COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 8 February 2017 Ward: Abbey App No.:162323 Address: Rivermead Leisure Complex, Richfield Avenue, Reading Proposal: Northern extension of the existing Rivermead Leisure Centre to accommodate a new building for leisure purposes (D2 use), with an associated changing village and associated plant, to house a temporary 'demountable' swimming pool [amended description] Applicant: Greenwich Leisure Limited Date received: 21 December 2016 Minor Application 8 week target decision date: 15 February 2017 RECOMMENDATION: GRANT planning permission. Conditions to include:

1. TL1 Standard three years 2. Approved plans 3. Materials to be as presented at Committee meeting 4. Use for D2 (Assembly and Leisure) leisure and sports-related uses only ancillary to

Rivermead Leisure Centre and not for any other uses within Class D2. 5. Removal of building within 15 years and land to be restored to its former condition

(although bund and landscaping would be retained). 6. Construction Management Statement 7. Contaminated land: unexpected contamination 8. Submission of noise assessment for plant 9. Drainage details 10. Flood resistant building 11. Construction of foundation to conform to submitted land gas remediation scheme 12. Submission of contamination land remediation scheme report to submitted and

approved prior to occupation. 13. No piling of foundations, unless details submitted 14. No later than six months after first occupation of building for public use, the Final

Certificate of BREEAM Score of 55.30% to have been submitted and approved. 15. No occupation before submission, approval and provision of additional covered

cycle parking 16. Approved landscaping scheme 17. Landscaping implementation 18. Landscaping maintenance 19. Landscaping replacement if trees fail within five years

Informatives to include:

• Positive and proactive requirement • Terms and conditions • Pre-commencement conditions • Fee for conditions discharge

• Building Regulations approval required • Damage to highway • Works affecting highway • EPA and suggested hours of working

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application site is approximately 0.4 hectares of land sited to the north

of the existing Rivermead Leisure Centre complex on Richfield Avenue. Rivermead is a 1980s leisure building of metal cladding over brickwork, which is an inverted capital ‘L’ shape, with a large landscaped car park to the east and south. The site itself lies between the centre and the Thames Path, on open land to the south of the River Thames. The site also includes an access from the existing leisure centre car park.

Location plan (not to scale)

3D aerial view of the site from the North

1.2 At the meeting of the 30 November 2015 Policy Committee, the Council

resolved to review the leisure offer in the Borough and that Rivermead should be the site of a temporary swimming pool as an interim replacement facility for Central Pool, which is scheduled for closure.

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a D2 (Assembly and Leisure Use) building as an annexe/extension to the existing leisure centre, initially for the purposes of housing a swimming pool of 25 metres x 10 metres and associated ‘changing village’. The new extension will be reached by a separate connecting corridor which leads northwards from the present leisure centre foyer.

2.2 The extension itself would be a modern, system-built structure of insulated

panels on a steel frame and measures 49.85 metres east-west and 16 metres north-south, with a maximum height of 7.7 metres (798 sq.m. overall floorspace). It will have an external finish of green-coloured metal panels and translucent panels to allow refracted light into the swimming pool area. A barrel-shaped roof is proposed, which is to be constructed of a rigid dual membrane over a steel arching support structure, providing a sturdy and airy space to the pool below. Due to the openness of the site towards the Thames, the application has been accompanied with detailed proposals for a landscaped ‘bund’ and trees.

2.3 This planning application has been submitted by Greenwich Leisure Limited

who have been managing Rivermead since 2006 in a partnership agreement with the Council. Reading Borough Council is the landowner of the leisure complex (and the application site) and given that the Council is both Freeholder and the manager of the contract for the leisure contractor, this application is being reported to your meeting as if it were a Council own (‘REG3’) application.

2.4 Supporting information submitted with the application includes the

following:

• Proposed plans and sections • Design and Access Statement (DAS) • CGI images of the proposal • Materials details • Transport Statement (TS) • Car park survey • Tree condition survey • Landscaping details • Soil condition assessment • Habitat and bat survey • Air quality statement • Noise and vibration impact assessment • Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) • Drainage plans • BREEAM Pre-assessment • Waste management and recycling statement • Utilities details/statement • Ventilation/extraction statement • CIL form

3. PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The most relevant planning history is:

07/00379/FUL (070421) Erection of a single storey extension to rear of existing leisure centre, creating new fitness gym and changing facilities. PERMISSION with S.106 agreement 24 July 2007 and implemented.

