They include channelled ground floors with moulded string, entablature and blocking course with corner and central pilasters framing two three storey bows, each with one window. The buildings include four bays, glazing bar sashes (cornices on 1st floor) and a centre break with bows. The ground floor has two windows (French casements) with balconies and contemporary cast-iron rails and decoration. Doors in outer bays have segmental heads and two panels.

1.5 It was apparent from the officer site visits at the time of the current and recent

applications (see planning history section below) that the vast majority of original features within the building had gone. The applicant has outlined that the buildings were substantially re-built after a fire in the 1980s. The original staircases have been replaced and the internal walls and partitions have been removed to form a modern open plan layout. The exterior has been completed with a high level of skill, although there are signs of the recent nature of the works (in comparison with No. 177 for example).

1.6 A large Plane Tree, subject to TPO 95/06, exists within the rear car park area,

together with smaller trees close to the rear of the building. One smaller tree exists close to the front boundary (until recently there were three in total). The site lies in the Eldon Square Conservation Area and is also within an air quality management area. The Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal describes the buildings as being of architectural interest as grand 19th century villas in Bath stone and having historic interest as examples of the polite architecture built as part of the urban development of Reading. Nos. 173–183 contributes positively to the significance of the conservation area. The Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal identifies vistas along Kings Road towards the buildings as important.

31

The rear elevation of the listed buildings makes a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and the conservation area. The location of the site in relation to the wider urban area is shown below, together with site photographs and an aerial view. The application is referred to committee owing to being a ‘major’ development.

Site Location Plan (not to scale) (application site edged in red; land also under the ownership of the applicant, but not part of this proposal, is edged in blue)

32

Site photograph of the existing front elevation / streetscene from

the junction of Kings Road and Eldon Road (20/06/16)

Site photograph of the rear elevation of the application site with the

neighbouring No. 177 hidden by a tree (21/07/16)

Aerial view looking north at the south elevation (fronting Kings Road)

33

2. PROPOSALS 2.1 Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent is sought for the change of

use of both connected buildings from office to residential use, comprising 15 self-contained flats in total.

2.2 The mix of units proposed is as follows:

• 4 x 1 bed (3 at lower ground floor level and 1 at first floor level) • 10 x 2 bed (2 at lower ground floor level, 2 at ground floor level and 2

each at first/second/third floor level) • 1 x 3 bed (at ground floor level)

2.3 18 car parking spaces, including 2 disabled bays, are proposed as part of the

wider car park to the rear of the building (also accessed by No. 177), together with cycle/waste facilities at the front and rear of the site. A number of other works are also proposed, most significantly:

• First floor rear terrace (existing flat roof) with external metalwork balustrade • Replace conservation rooflight with skylight • Skylight on sunken flat roof • Conservation rooflight in pitched roof behind parapet • Addition of vents to rear at various points • Reinstate / new lower ground floor windows • Additional doors under the outside stair vault at lower ground floor level • Increase height / replacement of windows • Rear external glass balustrades • Internal metal guards of windows • Various internal alterations to facilitate the proposed change of use

2.4 In practice, the proposals are similar to those considered by the Planning

Applications Committee on 14 October 2015, although a number of further works are proposed to facilitate the proposed changes in the number of units (2 additional units) and mix (-1 studio, +2 1-bed, +3 2-bed & -2 3-bed). Examples of the further works include new windows / doors at lower ground floor level.

2.5 The proposals have been amended during the course of the application.

Originally 16 units were proposed (6x1 & 10x2-bed), but 1x3-bed unit was incorporated during the course of the application in place of 2x1-bed units. In addition, clarifications required regarding car/cycle parking and refuse facilities resulted in revised plans being submitted. The officer site visits in July and October 2016 also established a number of inaccuracies on the plans which have been corrected.

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 5780/TP/1628: Use as offices - Approved 3.2 82/TP/1008: Rebuilding Nos. 173-175 with improvements; rebuilding link block

between Nos. 175 and 177 to new design, refurbishing No. 177 with improvements to roof. Buildings to continue in use as offices. Approved

3.3 85/TP/985: Demolition of boundary walls, alteration of front gardens and to

rebuild boundary walls to match those existing. Approved by Secretary of State.

34

3.4 140485/FUL: Change of use from office to 13 dwellings. Minor external alterations to create 1 no. new window at lower ground floor and new roof lights to mansard roof. Withdrawn 27/03/15.

3.5 140486/LBC: Internal works associated with the change of use from office to 13 dwellings. External alterations to create 1 no. new window at lower ground floor and new roof lights to mansard roof. Withdrawn 27/03/15.

3.6 151116/FUL: Change of use from office (Class B1a) to 13 (1xstudio, 2x1, 7x2 &

3x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) and associated works. Granted following completion of s106 legal agreement 30/10/2015.

3.7 151117/LBC: Internal and external alterations associated with change of use from

office (Class B1a) to 13 (1xstudio, 2x1, 7x2 & 3x3-bed) residential units (Class C3). Listed Building Consent granted 20/11/2015.

3.8 160220/APPCON: Discharge of conditions 6 (Construction Method Statement), 10

(Air Quality), 12 (Tree Protection Plan), 13 (Arboricultural Method Statement) and 14 (Hard and Soft Landscaping) of planning permission 151116. Conditions discharged 18/04/2016.

3.9 160392/APPCON: Discharge of condition 16(i) (BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment

design stage assessment) of planning permission 151116, granted on 30/10/15. Condition discharged 15/03/2016.

3.10 160915/APPCON: Discharge of condition 2 (material details) of listed building

consent 151117. Condition discharged 26/07/2016. 3.11 161539/LBC: Internal alterations to layout of flats 7&8 at first floor level, flats

10&11 at second floor level and flats 12&13 at third floor level previously approved by consent 151117/LBC (part retrospective). Listed Building Consent granted 04/10/2016.

3.12 161547/NMA - Non-material amendments to planning permission 151116/FUL to

alter the internal layouts of flats 7&8 at first floor level, flats 10&11 at second floor level and flats 12&13 at third floor level (part retrospective). Non-material amendments granted 13/09/2016.

3.13 Other nearby application sites of relevance

177 Kings Road

3.14 160749/FUL & 160750/LBC - Change of use from office (Class B1a) to 6 residential units (Class C3) including 2no. studios, 3no. two-bedroom and 1no. one-bedroom flats plus new front dormer and associated works. Current applications currently under consideration.

4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Historic England – Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion, instead

recommending that the application(s) should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of RBC’s expert conservation advice.

35

4.2 RBC Historic Buildings Consultant - Although Nos. 173 to 175 remain as Grade II* Listed Buildings, the structure was destroyed by fire in the 1980s and was totally re-built in a matching style to the original building. Only some original architectural details remain, principally the first floor, front elevation window surrounds.

4.3 Given the re-construction of the building as a replica in modern materials, it is

largely the effect of the alterations on the exterior and the setting of the surrounding Grade II* Listed Buildings that is sensitive. The only proposed alteration which would be noticeable along the front elevation would be the glass balustrade to the ground floor balcony windows and inclusion of windows within the existing blind window niches to the lower ground floor. These alterations would not have a detrimental impact if appropriately detailed.

4.4 The principal visually noticeable external alterations to the rear elevation would

be the addition of railings to the rear flat roof to create a terrace at first floor level, the change of a window to a door to access the terrace, the addition of wall vents and the glass balustrades to the existing balcony windows. Again these alterations would not have a detrimental impact if appropriately detailed.

4.5 Therefore, no objection is raised in principle to level of proposed alterations to

the listed building or its effect on the conservation area, subject to more details on the new windows and window openings, all new doors, balustrades and railings. This is specified in full in the recommendation above.

4.6 Transport Development Control – It is first noted that Transport did not raise

any objections to the planning permission and listed building consent approved in 2015 at the site. The principle of the proposed development is acceptable given that it will result in fewer trips to the site.

4.7 The site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area, of the Revised Parking

Standards and Design SPD. This zone directly surrounds the Central Core and extends to walking distances of 2 kilometres from the centre of Reading. This zone is well served by public transport, with buses continuing either into or out of the Central Core Area via this zone. In accordance with the adopted Parking SPD, the development would be required to provide 1 on-site parking space per 1-2 bed dwelling as well as one space per 10 units for visitors. The Design and Access statement and supporting plans submitted detail car parking provision at the rear of the development. 18 spaces, including 2 disabled parking bays adjacent to the building are proposed. This level of provision is sufficient for the proposed development, with these spaces secured via condition.

4.8 It is also noted that the development site is located in a designated Residents

Parking Permit Area (Zone 11R). Under the Borough’s current parking standards, this proposal would generate additional pressure for parking in the area. Therefore any future occupant of any dwelling will not be issued with a resident parking permit, as secured via condition.

4.9 In accordance with the adopted Parking SPD, the development is required to

provide a minimum of 0.5 cycle parking spaces per 1-2-bed unit and 1 space per 3-bed unit, equating to 8 spaces in this instance. Cycle spaces must be conveniently located within a covered and lockable store. Revised plans submitted during the course of the application illustrate 3 cycle spaces at the front and 5 to the rear, of a suitable design and specification. As such a condition will secure this provision in practice.

36

4.10 In terms of bin storage, revised plans submitted during the course of the

application indicate bin storage at the front and rear of the development. As advised at the time of the 2015 application, any refuse vehicle accessing the site from the rear will require a tracking diagram to ensure that they can enter and exit the site in forward gear. As such, these details will be secured via a pre-occupation condition.

4.11 Following the submission of revised plans to clarify initial queries relating to

car/cycle parking and refuse storage, Transport has no objections to this proposal subject to the aforementioned conditions. A further condition relates to a construction method statement, given this document has not been submitted with this application (despite these details being discharged with the 2015 permission).

4.12 Environmental Protection – In terms of the noise impact on future occupiers,

secondary glazing is proposed on the front façade in order to achieve acceptable internal noise levels. Following some clarifications from the applicant, the level of information provided is considered appropriate and a condition is recommended which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the noise assessment. An informative is also recommended concerning insulation between units meeting part E of Building Regulations.

4.13 In terms of Air Quality, the submitted assessment recommends mechanical

ventilation, which is shown on separate plans for internal works and intakes on the elevation plans. A condition is recommended for the ventilation to be installed as per the approved plans.

4.14 Turning to consider the construction and demolition phases, there are potential

concerns about noise, dust and bonfires associated with the construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses). As such, these matters will be specifically secured within the CMS condition recommended by Transport.

4.15 Natural Environment – The applicant has submitted the same details that were

approved as part of the 151116/FUL permission and subsequent approval of details 160220/APPCON. More specifically, details were approved in terms of tree protection measures, an arboricultural method statement and full hard & soft landscaping details. As such, similar conditions which were included as part of 151116/FUL are recommended now, but in this instance these conditions will specify that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted (and previously approved) details, which means in practice no further details will be required to be submitted by the applicant.

4.16 Valuation – In light of the Vacant Building Credit being applied to the proposed

development, no contribution to affordable housing is necessary. Given this was only confirmed by officers to be applicable during the course of the application, a viability assessment was submitted at the outset of the application. This sought to justify a nil contribution to affordable housing on viability grounds. The Council’s Valuer raised a number of issues with the viability submission, which resulted in a revised viability submission being submitted seeking to justify a financial contribution of £14,404. This submission was not considered by the Council’s Valuer, owing to the Vacant Building Credit being applied.

37

4.17 Ecologist – No objection. 4.18 Waste Operations – Confirmed the required provision has been shown and level

access has been clarified. 4.19 Reading UK CIC – The applicant is required under the Council’s Employment Skills

and Training SPD to submit details of a local Employment and Skills Plan, or financial contribution for employment and training projects in the borough. In this instance the applicant has specified a preference to make a financial contribution, which equates to £2,835 (SPD formula of £2,500 x 1134sqm / 1000) for the construction phase of the development. This will be secured via s106 legal agreement and need to be agreed with Reading UK CIC, who deliver ESPs on behalf of the Borough Council. Given the nature and scale of the proposals UK CIC do not consider there is any scope for an end use requirement.

4.20 Thames Water specifies no objection in terms of sewerage infrastructure

capacity. In terms of water infrastructure capacity, no objection is raised subject to an informative relating to minimum water pressure levels (stated in full in the officer recommendation above).

4.21 Southern Gas Networks has provided details of their mains records for the

application site. This includes a low/medium/intermediate pressure gas main near the site. SGN advise that there should be no mechanical excavations taking place above or within 0.5m of a low/medium pressure system or above or within 3.0m of an intermediate pressure system. Further guidance in relation to related matters was also provided.

4.22 Public Consultation - Notification letters were sent to 4 nearby addresses on

14/06/16 (statutory 21 days expired on 05/07/16). In addition, a site notice (for each application) was erected at the site on 20/06/16, expiring on 11/07/16. Press notices were also published on 23/06/16, expiring on 14/07/16. No letters of representation have been received for either application. The changes to the scheme during the course of the application were not considered to be of a nature to warrant the need for public re-consultation to take place.

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

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

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

5.4 The applications have been assessed against the following policies:

38

5.5 National National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) (2014 onwards)

5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework

Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS14 Provision of Housing CS15 Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16 Affordable Housing CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS29 Provision of Open Space CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.7 Reading Centre Area Action Plan 2009

RC5 Design in the Centre RC9 Living in the Centre

5.8 Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015)

SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM10 Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.9 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

Affordable Housing SPD (2013) Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Residential Conversions SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)

5.10 Other documents / guidance / legislation Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal 2004

Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 1: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management (Historic England, 2016) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (Historic England, 2015a)

39

Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2015b) Principles of Conservation (Historic England, 2008) Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS 7913:2013, 2015) Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications – Notification to Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2015 Reading Tree Strategy (2010)

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

i) Principle of development – land use considerations ii) Affordable housing iii) Scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets iv) Dwelling mix and quality of accommodation for future occupiers v) Amenity vi) Transport vii) Trees, landscaping and ecology viii) Sustainability & SuDS ix) Other matters – S106, CIL & Equality

i) Principle of development – land use considerations

6.2 The loss of the existing lawful office use at the site has already been accepted

in the 2014 application (later withdrawn having been resolved to be granted by the Planning Applications Committee) and the 2015 permission (see relevant history above). Given this context and consideration of policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses) in itself, it is considered that the principle of the loss of employment floorspace at this site is justified in policy terms.

6.3 Turning to consider the principle of providing a residential use at the site, this

too is considered acceptable. This is in terms of aligning with the broad objectives of policy CS14, with the context of the 2014 and 2015 proposals at the time also relevant too. ii) Affordable housing

6.4 Given the proposed development seeks to provide 15 new dwellings, Policy CS16

(Altered 2015) requires developments of 15 dwellings (or more) to provide 30% of the new units as affordable housing. This equates to 4.5 dwellings and therefore 4 units on site and a financial contribution to allow the equivalent of 0.5 of the units to be provided elsewhere in the Borough. However, instead of providing affordable housing in this instance, the applicant has sought for the Vacant Building Credit (VBC) to be applied.

6.5 The VBC was reintroduced into the NPPG on 19 May 2016. In short, the

developer is provided with a financial credit equivalent to the existing gross floorspace of relevant vacant buildings when calculating the affordable housing contribution. In this case the VBC would apply to the entire development, as it is solely seeking change of use with no extensions to the floorspace.

40

6.6 The NPPG states the following (Ref ID: 23b-023):

The vacant building credit applies where the building has not been abandoned.

The policy is intended to incentivise brownfield development, including the reuse or redevelopment of empty and redundant buildings. In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, local planning authorities should have regard to the intention of national policy.

In doing so, it may be appropriate for authorities to consider:

- Whether the building has been made vacant for the sole purposes of re-development.

- Whether the building is covered by an extant or recently expired planning permission for the same or substantially the same development.

6.7 It should also be noted that the Strategic Environment Planning and Transport

Committee resolved (whilst discussing the wider implementation of the Council’s affordable housing policy, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in May 2016) on 13th July 2016:

That any application involving the application of the vacant building credit be considered on its own merits to assess whether local circumstances in a particular case justify not applying the vacant building credit as an exception to the national policy.

6.8 The applicant has indicated that the building has been vacant since 01/10/2013,

consistent with the information provided at the time of applications 140485/140486 and 151116/151117 at the site. Colleagues in Business Rates also confirm that these records indicate that the building has been vacant (in terms of the payment of business rates) since 23/12/2013 (a small time delay after vacancy of the building itself can be anticipated in business rates terms). An officer site visit on 29/05/2014 as part of applications 140485/140486 also confirms the building was vacant at this time.

6.9 With the above in mind, based on the officer site visit on 21/07/2016, it was

initially considered by officers to be unclear whether the lawful use of the building remained a Class B1 (office) use or was now Class C3 (residential), given that works in connection with six of the units approved in 2015 were underway. Queries were also raised by officers as to whether a single room within the building was still in office use. As such, at this time it was queried with the applicant whether the VBC should apply in this instance.

6.10 In response, the applicant specified that the single room was the site office

associated with the on-going construction works at the site and “has been used for purposes incidental to the construction activities on the site and not as an independent use in its own right”. Furthermore, the applicant also commented that “the building is presently necessarily unused as an office (the previous use) or as dwellings (the future use)”.

