simon warren interim managing director · proposal application for approval of reserved matters...

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\170405.doc Your Ref: Direct: 0118 937 2112 e-mail: [email protected]

28 March 2017

Your contact is: Nicky Simpson – Committee Services

NOTICE OF MEETING - PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE – 5 APRIL 2017 A meeting of the Planning Applications Committee will be held on Wednesday 5 April 2017 at 6.30 pm in the Council Chamber, Reading. The Agenda for the meeting is set out below. Please note that with regard to the planning applications, the order in which applications are considered will be at the Chair’s discretion, and applications on which members of the public have requested to speak are likely to be considered first. AGENDA ACTION WARDS AFFECTED PAGE NO

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

- 1

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST - - -

3. QUESTIONS - - -

4. POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 10

5. PLANNING APPEALS INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 13

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL INFORMATION BOROUGHWIDE 24

7. STREET NAME ASSIGNMENT: (i) GREEN PARK VILLAGE (ii) WORTON GRANGE

DECISION WHITLEY 33

8. FIXING OUR BROKEN HOUSING MARKET – HOUSING WHITE PAPER FEBRUARY 2017

DECISION BOROUGHWIDE 43

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

9 DECISION ABBEY

65

10 DECISION KATESGROVE

83

11 DECISION WHITLEY

91

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BOROUGH WIDE

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED

Planning Applications Committee – 5th April 2017

Item: 9 Page No: 65 Ward: Abbey Application Number 161336 Application Type Full Planning Approval Applicant Reading Real Estate Co. (UK) Ltd Address 36 Russell Street, Reading, RG1 7XH Proposal Amended Description: Proposed conversion of loft space to create a new unit with

3 dormers in the rear roof elevation Recommendation Application Permitted Item: 9 Page No: 65 Ward: Abbey Application Number 161337 Application Type Listed Building Consent Applicant Reading Real Estate Co. (UK) Ltd Address 36 Russell Street, Reading, RG1 7XH Proposal Amended Description: Listed Building Consent for: Proposed conversion of loft

space to create a new unit with 3 dormers in the rear roof elevation Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 10 Page No: 83 Ward: Katesgrove Application Number 170199 Application Type Regulation 3 Planning Approval Applicant Property Services Address 11 Home Farm Close, Reading, RG2 7TD Proposal Front extension and alterations to mid-terrace house. Recommendation Application Permitted

Item: 11 Page No: 91 Ward: Whitley Application Number 170095 Application Type Approval of Reserved Matters Applicant St. Edward Homes Limited Address Green Park Village, Reading, RG2 6AB Proposal Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval.

(10/01461/OUT) Recommendation Application Permitted

Keytocoding Issue 20/12/2016

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 SFB - Susanna Bedford 9372023


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

Use Classes Use Classes (Amendment) Order 1972 Order 2005

Description General Permitted Development (Amendment) Order 2005

A1 Class I Shops

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

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

• Showrooms, domestic hire shops, funeral directors

No permitted changes

A2 Class II Financial and Professional Services

• Banks, building societies, estate and employment agencies

• Professional and financial services, betting offices

Permitted change to A1 where a ground floor display window exists

A3 Restaurants and Cafes

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

A4 Drinking Establishments

Pubs and bars Permitted change to A1. A2 or A3

A5 Hot Food Take-Aways

Take-Aways Permitted change to A1, A2 or A3

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

No permitted change

B1 Class II Business Class III

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

Permitted change to B8 where no more than 235m

B2 Class IV-IX General industry

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

B8 Class X Storage or Distribution

Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, repositories

Permitted change to B1 where no more than 235m

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

C1 Class XI Hotels

Hotels, boarding and guest houses No permitted change

C2 Class XII Residential Class XIV Institutions

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

C2A Secure residential institutions

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

No permitted change

C3 Dwelling houses

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

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

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

Permitted to change to C4

C4 Houses in multiple occupation

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

Permitted to change to C3

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

• Hostel No permitted change


D1 Class XIII Non- Class XV Residential Institutions Class XVI

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

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

exhibition halls • Non-residential education and training centres

No permitted change

D2 Class XVII Assembly Class XVIII and Leisure

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

rinks, gymnasiums • Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure

uses, bingo halls, casinos

No permitted change

Sui Generis Class XVII Theatres, nightclubs No permitted change

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE MINUTES – 8 MARCH 2017

1

Present: Councillor Livingston (Chair);

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

Apologies: Councillors Robinson and R Williams.

RESOLVED ITEMS

66. MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2017 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

67. QUESTION

The following question was asked by Councillor Page:

Planning Changes – Loss in Fee Income and Section 106 Contributions

Will the Chair update the Committee with the most recent figures in respect of:

(1) the total number of residential units that have been approved via the Prior Notification Procedure introduced in May 2013 which allows conversions from former offices to residential use?

(2) the loss in fee income to the Borough Council as a result of this change and the estimated loss to the authority in respect of Section 106 contributions in the form of (a) affordable housing, (b) financial contributions to affordable housing off-site, (c) financial contributions to education and (d) financial contributions to leisure and open spaces.

Would she also comment on the implications of the DCLG announcement on 28 November 2014 preventing this, and all other planning authorities, from seeking Section 106 contributions on proposed sites of ten homes or fewer?

Would she summarise the impact of all these changes and the losses to RBC in affordable housing, education and transport and other essential contributions?

Lastly, would she update the Committee on the results of recent relevant planning appeals in respect of securing affordable housing contributions from sites of up to 10 dwellings?

REPLY by Councillor Livingston (Chair of Planning Applications Committee):

Conversions of offices to flats

Dealing first with the Prior Notification Procedure, changes made to the planning system in May 2013 removed the need to seek planning permission for changes of use from offices to residential, and made such changes subject to a prior approval process, where only very limited considerations (transport impact, contamination and flooding) can be taken into account. This was a temporary right which was due

1


2

to expire in May 2016. However, the Government has now made this right permanent by amendments to the General Permitted Development Order, which came into force on 6th April 2016. This change also added additional criteria that can be considered, namely the effect of noise from commercial premises.

The total number of residential units that have been approved by this Prior Approval process between its introduction in May 2013 and 31st March 2016 is 1369. A further 303 have been approved between 1st April 2016 and 28th February 2017 bringing the total now to 1,672. In terms of completed development so far, up to 31st March 2016, 368 homes had been completed as a result of the new permitted development right. Conversions to provide a further 405 homes were also underway at that point.

Had the proposals been submitted as planning applications, the fee income received would have been £532,910. This takes into account the charge of £80 for each prior approval application that has been applied for since October 2013. This figure does not include fees that would have been submitted for applications that were refused or were subsequently withdrawn.

In terms of contributions towards Transport, Education and leisure and open space it should be noted that, since the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1st April 2015, no Section 106 contributions would have been likely to have been made as these are now primarily covered by the CIL process, and Section 106 agreements would not therefore have been sought. Such development is subject to CIL but the CIL regulations render vacant floorspace as not liable to CIL where it has not been in use in the 3 years before the application is made. As a consequence, many office to residential conversion schemes approved since the end of March 2015 have not paid contributions towards such provision.

Therefore based on local policy, we consider that, had the schemes approved before April 2015 that have received Prior Approval instead of planning permission been subject to full policy compliant Section 106 agreements, they might have been expected to lead to the following levels of contributions: a) £321,964 towards education; b) £1,850,400 towards leisure and open space.

Had those proposals that have received prior to 28th February 2017, been submitted as planning applications, there are challenges in estimating what the affordable housing contributions would have been as they are subject to negotiation that are heavily influenced by assessments of viability that would have to take account of relatively high existing use values for the former office premises. However, based on local policy, we consider that, had the schemes that have received Prior Approval instead of planning permission been subject to full policy compliant Section 106 agreements, they might have been expected to lead to the following levels of affordable housing contributions:

c) 370 affordable housing units (79 to date (28/02/2017)during 2016/17) d) £2,175,000 towards off-site affordable housing (£480,000 to date during

2016/17)

2


3

To summarise, the total Section 106 contributions lost is £4,347,364, in addition to the 370 affordable housing units.

Sites of up to 10 dwellings

A Ministerial statement was made to Parliament on 28 November 2014 and, at the same time, DCLG published alterations to National Planning Policy Guidance (“NPPG”). Those changes sought to exempt developments of 10 or less dwellings from planning obligations for affordable housing and social infrastructure contributions. They also introduced a new provision, the Vacant Building Credit, which excluded existing floorspace from calculations on the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure payments.

This change would have had a very significant effect on the provision of affordable housing and contributions towards transport, education and leisure and open spaces from such sites. As indicated earlier, these infrastructure items are now covered by the Community Infrastructure Levy and since April 2015, infrastructure provision/contributions are no longer, therefore, affected by the change.

The proposed change would have had a significant effect on affordable housing provision within the Borough. The Council has estimated that the level of affordable housing that may be lost is in the region of 25-30 affordable units per annum, or the financial equivalent, which represents a very significant contribution to meeting Reading’s need for affordable housing.

As Committee is aware, Reading Borough Council and West Berkshire Council challenged the changes through the High Court. The case was heard in the High Court in April 2015. The High Court judgement found in favour of the challenge by the local authorities and quashed the amendments to the National Planning Practice Guidance. Committee will recall that an appeal by the Secretary of State was upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2016 and the Ministerial Statement and the changes to the National Planning Practice Guidance were reinstated.

However, the Court of Appeal did emphasise that “local circumstances may justify lower (or no) thresholds as an exception to the national policy.” It is clear therefore that an LPA can seek to demonstrate that local circumstances can be used to justify an exception to the WMS and NPPG. At its meeting in July 2016, Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport Committee decided that the Council should continue to operate Policy DM6 seeking the provision of affordable housing for schemes of 10 or less dwellings, with some qualifications.

As a result of this decision, a number of appeals have been made against the Council’s refusal of planning permission or failure to determine planning applications. While an early appeal decision was upheld, since the Council has been able to provide a full case justifying why “local circumstances would justify no thresholds as an exception to the national policy, it has received 4 decisions relating to affordable housing provision where the appeals have been dismissed on the grounds that that justification for an exception exists.

However, in the latter part of February 2017, the Council received decisions upholding 2 separate appeals where an inspector (the same inspector in both cases) concluded that the Council’s case did not outweigh national policy. While the

3


4

previous 4 cases had been brought to the attention of the Inspector in the Council’s appeal statements, the decisions provide no reasons as to why this inspector came to a different conclusion to the other 4 Inspectors. Officers have written to the Inspectorate complaining about inconsistency of decision making and the fact that the inspector for latter cases fails to explain why he has reached a different view to the previous inspectors. Officers will circulate the response once it is received.

Unfortunately, the situation remains uncertain and the Council will have to continue to apply its policies and to continue to assess its position in the light of future appeal decisions.

68. 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 the under-mentioned application, together with any additional applications which the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Service might consider appropriate, be the subject of an unaccompanied site visit:

170019 - EXISTING PRIVATE CARPARK, EAST STREET

Erection of 5 storey building to provide 116 student accommodation units (Sui Generis), landscaping, access and ancillary works, following removal of a 49 space car park.

69. 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 nine decisions that had been made by the Secretary of State, or by an Inspector appointed for the purpose, which were attached as Appendix 2 to the report.

(iii) Reports on Appeal Decisions

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

151345 – 7 BLAGRAVE STREET

4


5

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

Written representations.

Appeal dismissed.

i) 161933/ADV & ii) 161982/ADV – PRIMARK, 116-117 BROAD STREET

i) 1 X Fascia Sign – Block vinyled glass background with individually illuminated LED PRIMARK letters.

ii) Retrospective application for fascia sign to Broad Street elevation (individually illuminated LED PRIMARK letters).

Written representations.

Both appeals dismissed.

Resolved –

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

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

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

70. APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

The Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services submitted a report giving details in Table 1 of 11 pending prior approval applications, and in Table 2 of six6 applications for prior approval decided between 26 January and 22 February 2017.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

71. 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:

162147/FUL – KINGS WALK, KING STREET

Change of use of 1240 square metres of floor area of existing shopping centre from

5


6

A1 (shop) to a flexible A1(shop)/A3(restaurant/cafe)use.

Granted as recommended.

Conditional planning permission and informatives as recommended.

Comments received and considered.

(2) That the following application be refused for the reasons indicated:

161805/FUL – 79 SILVER STREET

Demolition of existing building and erection of a part 3 and part 4 storey (plus basement level) building to provide 65 student studio rooms (sui generis use class) with associated support services, street frontage retail unit (A1, A2 or A3 use class), and landscaping works.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which summarised the applicant’s response to points raised in the original report regarding scale/overbearing/daylight, highways, and ownership/boundary.

Refused as recommended for the reasons set out in the original report.

Informatives as recommended.

Comments and objections received and considered.

Objectors David Foster and Catherine O’Hare, and Geoff Wright on behalf of the applicant, attended the meeting and addressed the Committee on this application.

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

162219/FUL – ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF READING, SHINFIELD ROAD

Demolition of the Engineering Building and erection of a 5 storey Health and Lifesciences Building. Demolition of the Harborne Building. New entrance and external works to the Philip Lyle Building, and associated landscaping and car parking within the Whiteknights Campus of the University of Reading.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which set out advice from the Council’s Ecologist in respect of Bats, and a discussion of the requirement for an End User Employment Skills and Training Plan or equivalent financial contribution. The report amended the proposed Heads of Terms to include a delegation regarding the Employment, Skills and Training Plan and reflect an agreed extension of time for determination of the application until 29 March 2017. An additional condition regarding bats was also recommended.

The Wokingham Borough Council decision notice on the part of the development within Wokingham Borough was also tabled at the meeting.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 29 March 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head

6


7

of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the update 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 in the original report, with the additional condition set out in the update report.


162057/FUL – "ALEXANDER HOUSE", 205-207 KINGS ROAD

Erection of basement and 4 - 7 storey building comprising 56 (30x1, 18x2 & 8x3-bed) residential units (Class C3) with associated parking and landscaping, following demolition of existing basement and 2 storey office building (Class B1a).

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 29 March 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the 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.



151407/FUL – WARWICK HOUSE, 1 WARWICK ROAD

A single building comprising 10 flats on 2 floors on land adjacent to Warwick House.

The issue of planning permission to be dependent on the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement by 31 March 2017 (unless a later date be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services), to secure the Heads of Terms set out in the 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 as contrary to Policy CS16 of the Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Reading Borough Sites and Detailed Policies Document.