3.2 This permission was for an extension to the north-west side of the leisure centre in 2007 for a roughly similar sized structure, to provide an enhanced range of facilities in the leisure centre.

3.3 The current proposal was subject to pre-application discussion with officers in 2016 (reference 161069/PREAPP).

4. CONSULTATIONS

(i) Statutory:

The Environment Agency considers that planning permission could be granted if conditions are attached in relation to submission of a further contaminated land study if previously unidentified contamination is found during construction and piling methods shall not be used unless the details have been submitted and approved. The application should otherwise be reviewed in relation to the EA’s Standing Advice for developments in Flood Zone 2.

(ii) Non-statutory:

RBC Transport Strategy: The proposal will increase the number of people that travel to the site, but given that the difference in numbers overall on the local highway network, some of them would be diverted from the onward journeys to work and assuming this is a temporary proposal, this is acceptable. A car park analysis has been undertaken that confirms adequate car parking is provided across

the site to accommodate this additional use with 227 spaces available and only 31 additional spaces being required Additional cycle parking should be provided for this proposal at a ratio of 1 space 6 staff and 1 space per 40m². Given that staff numbers are unlikely to change significantly as a result of this proposal, one space per 40m²(12 cycle spaces) would be sufficient and could be dealt with by way of a condition. Access into the site from the existing roundabout junction for construction/ access is considered to be acceptable. In the circumstances there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to conditions for cycle storage and a CMS. Informatives suggested. RBC Planning Natural Environment (tree officer): The proposal includes removal of trees and further information has been requested of their condition and necessity for their removal. Some other trees will be at risk of damage due to accessing the site to construct the building. An arboricultural survey and method statement has been requested. Regarding additional landscaping for the proposal, the Natural Environment Team has had detailed discussions with colleagues from the Parks Team regarding an amended specification for additional planting on site and this is reported in the Landscaping section of the Appraisal below. The Council’s Ecologist has been consulted on the habitat survey and bat survey and his comments are awaited. RBC Leisure welcomes the application to provide this pool facility, while along-term solution is found for the re-siting of Central Pool. RBC Leisure has also been in discussion with the Natural Environment Team as RBC Leisure will have the responsibility for undertaking and maintenance of the landscaping scheme.

RBC Environmental Protection advises that:

• There is no data with regard to the noise-generating plant and therefore a noise assessment is required via condition

• Agrees that traffic generation overall is likely to be limited, therefore there is no requirement for submission of an air quality assessment

• A construction management statement is required, via condition • Further conditions are requested for hours of working and for no bonfires.

Berkshire Archaeology advises that the ground investigation report submitted with the application shows that the proposal site is located on modern landfill which is up to four metres in depth. There are therefore no archaeological issues arising from this application.

The case officer prepared a briefing note for Members to undertake an unaccompanied site visit.

Public consultation

Letters were sent to the following addresses on The Warren:

Nos. 1-6 Warren Court White Lodge Blewgarth

Cambusmoon Balihoo Summer Hill 8 The Warren Reading Canoe Club Two site notices were erected on Richfield Avenue, another at the main entrance to the leisure centre and one on the Thames Path. Three letters of objection have been received at the time of writing, raising the following concerns:

• Building tone and appearance is unclear. Although colour is stated to be confirmed and the DAS states the colour will be chosen so as to blend into the surroundings, none of the drawings and particularly the CGI view from the river shows this. It is consistently shown as dark grey without any demonstration of exploring colour. This is of major concern and colour tones are suggested by the objector.

• Whilst not unsupportive of the proposal, concerned for the height and visual appearance of the proposed building. Suggest reducing the proposed roof height of the building to the current pool roof height.

• Propose a design that is more aesthetically pleasing, or enhance the landscaping screen.

• Object to loss of trees (unless replaced) and there is inadequate/ inappropriate landscaping.

• Plant trees in the gap in the tree line which is next to the path by the river with fast-growing evergreen trees.

• Concerned for noise disturbance resulting from the use (unless confirmed solely for sporting use now and in the future).

• There should be an improvement of the general standard of maintenance at the complex. Officer comment: this is not considered to be a material consideration to the merits of the current planning application.

• The bund is considered to be insufficient in relation to the height of the building.