6.11 These explanations have been carefully considered by officers and also

discussed at length with the Council’s Planning Solicitor. Based on this legal advice, and following a further site visit on 13/10/2016 (where it is witnessed that whilst works to implement six units were continuing, the units were not

41

imminently close to being occupied), it is confirmed that the lawful use of the building remains Class B1 (as insufficient works had been undertaken to warrant a change to Class C3 at these times). Furthermore, the explanation as the single room as an ancillary site office is now not disputed by officers, following clarifications by the applicant. With all factors taken into account, including the NPPG, officers consider that there are no local circumstances in this specific instance which, on balance, justify not applying the VBC. As such, it is considered that the VBC can be applied in this instance. Therefore, the scheme is not liable to any contribution towards affordable housing.

6.12 It is noted that at the time of the 2014 proposal, a financial contribution of

£250,000 towards the off-site provision of Affordable Housing elsewhere in the borough was agreed with the applicant (as detailed in the update report for the 15 October 2014 committee meeting), prior to that application being withdrawn. Furthermore, a financial contribution of £215,000 was agreed as part of the 2015 permission. This is payable upon first occupation of any residential unit and therefore is yet to be paid (and would not be payable should this scheme receive permission and be implemented instead of the 2015 scheme). It is also noted that whilst pre-commencement conditions have been discharged for the 2015 permission, separate pre-occupation conditions are yet to be submitted/approved. However, in light of the change in national guidance in the intervening time, officers consider that seeking a contribution to affordable housing from the current proposal would be unlikely to be sustained in an appeal scenario. Whilst the ‘loss’ of a potentially substantial financial contribution towards affordable housing is considered to be of considerable disappointment to officers, this is the result of a change in national guidance. However, it is noted that the current proposals will be liable to CIL, which was not the case in the 2015 permission. This is detailed in the separate CIL section of the assessment below.

6.13 Finally, it is noted that the applicant nevertheless submitted a viability

assessment as part of this application. This was submitted prior to the applicant sought for the VBC to be applied. The application was submitted prior to the reintroduction of VBC on 19/05/2016, but was not validated or registered until after the VBC was re-introduced (predominantly owing to the original submission lacking a number of unrelated documents and details). Given the on-going discussions between the applicant and officers during the course of the application about the appropriateness of VBC, the applicant considered it prudent for the viability information to be assessed by the Council’s Valuer in any event, as detailed at paragraph 4.16 above. Once officers confirmed to the applicant that VBC would be applied in this case, it meant that no further assessment of the viability information was required. Officers are keen to stress this should not be interpreted as the applicant anticipating that officers would not apply the VBC. Instead, officers considered this an entirely appropriate approach, in order to ensure that had the VBC not been considered to apply, it would not have significantly delayed the determination of the application.

iii) Scale, appearance, design and effect upon heritage assets

6.14 As per the comments detailed by the Council’s Historic Buildings Consultant,

detailed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.5 above, the proposed internal and external alterations are all considered to appropriate. This is in terms of the impact on the listed buildings, the wider terrace of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Eldon Square Conservation Area. The proposed works are considered to comply with Policies CS7, CS33 and RC5, together with national

42

policy contained within the NPPF and associated guidance. This is subject to some further details being secured via condition, in relation to new windows and window openings, all new doors, balustrades and railings. These matters are detailed in full in the recommended listed building conditions section above.

6.15 Given that Historic England do not object to the proposed works (see paragraph

4.1 above), there is no requirement to notify the Secretary of State prior to making a decision. This is in line with section 5(b) of the ‘Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications – Notification to Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2015’.

iv) Dwelling mix and quality of accommodation for future occupiers 6.16 Following revisions during the course of the application to introduce a 3-bed

unit, the proposed mix complies with Policy RC9 in full. A mix of one (x4), two (x10) and three (x1) bedroom units is proposed, with the 26.67% 1-bed units below the 40% maximum and the 6.67% 3-bed units above the 5% maximum specified by RC9.

6.17 It is considered that the units would provide a suitable standard of

accommodation for future occupants. The layout of the rooms and spaces are regular in size and shape, within the context of this being a change of use proposal. In addition, it is considered that the proposed layout and assignment of rooms to windows would allow for adequate outlook and daylight for each flat. More specifically, the basement units have generous lightwells that are pre-existing and form part of the original design of the original buildings.

6.18 As with the majority of town centre dwellings, meaningful amenity space is not capable of being provided on site. As with other town centre sites, it is considered reasonable to assume that future occupants will benefit from nearby parks such as Forbury Gardens and the Thames Parks. It is considered that the desirability of securing a viable future use of the listed buildings outweigh any concerns over the less than standard outdoor amenity space within the site. This was considered the case and accepted at the time of the 2015 permission.

6.19 In terms of noise, colleagues in the Environmental Protection team are satisfied with the level of information submitted. A condition will secure the measures the applicant has specified to reduce noise disturbance from nearby sources. In terms of air quality, again the Council’s Environmental Protection section is satisfied with the assessment and addendum statement submitted, as detailed at paragraph 4.13 above. More specifically, a condition will ensure the proposed ventilation is implemented.

v) Amenity

6.20 The proposed development adjoins an office use to the west on Kings Road and, at the time of writing an office use at No. 177 Kings Road to the east. However, as noted in the relevant planning history section, there is an under consideration application for No. 177 to be converted to residential. With this in mind, it is considered that the proposed balcony, as proposed at rear first floor level close to the boundary with No. 177, would not cause a loss of amenity to potential future residential occupiers of No. 177. This is owing to the position of windows in relation to the application site (set at slightly different levels to the balcony) and the nearest window serving a staircase and not a possible future habitable room.

43

6.21 The nearest existing residential occupiers are at Biko / Morriss Court (fronting onto Orts Road) and in the recently occupied Hanover House (opposite to the south on Kings Road – recently converted from office to residential). It is considered that the proposed residential use will not impact upon the use of these neighbouring uses in terms of disturbance or loss of privacy. Moreover, the proposals would not impact upon other residential uses within the area in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. Therefore the proposals are considered to comply with policy DM4.

vi) Transport

6.22 As detailed at paragraphs 4.6 – 4.16 above, Transport Development Control is satisfied with the proposals, following the submission of clarifications and further details during the course of the application. Most significantly, a residential use at the site is considered to result in fewer daily trips than would be the case if the site was fully occupied in its lawful office use. The acceptability of the proposals from a transport perspective is subject to a number of conditions, including a Construction Method Statement and refuse collection details.

vii) Trees, landscaping & ecology

6.23 As detailed at paragraph 4.15 above, the trees and landscaping elements are identical to those approved by the 2015 permission, and details subsequently approved in the discharge of the relevant conditions. The same information as was previously approved has been re-submitted for this proposal. Consequently, the Council’s Natural Environment officer is satisfied that the proposals, subject to conditions that the various elements previously secured via condition will be carried in as part of this development.

6.24 The Council’s Ecologist has assessed the proposals and confirmed, similar to the 2015 permission, that the proposed works would not result in harm to protected species or the ecological value of the area, in accordance with Policy CS36.

viii) Sustainability & SuDS 6.25 The applicant has submitted a BREEAM domestic refurbishment pre-assessment,

which outlines that the units are anticipated to achieve a ‘very good’ rating with a score of 62.61%. For schemes of this nature, the Sustainable Design and Construction SPD specifies that at least 50% of the dwellings should achieve at least an ‘excellent’ rating, with the remainder achieving a ‘very good’ rating. As such, the pre-assessment is deficient in anticipating that all units would only achieve a ‘very good’ rating. It is however recognised that there may be inherent difficulties incorporating substantial sustainability improvements within refurbishment schemes such as this, particularly where this application site relates to listed buildings. As such, should there be shortfalls in the subsequent BREEAM final design stage and post-completion certification, as recommended to be secured via condition, mitigating factors will be taken into account by officers when subsequently assessing such matters. However, with the recommended condition secured, it is considered that the proposals will comply with the principles of policy CS1.

6.26 With regard to the linked Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) considerations, the scheme does not alter, nor have an impact upon, the surface water drainage arrangements, nor alter the run-off and catchment characteristics of the site. The scheme does not seek to increase any impermeable areas at the site (and

44

no excavation to the existing basement level is proposed), given the largely change of use nature of the proposals. This is confirmed within the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application, which also points to the root protection area of the TPO as another factor which would make retrofitting SuDS both difficult and unsustainable. With the above in mind it is therefore considered, in this specific instance, for no SuDS based conditions to be necessary.

ix) Other matters – S106, CIL & Equality

6.27 S106 - Given the nature of the proposals (10+ residential units) an Employment, Skills and Training contribution is required in line with the SPD. As per paragraph 4.19 above this will take the form of a £2,835 financial contribution, as secured via a s106 legal agreement.

6.28 It is considered that this obligation would comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that it would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.29 CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) - The applicant duly completed a CIL liability form as part of the submission of this application. The applicant has detailed that the buildings have been vacant since 01/10/2013. As outlined previously, colleagues in Business Rates also confirm that the building has been vacant (in terms of the payment of business rates) since 23/12/2013 (a small time delay after vacancy of the building itself can be anticipated in business rates terms). On this basis, the proposal will be CIL liable, as the buildings will not have been occupied for the lawful office use for 6 of the previous 36 months when any permission is issued in the future. The estimated CIL liability amounts to £146,219.29, based on the floorspace of 1134sqm and the 2016 indexation. In practice, a liability notice will be sent to the applicant once any planning permission has been granted. The standard CIL informative will be included on the decision notice.

6.30 It is relevant to note that at the time of the 2015 permission (30/10/2015) the scheme was not CIL liable (owing to only being vacant from 01/10/2013 and therefore it had been occupied in 6 of the previous 36 months at this time). As such, no CIL payment was sought as part of that permission. This is in contrast with the position now, whereby a CIL payment is required.

6.31 Equality - In determining this application the Council is required to have regard

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

7. CONCLUSION

45

7.1 The proposed development is considered, following revisions and clarifications submitted during the course of the application, to be appropriate in the context of national and local planning policy and other material considerations as set out in this report. As such, full planning permission is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions and completion of the S106 legal agreement. Listed Building Consent is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions.

Drawings & information submitted with the application: 16-P1255-02 Rev P5 Location and Block Plan, as received 14/09/2016 16-P1255-03 Rev P4 Proposed Site Plan, as received 14/09/2016 16-P1255-11 Rev P2 Existing Floor Plans Lower GF and Ground Floor, as received 31/05/2016 16-P1255-12 Rev P2 Existing Floor Plans First, Second and Third Floor, as received 31/05/2016 16-P1255-13 Rev P3 Proposed Floor Plans Lower Ground Floor, as received 04/10/2016 16-P1255-14 Rev P6 Proposed Floor Plans Ground Floor, as received 18/10/2016 16-P1255-103 Rev P1 Existing Roof Plan, as received 31/05/2016 16-P1255-104 Rev P2 Proposed Roof Plan, as received 18/10/2016 16-P1255-21 Rev P3 Existing Elevations, as received 15/08/2016 16-P1255-22 Rev P4 Proposed Elevations, as received 26/07/2016 16-P1255-130 Rev P1 Existing and Proposed Cross Sections, as received 31/05/2016 16-P1255-30 Rev P1 Bike Stores, as received 14/09/2016 CR_CRSF_LS_B Rev B Conservation Rooflight, as received 31/05/16 PL_WRFB_A Rev A Plateau Rooflight, as received 31/05/16 673/01 Rev A Tree Constraints / Protection, received on 31/05/16 673/02 Rev B Landscape Proposals, received on 31/05/16 Planning and Design & Access Statement (Including Heritage Statement) Rev P1, by Ascot Design dated 12/08/2016, as received 15/08/2016. Reading Apartments section report by Prospect Lettings, dated August 2016, as received 10/08/2016 Flood Risk Statement by Glanville Issue 1 Ref CV8160455/DB/DW/001, dated 19/05/2016, as received 31/05/2016 Sustainability Statement by Ascot Design, dated May 2016, as received 31/05/2016 Utilities Statement by Ascot Design, dated May 2016, as received 31/05/2016 Arboricultural Method Statement by Draffin Associates Ref AD/CM-1/RBC/673 dated 04/04/16, received on 31/05/16 Air Quality Assessment by Aether, Version 1 dated 23/11/15, as received 08/02/16 Addendum Air quality assessment for the proposed residential development at 173 – 175 King’s Road, Reading, as received 31/05/16 Addendum to Noise Impact Assessment email by Environmental Noise Solutions (ENS) Limited dated 19/05/2016, as received 31/05/2016 & Noise Impact Assessment by ENS Ref NIA/5275/14/4984/v2/King’s Road dated 23/06/14. BREEAM Refurb Pre-Estimator Report by Therm Energy Ref UA-86, dated 24/05/2016, as received 31/05/16 CAS 9515_01 – Ventilation Flat 1, 3 & 5, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_02 – Ventilation Flat 2, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_03 – Ventilation Flat 4, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_04 – Ventilation Flat 6, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_05 – Ventilation Flat 7, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_06 – Ventilation Flat 8, as received 31/05/2016

46

CAS 9515_07 – Ventilation Flat 9, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_08 – Ventilation Flat 10, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_09 – Ventilation Flat 11, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_10 – Ventilation Flat 12, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_11 – Ventilation Flat 13, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_12 – Ventilation Flat 14, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_13 – Ventilation Flat 15, as received 31/05/2016 CAS 9515_14 – Ventilation Flat 16, as received 31/05/2016

Information submitted on a private and confidential basis: Vacant Building Credit statement by Christina Meyer, as received 22/09/2016 Letter from S106 Management dated 21/09/2016, as received 22/09/2016 GVA Grimley & Bespoke Property Group – The Housing Corporation Economic Appraisal Tool, as received 22/09/2016 Emails from Ascot Design dated 22/09/2016 and 03/10/2016 Case Officer: Jonathan Markwell

Proposed Block Plan (red line is the application site boundary / blue line is other nearby land also owned by the applicant)

47

Proposed lower ground and ground floor plans

48

Proposed first, second and third floor plans

49

Proposed south (Kings Road) elevation

50

Proposed north (rear) elevation

51

Front elevation showing existing window niches and position of proposed doors

Rear elevation showing the relationship between the proposed external terrace area at No. 175 and the neighbouring No. 177.

52

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 8 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 9th November 2016 Ward: Abbey Application Nos.: 161205/FUL & 161206/LBC Address: 187-189 & 191 Kings Road, Reading, RG1 4EX Proposals: 161205/FUL: Change of use of 187-189 Kings Rd from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui Generis); Erection of 5-storey building to rear of 187-189 to create 35 student units (involving the reduction from 20 to 1 on- site parking space); Erection of single storey roof extension and 2- storey front extension at 191 Kings Rd to increase number of student units from 72 to 89, along with associated external alterations and landscaping (total increase of 78 student units from 72 to 150). 161206/LBC: Internal and external alterations associated with change of use of 187-189 Kings Rd from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui Generis) and associated works. Applicant: The Bagri Foundation Date Valid: 18/07/2016 Application target decision date: 17/10/2016 (LBC was originally 12/09/2016, but an extension of time was agreed until 17/10/2016 to align with the planning permission) 26 week date: 16/01/2017 RECOMMENDATIONS Is to REFUSE planning permission 161205/FUL for the following reasons:

1. The proposed 5-storey building to the rear of Nos. 187-189, by reason of its mass, height and location, would be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the wider Eldon Square Conservation Area, contrary to Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and Policy RC5 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan 2009.

2. The part removal of boundary wall between Nos. 187-189 & No. 191 Kings Road would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host buildings and wider Eldon Square Conservation Area, contrary to Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and Policy RC5 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan 2009.

3. The proposed 2-storey front extension to No. 191 and associated works to the existing front elevation, by reason of the extent of its projection forward from the existing building, form and detailed design, would be detrimental to the setting of the neighbouring listed building, the character and appearance of the streetscene and wider adjacent Eldon Square Conservation Area, contrary to Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015) and Policy RC5 of the Reading Central Area Action Plan 2009.

4. The proposed 5 storey building to the rear of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road, by reason of its scale, extent and positioning of windows in relation to existing buildings, would create an unacceptable lack of privacy, overlooking opportunities, be visually dominating and overbearing equating to a lack of outlook for future occupiers of the 5 storey building, cumulatively resulting in a sub-standard accommodation to the detriment of the living environment and amenity of future occupiers, contrary to Policy DM4 of the Reading Borough Council Local

53

Development Framework Sites & Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015). 5. The proposed 5 storey building to the rear of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road, by reason

of its scale, extent and positioning of windows in relation to existing buildings, would create an unacceptable loss of privacy, increase in overlooking opportunities, be visually dominating and overbearing equating to a lack of outlook for existing and future occupiers of nearby buildings, cumulatively resulting in sub-standard accommodation to the detriment of the living environment and amenity of existing and future occupiers of nearby buildings, contrary to Policy DM4 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Sites & Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015).

