COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES
READING BOROUGH COUNCIL
ITEM NO. 13
PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 11th November 2015
Ward: Minster
App No.: 151173
App Type: FULL
Address: Former DEFRA Government Offices Site, Coley Park, Wensley Road, Reading
Proposal: Residential development consisting of 71 residential dwellings (20 apartments)
with associated landscaping, open space, parking and access following the demolition of
the existing office buildings.
Applicant: Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
Date valid: 15th July 2015
Major Application: 13 week target decision date: 5th October 2015
Agreed Extension of time date: 30th November 2015
Planning Guarantee: 26 week date: 14th January 2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
Delegate to the Head of Planning & Regulatory Services to:
(i)
GRANT Full Planning Permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a
S.106 legal agreement or
(ii)
(ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the
30th November 2015 unless a later date is agreed by the Head of Planning
Development & Regulatory Services. The S106 legal agreement to secure:
a)
Affordable Housing: To provide 50 of the dwellings (26.5%) across both sites (Coley
Park & Elvian) as affordable units (subsidised housing that enables the asking price or rent
to be substantially lower than the prevailing market prices or rents in the locality, and is
subject to mechanisms that will ensure that the housing remains affordable for those who
cannot afford market housing) with 70% at affordable rent and 30% as shared ownership.
Equates to 19 dwellings (16.1%) on Elvian and 31 dwellings (43.7%) at Coley Park).
b)
Construction ESP: At least one (1) month prior to Implementation of the
Development a Construction ESP shall be submitted to the Council for Approval and
following approval the Construction ESP shall be implemented, observed and complied
with to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council.
Alternatively, a contribution towards an Employment Skills and Training Plan for
construction – to be prepared by Reading UK CIC.
c)
Facilities for Pedestrians: To mitigate the impact on the transport infrastructure
adjacent to the site with a financial contribution of £10,000 to go towards improvements
to the footpath towards Wensley Road. Payment to be made on the completion of the
agreement.
CONDITIONS TO INCLUDE:
1.
2.
3.
4.
TL1 - Full - time limit - three years
Approved Drawings
Roads to be provided
Details and samples of all materials to be used externally. Prior to commencement.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Access details to Coley Avenue to be submitted. Prior commencement
“Alligator teeth” to prevent two-way traffic to be provided prior to occupation
Roads to be provided prior to occupation
No dwelling shall be occupied until space for vehicle parking and turning has been
provided in accordance with the approved drawing. This area shall thereafter be kept
available for parking at all times
Bicycle storage in accordance with approved drawings prior to occupation.
Bin storage in accordance with approved drawings prior to occupation
Construction Management Statements. Prior to commencement
Archaeological Investigation. Prior to commencement
Sustainable Drainage Scheme. Prior to commencement
Sustainable Drainage Implementation. Prior to occupation
Contaminated Land- Submission of remediation scheme. Prior to commencement
Contamination remediation scheme to be implemented and validation report to be
approved prior to construction
Control of noise and Dust – CMS to be submitted prior to commencement
Hours of working – construction and demolition
Bonfires
Bats – Licence prior to demolition
Nesting for birds
Details of hard and soft landscaping scheme to be submitted and approved prior to
commencement.
Submission of landscaping maintenance and aftercare details – replacement of any
failed planting within 5 years.
Landscaping and Play Area Management Plan. Prior to occupation.
Details of boundary treatments to be submitted and approved prior to commencement
Prior to occupation evidence to be submitted to and acknowledged, demonstrating
that 50% of the dwellings hereby permitted will achieve a minimum of a 20%
improvement in the dwelling emission rate over the target emission rate.
The residential flats hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Council has been
notified in writing of the full postal address of the units.
Facilities Management Plan submission
Noise assessment to be submitted and approved prior to commencement.
Waste Management Plan to be submitted and approved prior to occupation.
INFORMATIVES TO INCLUDE:
1. Terms and conditions.
2. Building regulations.
3. A section 106 legal agreement relates to this permission.
4. Pre-Commencement conditions
5. Encroachment
6. Play Area Equipment
7. Access construction
8. Damage to the highway
9. Works affecting the highway
10. Environmental protection information regarding the control of nuisance during
construction and demolition.
11. Positive and proactive.
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
The site consists of former DEFRA office buildings (Class B1) with associated parking
and garages approximately 2 miles to the southwest of Reading Town Centre. The
site has an approximate area of 1.91 ha and lies within a predominantly residential
area with associated community facilities.
1.2
The site slopes gently down from north to south with the southern edge being
elevated above the level of Rembrandt Way. To the north, the site backs onto the
residential properties on Froxfield Avenue and Baydon Drive with a screening buffer
provided by the existing tree lined public footpath running from the main entrance
of the site westwards towards Courage Park and links with Wensley Road to the
west. To the west side, the site adjoins a flatted development on Rembrandt Way.
To the south-west side, across Rembrandt Way, is Berkshire Independent Hospital
and to the south is a roundabout linking Rembrandt Way, Swallows Croft and
Wensley Road. A medical surgery is directly to the south adjoining the roundabout
and on the east side the site is bounded by flatted developments with access from
Wensley Road.
1.3
The existing access to the site is provided from Coley Avenue through a main
entrance flanked by 2 Grade II listed gate lodges known as East and West Lodges.
The listed lodges are outside the application site. Coley Avenue connects to
Berkeley Avenue (A4) to the north through a set of traffic lights. To the south-east
side of the site is a vehicular exit point that provides a link with Rembrandt Way
that is not in use.
1.4
The site is covered by a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO).
1.5
Members of Planning Applications committee visited the site on 3rd September 2015.