• Sections of bund, i.e. height and depth and the new trees, should show detail as currently only shown diagrammatically which gives insufficient information for the application to be completely assessed. To properly assess this application we would wish to see accurate sections and elevations at 1, 5 and 10 year intervals to demonstrate the likely screening effect of the species, specified stock size and spacing including the bund.

• Does not believe that landscaping and tree screening to the river for the 1987 initial build, also for the gym and cycle building were ever delivered.

• Suggested the originally proposed tree species would not be appropriate. • Concern for the impact of the proposal on the local golfing community

Officer comment: this proposal is unconnected to any lease arrangement associated with the golf driving range situated to the immediate west of the leisure centre.

The applicant has also conducted their own informal public consultation by providing information and plans of the proposal at Rivermead from 10 December. Similar information has been displayed at Central Pool.

Caversham and District Residents’ Association (CADRA)

CADRA welcomes this much needed facility. Notes that various options were considered. In consequence of this siting, we believe that more should be done on the northern river side of the proposed site to screen the new building by landscaping and tree planting than is currently proposed and that advantage should be taken of this application to forward some of the objectives of the RBC Thames Parks Plan 2004. We would give the following detailed reasoning: 1. The proposed new building some 50 metres x 16 metres and 8 metres high has considerable bulk and brings the leisure centre some 25 metres nearer to the river. 2. The existing facility is already very visible from the Thames Promenade and the River and has little screening. The new extension will add more bulk closer to the river and will be visible the length of the Promenade. Landscaping proposed is inadequate. 3. The River Thames, the Thames Promenade and the long distance Thames path are both local and national landscape assets. The RBC Thames Parks Plan 2004 indicates para 7.6.1 " The Thames Promenade is probably the most popular area for walking in Reading ........ It is used every day of the year and at all times of day." Para 9.4 of the same plan states in respect of landscape objectives: "The objective is to provide landscapes that make Parks feel genuinely peaceful and attractive places isolated from the pressures of the town, whilst also preserving some of the views into and out of the parks ........ This objective could largely be achieved by planting on the fringes of parks a mixture of trees, shrubs and long grass meadows." This indicates support for a tree screening belt to the northern edge of Rivermead. 4. Rivermead and the new extension is also visible from Caversham Court Gardens within St. Peter's Conservation Area. Again better tree screening will ameliorate any impact. 5. Reading CAAC (Conservation Area Advisory Committee) in which CADRA participates is currently working with the RBC Local Plan Team to identify views to support a potential Views policy in the new Local Plan. Whilst the proposals do not impact centrally on any of the views under provisional consideration, Rivermead is partially or distantly visible in two of the views "Upstream from Caversham Bridge" and "The view from McIlroy Park, Tilehurst ". We believe that extra tree planting will be beneficial and help sustain and reinforce these important views for the future.

In conclusion we would ask RBC to require the applicant to provide a substantial tree screening belt of trees (fast growing and appropriate to the ground conditions) to the extended north side of the site.

Caversham Globe Group welcomes the proposed addition to local leisure facilities, but wishes to comment on the landscaping element of the proposals. We note that the proposals are to remove two existing poplar trees and to plant four trees along the northern edge of the new building. Concerned that both the number and location of the proposed new trees will not sufficiently help to screen or soften the new building when viewed from the St. Peters Conservation Area, particularly from the listed Caversham Court Gardens and from areas of the river to the east of the site. We would therefore like to see the proposed line of new trees

extended eastward to help screen and soften the building when viewed from these sensitive environments from the north-east direction. As this is a permanent building near to the Thames, suggests a landscaping replacement condition of ten years. Concern for soil quality and suggests frequent irrigation is required via condition. The Friends of Caversham Court Gardens welcome the proposal, but advises that the new building will be very visible from Caversham Court Gardens, Reading's only riverside gardens, which were refurbished by RBC with HLF assistance in 2008-9. The new building will be visible in particular from the 17th. Century gazebo. This Grade II Listed Building is the only one of its kind on the Thames with public access. It offers wide perspectives to the south, east and west across the river, these views being important Heritage Assets for Reading.

Greater tree screening is planted, in the form of a belt of fast-growing, large canopy trees appropriate to the environmental conditions of the site. The Warren and District Residents’ Association (WADRA) wishes to object to this application for a permanent extension to the north side of Rivermead, initially to house a swimming pool for several years. The design is inappropriate and unnecessarily elevated, also it occupies public green space without compensation and provides no specific flood compensation as has been applied to other sites in the recent past.