6. The proposed student accommodation fronting the south elevation of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road at third floor level (serving 4 studio rooms), by reason of a lack of outlook as a result of an existing/proposed visually dominant and overbearing parapet wall adjacent to windows serving the accommodation, would result in sub-standard accommodation to the detriment of the living environment and amenity of future occupiers, contrary to Policy DM4 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Sites & Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015).

7. In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure an Employment and Skills Plan and use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation (Sui Generis) only, the proposal will not mitigate its impact on the social and economic infrastructure of the borough, contrary to Policies CS3 and CS9 of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015), Policy DM3 of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015) and the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Documents on Employment, Skills & Training (2013) and Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015).

Informatives:

1. Plan / document numbers (see details below the conclusion section of this report) 2. The local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and

proactive way by clearly setting out concerns relating to the proposal and providing an opportunity for the applicant to withdraw the application. However, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application, hence the issuing of this refusal notice within the statutory time period to determine the application by.

3. Without prejudice to any future application or appeal, the applicant is advised that reason for refusal 7 could be overcome by entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement or unilateral undertaking for a scheme that was in all other respects acceptable.

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

Is to REFUSE listed building consent 161206/LBC for the following reasons:

1. The proposed 5-storey building to the rear of Nos. 187-189, by reason of its mass,

height and location, would be detrimental to the special architectural and historic interest of the grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015).

2. The part removal of boundary wall between Nos. 187-189 & No. 191 Kings Road, by reason of the loss of historic fabric, would be detrimental to the special architectural and historic interest of the grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015).

3. The proposed 2-storey front extension to No. 191 and associated works to the existing front elevation, by reason of the extent of its projection forward from the existing building, form and detailed design, would be detrimental to the special

54

architectural and historic interest of the setting to the neighbouring grade II listed building, contrary to Policy CS33 of the Reading Borough Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015).

Informatives:

1. Plan / document numbers (see details below the conclusion section of this report) 2. The local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive

way by clearly setting out concerns relating to the proposal and providing an opportunity for the applicant to withdraw the application. However, the applicant chose not to withdraw the application, hence the issuing of this refusal notice within the agreed time period.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site comprises two buildings (Nos. 187-189 & No. 191) located on

the north side of Kings Road, opposite the junction with Eldon Street (to the south). Nos. 187-189 (known as Astec House) is a vacant office building which includes a hardstanding car park to the rear, while No. 191 is in use as student accommodation with a single car parking space accessed from Orts Road to the north. There is a mature Plane tree immediately to the north of the application site (within the wider car park area) which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

1.2 Nos. 187-189 Kings Road is a grade II listed building, three storeys in height with a

basement and attics which was built after 1832 as part of Waterloo Place. The building is constructed of Bath stone with a slate roof, a rusticated ground floor with a moulded cill string, dentil cornice entablature and blocking course. The building is formed from a symmetrical pair of houses.

1.3 The windows to the bays, ground and first floors retain most glazing bar sashes. Two windows on ground floor have contemporary balconies and cast-iron balustrades (honey-suckle pattern). The first floor windows have architrave surrounds and moulded cornices on console brackets. There are six panel doors (part glazed) to sides under Doric porches, approached by steps and a two storey extension to the right of No. 189 with one window. The contemporary Orts Road 'service' houses were demolished in 1977. The roof has been converted to attics with a raised roof line, dormer windows and a raised parapet to disguise the additional fenestration.

1.4 As part of the conversion to offices Nos. 187-189 were joined together and their interiors largely removed and altered, apart from the stairs. An internal steel frame with six vertical members and modern lift shafts were inserted at the same time. Although there are some surviving sash windows many have been replaced with inferior modern copies.

1.5 The rear elevation of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road retains a simple architectural form with sash windows, dormer windows and a portico to the left. The setting to the rear of the listed building is dominated, and partly enclosed by, the adjacent modern building to the left (No. 191) and the modern extension to the right (No. 185). To the rear of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road the site is currently an area of hardstanding which is used for car parking; whilst this use does not enhance the setting of the listed building or the conservation area, it does preserve the open

55

views towards the listed buildings rear elevation and preserve the open aspect of the original gardens, thereby maintaining the buildings legibility.

1.6 To the rear of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road is a limestone ashlar and brick wall which forms the former garden boundary wall between the listed building and the relatively recent development at No. 191. The wall is affixed to the listed building and located within its curtilage building: as such the wall is considered to be treated as part of the building for the purposes of listed building control under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

1.7 No. 191 Kings Road is a modern (built after a 2003 permission – see relevant history below), red brick, four-storey student accommodation block which is set back from, and lower than, Nos. 187-189. The roadside front of No.191 is defined by utilitarian steel railings and a large electrical transformer, only partly disguised by an incongruous brick wall, which detracts from the setting of the listed building. In addition, permission for a further single storey roof extension to No. 191 Kings Road was granted in 2012 (see relevant history below).

1.8 To the west of the principal elevation of Nos.187-189 is No. 185 Kings Road (known as Kings Court). This is another grade II listed building, which is architecturally similar to Nos. 187-189 Kings Road and has a group value with it. A large multi-storey red brick and reconstituted stone extension has been built to the rear of this building (as granted in 1980 – see relevant history below), the attics have been converted to additional space and a further storey added above the roof line; these alterations and extensions visually detract from the setting of the listed buildings.

1.9 Both the rear extensions of No. 185 and No. 191 are considered to dominate and detract from the setting of the rear of Nos. 187-189. There is presently a 28m gap between the east elevation of No. 185 and the west elevation of No. 191.

1.10 The listed building at Nos. 187-189 and TPO tree is located within Eldon Square

Conservation Area. No. 191 is outside the conservation area, with the boundary being the brick wall between the two buildings. The Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal (ESCAA) describes the buildings as being of architectural interest as grand 19th century villas in Bath stone and having historic interest as examples of the polite architecture built as part of the urban development of Reading. The buildings also have considerable group value with the other surviving houses of Waterloo Place. The designation covers the villas on King’s Road including Nos. 187–189 and the car-park to the rear.

1.11 The conservation area is divided into three character areas according to building type and period. Nos. 187–189 Kings Road is located within Character Area 1. This character area is designated to protect the 19th century residential streets, ‘characterised by tall detached or semi-detached residences faced with Bath stone and set back from the highway with long rear gardens. The villas on Kings Road including No. 187–189 are specifically cited as contributing positively to the special interest of Character Area 1. The ‘loss of rear gardens to parking and garages’ is stated as having had a negative impact on the area.

1.12 Despite some alterations, the front elevations and front gardens of Nos. 187–189 contribute positively to the significance of the listed building and the conservation area. The ESCAA identifies vistas along Kings Road towards the buildings as important. The rear elevation of the listed buildings makes a positive contribution to the significance of the listed building and the conservation area.

56

1.13 The Townscape Appraisal Map accompanying the appraisal identifies two important views of relevance to this site:

- Looking north from Eldon Street towards the front elevation of 187–189 King’s Road - Looking west down King’s Road from in front of 187–189

1.14 The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses, including residential to the north

(e.g. Mandela Court) and south (e.g. Edward Place), Reading College to the east and office accommodation (within No. 185) to the west. The site is located within the designated Reading Central Area Action Plan, although it is not subject to any specific allocation or within any primary or core area. The site is however within an air quality management area. Furthermore, No. 191 is identified as potentially containing contaminated land, owing to a former garage use at this part of the application site. The site is within Abbey ward, with the opposite side of Kings Road (at this point) being within Redlands ward.

1.15 The application is being considered at Planning Applications Committee as it is a ‘major development’. The site and existing/proposed block plans in relation to the wider urban area is shown below, together with site photographs and aerial views.

Site Location Plan (above). Existing and Proposed Block Plans (below) (not to scale)

57

Site photograph from Kings Road

Site photograph from north of the site looking south

Aerial view from the south looking north

58

Aerial view from the north looking south towards the rear elevation of the application site 2. PROPOSALS 2.1 Full planning permission is sought for a number of works at the site, comprising:

- Change of use of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui Generis);

- Erection of 5-storey pavilion building to rear (north) of Nos. 187-189 to create 35 student units, which also results in the reduction from 20 on-site car parking spaces to 1 at the site.

- Erection of a single storey roof extension to No. 191 Kings Road - Erection of a 2-storey extension, alterations to the fenestration and re-cladding

of the front (south) elevation at No. 191 Kings Road - The proposed works will increase the number of student units at No. 191 by 17

from 72 to 89, while also increasing the communal facilities for future occupants (e.g. ancillary gym at lower ground floor level of Nos. 187-189).

- In total, the proposed works would increase the number of student units at the site by 78, from 72 to 150.

- A number of associated external alterations/works are also proposed, including: o Increase in size of windows and material alterations on the west (side)

elevation of No. 191 o Demolition of part (a section 21.5m in length) of the boundary wall

between Nos. 187-189 & 191 to facilitate external access between No. 191 and Nos. 187-189 / the pavilion building to seek to create ‘a campus feel’. Changes in land levels will be required to facilitate this.

o A variety of landscaping works, including new paving to the front of No. 191, paving and grass areas to the rear of Nos. 187-189 (e.g. grass areas adjacent to the TPO Plane and common courtyard and garden between

59

the rear of Nos. 187-189 & the proposed Pavilion) and altered circulation spaces with associated lighting.

o Cycle and waste storage areas o A number of works to the listed building (see below for more details)

2.2 Listed Building Consent is sought for internal and external alterations associated

with the change of use of Nos. 187-189 Kings Road from office (Class B1) to 26 student units (Sui Generis). This includes the aforementioned works to reduce the height of the front parapet wall and demolish part of the boundary wall, while also including:

- Reinstatement of the entrance gate, path and portico steps to No. 187 - Removal of plant and other modern additions externally - Restoration of the original stairs internally - Subdivision of the internal floorplates to facilitate the proposed student units.

Internal removal of modern partitions, fixtures, fittings and visible services - Repair of boundary walls, gates and railings

2.3 To clarify, listed building consent is not sought or required for the standalone 5

storey building or the works to No. 191 Kings Road, given this is not a listed building.

2.4 During the course of the application a number of clarifications have been provided

by the applicant, at the request of officers. This involved the submission of all necessary plans to assess the proposals (as received prior to the registration of the application), details of the proposed retained parking space, details of the day/sunlight implications of the proposals at third floor level within Nos. 187-189 and plans indicating the extent of the boundary wall proposed to be removed.

2.5 In total, the proposals seek to change the use of 930sqm (GIA) of office floorspace

to student accommodation at No’s 187-189. Furthermore, extensions to No. 191 and the creation of a new pavilion building seek to add a further 1315sqm of student accommodation, as set out in full in the floorspace schedule below:

Lower

ground floor

Ground floor

1st floor

2nd floor

3rd floor

4th floor

5th floor

Total

Existing 187-189 190 190 190 190 170 n/a n/a 930 Proposed 187-189 190 190 190 190 170 n/a n/a 930 Total increase 187-189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Existing 191 n/a 415 415 410 410 410 n/a 2060 Proposed 191 n/a 465 465 410 410 410 410 2570 Total increase 191 50 50 0 0 0 410 510 Proposed Pavilion n/a 175 175 175 175 105 n/a 805 Combined existing total 190 605 605 600 580 410 n/a 2990 Combined proposed total 190 830 830 775 755 515 410 4305 Combined total increase 0 225 225 175 175 105 410 1315

2.6 In terms of bedspaces, confirmation of the proposals on a floor by floor basis, and

in overall total terms, is specified below.

Lower ground

Ground

1st floor

2nd floor

3rd floor

4th floor

5th floor

Total

60

floor floor Existing bedspaces at 191 n/a 8 16 16 16 16 n/a 72 Proposed bedspaces at 191 n/a 8 19 16 16 16 14 89 Proposed bedspaces at 187-189 3 5 6 6 6 n/a n/a 26 Proposed bedspaces at Pavilion n/a 7 8 8 8 4 n/a 35 Total proposed bedspaces 3 20 33 30 30 20 14 150 Total increase in bedspaces 3 12 17 14 14 4 14 78

2.7 In support of the scheme, the applicant has outlined a number of planning benefits

of the proposals, summarised as:

- Bringing back into viable use a disused listed building that has been vacant since May 2014;

- Improvements to the appearance of the listed building through works to its exterior, including the removal of modern services, the reinstatement of the entrance gate, path and portico steps, the cleaning and repair of stonework and decorative detailing and the repair of landscaping features;

- Provision of student accommodation to meet the needs of current and future students whilst releasing pressure on the demand within the private rented sector;

- Creation of a high-quality, ‘campus’ living environment for the students; - Improvements to the appearance of 191 Kings Road so that it is more in keeping

with the setting and appearance of the neighbouring listed building through re-cladding and the erection of the a new entrance;

- Maximising use of brownfield land and releasing pressure on less sustainable sites - Local economic benefits (use of services/facilities and jobs); - Low demands on community infrastructure.

3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The applicant entered into pre-application discussions prior to the submission of

this application (References: 151300, 151943 & 160160). 187-189 Kings Road

3.2 930757 - Internal demountable partitioning; lower ceiling on ground floor; change existing windows to third floor; front elevation with UPVC to match existing. Granted Listed Building Consent 25/6/93.

3.3 950327 - Internal alterations to listed building (removal of plinth, removal of

partition and erection of new partition). Granted Listed Building Consent 21/9/95. 191 Kings Road

3.4 030017 - Development of 10 flats for use as student residential accommodation as

part of Reading College and School of Arts and Design campus. Granted following completion of legal agreement 3/6/03.

3.5 121639 - Erection of additional 5th floor level to create 16 student bedrooms.

Granted following completion of legal agreement 7/3/13. Neighbouring site at 185 Kings Road 3.6 79/TP/766 - New office building on site of 185 Kings Road, Reading, together with a

new access road taken from Kings Road and car parking area to rear. Granted 14/08/1980.

61

4. CONSULTATIONS i) RBC Historic Buildings Consultant Legislative and policy / guidance background 4.1 With regard to the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and

the setting of listed buildings, recent legal cases have established that under section 70(3) the general power to grant planning permission under section 70(1) is expressly subject to sections 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. With respect to this application, the applicable statutory provisions are:

• Section 66(1) the determination of applications affecting the setting of a listed

building 4.2 Section 66(1) states that:

‘in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority, or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.’

4.3 In the recent (2014) case of East Northamptonshire v. Secretary of State for

Communities and Local Government (known as the ‘Barnwell Manor’ case) the Court of Appeal held that section 70(1) was expressly subject to section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and that decision-makers should give ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving setting of a listed building.

4.4 In the Barnwell Manor wind-farm case it was established that it did not follow

that, if harm to a listed building was found to be less than substantial under the balancing exercise in policies HE9 and HE10 (NB: under PPS5 which was then in force), that a decision-maker could ignore the overarching duty imposed by section 66 (of the Act).

4.5 Under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, fixtures

and curtilage buildings, that is any object or structure which is fixed to the building or is within the curtilage and forms part of the land and has done so since before July 1948, are also treated as part of the building for the purposes of listed building control. Please see paragraph 1.6 above in relation to the wall between Nos. 187-189 and No. 191.

4.6 In terms of Conservation Areas (the site is partly within Eldon Square Conservation

Area – see paragraphs 1.10 – 1.14 above for details) Section 69 of the Act imposes a duty on local planning authorities to designate as Conservation Areas any 'areas of special architectural or historic interest the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance'.

4.7 Recent legal cases have established that under section 70(3) the general power to

grant planning permission under section 70(1) is expressly subject to section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Section 72(1) provides that the local authority has a statutory duty that:

62

‘with respect of any building or other land in a conservation area......special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

4.8 In terms of LDF policies, Policy CS33 states:

Historic features and areas of historic importance and other elements of the historic environment, including their settings, will be protected and where appropriate enhanced. This will include:

• Listed Buildings; • Conservation Areas; • Other features with local or national designation, such as sites and features of

archaeological importance, and historic parks and gardens.

Planning permission will only be granted where development has no adverse impact on historic assets and their settings. All proposals will be expected to protect and where appropriate enhance the character and appearance of the area in which they are located and for the purpose of ensuring that work is appropriate to the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building.

4.9 Within paragraph 11.8 of the Core Strategy it also specifies that:

The Borough Council is committed to protecting and where appropriate, enhancing the Borough’s historic environment. This includes ensuring that buildings and features of Local architectural and historic interest (which are not necessarily recognised components of the historic environment) are taken fully into account and safeguarded...”.

4.10 It is also considered relevant to note at national policy level that paragraph 132 of

the NPPF states:

When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional. Substantial harm to or loss of designated heritage assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional (emphasis added by officers).

4.11 Furthermore, paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants:

‘to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance’.

4.12 In addition, paragraph 131 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should

take into account:

63

‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’.

4.13 Moreover Planning Practice Guide (PPG), which accompanies the NPPF, states

under ‘What is the setting of a heritage asset and how should it be taken into account?’ (Paragraph 013 Reference ID: 18a-013-20140306) that:

‘The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting. This will vary over time and according to circumstance.

When assessing any application for development which may affect the setting of a heritage asset, local planning authorities may need to consider the implications of cumulative change. They may also need to consider the fact that developments which materially detract from the asset’s significance may also damage its economic viability now, or in the future, thereby threatening its on-going conservation’.