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

170039/REG3 – ST MICHAELS PRIMARY SCHOOL, DEE ROAD, TILEHURST

7


8

Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom.




170035/REG3 – ST MARTINS CATHOLIC PRIMARY SCHOOL, PENDENNIS AVENUE, CAVERSHAM

Permanent retention of existing modular double classroom.

An update report was tabled at the meeting which explained that details of the proposed hedging along the Caversham Park Road boundary had been submitted, with a map attached to the report showing the location. Additional conditions and an informative regarding landscaping were recommended.


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


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

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



Comments received and considered. (5) That, further to Minute 67(2) of the meeting of Planning Applications

Committee held on 11 February 2015, the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to enter into a Deed of Variation to amend the Section 106 Agreement associated with the following application:

170076/MISC – ST MARTIN’S PRECINCT, CHURCH STREET, CAVERSHAM

Request for a deed of variation to existing S106 agreement (original application 140997/FUL).

That the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to enter into a Deed of Variation to amend the Section 106 Agreement dated 31 March 2015 as set out in the report.

All other terms as per the existing s106 Agreement, subject to any changes required by the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to ensure consistency with

8


9

the variations set out in the report. (The meeting started at 6.30 pm and closed at 8.10 pm).

9

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE Date:

5 April 2017

AGENDA ITEM:

4

TITLE:

POTENTIAL SITE VISITS FOR COMMITTEE ITEMS

SERVICE:

PLANNING

WARDS:

BOROUGH WIDE

AUTHOR: Kiaran Roughan

TEL: 0118 9374530

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

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT

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

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

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

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

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

3. THE PROPOSAL

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

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

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

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

issue which is before the Committee for consideration. 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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL

REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES

TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: 5 April 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 5

TITLE: PLANNING APPEALS AUTHOR: Kiaran Roughan

TEL: 0118 9374530

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

status of various planning appeals. 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION

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

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

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

3. INFORMATION PROVIDED

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

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

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

appeal decisions since the last committee.

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

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

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 13

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.

14

APPENDIX 1

Appeals Lodged: WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/17/3169289 CASE NO: 161942 ADDRESS: 51 Watlington Street PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension, rear dormer roof extension and

roof light to front roof slope. CASE OFFICER: Jonathan Markwell METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: HOUSEHOLDER REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 28.02.2017 WARD: CAVERSHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/17/3169554 CASE NO: 161307 ADDRESS: 8 Fairfax Close PROPOSAL: Second storey front extension CASE OFFICER: Jasmine Singh METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: HOUSEHOLDER REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 28.02.2017 WARD: THAMES APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/17/3168768 CASE NO: 160527 ADDRESS: 65 Peppard Road PROPOSAL: Erection of detached 2 houses. Resubmission of 150546 CASE OFFICER: Daniel Murkin METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: REFUSAL APPEAL LODGED: 16.03.2017

15

WARD: ABBEY APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/17/3170558 CASE NO: E15110 ADDRESS: 46 Watlington Street PROPOSAL: Unauthorised development (Conservation Area) CASE OFFICER: Christopher Beard METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: ENFORCEMENT APPEAL APPEAL LODGED: 22.03.2017 WARD: PARK APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/C/17/3170594 CASE NO: E15157 ADDRESS: 107 Cumberland Road PROPOSAL: Unauthorised development - rear extension(s) CASE OFFICER: Christopher Beard METHOD: Written Representation APPEAL TYPE: ENFORCEMENT APPEAL APPEAL LODGED: 22.03.2017

APPENDIX 2 Appeals Decided:

WARD: PEPPARD APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/D/16/3165924 CASE NO: 161373 ADDRESS: 22 Marchwood Avenue PROPOSAL: Single-storey front garage CASE OFFICER: Jasmine Singh METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 02.03.2017 WARD: CHURCH APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3162427 CASE NO: 160752 ADDRESS: 171 Blagdon Road PROPOSAL: Proposed construction of 1 two bedroom house with

parking, private amenity space and cycle storage. CASE OFFICER: Ralph Chahakadya METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED:13.03.2017

16

WARD: BATTLE APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3161485 CASE NO: 160482 ADDRESS: Land to r/o 72 and 74 Tilehurst Road, between 10 and 20

Gloucester Court, Gloucester Road PROPOSAL: Two new build dwellings and associated parking. CASE OFFICER: Stephen Vigar METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 13.03.2017 WARD: CAVERSHAM APPEAL NO: APP/E0345/W/16/3160582 CASE NO: 150151 ADDRESS: 79 Henley Road PROPOSAL: Erection of two detached dwellings with associated hard

surfacing and landscaping CASE OFFICER: Matthew Burns METHOD: Written Representation DECISION: DISMISSED DATE DETERMINED: 13.03.2017

APPENDIX 3 Address Index of Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions. 79 Henley Road Caversham Gloucester Court Planning Officers reports on appeal decisions attached.

17

Ward: Peppard Appeal No: APP/E0345/W/16/3160582 Planning Ref: 150151 Site: 79 Henley Road Caversham Proposal: Erection of two detached dwellings with associated hard surfacing and landscaping Decision level: Delegated Method: Written representations Decision: Appeal dismissed Date Determined: 13th March 2017 Inspector: R J Marshall BACKGROUND 1.1 The appeal site relates to land to the rear of no. 79 Henley Road, an existing residential

dwelling located on the south side of Henley Road. 1.2 The application was refused for a single reason on 09/09/2016:

- In the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure an acceptable contribution towards the provision of Affordable Housing, the proposal fails to contribute adequately to the housing needs of Reading Borough, contrary to policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) of the Reading Borough LDF Core Strategy 2008 (Altered 2015), policies DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) and DM6 (Affordable Housing) of the Reading Borough LDF Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012 (Altered 2015), and the Council’s Adopted Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document 2013.

SUMMARY OF DECISION 2.1 As an application for two additional dwellings the proposal would be required to provide an

affordable housing contribution in order to comply with Policy DM6 of the Council Sites and Detailed Policies Document 2012, 2015. Following the Council’s Judicial Review and the subsequent determinations by the Courts, the Court of Appeal accepted the statement made on behalf of the Secretary of State that,

“local circumstances may justify lower (or no) thresholds as an exception to the national policy.”

2.2 The Council submitted substantial evidence with its appeal statement to indicate that specific local circumstances within the Borough justify a lower threshold for affordable housing contributions, as an exception to national policy.

2.3 In dismissing the appeal the inspector noted the particularly ‘high level of affordable

housing need when comparison is made with other authorities, the higher than average house prices compared to income, the limitations placed on affordable housing contributions by an absence of greenfield sites and the important contribution small sites make in affordable housing provision’.

2.4 The Inspector also noted other appeal decisions both within and outside of the Borough of

which there are examples both for and against the Council’s case. 2.5 The inspector goes on the conclude that the case made by ‘the Council points strongly

towards there being local circumstances to support seeking an affordable housing contribution in accordance with the development plan but as an exception to national policy’.

19

BLOCK PLAN

Case Officer: Matt Burns

20

Ward: Battle Appeal No: APP/E0345/W/16/3161485 Planning Ref: 160482 Site: Gloucester Court Proposal: Two new build dwellings and associated parking. Decision level: Delegated Method: Written representations Decision: Appeal dismissed Dates Appeal Determined: 13 March 2017 Inspector: Patrick Whelan BA(Hons) Dip Arch MA MSc ARB RIBA RTPI SUMMARY OF DECISION The site is located on land previously forming part of the garden of 72 Tilehurst Road, but subdivided into a separate vacant plot for some time and now overgrown. The plot is adjacent to houses and access road at Gloucester Court to the north of Tilehurst Road. The northern end of the site is broadly level with 10 Gloucester Court before rising, increasingly steeply, to the south towards Tilehurst Road. Character The Inspector noted that while the sizes of gardens of neighbouring plots vary the spaces around buildings are an important part of the landscape. The Inspector found that the site coverage and short back garden of Plot A would undermine the spacious character of the area. This would be exacerbated by the scant space between the house on Plot A and the parking area. The Inspector decided that the proposal would appear a cramped, overdevelopment of the site. The appellant described the site as a redundant dead-end adding nothing to the residential character of Gloucester Court. The Inspector disagreed and found that the site’s appearance, as the back garden of 72 Tilehurst Road, contributed to the spaciousness of the area. For these reasons the Inspector concluded that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Development Plan Policies CS7 and DM11, and paragraphs 58 and 64 of the NPPF. Affordable Housing The Inspector confirmed that the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014 should be considered as national planning policy. He also confirmed the statutory requirement under s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for his appeal determination to be in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise – Policy DM6 being the relevant policy in this case. The Inspector referred to the Council’s appeal statements which describe in detail “an acute need for affordable housing in the Borough” and “that affordable housing contributions have not adversely affected the delivery of housing”. The Inspector commented on this matter as follows: “I appreciate the intention of the WMS was to ensure that financial contributions should not become a disproportionate burden to small developers and thereby frustrate housing supply; it is a material consideration to which I attach great weight. However, it does not, given the circumstances of this proposal and the acute and substantial need for affordable housing in the Borough, and the significance of small sites in achieving the aim of SDPD Policy DM6, outweigh the development plan. Accordingly, the need for the contribution sought by the Council arises from the proposal and satisfies the tests in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure

21

Regulations 2010 and paragraph 204 of the Framework.” The Inspector concluded that “the proposed development should provide a financial contribution to affordable housing, the absence of which would place the proposal in conflict with SDPD Policy DM6 and the SPD”. [NOTE – Appeal APP/E0345/W/16/3162427 relating to the erection of a 2-bedroom house at 171 Blagdon Road was determined by the same Inspector on the same day as the Gloucester Court appeal. The Inspector agreed with the Council that a contribution towards affordable housing was also justified in this case. The reasoning given by the Inspector is very similar to that referred to above.] Parking and Access The Inspector noted existing parking controls on surrounding streets and did not consider the existing situation to be indicative of a high degree of parking stress or overload locally. He disagreed with the Council that there would be insufficient parking, however he did agree that the proposed layout of buildings relative to the parking bays would make access to the houses difficult, contrary to Policy DM12. Living Conditions for Future Occupiers The Inspector indicated that the amenity objection could be overcome if clear glazing were proposed to the first floor kitchen/diner window. HPBC COMMENTS ON THE DECISION: The Inspector gave welcome support to the Council’s assessment of the character and local distinctiveness of the site and surroundings, and the harmful impact of the proposal. The Inspector’s support of the Council’s application of Development Plan policy DM6 and additional evidence submitted on appeal is welcome. This outcome adds to the number of recent appeal decisions supporting the Council’s approach. The findings in respect of neighbour amenity and transport matters are noted. Case Officer: Steve Vigar

Site Photograph (October 2015)

22

Site Plan as Proposed

Elevations as Proposed

23


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

5 April 2017

AGENDA ITEM:

6

TITLE: APPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR APPROVAL

AUTHOR: Lynette Baker

& Julie Williams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Class P.

24

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.

25

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 £735,386,4

(Office Prior Approvals - £691,077: Householder Prior Approvals - £47,300:

Retail Prior Approvals - £3900: Demolition Prior Approval - £2135: Storage Prior Approvals - £5045) Figures since last report Office Prior Approvals - £14775: Householder Prior Approvals - £680

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.

26

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

Application type

Application reference number

Address Ward Proposal Date Received

Target Determination Date

Comments Equivalent planning application fee

Householder Prior Approval - Class A, Part 1 GPDO 2015

170240 70 Cressingham Road, Reading, RG2 7JS

Church Rear extension measuring 4.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3m, and 2.44m in height to eaves level.

13/02/2017 09/04/2017 £172


170287 4 Exwick Square, Reading, RG2 8NB

Church Rear extension measuring 4.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 4m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

22/02/2017 09/04/2017 £172


170356 10 Foxhays Road, Reading, RG2 8NP

Church Rear extension measuring 3.7m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.1m, and 2.5m in height to eaves level.

06/03/2017 16/04/2017 £172


170404 Felix Cottages, Kiln Road, Emmer Green, Reading

Peppard Rear extension measuring 4.12m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.84m, and 2.7m in height to eaves level.

14/03/2017 24/04/2017 £172


170317 58 Donnington Road, Reading, RG1 5ND

Redlands Rear extension measuring 4.5m in depth, with a maximum height of 3.8m and 2.4m in height to eaves level.

27/02/2017 09/04/2017 £172

27

Office to Residential Prior Approval applications pending Application type




Comments Equivalent planning application fee

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

170229 Greyfriars House, 30 Greyfriars Road, Reading

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

10/02/2017 11/04/2017 £16090


170314 3-4 Wesley Gate, Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4AP

Abbey Change of use of office building from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 11 X 1-bed and 3 X 2-bed flats.

24/02/2017 21/04/2017 £4925


170341 87 London Street, Reading, RG1 4QA

Katesgrove Change of use of building from Class B1(a) (offices) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 4 X 1-bed flats on first floor, 3 X 1- bed and 1 X 2-bed flats on second floor and 1 X 1-bed flat to rear of ground floor. Front of ground floor to remain B1(a).

02/03/2017 27/04/2017 £3000


170290 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.

22/02/2017 19/04/2017 £6850

28

Prior Notification applications pending Application type




Comments

Prior Notification

170266 20 Tudor Road, Reading, RG1 1NH

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

16/02/2017 13/04/2017

Demolition Prior Approval applications pending – None Retail Prior Approvals applications pending – None Telecommunications Prior Approval applications pending – None Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications pending – None

29

Table 2 – Prior-approval applications decided 22 February 2017 to 23 March 2017

Application type CLASS A – Householder

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


170192 100 Shinfield Road, Reading, RG2 7DA

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

07/02/2017 17/03/2017 Prior Approval Notification - Approval


170093 64 Liverpool Road, Reading, RG1 3PQ

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



170246 30 Liverpool Road, Reading, RG1 3PG

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

14/02/2017 21/03/2017 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED


170263 25 Norton Road, Reading, RG1 3QH

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



170265 122 Cholmeley Road, Reading, RG1 3LR

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

16/02/2017 21/03/2017 Prior Approval NOT REQUIRED

30

Office to Residential Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision


170050 23-25 Union Street and, 49 Broad Street, Reading, RG1 2AA

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

13/01/2017 08/03/2017 Agree

Retail to Residential applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision

Retail Prior Approval

170023 223 Oxford Road, Reading, RG1 7PX

Battle Change of use at part ground floor (front) level from Class A1 (shops) to C3 (dwelling houses) to comprise 1 studio flat.