The floor level of Rivermead is already 0.493m above that required for the stated flood protection of 38.507m. Building up an additional 1.2m is clearly not needed for flood protection, as erroneously claimed in the application. The additional elevation would increase the visible bulk of this permanent building by some 20%, dominating Rivermead from the River view. The extra expense and disruption of importing around 900 cubic metres of material to the site for the functionless 1.2m platform and ramp should be avoided.

The application is in breach of RBC Policy CS28 as it would result in loss of green open space without the provision of replacement open space, to a similar standard close by.

The proposal of four Swamp Cypress, Taxodium Disticum, for screening this bulky building would be inadequate. They are tall, spindly, exotic trees and unlikely to thrive on this filled in rubbish tip. A mixed group of native trees such as Willow and Alder would be much more suitable.

We call for this application to be refused.

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT

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

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

5.2 The applications have been assessed against the following policies:

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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)(2012) The following sections of the NPPF are relevant: 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Reading Borough LDF: Core Strategy (2008, as amended 2015): CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) CS2 (Waste Minimisation) CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS6 (Settlement Boundary)?? CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS8 (Waterspaces) CS22 (Transport Assessments) CS23 (Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS25 (Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development) CS28 (Loss 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) Reading Borough LDF: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2008, as amended 2015) SD1 (Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development) DM1 (Adaptation to Climate Change) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) DM17 (Green Network) DM19 (Air Quality) SAA16 (Public and Strategic Open Space) SA17 (Major Landscape Features) Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs): Parking and Design (Revised, 2011) Sustainable Design and Construction (2011)

Other Council documents relevant Tree Strategy for Reading Borough Leisure Strategy Thames Parks Plan

6. APPRAISAL 6.1 The main issues raised by this planning application are:

(i) Policy/principle (ii) Design and impact on the open and undeveloped character surrounding

the Thames (iii) Landscaping (iv) Flooding and contaminated land (v) Access/parking (vi) Sustainability

(i) Policy/principle 6.2 The application site is open land to the north of the existing leisure complex

and various policies seek to retain its openness in the interests of maintaining the open character of the area. The land is owned and managed by the Council and is rough mown grass, so the land itself tends to be used for jogging and dog-walking and events, but it is freely accessible informal public open space. Policy CS8 (Waterspaces) seeks to protect the Thames waterspace and restricts developments to those which are appropriate to their function and which seek to enhance the open character of the waterways. Whilst the site is within the settlement boundary, it is also covered by policies SA16 and SA17 which identify the site as public and strategic open space, to be protected and the Thames Valley as a ‘major landscape feature’. There therefore need to be convincing reasons for the development in this area, given the identified sensitivities and policy protections afforded.

6.3 The Council’s leisure strategy for swimming, given budgetary constraints, is

that swimming pool provision should be continuous; but at this point in time, the most efficient way of doing this is by providing a building to house a temporary pool. Swimming is seen as an important community and health provision and an important leisure service that the Local Authority should continue to provide.

6.4 Paragraph 73 of the NPPF acknowledges that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Paragraph 74 advises that;

“…Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or

● the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.”

6.5 Core Strategy Policy CS29 relates to proposals for new leisure facilities. It states that such development will be assessed in relation to its impact on the character and amenities of the locality, its accessibility to public transport and impact on highway capacity, and its contribution to the variety of facilities in the area. Therefore both National and local policy offer support to proposals which seek to provide sports and recreation provision, which can potentially outweigh the loss of open space.

6.6 The Council has identified that there is a need to provide continued swimming pool provision in the Borough, when two of its facilities (Central and Arthur Hill) are reaching the end of their economic life. The facility would be used as a teaching/learner pool, but also for swimming clubs and use by the general public.

6.7 Transport policy at National and local levels seeks to minimise car-dependent journeys and locate developments in areas of highest accessibility, with town centres usually being the focus for major leisure facilities. Whilst not technically a ‘major’ planning application, the proposal is a not insignificant addition to the existing leisure complex and officers are mindful of Policy CS25 which would normally direct major leisure developments towards central Reading. The Rivermead site is outside of the RCAAP area, but within one mile of Central Pool and it is considered that from an operational, parking, and sharing of facilities approach, there are clear benefits of the co-location of the proposal at or near the present Rivermead facility. Officers therefore identify no conflict in general locational/accessibility terms and the proposal complies with policies CS4 and CS25. (ii) Design and impact on the open and undeveloped character

surrounding the Thames

6.8 The applicant’s DAS includes discussion of a number of options for the siting of the facility on the Rivermead site and concludes that primarily for operational reasons, the siting as proposed in the application was preferred.