4.14 The PPG states under ‘How to assess if there is substantial harm?’ (Paragraph 017

Reference ID: 18a-017-20140306) that:

‘What matters in assessing if a proposal causes substantial harm is the impact on the significance of the heritage asset. As the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear, significance derives not only from a heritage asset’s physical presence, but also from its setting.

Whether a proposal causes substantial harm will be a judgment for the decision taker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the policy in the National Planning Policy Framework’.

4.15 It is also considered relevant that Historic England has produced new guidance on

the interpretation and implementation of the NPPF and PPG with regard to the historic environment in the form of four good practice advice notes.

4.16 More specifically, Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2:

Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (Historic England, 2015a) considers under ‘cumulative change’ that:

‘The cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the significance of a heritage asset as a larger scale change. Where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development to the asset itself or its setting, consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from, or can enhance, the significance of the asset in order to accord with NPPF policies. Negative change could include severing the last link to part of the history of an asset or between the asset and its original setting. Conversely, positive change could include the restoration of a building’s plan form or an original designed landscape (Historic England, 2015a, p.8) (emphasis added by officers).

4.17 In addition, Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 1:

Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management (Historic England, 2016) states under paragraph 61 ‘Positive Contributors’ that:

Most of the buildings in a conservation area will help to shape its character. The extent to which their contribution is considered as positive depends not just on

64

their street elevations but also on their integrity as historic structures and the impact they have in three dimensions, perhaps in an interesting roofscape or skyline. Back elevations can be important, as can side views from alleys and yards. (Historic England, 2016, p16) (emphasis added by officers).

4.18 The level of harm to a heritage asset is determined in accordance with guidance

provided in standard heritage methodologies. Historic England’s guidance document ‘Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment’ (Historic England, 2015, p.4) recommends the following objective approaches to assess the value and harm heritage assets:

• Principles of Conservation (Historic England, 2008) assessing value based on

evidential value; historical value; aesthetic value and communal value; and • Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS

7913:2013, 2015) which provides a methodology for the final assessment of harm. 4.19 More specifically, before any changes are considered to a place it is essential that

the cultural and heritage values, its history, fabric and character are understood. The standard approach to providing a balanced assessment of the value of a heritage asset is contained in Historic England’s standard methodology for assessing our understanding of the significance of heritage assets is Principles of Conservation (Historic England, 2008). This identifies four key aspects of a place that can influence our understanding which are:

• Evidential Value – the value a place derives from the potential it has to yield

evidence about past human activity. • Historical Value – the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be

connected through a place to the present. • Aesthetic Value – the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual

stimulation from a place. • Communal Value – the ways in which a place relates to people in their collective

experience of memory. 4.20 The methodology for the assessment of the magnitude of impact of a development

on a heritage asset can be found the Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS 7913:2013, 2015). The methodology for the balancing process in order to determine the level of harm to a heritage asset from development uses the matrix provided in the Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS 7913:2013, 2015). In this matrix the value of a heritage asset is balanced against the magnitude of impact in order to assess the overall significance of impact (harm).

Assessment of the proposals

4.21 With the background context above, site characteristics described in section 1 and

proposals detailed in section 2 of this report all in mind, the following assessment has been made:

Internal works 4.22 Considering first the internal works proposed, given the large-scale removal of the

interior of the listed building (Nos. 187-189) in the past, as a result of conversion to an office use, there is no objection in principle to the proposed internal alteration and re-organisation of the listed building. The previous large-scale internal alterations, involving the insertion of a free-standing internal steel frame

65

structure, have led to the removal of the wall partitions and most features of architectural interest on the main floors, except for the stairs. The conversion of the building from business use to student accommodation would not, therefore, necessarily adversely affect the listed building subject to an appropriate detailed design and materials.

Front external refurbishment works 4.23 Turning to consider the front (south) elevation external refurbishment works to

the listed building, these consist of: the cleaning and repair of the stonework and decorative detailing; the removal of visually intrusive services and lighting; the repair of boundary walls, gates and railings; and the reinstatement of the entrance gate, path and portico steps to No. 187. The removal of the external ventilation units to the basement would be a positive enhancement. In general these repairs and alterations are considered to be appropriate to the character of the listed building and would help to better reveal the significance of the building within the conservation area.

New building to the rear of Nos. 187-189 4.24 Moving on to consider the proposed new building to the rear of Nos. 187-189, this

new ‘pavilion’ building is proposed to be of four storeys, with a part fifth storey, within close proximity to the rear of the listed building. The proposed ‘pavilion’ building would have a modern design built on a cruciform ground-plan consisting of stone banding, the use of buff brick with large vertical windows. It is considered that the design of new buildings intended to stand alongside a listed building needs very careful consideration and should respect its setting, and maintain its dominance.

4.25 With this in mind, together with the background context outlined above, it is

considered that the rear setting of Nos. 187-189 has been cumulatively encroached on, and overshadowed by, inappropriate and dominant extensions both to the left and right. The only the remaining open view to the rear of the listed building is the car park of Nos.187-189, which is considered to help reveal the character and significance of the listed building within the conservation area. In addition the principle of the additional storey to No. 191 Kings Road, whilst acknowledging that this was previously consented in 2013, would have a further cumulative effect in dominating and eroding the setting of the listed building at the rear.

4.26 Due to the mass, height and location of the proposed ‘pavilion’ building directly to

the rear of the listed building, the proposed building would have an adverse visual impact on the setting of the listed building by obscuring and overshadowing the rear elevation. In this case, because of the site constraints, in the form of the TPO Plane tree to the rear of the listed building, the proposed new development has been forced into a close and uncomfortable proximity with the rear elevation of the listed building. The proposed pavilion is marginally greater in height as the predominant part of the listed Building and, predominantly, a minimum of 9.5m from the rear of the building. It would not therefore attain the requirement to be visually subservient to the listed building.

4.27 When the impact of the proposed new building is combined with the cumulative

visual impact of the existing modern buildings, this is considered to further erode and damage the setting of the listed building. The infilling of this remaining open area within the setting of listed building, reducing its legibility and detracting from its significance. Giving considerable importance and weight to the

66

desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building, the harm caused by the proposed separate rear pavilion is considered inappropriate.

4.28 As detailed in the Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal the area is

characterised by tall detached or semi-detached residences faced with Bath stone and set back from the highway with long rear gardens. The villas on Kings Road including Nos. 187–189 are specifically cited as contributing positively to the special interest of Character Area No.1. The development of the rear car-park to the rear of Nos. 187 -189 Kings Road would further erode what is left of the area originally defined by the rear gardens and require the removal of 21.5m of the associated curtilage listed garden wall, which defines boundary of the building. The proposed development would not attain the requirement to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Eldon Square Conservation Area.

Front extension to No. 191 4.29 In terms of the front extension to the existing modern building at No. 191 Kings

Road, it is first acknowledged to not contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area or the setting of the listed building. However, the existing modern building has been specifically designed to maintain the dominance of the listed building in the streetscene by being set well away from the roadside. This thereby is considered to reduce its detrimental visual impact on the setting and the overall character and appearance of the conservation area.

4.30 The proposed front two-storey extension to No. 191 Kings Road would project 5m

forwards, towards the roadside from the existing development. The proposal to disguise the existing red brick building at No. 191 with render is not considered to mitigate the effect of increasing the modern building’s visual presence within the streetscene by extending the front towards Kings Road. The proposal is therefore considered to be inappropriate as it would visually detract from the setting of the listed building and would further detract from the two key views the Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal map identifies:

• Looking north from Eldon Street towards the front elevation of Nos. 187–189 Kings

Road • Looking west down King’s Road from in front of 187–189

The Heritage Statement from the applicant

4.31 It is considered appropriate and necessary to comment on and respond (where appropriate) to various statements made by the applicant in support of the proposals. It is considered that the supporting Heritage Statement (Alan Baxter, June 2016) does not provide an adequate assessment of the value of the affected heritage assets following any standard methodological approaches. The Heritage Statement ‘Impact Assessment’ in Section 5.4 does not apply any of the objective methodologies which should be the basis on which the NPPF policy balancing test is carried out, to determine the level of the harm caused to the listed building and conservation area.

4.32 The external works, including the removal of 21.5m of red brick and Bath stone

wall dating from the 19th century and forming the original boundary of 187–189 King’s Road is assessed as having an overall ‘positive’ impact on significance. Officers are not in agreement regarding this, as detailed in paragraph 4.28 above.

67

4.33 The assessment of the proposed 5m extension to the front of the modern No. 191 the Heritage Statement (Alan Baxter, June 2016) records that:

‘these works will enhance the setting of the listed building and the conservation

area through their improvement to the design of 191, which detracts at present.’ 4.34 The ‘Policy Balancing Test’ applied in the Heritage Statement under Section 6.2

(Alan Baxter, June 2016) is not considered to provide evidence to show how the assessment is arrived at and concludes that:

‘In the terms of the NPPF, this (the rear development) will cause some minor harm to the significance of the listed building (through its setting) and to the significance of the conservation area.’

4.35 It is considered that an objective assessment, in accordance with Historic

England’s guidance, should be based on the following methodologies:

• Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic (Historic England, March 2015) a four step approach to the assessment of the impact on the settings of listed buildings;

• Principles of Conservation (Historic England, 2008) assessing value based on evidential value; historical value; aesthetic value and communal value; and

• Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS 7913:2013, 2015) which provides a methodology for the final assessment of harm.

4.36 Whilst the harm test is relevant, recent case law has clarified the position of the

NPPF in relation to the overarching statutory provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 still apply. These are described in more detail above in the background section beginning at paragraph 4.1.

Conclusions

4.37 The local authority has a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability

of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area Act) 1990. The proposed development at Nos. 187-189 is considered to detract from the significance of the listed building and its setting through the introduction of an overly dominant new building in close proximity to the rear of the Listed Building, through partial demolition of part of an associated listed boundary wall and through the front extension to No. 191. These elements of the development are considered to be contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area Act) 1990, would result in harm to the listed building and to its setting under the NPPF test and would be contrary to Reading Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS33.

4.38 The local authority also has a statutory duty under the Section 72(1) of the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, with respect of any building or other land in a conservation area, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The erection of the proposed new building within the former open space to the rear of Nos. 187-189 and the partial demolition of part of an associated listed boundary wall would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. In addition, the front extension to No. 191 Kings Road would detract from two important views within the adjacent conservation area by increasing the visual

68

presence of No. 191 in the streetscene. These elements of the development are considered to be contrary to the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area Act) 1990, would result in harm to the Conservation Area under the NPPF test and would be contrary to Reading Borough Council’s Core Strategy Policy CS33.

ii) RBC Transport 4.39 Transport Development Control section advises that this town centre area site is

well served by public transport on the Kings Road. In respect of parking provision, the site is located in Zone 2, Primary Core Area, of the Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD. This zone directly surrounds the Central Core Area and extends to walking distances of 2 kilometres from the centre of Reading. The parking standards set for Halls of Residence located in this zone are 1 space per FTE member of staff and no requirements for students. However, it is recognised that there are no adopted parking standards for student accommodation which are provided “off campus” and operate as independent providers of higher education accommodation. Therefore, an application of this type is to be considered on its own merits, taking into account local circumstances including access to public transport provisions and the availability of parking and on-street regulations.

4.40 The site is proposed to be car-free, barring a single existing space for two part-time

staff accessed from Orts Road. It has been clarified during the application that there is a longstanding arrangement between the College and the applicant which allows unfettered access through the gated site to a dedicated parking space. This arrangement will continue when the development proposals are in place. The red line has been extended to ensure that means of access from the public highway to the proposed parking space has been established. Given that the site has good public transport accessibility and there are a range of frequent bus services within walking distance of the site, the non-provision of student parking spaces (and consequently the loss of the existing 20 parking spaces at the site) is acceptable. In the event of a permission at the site, conditions will be added to prevent future occupiers seeking on-street parking permits in the area.

4.41 In terms of the student management plan, and in particular the arrival and

departure procedures, the reduction in spaces at the site will significantly reduce the number of daily vehicular trips to the site. However, the peak demand for parking spaces will be during the arrival and departure periods when students are moving into and departing from the site. A Framework Student Management Plan has been submitted, which outlines how the arrivals and departures will be managed. In short, a pre-booked timeslot approach will be implemented, with times likely to be staggered over a number of weeks owing to the variance in academic course start/end dates. Transport officers recommend for the Student Management Plan to be secured via planning condition.

4.42 A Travel Plan has been submitted with the application, setting out the strategy for

maximising the use of public transport, walking and cycling and minimising student’ private car usage. These measures include:

• A Travel Information Pack for students including information on local amenities and

services, train and bus service maps and timetables, Reading cycle network maps and details on car clubs in the area.

• In addition to the travel information packs, travel information will be made available on noticeboards and students web-based travel information websites.

• Secure cycle storage.

69

• A Travel Plan Co-ordinator (TPC) will be appointed who will be responsible for implementing, managing and promoting the STP

4.43 Actual baseline mode share will be determined following travel surveys that will

take place within 6 months of first occupation or when 75% of the rooms have been occupied (whichever comes sooner). The travel plan principles are considered to be appropriate, with a condition securing the measures stated and securing details of the surveys outlined above.

4.44 In terms of cycle storage, in accordance with the Council’s Revised Parking

Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide 1 cycle parking space per 3 staff and 1 space per 5 students. The provision of 33 cycle parking spaces will be provided, which is in line with RBC cycle parking minimum standards. These will be covered and located close to entrances. The provision of the cycle parking spaces will be secured by condition to ensure appropriate facilities in line with the Councils standards are provided.

4.45 In terms of waste and recycling collection, this will be carried out, as existing, from

Kings Road with the waste being brought to the front of the site during the collection period specified by the private contractor. Again, a condition will ensure this occurs in practice.

4.46 In conclusion, there are no transport objections in respect of this proposal subject to conditions relating to:

- Student management plan - Travel Plan - Provision of parking spaces - Bicycle storage - Waste storage - Parking Permits (x2) - Construction Method Statement

4.47 Informatives are also recommended in relation to: high density development & car parking; damage to the highway; works affecting the highway.

iii) RBC Environmental Health – Environmental Protection 4.48 There are potential Environmental Protection based concerns regarding the

following: noise arising from development; noise impact on development; air quality impact – increased exposure / new receptors; contaminated land; construction and demolition phases. As such, each is considered in-turn.

Noise generating development

4.49 A noise impact assessment has been submitted, which proposes a noise emission

limit for mechanical plant such as air conditioning (albeit the exact units are not specified). This emission limit is 67 dB at 1 metre from the plant. However it is based on 5 dB below background level, which does not meet the draft plant noise policy criteria of 10 dB below. Although the noise assessment submitted has been carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 and the methodology has been correctly applied, the assessment concludes that the noise rating level of the proposed plant will be less than -10dB below the background noise. As such, there may be some adverse impact on the local noise climate. The noise assessment has

70

failed to provide adequate justification for failing to achieve -10dB. With relatively high background noise levels at the site, it should be possible to meet it.

4.50 Therefore, a further noise assessment will need to be submitted once the details of

the plant are known in order to demonstrate that the noise criteria can be met (or provide suitable justification as to why is cannot). In the circumstances, it is recommended that a condition be attached to any permission specifying that no mechanical plant shall be installed until a further noise assessment (considering the actual plant to be installed) is undertaken and shown to meet the -10dB criteria.

Noise impact on development

4.51 It is considered that a noise assessment should have been submitted in respect of

the new accommodation proposed within an existing noisy area (no such report was submitted). In the circumstances it is advised that a pre-commencement condition is secured for a noise assessment (to meet required standards) to protect future occupiers from the external noise environment of the area. This would need to include mitigation measures (if necessary), which would need to be implemented prior to first occupation. A further informative would also be added to any permission specifying that insulation requirements set out in Building Regulations Approved Document E would also need to be achieved.

Air Quality - Increased exposure

4.52 The proposed development is located within an air quality management area that

has been identified as being a pollution hot-spot (likely to breach the EU limit value for NO2) and introduces new exposure / receptors. As such, the applicant has submitted an air quality assessment. This concludes that the predicted air pollutant levels at the new units will be below the air quality objectives, therefore mitigation measures are not required. As such, the information provided is considered appropriate and no further details are required in this regard.

Contaminated Land – high risk sites

4.53 Given that No. 191 was previously used as a garage, a phase 1 desk study has been

submitted with the application. This concludes that further assessment is required.

“Further works are recommended particularly within the frontage of No 191, but also to the rear car park, to assess the chemical quality of the underlying soils and groundwater (if present) and the potential for contaminative vapours/ground gases. Based on the findings the environmental risk could then be re-assessed or remedial works to be recommended.”

4.54 As such, the standard four part contaminated land condition is recommended to be

included with any future permission to ensure that future occupants are not put at undue risk from contamination. This comprises: 1. Pre-commencement site characterisation; 2. Pre-commencement remediation scheme; 3. Implementation of the remediation scheme prior to first construction. 4. Reporting of unexpected contamination.