Retail Prior Approval

162392 675 Oxford Road, Reading, RG30 1HP

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


31

Demolition Prior Approval applications decided

Application type



Decision Date

Decision

Demolition Prior Approval

170262 Forbury Retail Park, Former Kodak building and Business / Industrial Units at 36 Kenavon Drive, Reading

Abbey Prior notification for proposed demolition.

16/02/2017 15/03/2017 Observations sent

Demolition Prior Approval

170166 3 - 5 Craven Road, Reading, RG1 5LE

Redlands Application for prior notification of proposed demolition. All buildings at 3 to 5 Craven Road.

03/02/2017 27/02/2017 Observations sent

Storage to Residential Prior Approval applications decided – None Prior Notification applications decided – None Telecommunications Prior Approval applications decided – None

32

READING BOROUGH COUNCIL TO: Planning Application Committee

DATE: 5th April 2017 AGENDA ITEM: 7

TITLE: Street Name assignment:

(i) Green Park Village (ii) Worton Grange

SERVICE: GI & Business

Systems

WARDS: Whitley

LEAD OFFICER:

Andy Fisher

TEL: Ext 72606 (0118 937 2606)

JOB TITLE: GI & Business Systems team leader

E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 To identify proposed names for the development sites detailed below and for Committee

to select the names to be assigned. 2. RECOMMENDED ACTION 2.1 The Committee approve 4 street names from the table set out at 3.5 of this report for

Green Park Village. 2.2 The Committee approve 8 street names from the table set out at 3.7 of this report for

Worton Grange. 2.3 In the event that none of the proposed names are considered suitable Committee to

select names from the Street Names Proposals list at Appendix 3, as previously approved by Committee.

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 The Green Park Village development is located on the north-western edge of

Green Park and involves the construction of properties and roads over a phased period. The developers have changed the road layout so based on the most recent plans we would like committee to approve 4 new names to be reserved for this development.

33

3.2 The Worton Grange development was granted permission for a mix of commercial and residential uses with a number of new roads shown on the approved plans.

3.3 In both cases due to the construction of multiple roads it is felt appropriate to group the names by a theme whilst still ensuring each name is unique and clearly identifiable. Green Park Village

3.4 For Green Park Village a New England theme was previously decided on to match the style of the buildings. Ten names have already been assigned to the development (Maine Street, Sunapee Road, Champlain Street, Flagstaff Road, Rangeley Place, Vermont Street, Rhode Island Street, Connecticut Street, Massachusetts Place, New Hampshire Street). They can be seen in the plan of Green Park Village in appendix 1.

3.5 The new road names for Green Park Village follow the ‘New England’ theme. These are listed in the following table:

New England theme:

3.6 There were no replies when the consultation was sent out to Councillors.

Worton Grange

3.7 For Worton Grange the names listed below would be used across the commercial and residential areas of the site. The theme of Farm Machinery has been chosen because Worton Grange was itself named after Worton Farm, which was located on the site prior to its development.

Name Reason for action Ward Site Source

Candlewood New England theme based on building style

Whitley Green Park Village

Officer research to match theme

Fairhaven New England theme based on building style



Georgetown New England theme based on building style



Lanesborough New England theme based on building style



Monterey New England theme based on building style



Newfound New England theme based on building style



Watertown New England theme based on building style



Williamstown New England theme based on building style



34

Farm Machinery theme:

3.8 There were no replies when the consultation on these names was sent out to

Councillors.

3.9 A plan of the Worton Grange site detailing the street layout is attached at Appendix 2.

4. THE PROPOSAL 4.1 That Committee approve four names for the development at Green Park Village

and the preference is for all or most of the names to be grouped by a theme.

4.2 That Committee approve eight names for the development at Worton Grange and the preference is for all or most of the names to be grouped by a theme.

4.3 Names approved by Committee will be reserved for the development and will be assigned to new streets as the site is developed. We would not expect to return to Committee for further approval.

4.4 In the event that Committee consider none of the names offered to be acceptable, alternative names will need to be selected from the Approved Street Names list in Appendix 3.

5 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

• None directly from this report.

Name Reason for action Ward Site Source

Perkins Make of engine used locally

Whitley Worton Grange Approved Street List

Proctor Make of steam engine used locally


Ransome Make of steam engine used locally


Ruston Make of steam engine used locally


Saunderson Make of tractor used locally


Sentinel Make of steam engine used locally


Thompson Make of steam engine used locally


Tidman Make of steam engine used locally


35

6 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

• The creation of street names should follow the guidelines detailed in the “Data Entry Conventions and Best Practice for the National Land and Property Gazetteer”, a reference manual based on Property Addressing Standard BS7666:2006 Parts 1 & 2.

36

Appendix 1 – Green Park Village Street plan

37

Appendix 2 - Worton Grange Street plan

38

Appendix 3 – Approved Street List Street Name Reason for suggestion Preferred area / site Alderney Channel Island None specified

Ambleside A place in the lake district Kentwood

Arlington Random selection West Reading

Belvedere Victorian name for a viewing point on a tall building None specified

Braunston UK place name and canal junction None specified

Brecon A Welsh town Bugs Bottom / Caversham

Buckler Derek Buckler, and Bucklers Of Reading Car company. 1947 - 1964 at 67 Caversham Road

Caversham Road / Caversham Heights

Burns 2001 World Rally Champion who died in 2005, aged 34. None specified

Byron Poet None specified

Coppell Former Reading Football Manager None specified

Curtis Geoff Curtis, Reading Racers Speedway in 1973, part of the British League Division One Championship team. Killed in Sydney on 5th Dec 1973, 40 years anniversary in 2013.

None specified

Depass Harvey DePass, Reading's first Community Relations Officer Caversham

Dundas Canadian town name None specified

Dunelm Abbreviation of a latin word None specified

Eastwood Random selection None specified

Elgin Scottish town name None specified

Erith Riverside town name in Bexley Borough London None specified

Falcon Name of a bird None specified

Festival 40+ years of Reading Festival None specified

Flint Old Reading street name - lost during building of civic centre & IDR

Katesgrove

Flower Random selection None specified

Gardener Random selection None specified

Garland Named after British naval vessel None specified

Gold Mineral theme None specified

Guernsey Channel Island None specified

39

Street Name Reason for suggestion Preferred area / site Hampton Named after British naval vessel None specified

Hampshire Named after British naval vessel None specified

Harwich Named after British naval vessel None specified

Hope Named after British naval vessel None specified

Humber Named after British naval vessel None specified

Iron Mineral theme Katesgrove

Ivory Random selection None specified

Jersey Channel Island None specified

Jonsson Per Jonsson. Reading speedway team and World Champion. Whitley

Kennedy Phil Kennedy, BBC Radio Berkshire presenter None specified

Knox Random selection None specified

Larose Random selection None specified

Ledger Random selection None specified

Leicester Random selection None specified

Limerick Celebrating Reading's Irish community. None specified

Madejski John Madejski - Reading Football Club owner None specified

Margate Random selection None specified

Matrix Former Reading nightclub None specified

Michanek Anders Michanek. Reading speedway team and World Champion.

Whitley

Monarch Random selection None specified

Norwich Random selection None specified

Nottingham Random selection None specified

Nuneaton Random selection None specified

Oban Random selection None specified

Pantry Peoples Pantry restaurant, badly damaged by a bomber on 10th February 1943. 41 people killed and 49 injured.

None specified

Peach Andrew Peach, BBC Radio Berkshire presenter None specified

40

Street Name Reason for suggestion Preferred area / site Perkins Make of engine used locally None specified

Presentation Former school, Presentation College Southcote

Price Candle-maker None specified

Proctor Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Pyeatt Reading Speedway rider from 1981/82 who was killed in July 1982.

None specified

Ransome Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Redway Bernard Redway, Poet, Athlete, expeditioner and mountaineer. None specified

Rowland Unknown reason None specified

Ruston Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Sangar Sangar is a type of look out tower. Brock Barracks

Sark Channel Island None specified

Saunderson Make of tractor once used locally None specified

Saxon Anglo-Saxon tribe, Readingas, who settled the area. None specified

Sentinel Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Signal Former GWR signal works was located in Reading None specified

Sprott Michael Sprott is the former British and Commonwealth Heavyweight champion from Reading.

None specified

Stephenson Steam engine designer None specified

Steve Death Steven Victor Death, former Reading Football Goalkeeper None specified

Tallow A form of lubricant once made locally None specified

Thompson Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Thornycroft Historic firm formerly based on the bank of the Thames None specified

Tidman Make of steam engine used locally None specified

Tilley Historic type of oil lamp None specified

Ufton Local village None specified

Ullapool Scottish town None specified

Vickers Aircraft manufacturer None specified

41

Street Name Reason for suggestion Preferred area / site Vickers Aircraft manufacturer None specified

Viking Norse warriors None specified

Vulcan Royal Airforce Bomber None specified

Watkins Professor Derek Watkins, Reading pupil, cancer survivor, trumpet player and trumpet designer. Went to school in Whitley.

Whitley

Westray Scottish island None specified

Whitchuch Local village None specified

Yateley Local village None specified

Yattendon Local village None specified

Zenith Random selection None specified

42


REPORT BY DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT TO: PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: 5th APRIL 2017

AGENDA ITEM: 8

TITLE: FIXING OUR BROKEN HOUSING MARKET – HOUSING WHITE PAPER FEBRUARY 2017

LEAD COUNCILLOR:

COUNCILLOR PAGE COUNCILLOR LIVINGSTON

PORTFOLIO:

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT CHAIR, PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

SERVICE: PLANNING

WARD: ALL

LEAD OFFICER: KIARAN ROUGHAN

TEL: 0118 9374530

JOB TITLE: PLANNING MANAGER

E-MAIL: [email protected]

1. PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF REPORT 1.1 The Housing White Paper, entitled “Fixing Our Broken Housing Market,” was published by

the Department for Communities and Local Government in February 2017. The White Paper explains how the government, “will provide radical, lasting reform that will get more homes built right now and for many years to come.” It sets out the support the Government will provide to enhance the capacity of local authorities and industry to build the new homes this country needs.

1.2 At the same time, DCLG published several other documents including the government responses to the technical consultation on the implementation of planning changes, the starter homes consultation and proposed changes to National Planning Policy Framework along with a new consultation on Planning and affordable housing for Build to Rent. There is also the report of a review of the Community infrastructure Levy which suggests that the government is considering changing the way the development contributes towards the provision of local infrastructure.

1.3 This report briefly summarises the contents of the White Paper. It considers some of the

possible implications for the planning system as it currently operates and specifically for this Council. The government intends consultation on elements of the White Paper and on sister documents that have been published at the same time, such as a consultation document on Build to Rent proposals (the detail of the consultation is in an Appendix to the White Paper). The report asks Committee to note the content of the White Paper and the way the Council is already working to fulfil many of its measures. It seeks agreement to a draft recommended response to the consultation. Committee should note that this report is also being presented to Planning Applications Committee on 5th April 2017. Committee should also note that a report on the White Paper, which concentrates on the implications for the Council’s Housing responsibilities, was presented to the Housing, Neighbourhoods & Leisure Committee (HNL) on 15th March 2017.

2. RECOMMENDED ACTION 2.1 That the Committee notes the contents of the White Paper published by DCLG in

February 2016 and the various proposed changes to the planning system.

43

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities-and-local-government

2.2 That Committee approves the general thrust of the Council’s recommended response to the consultation and other proposals attached as outlined in Section 4 of this report with the final comments to be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport.

3. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 3.1 The Secretary of State has presented a White Paper to Parliament setting out how the

Government intends that more housing is provided in the future. This has been published by DCLG under the title “Fixing Our Broken Housing Market.”

3.2 The White Paper acknowledges the need to build 250,000 new homes a year in England and

it seeks to shift away from primarily trying to help people buy homes, to looking at all types of tenancies.

3.3 The Housing White Paper is lengthy and covers a wide range of proposals. It details the

numerous and various initiatives under 4 main headings or Steps as follows:

• Step 1: Planning for the right homes in the right places

• Step 2: Building homes faster

• Step 3: Diversifying the market

• Step 4: Helping people now

The content of the Executive Summary List of Proposals from the White Paper is copied and set out in Appendix 1 to this report. The main points of the White Paper as they relate to the Council’s Planning function are also summarised in Appendix 2.

3.4 The White Paper covers a wide number of areas but its proposals appear mostly

incremental changes affecting different sectors of the market and different actors in the planning and provision of new housing. In relation to Planning, it is pleasing that the White Paper reinforces the plan led system. However, significant changes are proposed to local plan processes, in particular, proposals that from 2016, plans will need to be based on a standardised calculation of objectively assessed need. The intension is that this will remove the considerable contentiousness of the calculation of objectively assessed housing need under the current system. It also signals that local plans should be reviewed every 5 years, the inference being that a local plan will be out of date if it is not being reviewed. There are also proposals that will require significant additional monitoring of permissions that will require increased resources in policy planning.

3.6 A very welcome proposal is that fees for planning applications will be increased by 20% in

July 2017 on the basis that Council’s commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department". This will help local authorities to provide sufficient resources to get their up to date local plans in place and to deal more speedily with planning applications. A paper in relation to the increase in planning applications fees was presented to the 13 March Policy Committee meeting.

3.7 The White Paper indicates that the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy is

being reviewed and that the government is looking at replacing it with a hybrid system under which negotiated infrastructure provision will be brought back, certainly for larger developments.

3.8 The White Paper proposes measures to persuade developers to implement their

permissions speedily and avoid the criticism that developers are sitting on land banks. One

44

option is to give local authorities compulsory purchase powers to acquire and sell on sites which have planning permissions that are not being implemented. Local authorities will also be subject to a new housing delivery test with sanctions for those failing to meet the test and a strengthened presumption in favour of development where an authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

3.9 Other measures include help to sectors such as Build to rent, small and medium sized

house builders, the custom and self-building sector along with assistance to Housing associations and local authorities to bring forward affordable housing. The government will continue to support Help to Buy and Starter Homes although, encouragingly, the government will drop its previous plans to impose a legal duty on councils to ensure provision of at least 20 per cent Starter Homes on all reasonably sized development sites.