6.9 The Thames environs has a generally open aspect, with the southern bank of the Thames being bordered by wide river meadow with trees. The northern bank is mainly characterised by the private rear gardens of private properties on the Warren which then give way to the houses themselves which are elevated further back and then a steep, wooded bank, forming The Warren escarpment. To the east of this is the open area of Caversham Court Gardens.

6.10 The present appearance of the leisure centre is of a 1980s functional series of structures, with a rather utilitarian/industrial appearance in pale green and red metal panelling over brick at the lower level. The visual impact of the later (2007 approved) extension is mitigated in large part by the bund which was constructed on its west and north sides. Rivermead is mostly high single storey with some areas of first floor and typical massing heights

of 6.5 metres and the tower for flumes and at the entrance at 13 metres (see sections). The proposal would provide a contemporary new facility, in a broadly similar appearance, with the eaves at the height of the two storey elements of the leisure complex. The walling would be formed by close fitting/interlocking green-coloured insulated metal panels. The roof would be a dual-skin membrane rigid fabric roof over a barrelled internal steel frame (similar to that used on the O2 Arena/Millennium Dome), in a moss green colour. Windows would actually be translucent ‘Kalwall’ panels at high level only. These do not allow views through, but transform sunlight into glare-free daylight suitable for a swimming pool. Samples of the above materials with examples of suggested materials colouring will be provided at your meeting.

6.11 The proposal would be approximately 170 metres from the southern edge of the riverbank. Views will also be possible from various locations on The Warren, St. Peters Conservation Area and Caversham Court Gardens (a Registered Historic Garden). Images from various points will be presented at your meeting.

6.12 It is considered that the character of the Thames environs west of Caversham Bridge is shaped by long views along the river and across the river meadow on its southern side. This is set against the mature residential development and rising Chiltern Hills to the north. To the east, Caversham Bridge is the most prominent feature and visually marks the start of the settlement area of Reading and Caversham. Rivermead is also a prominent feature from the River Thames and from the Thames Path, but it is viewed in connection with a number of other buildings (including hotels and a pub), and is also seen as fronting onto Richfield Avenue from the south.

6.13 The design of the proposed extension is considered to be functional, although the barrel roof provides a different roof form which helps to provide some interest to the leisure complex. It is considered that it would respect the form and appearance of the existing buildings and would successfully integrate with them. More importantly, it is considered that the development would not noticeably increase the visual impact of the leisure centre from the Thames Path or in views of the area from Caversham to the north. The extension would be significantly lower in height than the main sports hall (8 metres compared to 11.8 metres). The effect would also be mitigated by the proposed landscaping, discussed below.

6.14 The nearest part of Caversham Court Gardens is approximately 300 metres to the north-east and this sits within the St. Peters Conservation Area. Although there is the opportunity for clear views, in general, the proposal is seen through gaps in the trees which are to the north of the Thames Path. Therefore, it is advised that given the distance and the scale of the proposal, the application would not be harmful to the settings or views into or out of the Conservation Area or Caversham Court Gardens and no conflict with Policy CS33 is identified. The effect on the wider setting of these Heritage Assets would thus be minimal.

6.15 Returning to the quality of the built form, officers are however, mindful of the general sensitivities of the open aspect of the Thames environs and feel that the originally applied for permanent planning permission is not suitable given the form, materials and design of the proposed building, but a temporary permission can be considered. A temporary permission gives the

Local Planning Authority the opportunity to review the proposal at the end of the permission period and reassess its suitability for further retention, along with any other issues (re-uses, transport impacts) which may arise at that time. A period of fifteen years is suggested, as this will allow a suitable time for the operator and also allow the removal of the building if the build quality has not stood the test of time. With this condition in place, officers are content to recommend that the proposal is suitable in terms of design policy CS7.