Construction and demolition phases

4.55 There are potential concerns regarding noise, dust and bonfires associated with the

construction (and demolition) of the proposed development and possible adverse impact on nearby residents (and businesses). Fires during construction and

71

demolition can impact on air quality and cause harm to residential amenity. Burning of waste on site could be considered to be harmful to the aims of environmental sustainability. As such, conditions in these regards will be included with any permission, together with securing the hours of working during the construction and demolition phase.

iv) RBC Planning Natural Environment – Trees & Landscaping 4.56 The main consideration with the development is the potential impact on the TPO

Plane tree at the rear. During pre-application discussions it was accepted by officers that the proposal would be acceptable in relation to the Plane subject to certain matters being addressed. With reference to Arboricultural Report and Tree Condition Survey dated March 2016 from Ruskins, this satisfactorily addresses potential tree issues (subject to a more detailed Arboricultural Method Statement being secured) and the proposed tree works are acceptable, although the reduction of the branches growing towards the proposal is agreed for arboricultural reasons and not purely to allow for the building. The proposed building would be 10m from the Plane and encroach on less than 7% of the theoretical root protection area (theoretical as it is currently occupied by tarmac hardstanding).

4.57 More specifically, having inspected the tree, it is considered to have been pollarded

many years ago; the tree now being a lapsed pollard. It is normally reasonable to carry out a reduction on such trees to manage the weight of the growth since the pollarding. It does appear that a high reduction has been carried out in the past, with pruning points evident high in the crown. In addition, the two lowest branches growing south towards the proposal are over-extended with the lower, smaller branch showing signs of a potential internal defect and the branch above this showing signs of branch subsidence. Reducing both these branches would be reasonable management for arboricultural reasons (the applicant recommends to reduce these by no more than 3m). A reduction of the upper crown growing towards the proposal would be acceptable to allow for construction and it could thereafter be maintained at that spread (the applicant recommends to reduce the overall crown by 1.5m).

4.58 In relation to utilities, it is noted that the Utility Statement from P3r states that services will be provided from existing. It would therefore not be expected for any new services to be routed through the RPAs of the TPO Plane or the Blue cedar on the frontage. In addition, it is stated that the Surface Water Drainage Strategy does not include soakaways, which is positive in relation to potential excavation within RPAs.

4.59 In relation to landscaping, the principles within the Design & Access Statement are considered to be acceptable. Details will need to be secured by condition as part of any planning permission, including specifications for the green roofs. In terms of maintenance, landscape aftercare and maintenance details will need to be secured and should include specific maintenance for the green roofs, as recommended in the Surface Water Drainage Strategy in order to retain its function as part of the on-site drainage strategy.

4.60 In conclusion, from a trees and landscaping perspective the proposals are

considered to be acceptable subject to the following conditions:

- Pre-commencement submission and approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement, following the principles of the Preliminary Arboricultural Method

72

Statement included within the Arboricultural Report and Tree Condition Survey dated March 2016 from Ruskins

- Development in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement - Pre-commencement submission and approval of hard and soft landscaping (also

including tree pit specifications) - Approved soft landscaping to be implemented prior to occupation or to a

timetable agreed with the LPA - Pre-occupation submission and approval of landscape maintenance and

aftercare to cover a minimum of 5 years - Replacement planting for anything that dies within 5 years of planting - No tree works other than those included within Table 1 of Appendix 1 of

Arboricultural Report and Tree Condition Survey dated March 2016 from Ruskins shall take place without prior written approval of the LPA. Reason: The Plane tree is subject to TPO 44/13; other trees at Nos. 187-189 are subject to conservation area status.

v) RBC Planning Natural Environment – Ecology 4.61 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Bat Scoping Survey Report have been

assessed and considered appropriate. In line with the recommendations of the report, if planning permission is granted then bird boxes / bricks should be incorporated in south / west facing locations to provide future nesting opportunities.

vi) RBC Streetcare Services Manager – Highways

4.62 The SuDS based information submitted has been assessed and it is considered that the approach put forward by the applicant is appropriate. Subject to final details being provided before construction, as secured via condition, it is considered that the SuDS based approach is appropriate.

vii) Historic England 4.63 Specialist Historic England staff have considered the information received and do

not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Historic England therefore recommends that the applications should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.

viii) Thames Water Utilities 4.64 Thames Water advises they have no objection with regard to sewerage

infrastructure capacity. 4.65 With regard to surface water drainage it is recommended that an informative is

included on any permission stating that it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. This is to ensure that the surface water discharge from the site shall not be detrimental to the existing sewerage system.

73

4.66 In terms of water comments, Thames Water recommend the following informative

be attached to any planning permission: Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

4.67 Supplementary Comments - Thames Water acknowledges the reduction in surface

water flows as laid out in the drainage strategy. Thames Water requests that the developer investigate all available sustainable drainage options to understand whether any additional reduction in peak surface water flow can be achieved.

ix) Reading UK CIC 4.68 The applicant is required under the Council’s Employment Skills and Training SPD

(given the development is a major development over 1000sqm) to submit details of a local Employment and Skills Plan (or financial contribution to employment and training projects) for the construction phase of the development. This will need to be agreed with Reading UK CIC, who deliver ESPs on behalf of the Borough Council, and will be secured in full via s106 legal agreement. Given the nature and scale of the proposals UK CIC do not consider there is any scope for an end use requirement.

x) Crime Prevention & Design Advisor at Thames Valley Police 4.69 No response received to date. Should a response be received prior to the

application being considered at Planning Applications Committee it will be included in an update report.

xi) Public consultation 4.70 Notification letters were sent to 12 nearby occupiers on 20/07/2016. A site notice

was erected on 21/07/2016. A press notice was published on 28/07/2016. No responses have been received.

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

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

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

5.4 The applications have been assessed against the following policies:

74

5.5 National

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) National Planning Policy Guidance (2014 onwards)

5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008)

(Altered 2015)

CS1 Sustainable Construction and Design CS2 Waste Minimisation CS3 Social inclusion and Diversity CS4 Accessibility and the Intensity of Development CS5 Inclusive Access CS7 Design and the Public Realm CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS11 Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS29 Open Space CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impact on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.7 Reading Centre Area Action Plan (2009)

RC5 Design in the Centre RC6 Definition of the Centre

5.8 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.9 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

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

5.10 Other relevant documentation / guidance / legislation

Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)

75

Historic England Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 1: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management (Historic England, 2016) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking (Historic England, 2015a) Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England, 2015b) Principles of Conservation (Historic England, 2008) Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings (British Standards Publication BS 7913:2013, 2015) Reading Tree Strategy (2010) Housing Act 2004 Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation (England) Regulations 2006

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

i) The principle of development – land use matters ii) Scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets

iii) Standard of accommodation iv) Amenity impact on the nearby area

v) Trees and Landscaping vi) Transport vii) Sustainability, energy & SuDS viii) Other matters – S106, CIL & Equality

i) The principle of development – land use matters 6.2 Considering first the loss of office use at Nos. 187-189, the applicant has

submitted a ‘Reading Office Market Report’ (Haslams) and supporting commentary within the planning statement. This considers the policy CS11 criteria and concludes that this policy has been met to enable the loss of the office use at the site. In particular, it is noted that the building has been vacant for over two years, there are considered to be more accessible / attractive office locations within the town than this site and, as per paragraph 51 of the NPPF, there are not strong economic reasons to retain the existing use. Officers concur that the principle of the loss of the existing office use is justified in policy terms.

6.3 Another principle land use consideration is the loss of 20 car parking spaces at the

site, to enable a new building to be constructed to the rear of the site. As per section 4ii) above, transport officers have no in-principle concerns with the loss of car parking spaces at the site.

6.4 With regard to the principle of the proposed use, it is noted that there is no

specific local policy relating to student accommodation. However, taking policy RC6 into account, it is considered that the proposed student (sui generis) use can be supported in principle in this regard, as mixing uses is at the heart of the spatial strategy.

6.5 As has been the case with other recent student accommodation schemes in the

borough in recent times (for example 141986 - 252-256 Kings Road; 150752 – Former Yell House, Queens Walk; 151356 – Trinity Hall, South Street to name but three), it is considered necessary, directly relevant, fair and reasonable to restrict the use of the living accommodation to be occupied as student accommodation (Sui Generis) only. It is considered most appropriate for this to be secured via legal

76

agreement, rather than a planning condition. Given that the proposals are unable to be supported for other reasons, as outlined elsewhere in this appraisal, this therefore forms a reason for refusal of the application. However, in this instance, an informative is recommended which specifies that without prejudice to any future application or appeal, this reason for refusal could have been overcome by entering into a Section 106 Legal Agreement or unilateral undertaking for a scheme that was in all other respects acceptable.

ii) Scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets

6.6 As outlined in detail in section 4i) above, there are a number of significant

concerns with a number of elements of the proposals from a conservation and heritage perspective. A shorter summary of these concerns, together with further comments in relation to the detailed design of the proposals, is provided below.

6.7 Considering first the new building to the rear of the site, put simply it is

considered that this ‘pavilion’ building dominates the remaining space at this part of the site. Owing to its mass, height and location it is considered to further erode (in addition to past works at No. 185 and No. 191) the setting of the listed building at Nos. 187-189 and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of this part of the Eldon Square Conservation Area. This is explained in more detail in paragraphs 4.24 – 4.28 in particular and forms a reason for refusal of the planning and listed building applications. The harmful impacts of this element of the proposals in particular are considered to outweigh the planning benefits of the scheme put forward by the applicant, as detailed at paragraph 2.7, when applying a critical planning balance.

6.8 In terms of the detailed design of the pavilion, notwithstanding the concerns

raised above, in itself it is considered that the choice of materials and finished appearance of the building would be suitable. At ground floor level a combination of stone cladding and buff bricking is proposed, with buff brick predominant on the upper floors (although render in a buff tone is proposed above first floor level on the side elevations), together with stone bandings to mark each floor. Large vertical (virtually floor to ceiling in height) anodised metal (aluminium) window openings are proposed, with these being narrower on the side elevations.

6.9 The combination of materials and the finished appearance, although contemporary

in nature, is considered to respond satisfactorily to its surroundings, including the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the conservation area. As such, the detailed design of the pavilion does not form a reason for refusal of the application, but as outlined previously the mass, height and location of the building does. When applying a planning balance, the detailed design of the building does not outweigh these concerns. Had the application been able to be supported at officer level, details (including on-site samples) of the proposed materials would have been secured via condition.

6.10 Turning to consider the internal / external works associated with the listed

building at Nos. 187-189, as predominantly outlined in paragraphs 4.22 – 4.23 & 4.29 of the heritage officer comments above, the majority of these works are considered appropriate. Had the proposals been supported at officer level it would have been necessary to secure various details associated with the proposed works via condition. However, one specific element of the proposed works, namely the removal of a 21.5m long part of the boundary wall, is considered harmful to the special architectural and historic interest (loss of historic fabric) of the listed building and the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

77

As such, this forms a further reason for refusal of planning permission and listed building consent at the site.

6.11 Moving on to consider the proposed works to No. 191, the two-storey front

extension and associated alterations (rendering and window alterations) on the upper floors of the front elevation to this building is considered to unduly compete and visually distract from the setting of the neighbouring listed building at Nos. 187-189. This is primarily owing to the projection forward (in comparison with existing), which means the set-back from Nos. 187-189 is now a minimum of 2m (as existing there is a 7m set-back). Furthermore, the form and detailed design of the proposed extension and works to the upper floors of the facade, with its buff brick and contemporary nature on the extension and rendering / window alterations above, is considered to exacerbate the detrimental visual impact on the setting and the overall character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area. This is discussed in more detail above, primarily at paragraphs 4.29 – 4.30. This forms a third separate reason for refusal of the planning / listed applications.

6.12 In respect of the proposed roof extension to No. 191, although there are some

concerns raised from a heritage perspective as to the further cumulative impact on eroding the setting of the rear of the listed building, the harm at this point is not considered by officers to be significant enough to warrant a reason for refusal of the proposals. Moreover, it is also relevant that the principle of an additional storey, following the same footprint as that currently proposed, has been granted as recently as 2013 (although the time period to implement this has expired).

6.13 Notwithstanding this, primarily owing to the significant set-back of this roof

extension to the neighbouring listed building (and Reading College to the east as well) it is considered that the roof extension, in itself, is appropriate in terms of the host building and the wider streetscene, including listed buildings and the adjacent conservation area. In terms of detailed design, it is proposed to include a diamond pattern standing seam metal roof in bronze tone, which in itself (in the context of the remainder of the proposals and the existing context) is considered suitable by officers, although had the application been supported at officer level exact details (including samples) would have been secured via condition.

6.14 Finally, with regard to the proposed works to the side (west) elevation of No. 191,

this involves alterations to the windows and rendering the façade to tie this part of the building in with the proposed pavilion building. In itself, no design/heritage concerns are raised with this element of the proposals. However, had the proposals been able to be supported at officer level, exact details/samples of these materials would have been secured via condition.

iii) Standard of accommodation

6.15 In terms of the standard of accommodation for future occupiers of the student

units, some substantial concerns are raised in respect of numerous units proposed. In particular, concerns are raised in relation to:

a) Future occupiers of the ground to third floor units on the rear (north) elevation of

Nos. 187-189 (8 units) having a) inadequate privacy and resultant overlooking and b) visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development resulting in a lack of outlook, due to the proposed units on the south elevation of the pavilion building (direct overlooking at distances of 9.5m and 10.3m)

78

b) Vice versa from the southern-most units on the pavilion building at ground to third floor level (8 units) to the north elevation of No’s 187-189 (same distances as noted above).

c) Future occupiers of the ground to fourth floor units on the east elevation the pavilion building (9 units) having inadequate a) privacy and resultant overlooking and b) visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development resulting in a lack of outlook, due to the existing units on the west elevation of No. 191 (direct overlooking distances of 6m and 8m).

d) Vice versa from the existing units at ground to fourth floor level of No. 191 towards the proposed pavilion. In terms of overlooking / privacy this relates to 9 units in total – those directly north and south of the internal staircase – only 1 at ground floor level (that north of the stair) & 2 on first to fourth floors. In terms of outlook, this relates to 19 units in total – 2 to the north of the stair at ground level, 5 each at first to third floor (3 to the south of the stair and 2 to the north) and 2 at fourth floor level (1 either side of the stair).

e) Future occupiers of the proposed units on the northern-most elevation of the pavilion building (8 units, 2 each at ground to third floor level), suffering visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development resulting in a lack of outlook, caused by the proximity of the building to the TPO tree.

f) Future occupiers of the proposed units on the south elevation of Nos. 187-189 at third floor level (4 units) suffering visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development resulting in a lack of outlook, caused by the existing/proposed parapet wall in close proximity to the windows serving these units.

6.16 It is considered that these shortfalls are significant in nature, resulting in a

detrimental impact to the living environment of existing / future occupiers. It is acknowledged that student accommodation is not standard Class C3 accommodation, thereby enabling officers to, where relevant, apply greater flexibility in the assessment of amenity impacts. However, it is noted that policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) is applicable to any type of development (paragraph 4.4.1). Moreover, particularly in the case of the pavilion building and Nos. 187-189, the layout of the units is such that they essentially provide spaces which cater for the sleeping, eating and studying needs of occupiers (i.e. these are not cluster units with separate shared cooking and studying spaces). As such, it can reasonably be expected that occupiers will spend considerable periods of time within these spaces and therefore the requirement for adequate outlook and protection from overlooking is considered to be significant. In simple terms, the provision of the pavilion building, in combination with the existing/proposed context at Nos. 187-189, results in a poor standard of accommodation for numerous future occupiers. This is due to the pavilion building being located too close to the existing buildings at the site.

6.17 It is also recognised that the applicant has attempted to minimise overlooking

opportunities between different student units in a number of ways:

a) by positioning the proposed pavilion building adjacent to the internal staircore within No. 191, thereby reducing the instances of direct overlooking between units at this point.

b) By making rooms on the eastern most side of the pavilion building dual aspect, with the secondary windows being those which face east towards No. 191. This is acknowledged, but making these windows obscure glazed would mean limited outlook from a single window instead).

c) By making rooms on the south-western corner of the pavilion building dual aspect.

79

6.18 The applicant has also provided precedent studies of other student accommodation schemes in the country. However, it is not considered in overall terms that these steps go far enough to mitigate a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of a significant number of future occupiers. Furthermore, the size and positioning of the proposed pavilion means that it will result in a cramped environment, which will be overbearing on the existing buildings and for future occupiers of the pavilion building itself. More specifically, concerns are raised in respect of 25 of the 35 units proposed within the pavilion building, 12 of the 26 units within Nos. 187-189 and 19 of the 89 units at No. 191. It is considered that the individual concerns raised, when considered both individually and cumulatively, leads to an overall poor standard of accommodation being created across the development as a whole.

6.19 It is considered necessary to split these concerns up into three separate reasons

for refusal of the application, each slightly different in nature. The first relates to the pavilion building creating overlooking/lack of privacy and be visually dominating and overbearing (resulting in a lack of outlook) for future occupiers. The second reason raises similar concerns in relation to the pavilion building, but this time for existing and future occupiers of nearby buildings. The third reason deals specifically with the lack of outlook for future occupiers of the south elevation third floor units at Nos. 187-189, caused by the existing/proposed parapet wall at this point. It is considered that the detrimental impacts identified above outweigh the planning benefits of the scheme detailed by the applicant at paragraph 2.7, when applying a critical planning balance.