3.10 The 2017 Housing White Paper sends a clear message of the Government’s support for

Build to Rent. In parallel with the publication of the White Paper, DCLG have published a consultation document, “Planning and affordable housing for Build to Rent,” alongside the White Paper. Build to rent (also known as Private Rent or PRS) is a product which the government envisages being funded by institutional investors. They will primarily be built for rental not sale, with institutional investors being attracted by the long term income prospects. The viability of such developments will be very different to a sale scheme and this will provide a challenge particularly in relation to the provision of affordable housing. The consultation documents talks about such developments providing accommodation at a discounted rent as a means for such developments to make provision for affordable housing. A draft Council response to this consultation is provided in Section 4.

3.11 In line with previous consultations, the government are proposing to expand the definition

of affordable housing to cover the new forms of housing: Starter homes (which would be available to those who have maximum household incomes of £80,000 a year or less (or £90,000 a year or less in Greater London), Affordable private rent housing and discounted sale housing which is housing sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market values. The White Paper indicated that following any change to the definition of affordable housing, local planning authorities will have to consider the broadened definition of affordable housing in their evidence base for plan-making. However, to promote delivery of affordable homes to buy, the government proposes to make it clear in national planning policy that local authorities should seek to ensure that a minimum of 10% of all homes on individual sites are affordable home ownership products. The government considers that this strikes an appropriate balance between providing affordable homes for rent and helping people into home ownership. It will form part of the agreed affordable housing contribution on each site. So, for example, on a proposed development of 100 units local planning authorities would be expected to seek a minimum of 10 affordable home ownership products, presumably before seeking more traditional forms of affordable rented housing.

4.0 COMMENTARY / CONSULTATION

4.1 Annex A to the White Paper provides “Further detail and consultation on proposals.” This includes 38 separate consultation questions on different aspects of the White Paper. It is not proposed that the Council respond on every question, which would take considerable time and resources. However there are a number of aspects of the white paper that are of particular relevance to Reading Borough and the Council proposes to respond in these areas having regard to relevant questions in the consultation. Appendix 3 of this report sets out all the 38 questions in the White Paper consultation.

4.2 The White Paper covers a wide number of areas but its proposals appear to mostly involve incremental changes affecting different sectors of the market and different actors in the planning and provision of new housing. It is difficult to see that these incremental changes will lead to a significant increase in housebuilding either on their own or cumulatively.

45

4.3 The aim of increased housing provision is not helped by very strong message that new housing should be concentrated on brownfield land and that Green Belt should only be released in exceptional circumstances. It is clear that much of the delay in the publication of the White Paper was down to MP concerns about possible development of Green Belts. Green Belts undoubtedly constrain development in sustainable locations adjacent to existing urban areas and many commentators feel that it is now time to review the value and purpose of continued designation in the light of the need for substantial new housing provision. The continued restrictions on the release of green belt land is a serious barrier to development of low grade land for much needed housing in highly sustainable locations close to existing urban centres.

4.4 Planning for new housing has operated on the basis of using brownfield land and

densification within urban areas for very many years. It is difficult to see how a continuing onus on such development will now lead to a significant uplift in housing numbers in future years. Such uplift will require significant greenfield development including some development in areas currently designated as Green Belt. The government is promoting garden villages and towns but these will require significant public funding for which some provision has been announced but only in relatively small amounts. Such proposals may deliver in the long terms but the provision of significant numbers of houses in the short term will not be possible without major investment and new powers to bring forward such developments. Without that, these proposals will not produce high levels of new housing for many years.

4.5 The White paper proposes various refinements to the system, many of them perfectly fine.

There are promises to speed things up and clarify processes, to support new and existing players. The Planning Section will obviously benefit from the promise of more resources from increased planning fees and greater powers to enforce the build-out of permissions; developers might appreciate the promised review of developer contributions; communities are promised more say over things like design quality but they will have to accept more housing in their areas.

4.6 The White Paper provides some interesting tweaks, an emphasis on transparency in land ownership will help to apply pressure on landowners to implement their allocations and permissions; the support for institutional investors in the build-to-rent market may bring forward additional developments; improvements to the rental system will benefit renters; an acknowledgement of need for a greater variety of housing in the market, with measures to bring in a greater variety of builders to the market. This may provide a greater range and variety of housing products and some additional competition to the big dominant housebuilders.

4.7 However, the White Paper fails to address the need for radical solutions to achieve a significant uplift in housebuilding. It has avoided the obvious measures that would have freed up local authorities to build social housing on a large scale, or funding to provide desperately needed affordable housing by local authorities or registered providers. It has pulled back from sustainable development of Green Belt land and does little to achieve substantial reform to the land market. It fails to promise resources of the scale needed to ensure that infrastructure is provided to open up potential development areas. It talks about the problems of affordability but does very little to improve affordability. Widening the definition of affordable housing to include various intermediate and discounted sale products will inevitably have an adverse impact on the provision of rental accommodation for those least able to afford housing in the current market (i.e. those who need social rented or affordable rent housing).

4.8 The White Paper contains a plethora of measures for which in most cases there is no

evidence or prospect that they will make any appreciable difference to the numbers of houses that are built. A number of the measures seek to involve more players in the market, institutional investors, small builders, Custom and self-builders, but these will not provide more housing; they will only substitute one provider of houses that are already in the system to be built for another provider. Similarly widening the range of tenures in particular widening the range of tenures that qualify as affordably housing will not provide

46

more housing numbers. It will only contribute to more households in desperate need of affordable housing not being served as developers opt for private rent or low cost/discounted sale tenures. None of these measures are will contribute to the main thrust of the White papers analysis that we need to building more housing. In fact many of the measures may actually add to delays and complexity of providing housing. For example forcing the sub division of sites and other measures to bring small builders into the market adds further processes and complexity to planning rules which will inevitable add to delays.

4.9 It is difficult to see how the White Paper’s support for attracting institutional investment by way of the Build to Rent product will actually provide more housing. While offering an additional product in the market, in most instances such a product will only substitute for other types of housing that would have been built in such locations anyway. The separate paper on Planning and affordable housing for Build to Rent notes the different viability assumptions used in bringing forward such housing. As a result, it proposes that affordable residential accommodation be in the form of a product to be known as Private Rent but, other than indicating that this will subject to a discounted rent, it provides little detail of how the rent will respond to affordability in an area. Further detail needs to be provided.

4.10 Committee is asked to note the commentary on the White Paper within the report and in Appendix 1 and to agree that a draft response be prepared on the basis of the matters referred to in this section in relation to selected questions in the White Paper. The full list of questions is set out in Appendix 3. The response will be agreed by the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services in consultation with the Lead Councillor for Strategic Environment, Planning and Transport. Members should note that the closing date for consultation responses is 2nd May 2017.

5. CONTRIBUTION TO STRATEGIC AIMS

5.1 The Planning Service contributes to the Council’s strategic aims in terms of:

• Seeking to meet the 2016-19 Corporate Plan objectives for “Keeping the town clean,safe, green and active.”

• Seeking to meet the 2016-19 Corporate Plan objectives for “Providing homes forthose in most need.”

• Seeking to meet the 2016-19 Corporate Plan objectives for “Providing infrastructureto support the economy.”

6. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND INFORMATION

6.1 Only minor reference is made to these matters in the changes proposed.

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 isprohibited by or under this Act;

• advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protectedcharacteristic and persons who do not share it;

• foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristicand persons who do not share it.

7.2 There are no direct implications arising from the proposals.

8. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 These are dealt with in the Report.

47

9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 9.1 There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report. 10. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Fixing Our Broken Housing Market – Housing White Paper February 2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-our-broken-housing-market

Housing and Planning Bill, October 2015. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0075/16075.pdf

Planning and affordable housing for Build to Rent: A consultation paper, DCLG 2017, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589939/Build_To_Rent_consultation_document.pdf

Various other reports and documents were also published by DCLG at the same time including:

• Response to the starter homes regulations: technical consultation • Response to changes to the National Planning Policy Framework consultation • Summary of responses to the technical consultation on implementation of planning

changes, consultation on upward extensions and Rural Planning Review call for evidence.

These can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/housing-white-paper

48

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-our-broken-housing-market

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2015-2016/0075/16075.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589939/Build_To_Rent_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589939/Build_To_Rent_consultation_document.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/housing-white-paper

Appendix 1

Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, Housing White Paper Proposed Changes to the Planning System. Executive Summary: List of proposals

Step 1: Planning for the right homes in the right places

• Making sure every part of the country has an up-to-date, sufficiently ambitious plan so that local communities decide where development should go;

• Simplifying plan-making and making it more transparent, so it’s easier for communities to produce plans and easier for developers to follow them;

• Ensuring that plans start from an honest assessment of the need for new homes, and that local authorities work with their neighbours, so that difficult decisions are not ducked;

• Clarifying what land is available for new housing, through greater transparency over who owns land and the options held on it;

• Making more land available for homes in the right places, by maximising the contribution from brownfield and surplus public land, regenerating estates, releasing more small and medium-sized sites, allowing rural communities to grow and making it easier to build new settlements;

• Maintaining existing strong protections for the Green Belt, and clarifying that Green Belt boundaries should be amended only in exceptional circumstances when local authorities can demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting their identified housing requirements;

• Giving communities a stronger voice in the design of new housing to drive up the quality and character of new development, building on the success of neighbourhood planning; and

• Making better use of land for housing by encouraging higher densities, where appropriate, such as in urban locations where there is high housing demand; and by reviewing space standards.

Step 2: Building homes faster

• Providing greater certainty for authorities that have planned for new homes and reducing the scope for local and neighbourhood plans to be undermined by changing the way that land supply for housing is assessed;

• Boosting local authority capacity and capability to deliver, improving the speed and quality with which planning cases are handled, while deterring unnecessary appeals;

• Ensuring infrastructure is provided in the right place at the right time by coordinating Government investment and through the targeting of the £2.3bn Housing Infrastructure Fund;

• Securing timely connections to utilities so that this does not hold up getting homes built;

• Supporting developers to build out more quickly by tackling unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions, facilitating the strategic licensing of protected species and exploring a new approach to how developers contribute to infrastructure;

• Taking steps to address skills shortages by growing the construction workforce;

49

• Holding developers to account for the delivery of new homes through better and more transparent data and sharper tools to drive up delivery; and

• Holding local authorities to account through a new housing delivery test. Step 3: Diversifying the market

• Backing small and medium-sized builders to grow, including through the Home Building Fund;

• Supporting custom-build homes with greater access to land and finance, giving more people more choice over the design of their home;

• Bringing in new contractors through our Accelerated Construction programme that can build homes more quickly than traditional builders;

• Encouraging more institutional investors into housing, including for building more homes for private rent, and encouraging family-friendly tenancies;

• Supporting housing associations and local authorities to build more homes; and

• Boosting productivity and innovation by encouraging modern methods of construction in house building.

Step 4: Helping people now

• Continuing to support people to buy their own home – through Help to Buy and Starter Homes;

• Helping households who are priced out of the market to afford a decent home that is right for them through our investment in the Affordable Homes Programme;

• Making renting fairer for tenants;

• Taking action to promote transparency and fairness for the growing number of leaseholders;

• Improving neighbourhoods by continuing to crack down on empty homes, and supporting areas most affected by second homes;

• Encouraging the development of housing that meets the needs of our future population;

• Helping the most vulnerable who need support with their housing, developing a sustainable and workable approach to funding supported housing in the future; and

• Doing more to prevent homelessness by supporting households at risk before they reach crisis point as well as reducing rough sleeping.

50

Appendix 2 - Summary of Changes to the Planning System. Plan-making

1. The white paper continues the thrust that has existed for a number of years for getting up to date local plans in place in all local authority areas though measures to speed up plan-making. Its main proposal for speeding up plan-making is that the government will consult on options for introducing a standardised approach to the assessment of housing requirements. It is hoped that this will reduce the contentiousness over determining the Objectively Assessed Need in an area. This calculation which was introduced into the planning system under the NPPF published in 2012 has become a highly contentious part of plan making. Under the proposed change, plans will need to be based on a standardised calculation, presumably meaning that there can be much less argument over the number of houses being planned for. The intension is that the new calculation will govern housing requirements from April 2018.

2. The document also seeks to make more land available for housing. However, it indicates little change in policy on Green Belt; it will remain very challenging for development to occur in areas of such designation. The focus remains on brownfield sites. It will continue to seek to increase housing density in urban areas partially through reviewing housing space standards.

3. A new mechanism is introduced for where there is unmet housing need in an area. This indicates that there will need to be a statement of common ground (SOCG) that clearly stipulates how the need will be accommodated. It is not clear how this fits in with the existing Duty to Cooperate and many of us are already working on this basis. It is possible that the SOCG should really be a joint strategic plan.

4. Knowing who owns or has control over land is seen as a way of freeing up land. There is a

proposal to improve the transparency of land registry entries and also the nature of options over land. With this knowledge LPAs will be expected to be innovative and ambitious in the way in which they produce plans and assemble land to deliver them. Boosting local authority capacity and capability

5. Local authorities will be able to increase fees by 20 per cent from July 2017 if they

"commit to invest the additional fee income in their planning department". This will help local authorities to provide sufficient resources to get their up to date local plans in place and to deal more speedily with planning applications.

6. The White Paper includes an intention to consult on deterring unnecessary planning

appeals by introducing fees for them. It also continues to refer to tackling delays caused by planning conditions. It indicates that the government want to review the current system for protected species and roll out a new system of strategic licensing.

7. The White Paper indicates that the government will amend national policy to expect local

planning authorities to have policies that support the development of small ‘windfall’ sites (those not allocated in plans, but which come forward on an ad hoc basis).

8. Providing infrastructure – the government proposes to target the £2.3bn Housing Infrastructure Fund at the areas of greatest housing need. The government will make available £25 million of new funding to help “ambitious authorities in areas of high housing need to plan for new homes and infrastructure”. This will be channelled into engaging communities on the design and mix of new homes. The white paper refers to measures to assist the provision of strategic infrastructure, digital infrastructure and the Utilities.

9. In order to simplify developer contributions, the White Paper proposes a review of whether the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) should be replaced with a "hybrid” system. This has been recommended by an expert group.