6.16 An objector is concerned for the types of activities that may be undertaken in the building. The maximum internal height (were the pool to be removed) would be circa. seven metres and the applicant advises that this is sufficient to allow casual (not competition) badminton and various sports and ball-games. Given the type of enclosure proposed, the sensitive environment and the necessary links to the existing leisure complex, it is considered necessary for the extension to be controlled as ancillary to the leisure centre and for sports uses only: for example, pools, gyms, courts, skating rinks; but not wider leisure uses such as cinemas or music/concerts. A condition is recommended in order to secure compliance with policies DM12, CS34, and DM4. (iii) Landscaping

6.17 As set out above, long-range views from the north side of the Thames will experience marginal adverse impacts from the development and such impacts will be minor and therefore acceptable. However, there will be the increased perception of built development which may be experienced by users of the Thames Path or the Thames itself, as from a moving vantage-point, there are more numerous opportunities for clear views. The site is adjacent to the built envelope of the Rivermead Leisure Centre complex. Whilst this proposal will be viewed as a component part of the complex due to colouring, height and similar materials, it would nonetheless encroach into the open area of the setting of the Thames major landscape feature and open space and visual mitigation is required.

6.18 The principle of landscaped bund, as used for the 2007 extension is considered to be a suitable approach to extend to this proposal. However, it is clear from the condition of that bund that tree/shrub planting on the bund itself is not suitable due to rooting concerns.

6.19 In siting the building, two existing Poplar trees are proposed for removal. The Planning Natural Environment Team raises no objection to this providing trees are replaced. The Natural Environment Team and the applicant have discussed the detailed landscaping treatment with the Council’s Parks Service, who would ultimately manage and maintain the area. The landscaping has been adjusted to provide for a landscaped lawned bund around the north side of the building as a continuation of the existing bund and this would continue past the end of the proposed building, eastwards. At the foot (outside) of the new bund, five trees are proposed: three ‘Swamp Cypress’ and two Weeping Willow. These species have been chosen as being appropriate to the ground conditions and would also provide a good canopy cover. In principle, RBC Parks Service is in agreement with what is proposed. At the time of writing, the amended agreed details of the landscaping scheme and the landscaping maintenance plan are being drawn up for detailed approval and this will be confirmed in the Update Report.

6.20 An objector is concerned that previous landscaping schemes have not been undertaken to a suitable standard and landscaping has not survived. Officers can only comment that previous schemes have had landscaping schemes which can only have maintenance arrangements which last for five years – this is a standard time which would be asked of any developer– and despite efforts, landscaping may not have taken by that point. This latest scheme has been carefully considered and officers are confident that with the right species and maintenance regime (conducted by the Council as part of on-going management of the Thames Path area), the landscaping has a good prospect of flourishing, protecting and softening views from the Thames and beyond.

6.21 As such, it is considered that the development would not have an unacceptable visual impact and would not be unduly detrimental to the use and enjoyment of the remaining open spaces alongside the Thames and would comply with policies CS38 and DM18.

6.22 The applicant has carried out a survey of ecological impacts as a result of the development and no issues are identified, but this is part of the DM17 (Green Network) area and the comments of the Council’s Ecologist are required, to clarify suitability in terms of Policy CS36. (iv) Flooding and contaminated land

6.23 Policy CS35 (Flooding) states that planning permission will not be permitted for development in an area at high risk of flooding, where it would reduce flood storage/impede flows, or otherwise increase risks to life and property.

6.24 The application site is located within flood Zone 2, which is at a medium risk of flooding and leisure uses are ‘less vulnerable uses’. Therefore no (locational) sequential test is required and the Environment Agency’s response is that their Flood Risk Standing Advice is to be followed.

6.25 A flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. The pool is to be raised up 1.2 metres above ground level and some 300mm above the maximum flood level plus the allowance needed for climate change. The site is not considered to be at risk of flooding from groundwater. Flood egress in a flood event is via the access corridor and flood resilience is not required given the proposed floor levels, but given

the swimming pool environment, these measures (raised power sockets, etc.) will be undertaken anyway.

6.26 The FRA concludes that the proposal will not increase flood risk on this site or on adjacent sites and the floor level is suitable. Accordingly, no conflict with Policy CS35 is identified.