6.20 As well as the areas of concern resulting in reasons for refusal, as raised above,

there are also a number of other areas where officers consider that the proposals are, on balance, considered appropriate in amenity terms. These instances comprise:

a) The western-most units on the pavilion building. This would be a minimum of 7.4m

away from the office building at No. 185 and include 1 secondary window on the facing elevation. Although this is only marginally further away than the opposite elevation, given this building is in office use it is not considered to result in significantly harmful losses of amenity.

b) Remaining existing units on the west elevation of No. 191 (i.e. those not referenced above). In terms of the units not directly opposite the proposed pavilion, these will be overlooked and suffer a reduction in outlook as a result of the proposed pavilion. However, the overlooking will be at acute angles (rather than straight on) and some adequate outlook would remain for these units (also considering the existing context too). Hence, on balance, it is only considered that the units directly in line with the proposed building would be significantly adversely impacted by the proposed pavilion building.

c) Daylight / sunlight implications – the report submitted by the applicant itself recognises there to be some shortfalls in terms of these matters, in particular the access to sunlight for future occupiers of the lowest floors of the proposed pavilion building. In addition, the window sizes within the west elevation of No. 191 are proposed to be increased in size to increase access to daylight/sunlight. The proposed assessment has followed appropriate methodologies (acknowledging that there is no specific standard for student accommodation) and it is considered that some shortfalls can be accommodated in this specific regard, leading to an overall conclusion in this particular instance that this, on balance, is appropriate. Had the application been able to be supported at officer level, a condition would have sought for the changes to the west elevation of No. 191 (i.e. rendering and increase in size of windows) to be completed prior to the first occupation of any

80

student unit within the pavilion building, to ensure that these proposed works were actually implemented.

6.21 In respect of other matters, it is noted that the proposed accommodation includes

some expanded ancillary facilities, such as a larger communal area at ground floor level of No. 191 and a gym at lower ground floor level of Nos. 187-189. Had the application been supported by officers, a condition would have ensured these facilities would be ancillary to the student use and not operate as standalone facilities.

6.22 Furthermore, the landscape plan within the Design and Access Statement indicates

grass areas are proposed adjacent to the TPO Plane and a common courtyard / garden is envisaged between the rear of Nos. 187-189 & the proposed Pavilion. This represents a somewhat limited dedicated amenity space for future occupiers, albeit this shortfall is not considered significant enough in itself to warrant a reason for refusal of the application.

6.23 With regard to noise & disturbance, air quality and contaminated land matters,

Environmental Protection officers have confirmed that the proposals would be satisfactory subject to conditions, as detailed in section 4iii) above. Thus, had the proposals been supported by officers, these elements would have been secured via condition. In a similar regard, the refuse and recycling and cycle storage provisions are also considered to be suitable subject to conditions, in line with comments detailed in section 4ii) above by transport officers.

6.24 Therefore, although some elements of the accommodation are considered

appropriate and some others are on balance deemed to be appropriate, others are not. There are a number of overlooking/privacy and visually dominant/overbearing/lack of outlook concerns which are so significant that they warrant the refusal of the proposals (when applying a critical planning balance), as they would cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment of existing / future occupiers.

iv) Amenity impact on the nearby area

6.25 The applicant has submitted a Framework Student Management Plan, which sets

out how it is envisaged that the accommodation will be managed, including property and travel management, moving in/out procedures, waste & recycling and health & safety measures. In principle, this is welcomed and considered necessary, as a significant increase in the amount of student accommodation at this site, as proposed, could potentially lead to amenity concerns and cause harm to the character of the local/wider area.

6.26 Although the various measures stated are generally welcomed and considered

appropriate, the ‘framework’ nature of the report is such that it includes a caveat that “it will be finalised by a professional student management company once this is known”. As such, it is not certain that the measures detailed within the report would be implemented in practice. Indeed, many of the measures stated are set within the context of being ‘envisaged’, ‘expected’ and ‘could be implemented’. Therefore, had the application been able to be supported at officer level, a planning condition would have been included on any permission specifying that prior to the first occupation of any newly created accommodation, a final student management plan would have to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

81

6.27 In addition to the student management plan, a number of other conditions would also have been proposed (had the proposals been supported at officer level) to safeguard the amenity of the area. This includes the noise generating based condition recommended by Environmental Protection officers in section 4iii) above. Other conditions considered necessary would have been for there to be no music being played which is audible in adjoining premises/highway and the total number of residents at no point exceeding the number of bedspaces.

6.28 In terms of the impact of the development of other nearby buildings individually,

no significant adverse amenity impacts over and above the aforementioned matters are envisaged. The proposed pavilion would be 42m away from Mandela Court to the north, downplaying any possible impact at this point. To the east, the proposed additional storey to No. 191 is of a similar footprint and nature to that approved at the site in 2013. As such, it is not considered that this element of the proposal would worsen a context considered appropriate in the recent past. To the south, the 39m distance between the application site buildings and the residential units of Edward Place and Henry Court means no significant adverse amenity impact would occur at this point either. To the west, although No. 185 is in close proximity to the proposed pavilion building, the office use of this building means that amenity impacts are not considered to be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal of the application on this basis. More specifically, although it is considered that there would be some overlooking / loss of privacy, in addition to some loss of outlook through visual dominance and the overbearing effects of the pavilion and some loss of day/sunlight, the office use of the building is such that this is not considered to result in a significant enough loss of amenity at this point.

v) Trees & Landscaping

6.29 As per section 4iv) of the report (paragraphs 4.56 – 4.60), the Council’s Natural

Environment officer has carefully considered the proposals from a trees and landscaping perspective. This included a range of discussions at pre-application stage, following initial significant concerns regarding the potential impact of the pavilion building on the TPO Plane tree to the north of the site. In short, it is considered that the proposed building can be accommodated without significantly harming the TPO tree, subject to a number of conditions had the proposals been able to be supported at officer level. Similarly, the proposed landscaping scheme is considered appropriate in principle, subject to conditions which would have been recommended had the proposals as a whole been able to be supported at officer level.

vi) Transport

6.30 Section 4ii) of this report (paragraphs 4.39 – 4.47) provides a detailed assessment of

the transport based implications of the proposed development. In overall terms the proposals are considered appropriate from a transport perspective and a number of transport based conditions would have been secured had the proposals as a whole been recommended for approval by officers.

vii) Sustainability, energy & SuDS

6.31 An energy statement and sustainable construction assessment has been submitted

with the application. This follows the principles and criteria of the relevant local policies and Sustainable Design and Construction SPD. More specifically, in terms of energy, the submitted assessment specifies that the proposed development will result in a 36.9% reduction in carbon emissions overall the baseline at the site.

82

This far exceeds the policy target and will be achieved solely through passive design measures, fabric energy efficiencies and supplying energy efficiently (through a centralised gas fired boiler). As such, in principle, these measures are welcomed and would have been secured via condition had the overall scheme been recommended for approval. In terms of renewable technologies, the applicant has specified that none are proposed within the proposals. Although it would have been preferred for the applicant to explicitly detail the reasons behind this intention (likely to have been owing to the listed nature of Nos. 187-189, the nature of the development and the emission reductions achieved through other means, as described above), it is considered in this specific instance that the non-inclusion of renewable technologies is accepted on this occasion.

6.32 Turning to consider the sustainability assessments, in terms of the refurbishment

of Nos. 187-189 a BREEAM non-domestic refurbishment and fit-out assessment has been submitted. This demonstrates that the required ‘very good’ rating would be achieved, with an overall score of 62.43% earmarked to be achieved. The ‘very good’ level is in line with the SPD recommendations for the floorspace involved at Nos. 187-189.

6.33 In addition, a BREEAM New Construction pre-assessment has been undertaken in

relation to the proposed pavilion. This estimates that through a variety of measures the new build would achieve a 66.63% score, equating to a ‘very good’ rating, in line with policy. The pre-assessment also specifies there is potential to increase this by a further 11.67%, which if subsequently achieved would result in an overall ‘excellent’ rating. A standalone sustainability pre-assessment has not been included for the extensions to No. 191, which in the context of the proposals as a whole is not considered essential in this case. This is given the sustainability credentials of the proposals have been sufficiently demonstrated by the pre-assessments for Nos. 187-189 and the pavilion.

6.34 The level and nature of information submitted has demonstrated that the

proposals would be likely to comply with the Council’s sustainability policies. Had the proposals as a whole been able to be supported at officer level, conditions would have been recommended to secure final design stage (interim BREEAM certification) and post construction reviews (including final BREEAM certification) for both assessments submitted. This would have been required to ensure that the various measures indicated at pre-assessment stage would be secured in practice in the finished scheme.

6.35 With specific reference to Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), the

proposed measures have been assessed and considered appropriate by the Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. This is summarised in section 4vi) above.

viii) Other matters

Section 106 Legal Agreement

6.36 As per the Reading UK CIC consultation response outlined in section 4 above, an

employment, skills and training plan (construction phase) would have been required to be secured via s106 legal agreement had planning permission been recommended for approval. In the absence of an acceptable scheme, this consequently forms a further reason for refusal of the application. The same is applicable in terms of securing the student use via legal agreement, as detailed earlier in the appraisal. As before, an informative will specify that this could be overcome by entering into

83

a S106 or unilateral undertaking for a scheme that was in all other respects acceptable.

6.37 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the

National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that they would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

6.38 The applicant duly completed a CIL liability form as part of the submission of this

application. Had the application been able to be supported, then the scheme would have been CIL liable, with the standard informative included on any planning permission. In the circumstances, an informative will be added to the decision notice specifying that the scheme would have been liable to a CIL contribution. This would potentially amount to £289,605 based on the current charging schedule and 2016 indexing.

Equality

6.39 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

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

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is acknowledged that the applicant has outlined, in support of the proposals, a

number of planning benefits of the proposals, as detailed at paragraph 2.7 above. Therefore, when applying a critical planning balance, officers consider that whilst acknowledging that there are a number of planning merits in the proposals (such as bringing back into use a vacant building – some of the other merits specified by the applicant are not agreed), the various shortfalls of the proposals are such that in overall terms these concerns override the merits. These concerns are largely heritage / conservation and amenity based. In overall terms these concerns are so significant so as to count against the proposals when considering all relevant material considerations. Accordingly, within the context of national and local planning policies, as detailed in the appraisal above, full planning permission is recommended to be refused. Similarly, listed building consent is also recommended for refusal. Both are as per the recommendations at the outset of this report.

Drawings: 1509 106 010 Rev B Site Location Plan, as received 01/09/2016 1509 106 011 Rev B Existing & Proposed Block Plan, as received 01/09/2016 1509 106 000 Rev A Existing Lower Ground Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 001 Rev A Existing Ground Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 002 Rev A Existing First Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 003 Rev A Existing Second Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 004 Rev A Existing Third Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 005 Rev A Existing Fourth Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 106 006 Rev A Existing Roof Plan, as received 18/07/2016

84

1509 102 001 Rev A Existing Site/Context Elevation North and South, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 002 Rev A Existing Site/Context Elevation East and West, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 003 Rev A Existing Site/Context Elevation East and South, as received 18/07/2016 1509 103 001 Rev A Existing Site/Context Section AA and BB, as received 18/07/2016 1509 103 002 Rev A Existing Site/Context Section CC and DD, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 000 Rev A Proposed Lower Ground Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 001 Rev A Proposed Ground Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 002 Rev A Proposed First Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 003 Rev A Proposed Second Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 004 Rev A Proposed Third Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 005 Rev A Proposed Fourth Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 006 Rev A Proposed Fifth Floor Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 101 008 Rev A Proposed Roof Plan, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 005 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Elevation North and South, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 006 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Elevation East and West, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 007 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Elevation East and South, as received 18/07/2016 1509 102 008 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Elevation 187-189 North, as received 18/07/2016 1509 103 003 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Section AA and BB, as received 18/07/2016 1509 103 004 Rev A Proposed Site/Context Section CC and DD, as received 18/07/2016 1509 103 005 Existing and Proposed Site/Context Section DD – highlighted wall to be retained, as received 01/09/2016, Design and Access Statement by Metropolitan Workshop LLP, dated June 2016, as received 18/07/16 Arboricultural Report and Tree Condition Survey by Ruskins, Ref 0915-1799 Rev 2, dated March 2016, as received 29/06/16 Air Quality Assessment by Redmore Environmental, Ref 1225r1, dated 08/03/2016, as received 29/06/16 Accommodation schedule dated March 2016, as received 29/06/16 Phase I – Desk Study by Pam Brown Associates, Ref 1577-16/ MM/PB V.2, dated March 2016, as received 29/06/16 Daylight & Sunlight Report by EB7, dated 01/04/16, as received 29/06/16 Heritage Statement by Alan Baxter, dated June 2016, as received 29/06/16 Energy Assessment by EB7 Sustainability, dated 23/03/16, as received 29/06/16 Utilities Statement by P3r, undated, as received 29/06/16 Planning Statement by Maddox Associates, dated June 2016, as received 29/06/16 Transport Statement by TPP, Ref 30850/D01a, dated March 2016, as received 29/06/16 Environmental Noise Impact Assessment by Gillieron Scott Acoustic Design, Ref R107032016 Rev 02, dated 07/03/16, as received 29/06/16 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Bat Scoping Survey Repot by Darwin Ecology, dated March 2016, as received 29/06/16 Reading Office Market Report by Haslams, Ref EM/TALS/29107, dated 22/03/16, as received 29/06/16 Surface Water Drainage Strategy by Pitman Associates, Ref 0145 Rev A, dated April 2016, as received 29/06/16 Letter & Appendices ‘Ref: King’s Road, Reading’ by EB7, dated 31/08/16, as received 01/09/16 Case Officer: Jonathan Markwell

85

Existing and Proposed ground floor plan

86

Existing and Proposed Kings Road streetscene

Existing photo montage of the Kings Road streetscene (as provided by the applicant)

87

Existing and proposed views / north & south elevations of the proposed pavilion

88

Existing and proposed west elevation of No. 191, with the proposed pavilion building in the foreground of the proposed plan

Information illustrating the proposed removal of part of the boundary wall between Nos. 187-189 and No. 191, the proposed additional storey to No. 191 and the proposed

89

alterations to the windows on the west elevation of No. 191 – Existing plan, proposed plan and existing photograph

90

Existing and Proposed side (east) elevation of No. 191, showing the depth of the proposed two-storey front extension and the proposed roof extension

91

Existing outlook from third floor south (front) elevation windows at Nos. 187-189

92

Existing context of windows and outlook from west elevation of No. 191

93

Extract from Design & Access Statement

Existing outlook from rear (north) elevation window at third floor level of Nos. 187-189

94

Extract from Eldon Square Conservation Area Appraisal

95

Proposed CGIs, as provided by the applicant

96

BATTLE

97

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 9 November 2016 Ward: Battle App No.: 06/00011/FUL/RE Address: Battle Hospital, 344 Oxford Road, Reading Proposal: Erection of 434 no. dwellings and health care facility with associated

car parking, open space, landscaping and new access arrangements RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to enter into a Deed of Variation to amend the Section 106 Agreement dated 10 November 2006 to refer also to mortgagees (not in possession) and to include reference to chargees, administrative receivers and administrators. 1. Introduction 1.1 The redevelopment of Battle Hospital site for a superstore and residential

development was granted planning permission in November 2006 with a S106 legal agreement to secure a number of items amongst which was: • The provision of 169 affordable housing units on-site in conjunction with Reading

Borough Local Plan Policy HSG2. Units to be completed, made ready for occupation and transferred to a Housing Association before occupation of 65% of the Private Housing Units constructed as part of the KingsOak Housing Development for a consideration that is financially subsidised and affordable in line with the Council’s policies, with dispute resolution in default of agreement.

1.2 The development has been completed and affordable housing provided as

specified.

Aerial view of part of the completed site

99

2. The Requested Change 2.1 Solicitors acting on behalf of Southern Housing Group Limited explain that they are in

the process of preparing their properties for charging to a private finance provider. 2.2 Southern Housing Group were signatories to the section 106 agreement. Clause 22.8 of

this agreement provides that “neither the Affordable Housing Land nor the Affordable Housing Units will be disposed of except by way of a transfer of the freehold estate or (as the case may be) leasehold estate of the Affordable Housing Land and the Affordable Housing Units”.

2.3 Southern Housing Group now seek a Deed of Variation to update this clause to refer

also to mortgagees (not in possession) and to include reference to chargees, administrative receivers and administrators.

2.4 This requested change would be in accordance with the Council’s current practice with

Section 106 Agreements for affordable housing and the following form of words has been agreed by the solicitors acting for Southern Housing Group:

“The Affordable Housing Provisions shall not apply to a mortgagee or chargee (or any receiver (including an administrative receiver) appointed by such mortgagee or chargee or any other person appointed under any security documentation to enable such mortgagee or chargee to realise its security or any administrator (howsoever appointed) including a housing administrator (each a Receiver)) of the whole or any part of the Affordable Housing Units or any persons or bodies deriving title through such mortgagee or chargee or Receiver PROVIDED THAT (a) such mortgagee or chargee or Receiver shall first give written notice to the Council of its intention to dispose of the Affordable Housing Units and shall have used reasonable endeavours over a period of three months from the date of the written notice to complete a disposal of the Affordable Housing Units to another registered provider or to the Council for a consideration not less than the amount due and outstanding under the terms of the relevant security documentation including all accrued principal monies, interest and costs and expenses and (b) if such disposal has not completed within the three month period, the mortgagee, chargee or Receiver shall be entitled to dispose of the Affordable Housing Units free from the Affordable Housing Provisions which provisions shall determine absolutely.”