51

Giving communities a stronger voice

Proposes to change regulations on neighbourhood plans Holding developers to account 10. The government is looking at ways that developers can be held to account for the delivery

of new homes. Possible measures include: • requiring developers to start building within two years, rather than three; • encouraging "more active use of compulsory purchase powers to promote

development on stalled sites for housing" as part of a raft of measures to ensure that planning permissions are built out;

• use the default two year timescales for permissions possibly using the anticipated delivery rate as a material consideration. This, together with the use of simplified completion notices and the expectation of agreed delivery rates and timescales could give Councils more control over their land supply. This only really works, however, if the Council has sufficient flexibility within their development plan to release other sites on the basis of under delivery;

• The government will prepare new guidance, following separate consultation, to encourage local authorities to use compulsory purchase powers to seize stalled sites from developers and then auction off the land to other builders. The proceeds from the auction will then pay back the original developer;

Holding local authorities to account 11. A new housing delivery test will be introduced. The test will "ensure that local authorities

and wider interests are held accountable for their role in ensuring new homes are delivered in their areas". According to the white paper, the first assessment period for the test will be for the financial years 2014/15 to 2016/17. "From November 2017, if housing delivery falls below 95 per cent of an authority’s annual housing requirement, the government wants the local authority to publish an action plan. If delivery of housing falls below 85 per cent of the housing requirement, authorities would in addition be expected to plan for a 20 per cent buffer on their five-year land supply, if they have not already done so,"

12. There will also be a strengthened ‘presumption in favour’ definition to ensure that further land is released. The 5YHLS test will remain as a further stick to ensure housing delivery.

13. To have the housing delivery test layered on top of the 5YHLS test seems to work against the principles of a plan-led system. The housing delivery test promotes the plan-led system in terms of encouraging Councils to allocate more land then they need to allow for plan-led flexibility. The 5YHLS test works against this by punishing under delivery with unplanned sites.

Diversifying the market 14. The White Paper indicates that rental properties have a significant role to play in terms of

housing our communities. The wider array of tenancies that are now being promoted for inclusion within the revised affordable housing definition will help both the private and public sector to find the appropriate mix for each available site.

15. With all of these measures comes a package of £25m capacity funding, the Housing

Infrastructure Fund and the accelerated construction fund to help us all work together to achieve growth.

16. Whilst there are unanswered questions in the HWP about how a lot of this will work, it is

encouraging to see how much the thinking has moved on and a recognition that delivering for our communities is a joint responsibility between public and private, rather than public

52

bureaucracy being seen to hold back private aspirations. The various initiatives can be summarised as follows:

• Backing small and medium-sized builders to grow

o £3bn home building fund will provide loans to small developers, custom builders and offsite construction with the aim of diversifying the market

o The government want to bring forward more small sites for development which are more easily accessed by these firms. Further to this, the Home Building Fund will provide £1 billion of short-term loan finance targeted at SMEs and custom builders to deliver up to 25,000 homes during this Parliament and £2 billion of long-term loan funding for infrastructure and large sites, creating up to 200,000 homes.

• Custom building • Institutional Investment:

o intends to amend planning policy to make it easier for developers of purpose-built developments for the rental market and to offer affordable private rented homes instead of other forms of affordable housing;

o The 2017 Housing White Paper sends a clear message of the Government’s support for Build to Rent. The White Paper details the government’s desire to achieve more institutional investment in the private rental market. It has developed the Build to Rent Model. It has supported this through the £3.5 billion Private Rented Sector Housing Guarantee Scheme, and the £1bn Build to Rent Fund. (para 3.19). The White paper sets out the following proposals:

o change the National Planning Policy Framework so authorities know they should plan proactively for Build to Rent where there is a need, and to make it easier for Build to Rent developers to offer affordable private rental homes instead of other types of affordable housing;

o ensure that family-friendly tenancies of three or more years are available for those tenants that want them on schemes that benefit from our changes. We are working with the British Property Federation and National Housing Federation to consolidate this approach across the sector.

o It talks about PRS being suitable for family accommodation. • Supporting housing associations and local authorities to build more homes • encouraging modern methods of construction • The government will legislate to allow locally accountable New Town Development

Corporations to be set up, enabling local areas to use them as the delivery vehicle if they wish to.

• Continuing to support existing Help to Buy and Starter Homes schemes;

Supporting people with need for housing

17. the various measures can be summarised as follows:

• although retaining starter homes as a form of affordable housing, the White papers drops previous plans to impose a legal duty on councils to ensure provision of at least 20 per cent Starter Homes on all reasonably sized development sites.

• include incentives for older people to sell big family homes and plans for more sheltered housing schemes.

• Planning rules will be overhauled so councils can plan to build more long-term homes for rent and encouraging more stable, longer-term tenancies to be offered by landlords.

53

• relax restrictions on funding for the affordable homes programme, originally designed for shared ownership building, so developers can build homes for rentals, including rent to buy schemes.

54

Appendix 3 - Further detail and consultation on proposals Local Plans and assessing housing requirements Question 1 Do you agree with the proposals to:

a) Make clear in the National Planning Policy Framework that the key strategic policies that each local planning authority should maintain are those set out currently at paragraph 156 of the Framework, with an additional requirement to plan for the allocations needed to deliver the area’s housing requirement?

b) Use regulations to allow Spatial Development Strategies to allocate strategic sites, where these strategies require unanimous agreement of the members of the combined authority?

c) Revise the National Planning Policy Framework to tighten the definition of what evidence is required to support a ‘sound’ plan?

Question 2 What changes do you think would support more proportionate consultation and examination procedures for different types of plan and to ensure that different levels of plans work together?

Question 3 Do you agree with the proposals to:

a) amend national policy so that local planning authorities are expected to have clear policies for addressing the housing requirements of groups with particular needs, such as older and disabled people?

b) from early 2018, use a standardised approach to assessing housing requirements as the baseline for five year housing supply calculations and monitoring housing delivery, in the absence of an up-to-date plan?

Making enough land available in the right places

Question 4 Do you agree with the proposals to amend the presumption in favour of sustainable development so that:

a) authorities are expected to have a clear strategy for maximising the use of suitable land in their areas?;

b) it makes clear that identified development needs should be accommodated unless there are strong reasons for not doing so set out in the NPPF?;

c) the list of policies which the Government regards as providing reasons to restrict development is limited to those set out currently in footnote 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (so these are no longer presented as examples), with the addition of Ancient Woodland and aged or veteran trees? Footnote 9 For example, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives (see paragraph 119) and/or designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest; land designated as Green Belt, Local Green Space, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Heritage Coast or within a National Park (or the Broads Authority); designated heritage assets; and locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

d) its considerations are re-ordered and numbered, the opening text is simplified and specific references to local plans are removed?

Improving local authorities’ role in land assembly and disposal Question 5

55

Do you agree that regulations should be amended so that all local planning authorities are able to dispose of land with the benefit of planning consent which they have granted to themselves?

Question 6 How could land pooling make a more effective contribution to assembling land, and what additional powers or capacity would allow local authorities to play a more active role in land assembly (such as where ‘ransom strips’ delay or prevent development)?

Regenerating housing estates

Question 7 Do you agree that national policy should be amended to encourage local planning authorities to consider the social and economic benefits of estate regeneration when preparing their plans and in decisions on applications, and use their planning powers to help deliver estate regeneration to a high standard?

A new generation of new communities Question 8 Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:

a) highlight the opportunities that neighbourhood plans present for identifying and allocating small sites that are suitable for housing?;

b) encourage local planning authorities to identify opportunities for villages to thrive, especially where this would support services and help meet the authority’s housing needs?;

c) give stronger support for ‘rural exception’ sites – to make clear that these should be considered positively where they can contribute to meeting identified local housing needs, even if this relies on an element of general market housing to ensure that homes are genuinely affordable for local people?;

d) make clear that on top of the allowance made for windfall sites, at least 10% of sites allocated for residential development in local plans should be sites of half a hectare or less?;

e) expect local planning authorities to work with developers to encourage the sub-division of large sites?; and

f) encourage greater use of Local Development Orders and area-wide design codes so that small sites may be brought forward for development more quickly?.

Question 9 How could streamlined planning procedures support innovation and high-quality development in new garden towns and villages?

Green Belt land

Question 10 Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to make clear that:

a) authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements?

b) where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land?

56

c) appropriate facilities for existing cemeteries should not to be regarded as ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt?

d) development brought forward under a Neighbourhood Development Order should not be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided it preserves openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt?

e) where a local or strategic plan has demonstrated the need for Green Belt boundaries to be amended, the detailed boundary may be determined through a neighbourhood plan (or plans) for the area in question?

f) when carrying out a Green Belt review, local planning authorities should look first at using any Green Belt land which has been previously developed and/or which surrounds transport hubs?

Question 11 Are there particular options for accommodating development that national policy should expect authorities to have explored fully before Green Belt boundaries are amended, in addition to the ones set out above?

Strengthening neighbourhood planning and design

Question 12

Do you agree with the proposals to amend the National Planning Policy Framework to:

a) indicate that local planning authorities should provide neighbourhood planning groups with a housing requirement figure, where this is sought?;

b) make clear that local and neighbourhood plans (at the most appropriate level) and more detailed development plan documents (such as action area plans) are expected to set out clear design expectations; and that visual tools such as design codes can help provide a clear basis for making decisions on development proposals?;

c) emphasise the importance of early pre-application discussions between applicants, authorities and the local community about design and the types of homes to be provided?;

d) makes clear that design should not be used as a valid reason to object to development where it accords with clear design expectations set out in statutory plans?; and

e) recognise the value of using a widely accepted design standard, such as Building for Life, in shaping and assessing basic design principles – and make clear that this should be reflected in plans and given weight in the planning process?

Using land more efficiently for development

Question 13 Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy to make clear that plans and individual development proposals should:

a) make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is a shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs?;

b) address the particular scope for higher-density housing in urban locations that are well served by public transport, that provide opportunities to replace low-density uses in areas of high housing demand, or which offer scope to extend buildings upwards in urban areas?;

c) ensure that in doing so the density and form of development reflect the character, accessibility and infrastructure capacity of an area, and the nature of local housing needs?;

d) take a flexible approach in adopting and applying policy and guidance that could inhibit these objectives in particular circumstances, such as open space provision in areas with good access to facilities nearby?

Question 14

57

In what types of location would indicative minimum density standards be helpful, and what should those standards be?

Question 15 What are your views on the potential for delivering additional homes through more intensive use of existing public sector sites, or in urban locations more generally, and how this can best be supported through planning (using tools such as policy, local development orders, and permitted development rights)?

Providing greater certainty

Question 16 Do you agree that:

a) where local planning authorities wish to agree their housing land supply for a one-year period, national policy should require those authorities to maintain a 10% buffer on their 5 year housing land supply?;

b) the Planning Inspectorate should consider and agree an authority’s assessment of its housing supply for the purpose of this policy?

c) if so, should the Inspectorate’s consideration focus on whether the approach pursued by the authority in establishing the land supply position is robust, or should the Inspectorate make an assessment of the supply figure?

Question 17 In taking forward the protection for neighbourhood plans as set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 12 December 2016 into the revised NPPF, do you agree that it should include the following amendments:

a) a requirement for the neighbourhood plan to meet its share of local housing need?;

b) that it is subject to the local planning authority being able to demonstrate through the housing delivery test that, from 2020, delivery has been over 65% (25% in 2018; 45% in 2019) for the wider authority area?

c) should it remain a requirement to have site allocations in the plan or should the protection apply as long as housing supply policies will meet their share of local housing need?

Deterring unnecessary appeals

Question 18

What are your views on the merits of introducing a fee for making a planning appeal? We would welcome views on:

a) how the fee could be designed in such a way that it did not discourage developers, particularly smaller and medium sized firms, from bringing forward legitimate appeals;

b) the level of the fee and whether it could be refunded in certain circumstances, such as when an appeal is successful; and

c) whether there could be lower fees for less complex cases.

Ensuring infrastructure is provided in the right place at the right time

Question 19 Do you agree with the proposal to amend national policy so that local planning authorities are expected to have planning policies setting out how high quality digital infrastructure will be delivered in their area, and accessible from a range of providers?

58

Question 20

Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy so that:

the status of endorsed recommendations of the National Infrastructure Commission is made clear?; and authorities are expected to identify the additional development opportunities which strategic infrastructure improvements offer for making additional land available for housing?

Greater transparency through the planning and build out phases

Question 21

Do you agree that:

a) the planning application form should be amended to include a request for the estimated start date and build out rate for proposals for housing?

b) that developers should be required to provide local authorities with basic information (in terms of actual and projected build out) on progress in delivering the permitted number of homes, after planning permission has been granted?

c) the basic information (above) should be published as part of Authority Monitoring Reports?

d) that large housebuilders should be required to provide aggregate information on build out rates?

Sharpening local authority tools to speed up the building of homes

Question 22

Do you agree that the realistic prospect that housing will be built on a site should be taken into account in the determination of planning applications for housing on sites where there is evidence of non-implementation of earlier permissions for housing development?

Question 23

We would welcome views on whether an applicant’s track record of delivering previous, similar housing schemes should be taken into account by local authorities when determining planning applications for housing development.

Question 24

If this proposal were taken forward, do you agree that the track record of an applicant should only be taken into account when considering proposals for large scale sites, so as not to deter new entrants to the market?

Question 25

What are your views on whether local authorities should be encouraged to shorten the timescales for developers to implement a permission for housing development from three years to two years, except where a shorter timescale could hinder the viability or deliverability of a scheme? We would particularly welcome views on what such a change would mean for SME developers.

Improving the completion notice process

59

Question 26

Do you agree with the proposals to amend legislation to simplify and speed up the process of serving a completion notice by removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to confirm a completion notice before it can take effect?

Question 27

What are your views on whether we should allow local authorities to serve a completion notice on a site before the commencement deadline has elapsed, but only where works have begun? What impact do you think this will have on lenders’ willingness to lend to developers?

Question 28

Do you agree that for the purposes of introducing a housing delivery test, national guidance should make clear that:

a) The baseline for assessing housing delivery should be a local planning authority’s annual housing requirement where this is set out in an up-to-date plan?

b) The baseline where no local plan is in place should be the published household projections until 2018/19, with the new standard methodology for assessing housing requirements providing the baseline thereafter?

c) Net annual housing additions should be used to measure housing delivery?

d) Delivery will be assessed over a rolling three year period, starting with 2014/15 – 2016/17?

Question 29

Do you agree that the consequences for under-delivery should be:

a) From November 2017, an expectation that local planning authorities prepare an action plan where delivery falls below 95% of the authority’s annual housing requirement?;

b) From November 2017, a 20% buffer on top of the requirement to maintain a five year housing land supply where delivery falls below 85%?;

c) From November 2018, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where delivery falls below 25%?;

d) From November 2019, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where delivery falls below 45%?; and

e) From November 2020, application of the presumption in favour of sustainable development where delivery falls below 65%?