6.27 The EA advises that their main concern in relation to this application is in relation to contaminated land as the site is a landfill over a Principal Aquifer. The area on which the leisure centre stands and the application site was previously used as a landfill site where elevated levels of groundwater pollution and contaminants in the former waste have previously been identified. The application has been supplied with a Phase II contaminated land assessment. This does not indicate elevated levels of contaminants which would be a hazard to human health, or to watercourses as a result of the development. The EA and the Council’s Environmental Protection team agree with the assessment and have recommended conditions which principally relate to how any unexpected contamination will be dealt with if such is discovered during construction. With the recommended conditions, the application is suitable in relation to Policy CS34. (v) Access/parking

6.28 Paragraph 6.7 above advises that the principle of providing the proposal in this location is suitable in a strategic transport sense and complies with Policy CS4. RBC Transport Strategy considers that the leisure centre is well located within the urban area and benefits from good cycle, pedestrian and public transport accessibility. Transport Strategy has also assessed the car park survey provided by the applicant and advises that there is spare capacity and it is agreed that this location provides the opportunity for linked trips. As such, no objections are raised, subject to conditions for a CMS and a slight increase in covered cycle parking and the proposal complies with policies CS22, CS23 and CS24 and the Council’s Parking and Design SPD.

(vi) Sustainability

6.29 Core Strategy Policy CS1 requires that all new commercial developments

meet the latest BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard. Policy DM1 (Adaptation to Climate Change) applies, as does the Council’s SPD, Sustainable Design and Construction. The ‘good practice’ elements of Policy DM1 (passive solar gain and passive ventilation for instance) are going to be very difficult if not largely impossible to achieve in practice with this type of construction in this location.

6.30 Swimming pools are by their nature energy-hungry facilities and the applicant has approached the proposal with careful attention to energy conservation and energy use. The building itself has been designed to meet the BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard as required by Policy CS1 and is planned achieve an overall target BREEAM Score of 55.30%. This has not been easy to target and construction will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that the final development achieves the anticipated level. Officers recommend that the requirement for submission of the Final BREEAM certificate is six months after occupation of the building – giving a result for

the actual use of the facility - and with this condition, the above policies and the SPD are satisfied.

Other matters: Impact on residential amenities

6.31 It is considered that the extension would not have a direct impact on the residential amenities of the nearest properties on Richfield Avenue (the flat development known as Cavresham Place, opposite the entrance to the Thames Side Promenade turning). Although the extension would be visible from properties to the north of the Thames in Caversham, the long distances involved mean that this would not materially harm their amenities as set out in Policy DM4. A construction management statement (CMS) is recommended for the construction period but there are no residential properties nearby. The Premier Inn hotel is some 200 metres away to the south-east. Therefore, officers do not identify the need for a condition to control the hours of construction in this instance. Environmental Protection accept that residential is distant, but is concerned that plant noise may ‘carry’ and recommend a condition for a plant noise assessment. The recommended condition for no bonfires is not required (there is no built structure to remove) and in any case, separate legislation covers this.

S.106/CIL

6.32 No section 106 agreement is required for this proposal. Leisure facilities

are exempt from the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule. Access for all

6.33 The proposal has been designed so that the access corridor from the leisure centre foyer is a shallow gradient. The changing facilities include large family/accessible changing rooms and an accessible WC. The pool depth runs to the top edge of the pool. The application is considered to be compliant with Policy CS5. The construction will also need to conform to the Building Regulations’ Part L.

Equality Act

6.34 In determining this planning 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 In weighing up the issues to consider for this planning application:

• The benefits of the enhancement of leisure facilities through a modern, sustainable construction would outweigh the loss of open space

• The site is accessible and a suitable location for further leisure facilities • The design is suitable for a temporary period and the temporary

permission allows the ability to review the suitability of the building and the use

• The character and amenities of the area would be maintained. The visual impact of the development would be softened through a fully designed landscaping scheme, to be implemented and managed through the Council’s Parks Service

• The development is acceptable in flood risk terms • Matters relating to land contamination can be addressed through

remediation measures secured through conditions

7.2 Overall, this is considered to be a sustainable development in economic, social and environmental terms (as set out in the NPPF) and this application is recommended to you for approval.

Case Officer: Richard Eatough

Plans:

2245 AG(91)01 Proposed Site Plan

2245 AG(04)01 Rev. A Ground Floor Plan

2245 AG(04)02 Window Level Plan

2245 AG(05)01 Rev. C Proposed Elevations

2245 AG(06)01 Rev. A Proposed Sections

CGI view of the proposal from the North-East