3. Conclusion 3.1 The requested change to the legal agreement raises no planning concerns for officers

and therefore you are recommended to agree to it. Case Officer: Julie Williams

100

REDLANDS

101

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 9 November 2016 Ward: Redlands App No.: 161771/REG3 Address: Kielder Court, Hexham Road Proposal: External refurbishment. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date valid: 30 September 2016 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date : 25 November 2016 RECOMMENDATION Grant. CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Approved drawings 3. Construction Method Statement 4. Standard hours of construction and demolition INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE 1. Positive and Proactive informative 2. The applicant is advised that an application for building regulations approval may be required. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site is located in a mainly residential area to the south of the town

centre and within an area of flats and houses arranged around a typical 1960s layout of access roads, parking courts and service roads.

1.2 The site comprises a four-storey block containing flats and maisonettes with

a two storey section that projects at right angles to the main block. This L-shaped arrangement fronts onto a parking court.

103

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is for external works associated with the refurbishment and

upgrading of the existing building. These involve the replacement of the tiles and cladding panels to the front and rear elevations and their replacement with insulated ‘grey-brown’ colour weatherboard-style cladding panels and pre-formed insulated composite cladding panels with a bonded natural stone aggregate outer surface. These two panel types would be arranged in an alternate chequered pattern as shown on the submitted drawings.

2.2 New windows are proposed which would match the existing layout on the

ground and second floors with the first floor windows being reduced in size. The third floor balconies would be enclosed at the front, with the rear third floor balconies being retained and refurbished. New gutters, fascias and soffits are also proposed.

3. PLANNING HISTORY None.

104

4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 No consultations were undertaken given the nature of the application. 4.2 Public consultation:

• 58 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by officers. The consultation period expires on 17 Novembers.

• No representations were received at the time of writing. Should any be received before the Committee Meeting these shall be reported as an update.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. The following local and national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application: 5.1 National Planning Policy Framework

Part 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7 – Requiring good design

5.2 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy

CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) 5.3 Sites and Detailed Policies Document SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) 6. APPRAISAL Main Issues 6.1 The main issues are:

i. Character and appearance ii. Residential amenity

Character and appearance 6.2 The building the subject of this application comprises a four storey block of

flats on a north-south axis, with a linked two storey block to the rear. The building is currently clad in a mixture of tile hanging and grey coloured panels. The buildings appearance is currently quite tired. The introduction of new white and grey-brown cladding will enhance the buildings’ appearance.

105

Residential amenity 6.3 The Property Services Department have confirmed that the cladding is part

of a larger internal and external refurbishment of the building. All flats will be provided with new kitchens, new bathrooms, full rewire, full central heating system, new telecommunication system, new external walls and new windows. The thermal performance of the walls, roofs and windows will be improved. This will improve levels of comfort for occupants and should result in lower fuel bills.

Equalities impact assessment 6.4 In determining this application the Committee is required to have regard to

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

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

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

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant

Development Plan Policies as assessed above. It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to suitable conditions.

Plans: 16/012/OPT3 Case Officer: Ben Pratley

106

TILEHURST

109

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 9th November 2016

Ward: Tilehurst App No.: 161390/REG3 Address: "Land At", Conwy Close, Tilehurst, Reading Proposal: Residential development comprising 57 dwellings, vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access, parking, and hard and soft landscaping and open space at land off Conwy Close. Applicant: Reading Borough Council. Date valid: 04th August 2016 Major Application - 13-week target decision date: 3rd November 2016 Agreed Extension date: 23rd November 2016 26-Week date: 02nd February 2017 RECOMMENDATION Delegate to the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services to:

(i) GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 legal agreement, or

(ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 23/11/2016 unless a later date is agreed by the Head of Planning Development & Regulatory Services. The S106 legal agreement to secure:

1. Affordable Housing - 50% on-site provision 2. Employment Skills Plan for the construction phase of the residential development

in accordance with the Council’s SPD, to be submitted and approved at least one month prior to works commencing.

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE: 1. Full - time limit - three years 2. Approved Drawings 3. Details and samples of all materials to be used externally. Prior to commencement. 4. Roads to be provided prior to occupation 5. Access constructed before occupation 6. Obscure glazing to windows 7. Existing access closure 8. No dwelling shall be occupied until space for vehicle parking and turning has been

provided in accordance with the approved drawing. This area shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times

9. Bicycle storage in accordance with approved drawings prior to occupation. 10. Bin storage in accordance with approved drawings provided prior to occupation 11. Construction Management Statements. Prior to commencement

111

12. Sustainable Drainage Scheme. Prior to commencement 13. Sustainable Drainage Implementation. Prior to occupation 14. Contaminated Land- Submission of details prior to commencement 15. Control of noise and Dust – CMS to be submitted prior to commencement 16. Hours of working – construction and demolition 17. No bonfires during construction 18. Nesting birds protected 19. Pre-commencement submission and approval of an Arboricultural Method Statement,

including a schedule of tree works. 20. Details of hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved prior to

commencement including ‘tree pit and planting specifications to provide sufficient soil/rooting environment for the maturity of the proposed trees’.

21. Development in accordance with the approved Arboricultural Method Statement 22. Submission of landscaping maintenance and aftercare details – replacement of any

failed planting within 5 years. 23. Details of play equipment to be submitted for approval and installed on site as

approved prior to occupation 24. Landscaping and Play Area Management Plan. Prior to occupation. 25. Details of boundary treatments to be submitted for approval and installed prior to

occupation 26. The residential flats hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Council has been

notified in writing of the full postal address of the units. 27. Noise assessment to be submitted and approved prior to commencement. INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE: 1. Terms and conditions. 2. Building regulations. 3. A section 106 legal agreement relates to this permission. 4. Section 38 agreements 5. Pre-Commencement conditions 6. Encroachment 7. Access construction 8. Damage to the highway 9. Works affecting the highway 10. Environmental protection information regarding the control of nuisance during

construction and demolition. 11. Positive and proactive. 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This site, as illustrated on the location plan below, is approximately over 1.0 ha in area and is located on Conwy Close being to the south of The Meadway. The irregular shape site that is long and thin along Conwy Close is currently partly being used as temporary parking.

1.2 The site boarders the rear gardens of properties on The Meadway and Wye Close to the east with existing trees and vegetation screening the rear boundaries. To the west side across Conwy Close, the site fronts Thames Valley School, The Meadway Sports Centre and partly The Avenue School. To the south side is a car park and properties on Usk Road as well as Churchend Primary School.

112

Location Plan (not to scale)

1.3 To the south side beyond the existing access to the site, Conwy Close becomes private, as the road passes into The Avenue School and Churchend Primary School carparks. A pavement continues to run further south along the west edge of the site to eventually join with Usk Road.

113

Site aerial view (source: submitted DAAS)

2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 2.1 The proposal is for residential development comprising 57 dwellings, vehicular,

cycle and pedestrian access, parking, and hard and soft landscaping and open space at land off Conwy Close.

2.2 The development will provide a mix of dwellings consisting of 12 x 1-bed flats, 22 x 2-bed flats, 9 x 2-bed houses, 6 x 3-bed houses and 8 x 4-bed houses. All the dwellings are intended to be provided as affordable units.

2.3 The proposed development will be accessed via the existing Meadway / Conwy Close crossroads and via a new simple priority T-junction on Conwy Close.

114

Amended Proposals Layout (not to scale)

115

2.4 The majority of units will be accessed from this junction with the four-bedroom dwellings accessed directly from Conwy Close. Beyond the site access, Conwy Close will continue to serve The Avenue School and Churchend primary School to the south of the site and Meadway Sports Centre to west of the site. Footways are provided along Conwy Close on both sides of the carriageway.

2.5 Landscaping will be provided along the residential perimeter and within the site

to soften the visual impact of the development. Existing mature trees at the junction of Conwy Close and The Meadway as well as along the rear boundary with properties on The Meadway would be retained.

2.6 Amended plans were submitted during the course of determination of the application to address concerns raised by the officers regarding the provision of open space/play areas on the site and the landscaping proposals in relation to trees. Supporting Information

2.7 The application is supported by the following documents and plans:

• Planning Statement • Design and Access Statement (DAS), • Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) • Phase 1 Habitat Assessment • Phase 2 Habitat Assessment • Flooding Risk Statement • Transport Statement • Utilities Statement • Contamination report • Drawings/Plans Register

2.8 In accordance with the NPPF, the applicant engaged in pre-application discussions with the Council.

2.9 In accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and the provisions of the NPPF the applicant has undertaken community consultation in the form of a public meeting on Tuesday 24th May 2016 at the Meadway Sports Centre and comment forms that were made available at the event, all of which is detailed within the submitted SCI appended to the Design and Access Statement.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY • 060117 - The site was previously the subject of an outline application for

residential development of 58 dwellings which was approved in June 2006 as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the site (application 060436), which included redevelopment of the Avenue School. The residential element of the development was never built out and the consent has since expired.

116

• 160705 - Proposed extension to an existing car park at The Meadway Sports

Centre in Conwy Close, Tilehurst. Granted 06/07/2016. This scheme is being implemented to accommodate the displaced temporary parking from the application site of the current proposal.

4. CONSULTATIONS Non-statutory

4.1 RBC Transport Strategy – No objection subject to conditions and informatives

4.2 RBC Environmental Protection – No objection subject to conditions to deal with potential noise, light, land contamination and air quality issues

4.3 RBC Consultant Ecologist – No objection subject to conditions

4.4 RBC Natural Environment – Raises no objection subject to conditions following the submission of amended plans.

4.5 RBC SUDS Officer – No objection subject to conditions

4.6 Thames Valley Police – no comments received

4.7 RBC Leisure – Following submission of amended plans raises no objection subject to conditions requiring the submission of play equipment details prior to commencement of the development.

4.8 RBC Housing – Reading has a high demand for affordable housing because much of the available housing in Reading is too expensive to rent or buy for a large proportion of families who are in housing need. This application is for the creation of 57 new homes at Conwy Close in Tilehurst and represents a large part of the Council's affordable housing development programme. This site is in a sustainable location for housing as it is close to local amenities, schools and has good transport links to the town centre and employment centres. The development will provide a mix of dwellings consisting of 12 x 1-bed flats, 22 x 2-bed flats, 9 x 2-bed houses, 6 x 3-bed houses and 8 x 4-bed houses. The proposed size and type of housing units reflects the housing need identified from data extracted from the Housing Register. This data shows a predominant need for 1 and 2 bed housing whilst also identifying need for some larger 3 and 4 bed accommodation. This scheme forms part of Reading's commitment to build new housing and is supported by RBC Housing Needs and the Housing Strategy Team.

4.9 RBC Archaeology – An archaeological evaluation was undertaken in 2006 in relation to a previous planning application at this site and is recorded in the

117

Historic Environment Records. No archaeological features were recorded during the evaluation and it was concluded that the site had a low potential for archaeological remains to be impacted by the development. Therefore no further archaeological work is required in relation to this new application.

4.10 Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) – No objection

4.11 Utility companies – No responses received.

5. Public consultation: The application was advertised in the local press as a major development. A number of site notices were also posted around the site and properties adjoining the site were consulted on this application. As a result of the consultations 3 letters, including one from Councillor Sandra Vickers, were received highlighting the following:

• Highway safety and capacity on Conwy Close • Lack of parking • Lack of school, doctors and dentist surgeries details • Need to consider alternative development of the site for flats to

accommodate over 55’s in order to free up the 2/3 bed housing stock they currently occupy.

6. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

National and Local Policy

• National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) • National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008

• Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) • Policy CS2 (Waste Minimisation) • Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) • Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) • Policy CS5 (Inclusive Access) • Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) • Policy CS14 (Provision of Housing) • Policy CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) • Policy CS16 (Affordable Housing) • Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) • Policy CS22 (Transport Assessments) • Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) • Policy CS29 (Provision of Open Space) • Policy CS30 (Access to Open Space) • Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources) • Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) • Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)

118

Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (SDPD), Adopted 2012 Revised 2015 • Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) • Policy DM2 (Decentralised Energy) • Policy DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) • Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • Policy DM5 (Housing Mix) • Policy DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) • Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) • Policy DM16 (Provision of Open Space) • Policy DM18 (Tree Planting)

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

• Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) • Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) • Employment, Skills and Training (2013) • Affordable Housing SPD (2015) • Statement of Community Involvement (2014) • Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990, (Revised 1/4/2015). The Council introduced the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), on planning

decisions made on or after 1 April 2015. This partially replaced the Section 106 system, under which tariff-based payments were sought, often subject to a process of negotiation. CIL has no such scope for negotiation and is a levy per sq m of floorspace with the Council’s CIL Charges approved at Council on 27 January 2015. The role of Section 106 is now restricted to securing affordable housing (dealt with in the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD) and dealing with site-specific infrastructure requirements.

7. APPRAISAL

The main issues in consideration of this application are:

• Principle of development • Housing density and mix • Affordable Housing • Transport issues • Layout, Design and Appearance • Residential Amenity of future occupiers and neighbours • Trees, landscaping and ecology • Open space/play area • Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) • Sustainable Development and Energy Requirements • Air Quality and Emergency Planning issues • Archaeology • Skills and training • Community Infrastructure Levy • Other considerations

119

Principle of the Development 7.1 The principle of residential development at this site has already been established

by the consented outline application for 58 dwellings which was granted permission in 2006 (application reference: 060117). Whilst the 2006 permission has since lapsed, the change in local and national policy has not materially changed the principle for residential development on the site. The current proposal delivers a similar quantum of houses as was approved under that application, although the dwellings are contained within a slightly smaller site area than the 2006 permission. The site is currently in temporary use as parking for in association with the Avenue Centre and the Meadway Sports Centre. However, as highlighted within the history section above, permission (160705) has been granted and is being implemented for additional parking at The Meadway Sports Centre to compensate for the loss of the temporary parking. The site is located in an area accessible to public transport and is within a residential area served by a wide range of facilities. As such the principle of the development is considered to accord with the provisions of Core Strategy CS14 that seeks to promote the provision of housing in such sustainable locations and the NPPF’s core theme of ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Housing density and mix

7.2 The development needs to accord with Core Strategy policy CS15 and policy DM5 of the Sites and Detailed Policies SPD in terms of housing mix and density. These policies seek to ensure that developments provide an appropriate range of housing opportunities in terms of a mix of housing types, sizes and tenures, in accordance with the findings of a housing market assessment.

7.3 The site is considered to be in an accessible suburban area that would require density levels of 35 – 55 dwellings per hectare to accord with policy CS15. The proposed development would achieve a density of 57 dwellings per hectare, so marginally above the indicative density for this area.

7.4 Policy DM5 (Housing Mix) seeks to ensure that on new developments for 10 or more dwellings outside the central area and defined district and local centres, planning decisions will ensure that over 50% of dwellings will be of 3 bedrooms or more, and the majority of dwellings will be in the form of houses rather than flats, having regard to all other material considerations. This development proposal will provide a mix of dwellings consisting of 12 x 1-bed flats, 22 x 2-bed flats, 9 x 2-bed houses, 6 x 3-bed houses and 8 x 4-bed houses. All are proposed to be affordable housing units. This mix would result in 25% of the proposed dwellings having 3 or more bedrooms and 59% of the dwellings being flats so falls short of the targets for mix and type of dwellings set by policy DM5.

7.5 The applicant is aware of the shortfall but submits that the housing mix proposed

for the site directly relates to the Council’s local affordable housing register, with the type of dwellings proposed relating to need. This has been confirmed by the Council’s Housing Strategy Team in their consultation response highlighting that the proposed size and type of housing units reflects the housing need identified from data extracted from the Housing Register. This data shows a predominant need for 1 and 2 bed housing although there remains a need for some larger 3 and 4 bed housing. As it is intended that the scheme would be 100% affordable, officers are satisfied that in this case the policy targets of Policy DM5, which apply to all housing provided across the Borough, are outweighed by the identified affordable housing needs and the applicant’s willingness to have a legal agreement

120

securing a more than policy compliant level of affordable housing (see the next section).

Affordable Housing 7.6 In accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS16, developments of 15 dwellings and

above are required to provide 30% of the total number of dwellings in the form of affordable housing to meet the needs of the area, as defined by a housing needs assessment. The local planning authority should approach this planning proposal as it would if submitted by any other applicant. So while the applicant is intending to provide all 57 dwellings as affordable they are not obliged to provide 100% affordable housing to make the proposal acceptable in planning policy terms.