Question 30 What support would be most helpful to local planning authorities in increasing housing delivery in their areas?

Changing the definition of affordable housing

Question 31 Do you agree with our proposals to:

a) amend national policy to revise the definition of affordable housing as set out in Box 4?;

b) introduce an income cap for starter homes?;

c) incorporate a definition of affordable private rent housing?;

d) allow for a transitional period that aligns with other proposals in the White Paper (April 2018)?

60

Increasing delivery of Affordable Home ownership products

Question 32 Do you agree that:

a) national planning policy should expect local planning authorities to seek a minimum of 10% of all homes on individual sites for affordable home ownership products?

b) that this policy should only apply to developments of over 10 units or 0.5ha?

Question 33 Should any particular types of residential development be excluded from this policy? Sustainable development

Question 34 Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy to make clear that the reference to the three dimensions of sustainable development, together with the core planning principles and policies at paragraphs 18-219 of the National Planning Policy Framework, together constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means for the planning system in England?

Meeting the challenge of climate change

Question 35 Do you agree with the proposals to amend national policy to:

a) Amend the list of climate change factors to be considered during plan-making, to include reference to rising temperatures?

b) Make clear that local planning policies should support measures for the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change?

Flood Risk

Question 36 Do you agree with these proposals to clarify flood risk policy in the National Planning Policy Framework?

Noise and other impacts on new developments

Question 37 Do you agree with the proposal to amend national policy to emphasise that planning policies and decisions should take account of existing businesses when locating new development nearby and, where necessary, to mitigate the impact of noise and other potential nuisances arising from existing development?

Onshore wind energy

Question 38 Do you agree that in incorporating the Written Ministerial Statement on wind energy development into paragraph 98 of the National Planning Policy Framework, no transition period should be included?

61

ABBEY

63

BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 9 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 5 April 2017 Ward: Abbey App No.: 161336 FUL and 161337/LBC Address: 36 Russell Street, Reading Proposal: Amended Description: Proposed conversion of loft space to create a new unit with 3 dormers in the rear roof elevation Date valid: 23rd February 2017 Determination Date: 20th April 2017 26 week date: RECOMMENDATION: Is to GRANT planning permission 161336/FUL and GRANT Listed Building Consent 161337/LBC. PLANNING PERMISSION 161336/FUL

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE: 1. Time 2. Approved Plans 3. Materials to Match 4. Plans at 1:10 with Material Details Annotated of Dormer Windows 5. Details of Proposed Staircase/Method Statement 6. Details of Bin and Bicycle Storage 7. Parking Permits – Notification of Postal Address 8. Parking Permits – Prospective Occupiers 9. Control of Noise and Dust During Demolition and Construction 10. Hours of Construction Working

INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE:

1. Terms and Conditions 2. Building Regulations 3. No Parking Permits 4. Damage to Highway 5. Works Affecting the Highway 6. Positive and Proactive

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 161337/LBC CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:

1. Time 2. Materials to Match 3. Plans at 1:10 with Material Details Annotated of Dormer Windows 4. Details of Proposed Staircase/Method Statement 5. Control of Noise and Dust During Demolition and Construction 6. Hours of Construction Working


1. Plans 2. Positive and Proactive

65

1. BACKGROUND 1.1 This planning application was deferred at your meeting of 11th January 2017 so that

Councillors could undertake a site visit on Thursday 2nd February 2017. It was further delayed at your meeting 8th February as it was established that the application was invalid, requiring a change in the description, additional fee and re-consultation.

1.2 The application was subsequently made valid from 23rd February and re-consultation with neighbours took place, as well as internal consultees.

1.3 Further to re-consultation, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officers have raised

no objection to the proposals subject to an appropriate hours conditions attached.

1.4 Whilst no neighbour letters were received, three further letters of representation were received, from the Reading Civic Society, Baker Street Neighbourhood Area Association and the Reading Conservation Area Advisory Committee. The additional comments raised further to those previously submitted are as follows, with officer comments in italics:

• Management of waste – The Council’s highways department has raised no

objection to the proposals, satisfied that there is space about the building for the storage of bins. A suitably worded condition regarding bin storage details can be attached to any decision.

• The surrounding wall – The proposals do not include works to the wall. The applicant is aware of the wall’s listed status and any works proposed to the wall would require listed building consent.

• The context of the site within the draft appraisal of the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area – the assessment of the proposal in terms of the Conservation Area have been covered in the main officer’s report.

1.5 The Agenda and update reports from the January meeting are appended to this

committee report. The previous Officer’s Report assessed the creation of the new unit, which was considered to be acceptable against the Council’s development plan policies and on its merits. No new issues are raised in this regard.

Case Officer: Ethne Humphreys APPENDICES: reports to 11 January 2017 Planning Applications Committee

66

Appendix

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 11th January 2017

Ward: Abbey App No.: 161336 FUL and 161337/LBC Address: 36 Russell Street, Reading Proposal: Proposed loft conversion with three dormers on the rear roof elevation. Applicant: Reading Real Estate Co. (UK) Ltd Date valid: 09th August 2016 Agreed Extension date: 14th December 2016 26 week date: 16th January 2017 RECOMMENDATION Is to GRANT planning permission 161336/FUL and GRANT Listed Building Consent 161337/LBC. PLANNING PERMISSION 161336/FUL

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE: 1. Time 2. Approved Plans 3. Materials to Match 4. Plans at 1:10 with Material Details Annotated of Dormer Windows 5. Details of Proposed Staircase/Method Statement 6. Bicycle Storage 7. Parking Permits – Notification of Postal Address 8. Parking Permits – Prospective Occupiers 9. Control of Noise and Dust During Demolition and Construction 10. Hours of Construction Working


1. Terms and Conditions 2. Building Regulations 3. No Parking Permits 4. Damage to Highway 5. Works Affecting the Highway 6. Positive and Proactive

LISTED BUILDING CONSENT 161337/LBC CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:

1. Time 2. Materials to Match

67

Appendix

3. Plans at 1:10 with Material Details Annotated of Dormer Windows 4. Details of Proposed Staircase/Method Statement 5. Control of Noise and Dust During Demolition and Construction 6. Hours of Construction Working


1. Plans 2. Positive and Proactive

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This site, as illustrated on the location plan below, relates to the Grade II Listed 36 Russell Street. This is a two storey building with basement located on the western side of Russell Street and on the corner with Baker Street. 36A Russell Street is located to the rear of the house, a two storey annex to the house and a former stables and hay loft.

1.2 No.36 Russell Street was listed on 14th December 1978. The list description reads:

‘Early-mid C19. 2 storey brick house. Slate roof. 3 bays, plate glass sash windows. Central door with contemporary patterned fanlight and delicate wire porch of curved 'Dutch' gable design with lotus pattern finial. Stable to left continuing elevation with garage doors on ground floor, and loft over'.

1.3 The site is within the Russell Street/Castle Hill Conservation Area, as well as an Air

Quality Management Area. The surrounding area is predominantly residential

1.4 The proposal is to be determined at Planning Applications Committee as it has been called in by Cllr Page due to possible impact on the Listed Building.

Location Plan (not to scale)

68

Appendix

2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

2.1 Planning Permission: Loft conversion with three dormer windows on the rear roof slope creating a 1 bedroom self-contained flat. The proposed dormer windows would measure approximately 1.5m by 1.9m and the proposed materials would match those of the main property. A new staircase will be installed to provide access to the unit.

Listed Building Consent: Internal alterations including part new staircase to facilitate loft conversion. Three dormer windows on the rear roof slope. The proposed dormer windows would measure approximately 1.5m by 1.9m and the proposed materials would match those of the main property.

Supporting Information

2.3 Location Plan Block Plans Dwg 08 Proposed Section Dwg 07 Existing Basement and Ground Floor Plans Dwg 01 Existing First Floor and Roof Plans Dwg 02

69

Appendix

Proposed Elevations Dwg 06 Proposed Plans Dwg 05

2.4 The application is supported by the following documents: • Design and Access Statement – Roof Alterations Proposal

2.5 No Pre-Application advice was sought prior to the submission of this application.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 01-01188-FUL Conversion of first floor (3 bed-sits) into 2 no. one bedroom flats. Permitted. 01-01187 - LBC Conversion of first floor (3 bed-sits) into 2 no. one bedroom flats. Permitted.

4. CONSULTATIONS Non-statutory

4.1 Councils Conservation Consultant – No objection in principle, subject to conditions

4.2 RBC Transport Strategy – No objection subject to conditions and informatives.

4.3 RBC Environmental Protection – No objection subject to informatives.

5 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

5.1 Notification letters were sent to properties at 38, 38a, 41, 43 Russell Street and 32 and 61 Baker Street and a site notice was displayed.

As a result of the consultations:

Two letters of concern received from the Reading Conservation Area Advisory

Committee and The Reading Civic Society on the following grounds: • Use of building • Works already undertaken to the building • Size of windows • Surrounding Wall • Undesirable Precedence

SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS WITH APPLICANT/AGENT

5.1 The agent was advised about concerns relating to lack of outlook and daylight to the proposed bedroom. Revised plans were received incorporating a third dormer window to the rear elevation, which would serve the bedroom. The Heritage Officer had no objection to the additional dormer window, which also overcomes concerns relating to suitable residential accommodation for future occupiers.

70

Appendix

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 CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) • Policy CS15 (Housing Provision) • Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy) • Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) • Policy CS33 (Protection of the Historic Environment) • Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)

Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (SDPD), Adopted 2012 Revised 2015

• Policy DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change) • Policy DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) • Policy DM5 (Housing Mix) • Policy DM6 (Affordable Housing) • Policy DM8 (Residential Conversions) • Policy DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) • Policy DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) • Policy DM19 (Air Quality)

Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents

• Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011) • Sustainable Design and Construction (2011) • Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990, (Revised 1/4/2015). 7 APPRAISAL

The main issues in consideration of this application are:

• Principle of development • Design Considerations / Impact on the Listed Building and Conservation Area • Impact on Neighbouring Amenity • Amenity of Future Occupiers • Housing Mix • Highways and parking • Affordable Housing • Other matters

Principle of the Development

71

Appendix

7.1 Application 01-01188-FUL established the use of the property as 5 self-contained residential flats. Therefore the principle of the conversion and extension of the property to form an additional flat is considered acceptable subject to the relevant material planning considerations set out below.

7.2 The property is already in use as 5 flats and therefore there are no concerns with

regards to the loss of single family housing or dilution of the existing mixed/sustainable community. This, together with ensuring only suitable properties are converted to flats are the main aims of Policies DM8 of the Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012, altered 2015) and Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy (2008, altered 2015). Given the property already has a lawful use as 5 flats and the officers’ site visit confirmed that it remains in that use, many of the aims of the above two policies are not directly relevant to this proposal. Nonetheless, a number of the elements provide useful additional criteria against which the proposal can be considered.

Design Considerations/ Impact on the Listed Building and Conservation Area

7.3 The concerns raised regarding the acceptability of dormer windows on a Listed Building are noted. The fact that a building is listed should not, in itself, be used as the reason for not allowing alterations or extensions. The opportunities for alterations and extensions to a listed building will largely depend on its age, style and location and how much it has previously been altered. Dormer windows have been in existence on listed buildings since at least the 17th and 18th Century and if designed appropriately, do not represent alien features .

7.3 Due to the nature of the proposals, there would be no increase in the footprint of

the building and the scale of the building would not change. Further to revised plans, three small dormer windows are proposed on the rear elevation to facilitate the conversion. Whilst they would not fully align with the windows below, this is already the case with the existing windows on the rear elevation. The dormer windows would be small in scale and set well down below the main roof ridge. Whilst they would not be symmetrical, due to their scale they would be unobtrusive and would not clutter the roofspace. The use of matching tiles would assist in blending the appearance of the dormer windows with that of the existing roof.

7.4 The Case Officer and Heritage Officer undertook a site visit. Further to this, the Heritage Officer confirmed that there was no objection to the proposed loft conversion and three dormer windows to facilitate the proposal, subject to acceptable detailing of the dormer windows and details of the proposed staircase. It is noted that the proposed staircase would re-use some of the materials of the original staircase and this element of the proposals is not considered a significant intrusion into the original arrangement of the house, with the layout keeping the majority of the original main staircase. The Heritage Officer considers these could be secured by way of an appropriate condition. The proposed dormer windows are not considered to have any harmful effect on the setting of the listed building that would detract from its legibility and significance.

72

Appendix

7.6 Given the site’s corner plot location, the proposed dormer windows would be visible from Baker Street. However, as stated above, they are unobtrusive. Dormer windows do feature within the vicinity, including to the adjacent No.32 Russell Street and No’s 48 and 50 Russell Street further to the south, the latter of which are Listed Buildings. Given the small scale of each dormer window, and the pitched gable roof design, they are considered to integrate relatively well with the host building. Given this, and the above, they are not considered to have an adverse effect on the integrity and setting of the listed building, the character or appearance of the host building, the visual amenities of the street scene or the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, in this specific instance, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies CS7 and CS33 of the Core Strategy (2008, altered 2015).

Residential on Neighbouring Amenity

7.7 SDPD DM4 ‘Safeguarding Amenity’ seeks that development will not cause a significantly detrimental impact to the living environment of existing and new residential properties. Due to the nature of the proposals, position and small scale nature of the dormer windows on the rear roof slope, it is not considered there would be any material loss of light or overbearing impact to any neighbouring property. The proposed dormer windows would face down the applicant’s site and any views of the neighbouring garden would be at an oblique angle. Given the existence of first floor windows it is considered that any additional loss of privacy would not be unacceptable.

Amenity of Future Occupiers 7.8 Concerns were raised that the proposed bedroom would not have any outlook or

access to daylight. Further to this, a revised plan was received showing a third dormer window which would afford outlook and daylight to this bedroom. Given this, the resultant unit would be served by adequate daylighting and outlook. The Council does not have adopted minimum room sizes for residential conversions. Certain standards are referred to in the Council’s Residential Conversions Supplementary Planning Document; however, this document specifically relates to conversion of existing residential properties to HMOs. Nonetheless, this and nationally prescribed technical housing standard document (also not adopted) provide a useful guide.

7.9 The national technical housing standards advise that the minimum gross internal floor

area for a 1 storey 1 person dwelling is 39m2. The overall internal floor area would exceed this recommendation and in this respect the unit size is considered acceptable.

7.10 With regard to ceiling height there is no statutory minimum requirement, although

Building Regulations requires a 2m headroom clearance for staircases. It is,

73

Appendix

nevertheless, generally recommended that residential accommodation should have a ‘good practice’ minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.15m. In this instance a sectional drawing has been provided and in relation to the proposal, with dormer window additions, the central part of the room would achieve the minimum height of 2.15m. In terms of usable space it is acknowledged that the edges of the room, due to the sloping ceilings where this drops below 1.5m, does not reflect the footprint of the loft but on balance, what is considered to be useable space would roughly accord with guidance on floor standards .

7.11 Given this, and given the reasonable outlook and daylighting, in respect of

providing a suitable level of residential accommodation, it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain a reason for refusal based upon the proposed room sizes in this instance. The proposal would have to meet all relevant requirements under building regulations. 7.12 Environmental Protection Officers have no objection to the proposal subject to informatives relating to the demolition and construction phase. 7.13 Given the location of the site and access to nearby public amenities, it is considered that in this specific instance the limited provision of amenity space is acceptable. Housing Mix 7.14 Policy CS15 of the Reading Core Strategy 2008 (2015) states that “Developments should 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.” The supporting text to this policy states that the provision of at least an element of family housing in all developments is a priority, based on the findings of the Berkshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2007) (SHMA). The policy also states that the appropriate density and mix of residential development will be informed by the characteristics of the area in which it is located and accessibility. Given the sites location it is considered that the proposed change from four x one bed and one x two bed units to five x one bed and one x two bed units would be appropriate.

Highways and Parking

7.15 The site is located within the Zone 2, the primary core area but on the periphery of the central core area which lies at the heart of Reading Borough, consisting primarily of retail and commercial office developments with good transport hubs. This zone is well served by public transport, with buses continuing either into or out of the Central Core Area via this zone.

7.16 In accordance with the adopted Parking Standards and Design SPD, the development would be required to provide a parking provision of 1 parking space.

7.17 The agent has confirmed to the planning officer that this development is to be a car free development. Given the close proximity to the town centre, and an

74

Appendix

appropriate informative being placed on the proposal, the non-provision of car parking would be acceptable in this instance.

7.18 The development site is located in an area designated as a Residents Parking Permit Area; Zone 08R. Under the Borough’s current parking standards, this proposal would generate additional pressure for parking in the area. Therefore if this application is approved there should be an assumption that any future occupants of the proposed dwelling will not be issued with a resident parking permit which should be covered by condition and an informative applied. This will ensure that the development does not harm the existing amenities of the neighbouring residential properties by adding to the already high level of on street car parking in the area.

7.19 In accordance with the adopted Parking SPD, the development is required to provide a minimum of 1.0 cycle parking spaces for the dwelling which should be in a conveniently located, lockable, covered store. Plans submitted do not illustrate cycle parking provision, no details about the type of storage have been provided. The applicant will be required to illustrate the type of secure provision planned, however this can be secured by way of an appropriate condition.

7.20 Bin storage should comply with Manual for Streets and British Standard 5906: 2005 for Waste Management in Buildings and should be located no further than 15m from the access point of the site to avoid the stationing of service vehicles on the carriageway for excessive periods.

The Council’s Transport Officers have no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions and informatives.

Sustainability 7.21 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 application does not constitute a major development and these matters can be controlled by condition; 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. Notwithstanding the above, the appropriate level of sustainable construction would be secured the appropriate building regulations requirements.

Affordable Housing 7.22 West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council applied for a judicial

review of the Secretary of State’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) to Parliament in 2014 on changes to national planning policy. Those changes sought to exempt developments of 10 or less dwellings from planning obligations for affordable housing and social infrastructure contributions and to introduce a new measure known as the Vacant Building Credit.

75

Appendix

The High Court handed down its judgment on the case on 31st

July 2015. The High Court found in favour of the challenge by the local authorities and quashed the amendments to the NPPG. The Secretary of State appealed the judgment and the Court of Appeal then quashed the decision of the High Court.

Reading Borough Council has been considering its options for implementing its affordable housing policy in the light of this decision. At its meeting of the Strategic Environment Planning and Transport Committee on 13th July 2016, the Council discussed the outcome of the Court of Appeal’s decision on its challenge (http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/5651/Item09-SEPT-C-Report-on-C-of-Appeal-judgement-05-16/pdf/Item09_SEPT_C_Report_on_C_of_Appeal_judgement_05_16.pdf ).

Having considered its options, the Committee agreed the following as the basis for determining planning applications where Policy DM6 of the SDPD is relevant:

To implement Policy DM6 as currently adopted in the SDPD but excluding proposals that solely involve the conversion of an existing property, where the conversion involves the provision of 10 or less dwelling units (i.e. not HMOs), or the replacement of dwellings by the same number of replacement dwellings where there is no net increase.

The proposal relates to the conversion of an existing property and the three rear dormer roof extensions are not considered to be significant extensions to the property. Therefore, on the basis of the above amendment to Policy DM6 the proposal is not considered to require an affordable housing contribution in this instance.

CIL Given the nature of the proposals the scheme is not liable to any CIL contribution. Representations 7.23 Concern has been raised about the usage of the building. The building’s authorised

use is for self-contained flats, 3 on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor. The site visit confirmed that the premises remain in such use and the Council Tax department have confirmed their records show the flats (which were granted permission in 2001) banded as such since 2002. It is considered that the building is being used as flats and not an HMO.

7.24 Concern has also been raised about works already undertaken to the building.

Further to the site visit by the Case Officer and Heritage Officer, which included access to the basement, ground and first floor and garden, it appeared that the works were confined to internal re-decoration and replacement of carpets/vinyl floor coverings as well as updating of kitchen units. These elements would be considered de minimis in terms of planning.

76

http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/5651/Item09-SEPT-C-Report-on-C-of-Appeal-judgement-05-16/pdf/Item09_SEPT_C_Report_on_C_of_Appeal_judgement_05_16.pdf



Appendix

7.25 No works are proposed to the surrounding brick wall, nor have they been undertaken.

7.26 Any planning applications received for similar developments would be considered on

their merits. Similarly, a previous refusal on another property does not automatically mean that a similar proposal would not be acceptable elsewhere.

7.27 All other material considerations are covered in the above report. Equality 7.28 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.

7.29 In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would

be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development. CONCLUSION 8. On the basis of the above, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle and

with regard to the impact on the Listed Building, character and appearance of the Conservation Area, impact on neighbouring properties, future occupiers and parking. The planning application is accordingly recommended for approval subject to the conditions and informatives listed.

Plans: To be advised in an update as amended plans are expected. Case Officer: Ethne Humphreys

77

Appendix

78

Appendix

79

KATESGROVE

81

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 5 April 2017 Ward: Katesgrove App No.: 170199/REG3 Address: 11 Home Farm Close Proposal: Front extension and alterations to mid-terrace house. Applicant: Reading Borough Council Date received: 9 February 2017 Minor Application: 8 week target decision date : 6 April 2017 RECOMMENDATION Grant.

CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE 1. TL1 - Full – time limit – three years 2. M1 - Materials to Match Existing 3. AP1 - Development as Approved Plans INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE 1. Standard positive and proactive informative. 2. Your attention is drawn to the terms and conditions of this permission. Any development which is carried out but which differs materially from the approved plans and details, or does not comply with any condition(s) or planning obligation(s) attached to the permission may result in the Council taking action to remedy the breach of planning control. If you are in any doubt please contact the Council. 3. Your attention is drawn to the potential requirement for submission of a Building Regulations application for the proposed development. Please contact Building Control on 0118 937 2449 for advice. 4. Complaints are commonly received about noise and dust caused by construction and demolition works, particularly working outside reasonable hours and smoke from bonfires associated with the burning of waste on site. The developer is reminded that construction and demolition associated with the approved development will be subject to environmental health law. 5. During the course of construction, the developer should take care to ensure that no part of this development (foundations, eaves, guttering, etc.) would encroach on, under or across the boundary line with the adjoining property, as the requisite Notice has not been served on the owner of that property. This permission does not confer any right of access onto land that is not under the developer's control. The developer should also be mindful of the obligations and requirements of the Party Wall Act (1996) details of which can be found at: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/partywall 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The site comprises a mid terrace two storey dwelling. The surrounding area

consists of largely similar residential dwellings.

83

2. PROPOSAL 2.1 This application is for the erection of a single storey extension to

accommodate a ground floor shower room and WC. The extension will have a floor area of approximately 4.4 square metres.

3. PLANNING HISTORY None. 4. CONSULTATIONS 4.1 Statutory: No statutory consultations were required given the nature of the application. 4.2 Non-statutory:

• Transport Development Control – No objections subject to inclusion of

informative. 4.3 Public consultation:

• 5 properties were consulted by neighbour consultation letter. A site notice was displayed by the applicant’s agent. The consultation period expired on 17 March 2017. No representations were received.

5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

84

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 Planning Practice Guidance

• Design 5.3 Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy

CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking)

5.4 Sites and Detailed Policies Document SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity)

DM9 (House Extensions and Ancillary Accommodation) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters)

5.5 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance

• Parking Standards and Design (Supplementary Planning Document). • A Design Guide to House Extensions (Supplementary Planning Guidance).

6. APPRAISAL Main Issues 6.1 The main issues are:

i. Impact on character and appearance ii. Impact on neighbours iii. Transport issues

Impact on character and appearance 6.2 The proposal involves the erection of a modest single storey front extension

with a mono-pitch roof. The structure will extend across 4.2 metres of the property’s 7 metre frontage. This is similar to a number of extensions in the area, including one at the neighbouring property (15 Home Farm Close). The proposed structure is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.

Impact on neighbours

85

6.3 The proposed structure will extend no further than the existing front extension at 15 Home Farm Close. It will be located approximately 2.7 metres from the boundary with 9 Home Farm Close. It will therefore not have a detrimental impact on either property as a result of loss of light or overbearing.

Transport issues 6.4 The Transport Strategy Section note that there is an existing area of

hardstanding at the front of the property. Following the proposed extension there would still be sufficient length for one vehicle to park without overhanging the public footway. However there is not a dropped kerb crossing, therefore any vehicle parking on this area is currently undertaking an illegal manoeuvre over the public footway.

6.5 If the area of hard standing in front if the property is to be used for parking,

a dropped kerb will need to be constructed. The applicant has been advised that a license must be obtained from the Council's Highways section before any works are carried-out on any footway, carriageway, verge, or other land forming part of the public highway to agree the access construction details.

6.6 In principal the Transport Strategy Section do not have objections to this

proposal subject to the informative recommended above. Equalities impact assessment 6.7 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.

6.8 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 extension 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: HOM1 and HOM2

86

Case Officer: Ben Pratley

87

WHITLEY

89

COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 11 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 5th APRIL 2017 Ward: Whitley App No.: 170095 App Type: Reserved Matters Address: Green Park Village, Longwater Avenue Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval for Phase 3B1 for 23 dwellings (10/01461/OUT) Applicant: St Edward Homes Date valid: 1st February 2017 Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 3rd May 2017 Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 5th July 2017 RECOMMENDATIONS GRANT approval of Access (not approved by the original outline), Appearance, Layout, Scale and Landscape Reserved Matters

Conditions to include: 1. Approved plans (with respect to area of Phase 3B1 only - plots 300-322). Informatives 1. The original planning permission 10/01461/OUT (102172) still stands and all its

conditions and informatives still apply, in particular the landscape conditions 10, 11 & 12 include ongoing requirements. This approval and that permission should be read together.

2. The applicant has informed the Council that they operate their own programme of training and apprenticeships. The Applicant is advised to liaise with Reading UK CIC with regard to developing a specific Employment Skills Plan for this scheme, in accordance with the guidelines and principles set out in the Council’s Employment, Skills and Training Supplementary Planning Document (2013) http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/1064/Employment-Skills-and-Training-Supplementary-Planning-Document-Adopted-April-2013/pdf/Employment-Skills-And-Training-Supplementary-Planning-DocumentApr13.pdf

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is in the Green Park Village (GPV) site at the eastern side of

the overall Green Park Village development, adjacent to Longwater Avenue. This forms Phase 3B1 of the approved hybrid application i.e. Phase 1 in detail and the remainder in outline (under permission 10/01461/OUT (102172).

1.2 The site boundary is shown on the plan below. 1.3 Work has commenced on Phase 1, Phase 1C (road) and Phase 2A (Extra Care) and

Phase 3A.

1.4 The outline approval requires details for the reserved matters to be submitted, i.e. layout, scale, appearance, accesses to and within the development (not already approved by the outline) and landscaping. The reserved matters need to be in

91

http://www.reading.gov.uk/media/1064/Employment-Skills-and-Training-Supplementary-Planning-Document-Adopted-April-2013/pdf/Employment-Skills-And-Training-Supplementary-Planning-DocumentApr13.pdf



accordance with the principles of a number of approved drawings as set out under Condition 5 of the original permission and, in particular, in accordance with the Development Guidelines in the approved Design and Access Statement, November 2010. In addition, reserved matters should also include landscaping details to meet the requirements of condition 9.

1.5 Please note that place or street names used in this report are as shown on the submitted information and are not necessarily how these street or places will be formally named.

Phase 3B1 Site Boundary Plan

Consented Outline Siting

92

2. PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 2.1 The application is for the approval of reserved matters for Phase 3B1, which is for

23 apartments, cycle and bin stores, and landscaping, including a strip to the Longwater frontage which incorporates the Longwater Ditch.

2.2 The schedule of units is as follows:

House Type Number 1B Apartment 9 2B Apartment 14 Total 23

2.3 The following plans were received on 20th January 2017 unless otherwise stated:

• Location Plan – Extent of Phase 3B1- Drawing no: PL-P3B1-001 Rev P2, received 3rd February 2017

• Site Layout Plan - Drawing no: PL- P3B1-002 Rev P2, received 3rd February 2017 • Block Plan - Extent of Phase 3B1 - Drawing no: PL- P3B1-003 Rev P2, received

3rd February 2017 • Gateway Apartments (GWAs) 3B1 Plans – Drawing no: PL- P3B1-005 Rev • Gateway Apartments (GWAs) 3B1 Elevations – Drawing no: PL- P3B1-006 Rev P1 • Site Refuse Plan – Drawing no: PL-P3B1-007 Rev P1 • Phase 3B Street Scene Elevations – Drawing no: PL-P3B-004 Rev P1 • Phase 3B1 Existing Survey Levels – Drawing no: 4160316-SK1002 Rev P1 • Phase 3B1 Proposed Finished Floor Levels – Drawing no: 4160316-SK1111 Rev P1 • Phase 3B1 Landscape Masterplan – Drawing no: D2307 L.140 • Phase 3B1 Detailed Hard Landscape General Arrangement Plan – Drawing no:

D2307 L.242 • Phase 3B1 Detailed Soft Landscape General Arrangement Plan – Drawing no:

D2307 L.345

Other documentation and studies: • Design and Access Statement Phases 3B1 & 3B2, prepared by Broadway Malyan,

Reference 320934/6, received 20th January 2017 3. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1

• 85/TP/690 – Business uses including light industrial, warehousing and ancillary offices together with associated service areas, roads, aprons and car parking areas. Land north of Foudry Brook. Approved 26/07/1995.