7.7 It is not unreasonable of the applicant to seek to retain some flexibility on the

disposal of some of the dwellings in the future, for example; in response to changes in housing need or legislation. However, planning officers feel that it is appropriate for the local planning authority to mitigate the lower than policy requirement proposed for mix and types of dwellings by securing a minimum of 50% affordable housing on the site with an agreed mix of sizes. 29 units would be secured by s106 as affordable units, with the breakdown on the table below reflecting the 50% mix to be incorporated within the s106 agreement.

Dwelling Type Number of units 1 bed flat 6 2 bed flat 11 2 bed house 5 3 bed house 3 4 bed house 4 Total Flats 17 Total houses 12 Total units 29

Subject to completion of the S106 legal agreement, the proposal is considered

acceptable in terms of the adopted policies for housing mix and affordable housing provision.

Transport Issues 7.8 RBC Transport Strategy has fully assessed the transport issues associated with the

proposed development. Outline planning consent for a residential development of 58 dwellings was permitted in June 2006 under application 06/00258/REG3. Recent planning consent for an extension to an existing car park at The Meadway Sports Centre in Conwy Close was permitted in May 2016 under application number 160705 to mitigate the shortage of car parking spaces, as a result of the loss of the temporary car park located on this site.

Parking 7.9 The site is located within Zone 3, Secondary Core Area, of the Council’s adopted

Parking Standards and Design SPD. The area is highly sustainable in terms of means of transport and in accordance with the adopted SPD, the development would be required to provide a parking provision of 1.5 spaces per 1-2 bedroom flat/house and 2 spaces per 3/4 bedroom dwelling. It should be noted that the National Planning Practice Guidance, March 2014 (NPPG) has shifted the requirements away from parking restraint and states ““Maximum parking standards

121

can lead to poor quality development and congested streets, local planning authorities should seek to ensure parking provision is appropriate to the needs of the development and not reduced below a level that could be considered reasonable.” This is especially the case for origin destinations such as a residential developments and the latest evidence clearly shows that a reduction in residential parking does not result in reduced car ownership but leads to various parking issues. The latest research document published in February 2014 by the Housing Minister at Westminster “Space to park” recommends 1 space per 1/2 bed dwelling, 2 spaces per 3/4 bed dwelling with at least a 20% provision for visitor parking on street. It is the government’s attention that this guidance should be followed.

7.10 Amended plans have been submitted showing that the development provides a

total of 87 parking spaces through a mix of on-plot, and small courtyard arrangements. Each house will be provided with 2 dedicated parking spaces on a driveway and the flats will be provided with 1 space per unit plus 7 visitor parking spaces. The four-bedroom houses are also provided with an integral garage, however, as the dimensions do not comply with the required standards, each dwelling is also provided with 2 parking spaces on the driveway to the front of the property. The courtyard parking bays for the flats are acceptable and provide adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles to enter and leave the parking areas. The internal roads are provided as shared surfaces where pedestrians have priority.

Bins and recycling 7.11 Bin storage for waste and recycling is provided on plot for all houses. The flats are

provided with communal bin storage in convenient locations. To ensure that the proposed site layout and access is accessible for vehicles, swept path analysis has been undertaken for large cars and an 8.6m long refuse vehicle.

Cycle stores 7.12 The Council’s adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD identifies minimum cycle

parking standards for residential developments. A minimum standard of 0.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom flat and 2 spaces per dwelling house is required to meet the Council’s standards. The adopted standards also states that cycle storage should be easy to use, where the cycle can be secured easily and quickly to the stand.

The flats are provided with dedicated cycle parking. In accordance with the

Council’s adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD, the proposed cycle stores should be equipped with ‘Sheffield’ type stands. A condition is recommended to ensure the provision of ‘Sheffield’ type stands.

Trip generation 7.13 An assessment of the likely trip generation of the residential development has been

submitted using trip rates obtained from the national TRICS database which is a valid way. The proposed residential development would generate in the region of 23 two-way vehicular movements in the morning peak (8am-9am) and 28 vehicular movements in the evening peak (5pm to 6pm). The National Planning Policy Framework states that 'Development should only be prevented or refused on traffic grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’. Given that the increase is equivalent to one vehicle movement every three minutes in the AM peak period and one vehicle every two minutes in the PM peak period, it is not considered the development generate trips that would be detrimental to the safety and efficiency of the local highway network.

122

7.14 To ensure the construction of the development would not adversely affect the capacity and safety of the local highway network as well as the amenities of the local residents, the construction of the proposed development should be covered by a Construction Method Statement. The proposed work should be in accordance with the Borough’s Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway. The Construction Method Statement will not be approved until all details regarding the management and construction of the project is submitted to and agreed by the Local Highway Authority.

Layout, design and appearance 7.15 The proposed layout is generally of a linear pattern that follows Conwy Close,

creating a strong street frontage that responds to the institutional buildings across Conwy Close. The DAS highlights the 4 areas that form the layout of the scheme. These are: • block 1 (flats) to the northern end of the development responding to the

prominence of Conwy Close/The Meadway junction; • the 4-bed houses fronting Conwy Close with back to back relationship with

existing properties on The Meadway; • the central blocks 2 and 3 (flats) around the shared central square; and • the 2 and 3-bed houses fronting Conwy Close and along a shared space street,

with the 3-bed houses’ rear gardens backing onto properties on Wye Close.

The open space area at the section of the site that is overlooked by blocks 2 and 3 (flats), creates a central focal hub to the development. The layout adopts shared space streets for pedestrians and vehicular traffic allowing for both permeability and legibility onto the site. The proposed layout that is mainly informed by the existing access road, Conwy Close, and the irregular shape of the site is considered to create a characterful new residential neighbourhood with an acceptable relationship with the adjoining residential and institutional developments.

7.16 As highlighted within the submitted DAS, ‘the layout of the site and internal layout

of dwellings has been considered in relation to the orientation of the site to maximise glazing to habitable rooms on the southern elevations’. The two-bed houses consist of a courtyard typology, developed to address both The Avenue School and the existing pavement to the west and the proposed shared street to the east. The flatted developments overlook communal areas bringing a sense of natural surveillance. The proposed 3 and 4 bed houses are well set within their respective plots with acceptable separation distances.

Front (west) elevations for the 2-bed houses (not to scale)

7.17 The proposed storey heights of the buildings would range from 2-storey to 4 storeys

consisting mainly of red brick elevations. As already described above, these are grouped into 4 areas forming the layout of the site. The two-bed houses have ‘front porches’ to the west side to allow for pedestrian access with on-site parking

123

provided to the rear east side. A 1.5m wall to the west side along the footpath provides privacy for occupants.

Front (west) elevations for the 3-bed houses (not to scale)

7.18 The appearance of the dwellings is informed by a contemporary approach, utilising

the prevailing pattern of facing materials, mainly red brick, within the site’s context and the character of the wider area. As described in the submitted DAS, the proposed dwellings incorporate a range of familiar contextual elements that include frontages sometimes expressed in contrasting material, vertical alignment of windows with a sense of rhythm, and dormers with flat roofs. The design and appearance of the dwellings is considered to accord with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

7.19 The design of the flatted blocks with flat roofs compares with the adjoining

institutional development on Conwy Close. The flat roof design on the blocks of flats reinforces the contemporary character of the whole development. The emphasis on the vertical alignment of windows within facades is considered to bring some sense of order and rhythm to the development. The Design and Access Statement highlights the ‘interplay between brickwork and render that adds liveliness and reduces the apparent mass of the buildings’. The choice of materials and vertical elevational treatment of the blocks of flats is considered to help soften the possible institutional appearance of the flats and be more homely. The appearance of the proposed flatted blocks is therefore considered to accord with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

Front (south) elevations for the central flats (not to scale)

7.20 Appropriate soft landscaping along Conwy Close and retention of the existing trees

to the rear east boundary should improve the appearance of the area and help to reduce the visual impact of the proposed residential development. The dwellings enjoy adequate separation distances that provide acceptable visual gaps between the proposed dwellings and therefore breaking up the bulk and mass of the built form.

124

Residential amenity of future occupiers and neighbours 7.21 It is noted from the layout of the plots and the siting of the proposed dwellings

within the plots that building lines have been maintained that would minimise issues to do with loss of light or being overbearing. The average back to back distances are in excess of 20m for the 3 and 4 bed dwellings from the existing properties on The Meadway and Wye Close. This is considered adequate to prevent loss of privacy from overlooking from upper floor rear elevation windows. The eastern rear boundary adjoining existing properties on The Meadway is further screened by trees and shrubbery that is intended to be retained. The same relationship applies for the flatted developments.

7.22 Windows to habitable rooms have been carefully sited within mainly front and rear

elevations to prevent any overlooking. The windows within side elevations of the 2 and 3 bed houses would serve stair cases and bathrooms that are not habitable rooms and therefore would be conditioned to be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking neighbouring properties. As such the development is considered to accord with policy DM4.

7.23 Floor plans for all the dwelling types and the blocks of flats have been submitted.

The internal space standards and room layouts for the proposed dwellings and flats are considered appropriate. As such, it is considered that the dwellings and flats would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupants. The dwellings designed to lifetime homes standard provide for disabled access needs within individual buildings, in accordance with policy CS5. In addition, it is considered that the proposed layout and assignment of rooms to windows would allow for adequate outlook and daylight for each flat.

7.24 The outdoor amenity space within the plots for the 3 and 4 bed units averaging

10m in depth is considered to be appropriate. The central open space provides for the communal outdoor amenity space for the central blocks of flats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the communal amenity space for block 1 flats (The Meadway/Conwy Close junction) is limited due to the retained mature tree, it is not unusual for flatted developments to have such limited outdoor amenity. To compensate for the limited communal outdoor amenity space, the flats have balconies overlooking the front to minimize loss of privacy to the neighbouring properties. In addition on site play equipment is intended (see section below) and the site is within 5-minutes’ walk to the Meadway Recreation Ground. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space).

7.25 Whereas the impact of the development in terms of transport is assessed separately, the proposed development is not considered to result in harm to the amenities of the properties adjoining the application site in terms of highway capacity and safety. As such the proposal is considered to accord with policy DM4.

Trees, landscaping and ecology 7.26 Following initial concerns by the Council’s Natural Environment Officer (Trees),

amended plans were submitted. Whilst the amended plans would result in reduced tree planting on site, the Natural Environment Officer considers the increased area of open/play space enhances the development and is therefore acceptable. The existing trees on site mainly on the eastern boundary and the mature tree at the junction of Conwy Close and The Meadway are shown to be retained. Concerns have been raised by the Council’s Natural Environment Officer regarding future potential pressure to carry out works on the retained group of ash trees on the east

125

side due to close proximity to the dwellings. However, the layout is constrained by the site’s shape. On balance, officers consider that the layout of the 57 dwellings as proposed is acceptable. Should any concerns be raised by future residents about these trees, these will have to be managed at that time. Whereas the typical tree pit details submitted are considered acceptable it may not be applicable to the whole site and as such a condition is recommended requiring additional details to be submitted prior to commencement.

Ecology 7.27 The findings of the Phase II habitat survey submitted during the course of

determining this application did not reveal the presence of reptiles on site and the Council’s Ecologist considers the findings acceptable and has not objected to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions to protect nesting birds and biodiversity on the site. However, trees and scrubs on the site are likely to be used by nesting birds and therefore should be cleared outside of the nesting season. In order to protect the nesting birds the Council’s Ecologist has recommended an appropriate condition that will be appended to any permission granted. The recommended conditions would secure the biodiversity interests of the site in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS36.

7.28 Overall, officers have assessed the submitted details and concluded that subject to

conditions, the landscaping proposals would enhance the proposed development and protect the ecology of the area. The proposals would therefore accord with SDPD policy DM18 and Core Strategy policies CS36 and CS38.

Open space/play area

7.29 In accordance with policy CS29 of the Core Strategy, all new development should make provision for the open space needs of the development through appropriate on or off-site provision, or through contributions towards the provision or improvement of leisure or recreational facilities, including open space. An open space that includes an informal children’s play area is proposed to the central area near the main entrance to the site to address initial concerns raised by the council’s Leisure officer. The open space is overlooked by the blocks of flats giving a sense of security to the informal children’s play area. The main green space is supplemented by further incidental open spaces linked into the wider public realm that also include additional play features in the form of climbing posts. Subject to all play equipment details being submitted for approval and the approved equipment being installed before occupation the council’s Leisure Officer considers the open space/play area acceptable. As such an appropriate condition is recommended.

7.30 In addition to the proposed play area, Meadway Sports Centre is directly opposite the site providing access to a variety of sports activities. Meadway Recreation Ground is approximately 5 minutes’ walk from the site. The proposals are therefore consistent with policy CS29 and DM16.

Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) 7.31 The site lies in Flood Zone 1, which is land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000

annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%). All uses of land are appropriate in this zone. As the site lies within Flood Zone 1, it is therefore at the lowest risk of flooding and is therefore considered to have passed the Sequential Test. The NPPF Technical Guidance confirms that an Exception Test does not need to be carried out within Flood Zone 1.

126

7.32 The submitted flood risk assessment and drainage details demonstrate that safe and dry access and egress during a 1% annual probability event can be achieved via Conwy Close. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems will be integrated to ensure that surface water run-off from the development will be no greater than the current rate. Subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed drainage complies with the requirements of the NPPG, NPPF and Core Strategy policy CS34.

Sustainability 7.33 Whilst proposals previously needed to fully demonstrate how developments meet

the requirements of policy CS1 in the adopted Core Strategy, policies DM1 and DM2, it should be noted that energy requirements for new developments have been recently streamlined by the Government. The DAS confirms that the dwellings have been designed to meet lifetime homes criteria as required by policy DM5 notwithstanding the Deregulation Bill 2015 referred to above. The Council’s Sustainability Officer has assessed the submitted details and concluded that the details accord with current policy. As such the development is not considered to have an adverse effect on the environment and will take account of the effects of climate change.

Contaminated Land 7.34 The applicant has submitted a phase 1 investigation report regarding the proposed

housing development which is particularly sensitive to contamination. The report recommends that a phase 2 intrusive investigation is carried out due to the stockpiles of unknown material, fly tipping and potential demolition waste present on site. Therefore this also needs to be submitted and approved prior to development. The Council’s Environmental Health (Land Contamination) has recommended appropriate conditions to ensure that future occupants of the development are not put at undue risk from contamination.

Archaeology 7.35 Berkshire Archaeology confirms that an archaeological evaluation was undertaken

in 2006 in relation to a previous planning application at this site and is recorded in the Historic Environment Records. No archaeological features were recorded during the evaluation and it was concluded that the site had a low potential for archaeological remains to be impacted by the development. Therefore no further archaeological work is required in relation to this new proposal.

Air Quality and Emergency Planning issues 7.36 The northern most section of the site adjoining The Meadway lies within the Air

Quality Management Area (AQMA). A mature tree in this section will be retained and as such no development is included within the AQMA. In addition the Office for Nuclear Regulation has not objected to the proposed development.

Employment, Skills and Training 7.37 In accordance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure,

Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development and the Council’s SPD ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ the developer is required to provide for a Construction Employment and Skills Plan which identifies and promotes employment opportunities generated by the proposed development, or other developments within west Reading, for the construction phase of the proposed development. Sometimes this requires a payment to Reading UK CiC, the Council’s partner, to prepare the plan usually payable at least 1 month prior to implementation and index linked from the date of issue of planning permission.

127

The applicant will need to discuss with Reading UK CiC about how their own plan works and this will be secured within the S106 legal agreement.

Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL)

7.38 The proposal will be subject to the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy at a rate of £120 per sqm. However, the CIL Regulations highlights that developments providing social housing qualify to apply for CIL relief. The development as highlighted above is for 100% affordable units and therefore qualifies to apply for CIL relief. It should be noted that the CIL Regulations provide for a ‘CIL Relief disqualification event’ if any of the affordable units become private within a period of 7 years. Whilst concerns have been raised regarding the failure of the development to provide for such infrastructure as doctors’ and dentists’ surgeries as well as school places, CIL contributions from developments within the borough make up a pull fund for the wider borough infrastructure development. As such this development can access the CIL pull fund to meet the respective infrastructure needs.

Representations 7.39 Issues raised in representation letters from third parties have been addressed

within the above report. Equality 7.40 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

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

7.41 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would

be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development. 8 CONCLUSION 8.1 The application site is in a sustainable location and presents an opportunity to

maximise and make efficient use of this sustainable site. The application site is located within the existing built up area and the development of the site will enhance the character and the visual amenity of the area.

8.2 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in the context of

national and local planning policy and other material considerations as set out in this report. As such the application is recommended for approval, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement.

Case Officer: Ralph Chakadya

128

Appendix 1: Plans

Block 1 Flats Floor Plans (not to scale

Block 1 Flats Elevation Plans (not to scale)

129

Blocks 2 & 3 Flats Floor Plans (not to scale)

Blocks 2 & 3 Side/Rear Elevation Plans (not to scale)

130

Blocks 2 & 3 Front Elevation Plans (not to scale)

4-Bed Dwelling Floor and Elevation Plans (not to scale)

131



132

Simon Warren Interim Managing Director · Proposal Residential development comprising 57 dwellings,...

Documents

Transcript of Simon Warren Interim Managing Director · Proposal Residential development comprising 57 dwellings,...