• 85/TP/691 – Business uses including light industrial, warehousing and ancillary offices together with associated service areas, roads, aprons and car parking areas. Land north of Foudry Brook. Approved 26/07/1995.

• 07/00572/SCO - Request for a Scoping Opinion in respect of development relating to approximately 17,000 sq m of B1 floorspace, 737 residential units and community facilities to include a one form entry primary school. Observations Sent 02/07/2007.

• 07/01275/OUT - A planning application for mixed-use development comprising: "Phase 1 (submitted in full with no matters reserved and as defined on Plan Ref. PA-P1-002): the construction of housing - 46 houses and 22 apartments (Class C3), local retail (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5), management suite, village hall, engineering and infrastructure works including reconfiguration of the lake, lakeside access, car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes, services and infrastructure,

93

landscaping and other associated works; and subsequent phases (submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for details of the main access proposals): the construction of housing - 669 dwellings (Class C3), extra care housing with ancillary community uses (Class C2), 16,000 square metres office space (Class B1), one-form entry primary school including nursery (Class D1), health surgery (Class D1), sports pitches, children's play facilities, engineering and infrastructure works including reconfiguration of the lake and vehicular access, lakeside access, car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes, services and infrastructure, landscaping and other associated works." Approved 31/03/2009.

• 10/00587/SCO - Request for a Scoping Opinion in respect of development relating to 730-750 new homes including an 80 unit Continuing Care Retirement Community scheme with extra care ancillary community facilities, 8 family homes for disabled persons, 16,000 sq m of use class B1 floor space, a One Form Entry Primary School with sports pitches for dual use with the local community, associated local centre, community and recreation facilities, a network of dedicated pedestrian and cycle routes and the provision of more than 8 hectares of open space, fully equipped children's play facilities and sports pitches, in addition to a 4 ha lake. Observations Sent 24/06/2010.

• 10/01461/OUT (102172) – A planning application for mixed-use development comprising: Phase 1 (submitted in full with no matters reserved and as defined in area on Plan Ref. PL-P1-001) for the construction of housing (Class C3), local retail (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5), management suite, village hall, engineering and infrastructure works including reconfiguration of the lake, lakeside access, car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes, services & infrastructure, landscaping and other associated works; and Subsequent phases (submitted in outline with all matters reserved except for details of the main access proposals) for the construction of housing (Class C3), extra care housing with ancillary community uses (Class C2), offices (Class B1), one-form entry primary school Class (Class D1), health surgery (Class D1), Nursery (Class D1), sports pitches, children's play facilities, engineering and infrastructure works including reconfiguration of the lake and vehicular access, lakeside access, car parking, pedestrian and cycle routes, services & infrastructure, landscaping and other associated works – Approved 1/7/2011

• 142001/APPCON – Condition 27 Phase 1 of 102172 – Discharged 17/2/15 • 150271/APPCON – Condition 4 of 102172 – Discharged 2/4/15 • 150718/APPCON – Condition 16 of 102172 – Discharged 29/5/15 • 150267/APPCON – Condition 15 Phase 1 of 102172 – Discharged 5/8/15 • 151054/NMA – Phasing Plan amendment – Approved 7/8/15 • 151159/APPCON – Condition 51 of 1012172 – Discharged 8/9/15 • 151069/ADV – Billboard Sign – Approved 27/11/15 • 151071/APPCON – Condition 42 –ground investigation - Part Discharge 27/11/15 • 151070/REM – Phase 1c – Road – Approved 14/1/16 • 151761/REM – Phase 2A Extra Care And Flats above Parking – Approved 19/1/16 • 152276/NMA – Phase 1 Urban House – Approved 24/2/16 • 151068 – Marketing Suite (temp for 5 years) – Approved 29/2/16 • 160452/NMA – Phase 1 Urban House – Approved 20/4/16 • 160927/APPCON – Parking Management Strategy Phase 2A – discharged 5/7/16 • 160396/NMA – Phasing Plan – Approved 5/8/16 • 160700/REM – Phase 3A 74 houses – Approved 11/8/16 • 161229/NMA – Phase 1 Flats 1-10 – Approved 16/9/16 • 161406/NMA – Phase 1 houses – Approved 16/9/16 • 150727/APPCON – Condition 45 Japanese Knotweed – Approved 26/9/16 • 161746 – Phasing Plan – Approved 19/10/16 • 161881/NMA – Condition 30 removal – Code for Sustainable Homes – Approved

28/10/16 • 162050/REM – Phase 2 - 30 flats and retail – Approved 24/1/17

94

• 161893/REM - Phase 5 83 Houses – Approved 24/1/17 • 170136/SCR – Request for an Environmental Impact Screening Opinion in relation to

their proposals for phase 6b of the Green Park Village development – Screening opinion sent 24/2/17

• 161926/APPCON - Phase 1 - 17-materials; 18- lighting; 19- access routes; 21-vehicle parking; 23- bicycle storage; 49- dewatering strategy – Approved 6/3/17

• 170117/APPCON - Conditions 15 -Archaeology (Phase 1 part and 2-6) and 49 – Dewatering (Phases 2-5) – Approved 10/3/17

• 170096/REM – Phase 3B2 for 143 dwellings – pending decision 4. CONSULTATIONS

(i) Statutory 4.1 None

(ii) Non-Statutory Natural Environment – Ecology 4.2 Awaiting comments Natural Environment – Trees/Landscape 4.3 The Officer states that “The information submitted only appears to relate to

condition 9 a & d – part c (services) are missing and part b (play areas) is not relevant.” In relation to part d and with reference to Phase 3B1 Detailed Soft Landscape General Arrangement Plan D2307 L.345, I have no objections subject to any comments Ecology may have on the suitability of the species proposed adjacent to the watercourse/ditch.”

4.4 The Agent confirmed that a Service Plan was submitted for Phase 3B2 (the subject

of a separate REM 170096), which links into the apartment block within Phase 3B1. The Natural Environment Officer responded that “the service plan submitted does not cover the full extent of Phase 3B 1 – part of the frontage is omitted. From the plan submitted, I note the inclusion of an 11Kv electrical cable through the existing, retained trees on the Longwater Av frontage (the part shown anyway) which I assume continues along the frontage – how will this be implemented without harming root systems?”

4.5 A further response from the agent is awaited and will be included in an update.

Transport 4.6 The Transport Officer’s comments are as follows: “The parking provision for the

whole of the Green Park Village Application site was approved under the outline planning permission. For dwellings, the agreed level of parking is car parking is 1 space per 1 and 2 bed flat and 2 spaces per dwelling.

4.7 The Phase 3B1 development comprises of 23 dwellings in total. The parking provision associated with this phase was provided under Phase 3A. A total of 27 spaces parking spaces were allocated to the Phase 3B1 apartment block. 4.8 The parking is in accordance with the plan submitted for the outline application.

The proposed layout of the parking areas are acceptable and provide adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles to enter and leave the parking areas. However, a car parking allocation plan for the Phase 3B1 apartments should be submitted. I am

95

happy to deal with this under condition 21 of the outline permission requiring a parking layout and strategy for this phase.

4.9 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 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.

4.10 The cycle store is conveniently located on the ground floor of the building with

external access on the north-western side of the building and an integral door into the apartment building. We require detailed plans confirming that the cycle parking layout within the store complies with the Council’s adopted standards. However, I am happy to deal with this under condition 23 of the outline permission.

4.11 Refuse collection will occur from the adjacent mews areas. The refuse store is

conveniently located on the ground floor of the building with external access on the north-western side of the building, approximately 12.5m from the collection point. A swept path analysis using a 10.2m long vehicle was submitted as part of the Phase 3A application drawings.

4.12 There are no transport objections in respect of Phase 3B1, subject to conditions and informatives from the original permission continuing to apply.

(iii) Public Consultation

4.13 No comments 5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE

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

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

5.2 The following national and local planning policy and guidance is relevant to this

application:

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

Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008) CS1: Sustainable Construction and Design CS2: Waste Minimisation CS3: Social Inclusion and Diversity CS4: Accessibility and Intensity of Development CS5: Inclusive Access CS7: Design and the Public Realm CS9: Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities

CS14: Provision of Housing CS15: Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix CS16: Affordable Housing CS20: Implementation of Reading Transport Strategy CS22: Transport Assessments

96

CS24: Car / Cycle parking CS36: Biodiversity and Geology CS38: Trees, Hedges and Woodland

Reading Borough Local Development Framework - Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) SD1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1: Adaptation to Climate Change DM3: Infrastructure Planning DM4: Safeguarding Amenity DM5: Housing Mix DM10: Private and Communal Outdoor Space DM12: Access, Traffic and Highway-related Matters DM18: Tree Planting

Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

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

6. APPRAISAL

(i) Principle of Development

6.1 The principle of residential development was established by the grant of the outline consent (10/01461/OUT). The purpose of this application is to obtain approval of those details not provided at outline stage. Officers can confirm that the residential proposals are generally in accordance with the parameters and principles set out by the approved scheme.

(ii) Layout

6.2 The Gateway Apartment, located on the western side of the Gateway Boulevard is

to frame the entrance to the site from Longwater Avenue. This is as intended through the consented outline.

6.3 The block footprint has changed and it has been re-sited, which has led to a better

separation between the block and the houses to the west and east (plots 146 and 184 within the approved Phase 3A)

6.4 The apartments have south facing balconies which wrap round the corner to

visually lead onto the Boulevard and the façade has been amended from the outline consent and is now stepped. This has created a larger area of green space immediately adjacent to Plot 146, which is considered acceptable.

6.5 The block has hard and soft landscaping around it and access to other landscaped

spaces adjacent to Longwater Avenue, which accord with the layout principles of the consented scheme

6.6 The cycle and bin stores are at ground floor level as at outline stage, albeit in a

slightly different position due to the amended footprint of the block. 6.7 Overall the small amendments to layout are not considered to affect the principles

established through the consented scheme and provide some subtle improvements.

97

(iii) Scale 6.8 The outline consent established storey heights and ridge height parameters. The

proposed scale of Phase 3B1 complies with the consented strategy of four storeys. 6.9 The scale of the proposed building would therefore be consistent with what was

approved by the outline consent and would be acceptable and in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.

(iv) Appearance

6.10 The Gateway Apartment block is proposed to be contemporary in appearance with

Light Mist Hardiplank cladding on all facades expect for the south-eastern element. This is to visually link the houses with the apartments.

6.11 The remainder of the building façade is proposed to be grey fibre cement cladding,

which will be the same or similar for key locations. A vertical emphasis is used to create a consistent approach between the houses and the apartments on Longwater Avenue.

6.12 At outline stage it was intended that this block would be much simpler/ less “fussy”

in appearance compared to the houses within other phases and the submitted details are consistent with this approach. It is considered therefore that the proposals would be acceptable in their appearance and design and that the materials palette presented is consistent with that approved at outline stage and links in with other parts of the development which have been approved in detail. Therefore the proposal would be in accordance with Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy and the principles of high quality design set out in the NPPF.

(v) Accesses

6.13 The outline application covered means of access and therefore the traffic impact of

the proposals were assessed and approved at this stage. However, this phase does not include any accesses

6.14 With respect to parking the provision for the whole of the Green Park Village

Application site was approved under the outline planning permission and for flats the agreed level is 1 space per 1 and 2 bed flat.

6.15 The Transport Officer has confirmed that the 27 car parking spaces associated with

this phase are within the Phase 3A area (already approved under REM 161893). A car parking allocation plan is required, but the Transport Officer is content that this be submitted as part of a discharge of condition application under condition 21 of the outline consent.

6.16 A cycle store is proposed on the ground floor. Transport has confirmed that details of the layout should be submitted to discharge condition 23 of the outline consent.

6.17 Access to the refuse collection point is approximately 12.5 m from the refuse area,

which is acceptable. 6.18 There are no transport objections in respect of Phase 3B1, subject to conditions and informatives from the original permission continuing to apply.

98

(vi) Landscaping/ open space 6.19 The landscape strategy is to create a robust and sustainable scheme using a blend

of man-made and natural stone materials and to provide an attractive landscaped setting for the buildings aligned with Longwater Ditch. The proposed materials are a mix of concrete slab and block paving and asphalt, considered appropriate for the areas immediately around this apartment block

6.20 It is proposed to retain and enhance the Ditch with wetland planting and wildflower

grasses to reflect the palette of species used elsewhere within Green Park, as well as new tree planting. The Natural Environment Officer has confirmed that the soft landscaping details are acceptable. Comments from the Ecology officer will be reported in an update.

6.21 The materials and the landscaping approach are consistent with those established

through the outline approval. Landscaping conditions on the outline consent will still need to be met, and this is recommended as an informative.

(vii) Infrastructure Provision (Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy)

Employment, Skills and Training 6.22 The original outline permission pre-dated the Council’s Employment, Skills and

Training SPD (2013). However, the Applicant has confirmed that they operate their own programme of training and apprenticeships and have a company-wide target to increase site-based apprenticeships and training. An informative is recommended regarding working with Reading UK CIC to develop a scheme specific ESP.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 6.23 As the outline planning permission was granted before the Council’s introduced CIL

implementation of the development does not trigger liability to pay CIL. (viii) Equality 6.24 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. The principle of the development was approved at outline stage and details being considered under this application relate specifically to the function and form of the building and the layout of the external space.

6.25 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. 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 In conclusion the development of this site as detailed on the submitted plans and

information is considered to be of an acceptable appearance and scale, and layout and design and accords with relevant adopted policies and the principles established by the outline permission. It is recommended that this reserved matters application be granted subject to conditions.

Case Officer: Alison Amoah

99

APPENDIX 1: APPLICATION DRAWINGS

CGI of Boulevard Apartments (Phase 3B1 – lefthand block)

Site Layout

100

Elevations

101