Location Plan (not to scale)
The Site
Site Aerial Photograph (not to scale)
PROPOSAL AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
2.
•
Full planning permission is sought for residential development consisting of 71
residential dwellings ( including 20 apartments) with associated landscaping, open
space, parking and access following the demolition of the existing office buildings
•
The proposal is for 71 residential units comprising the following range of
accommodation types:
Table 1 House Types
Dwelling Type
2 bed apartment
2 bed FOG
2 bed house
3 bed house
4 bed house
Total
•
Total
20
1
2
18
30
71
Access
All the proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access to the site via the existing
Coley Avenue access. To limit the number of vehicles exiting from Coley Avenue,
two-way vehicular site access from Coley Avenue will be limited to the first 21
dwellings. The remaining 50 dwellings will exit from Rembrandt Way in a one way
flow. To ensure the proposed vehicular movements are adhered to on the site,
measures in the form of “alligator teeth” have been proposed around the site. In
addition, pedestrian links connecting with the general area are proposed.
•
Associated parking provision for all homes plus visitor spaces is proposed
•
New play space area on the north-west side of the site is proposed
Proposals Layout (Not to scale - Source: Design and Access Statement)
2.1
The following plans and supporting documents were submitted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extent of Application No. (01)001 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Existing Site Layout No.(02)001 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Amended Proposed Site Layout (02)002 P4 revised 20/10/2015
Amended Proposed Site Layout – Coloured (02)002 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Amended House Type A (03)010 P3 revised 6/10/2015
House Type B (03)020 P1 dated 16/06/2015
House Type C (03)030 P1 dated 16/06/2015
House Type D & D1 (03)040 P1 dated 16/06/2015
House Type D2 & D3 (03)041 P1 dated 16/06/2015
House Type E & E1 (03)050 P1 dated 16/06/2015
House Type F & F1 (03)060 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Amended Block 1 Floor Plans (03)100 P3 revised 6/10/2015
Amended Block 2 Floor Plans (03)200 P3 revised 6/10/2015
Ancillary Buildings (03)300 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Proposed Site Sections (04)001 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Proposed Street Elevations (05)001 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Proposed Street Elevations – Coloured (05)001 P1 dated 16/06/2015
Amended Proposed Block 1 Elevations (05)100 P2 revised 29/09/2015
Amended Proposed Block 2 Elevations (05)200 P2 revised 29/09/2015
Street Lighting Layout 25995/2003/004 A dated 17/06/2015
Tree Protection Plan TW19741-03A revised 07/09/2015
Landscape Masterplan TWWL19741-10A revised 07/092015
Landscape Strategy Plan TWWL19741-09C revised 07/092015
Other documentation and studies:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Design and Access Statement
Archaeological Assessment
Site Investigation
Transport Assessment
Residential Travel Plan
Air Quality Impact Assessment
External Lighting Plan
Flood Risk Assessment
Energy Assessment
Heritage Assessment
Ecological Appraisal
Geo-environmental and geotechnical Interpretative report – Revision 1
Preliminary Bat Report
Bat Roost Activity Survey Report
Bat Activity Report
Reptile Survey Report
Phase II Surveys Method Statement
Arboricultural Method Statement
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Tree Report
Open Space Report
Viability Study
2.2
In accordance with The Town and Country (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2011 and as amended (2015), the Local Planning Authority were asked
to provide a Screening Opinion on whether the development proposed is
development that is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue
of factors such as its size, nature or location. The conclusion provided was that an
Environmental Statement was not required to accompany the planning application.
2.3
This is an unusual planning proposal in that following the appeal decision and High
Court judgement on the Elvian site (12/01233/FUL - see planning application report
for 151175 on this agenda), which supported the use of part of the 5 ha Elvian site
for school use, the applicant has come to an arrangement with the owners of Coley
Park (the Education Funding Agency - EFA) and the owners of the Elvian site (The
Licenced Victuallers) to propose a new secondary school to be provided on 3 ha of
the Elvian site to be operated as a Free School in exchange for the Coley Park site
being used for residential development by Taylor Wimpey in addition to 2 ha for
residential development on the Elvian site.
2.4
The applicant’s contractional arrangement requires that the planning applications
for both sites are submitted and considered together. The only reason in planning
terms for the applications to be linked is the proposed arrangement for affordable
housing to be provided across both sites to meet our policy requirements.
3.
PLANNING HISTORY
3.1
131196 - Screening Opinion relating to the proposed Wren Secondary Free School.
4.
CONSULTATIONS
(i)
4.1
Environment Agency
As the site is within Flood Zone 1, it is recommended that the requirements of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance
(PPG) are followed as well as the Local Plan policies where appropriate.
(ii)
4.2
Statutory
Non-Statutory
Berkshire Archaeology
An archaeological desk based assessment was submitted with the application. This
document provides useful information on the archaeological potential of the site
from a number of sources and on previous development within the site. A small
number of find spots and sites dating from the Palaeolithic through to the postmedieval period (with the exception of the Iron Age) are recorded within the
vicinity of the site. However as is concluded within the report the low level of
archaeological finds recorded within the area is in part due to the lack of
opportunity to carry out archaeological work within the wider area during the 20th
century and therefore does not reliably reflect the archaeological potential of the
area.
4.3
It is clear from the report that the site will have suffered some impact from earlier
use such as gravel quarry pits and previous/existing developments which may have
disturbed archaeological deposits. However the site occupies a large area, with
considerable open areas that lie outside those previously impacted. Further
information on the archaeological potential of the site and the impact of the
proposed development on any archaeological remains is therefore required for
these areas.
4.4
Therefore it is recommended that a condition requiring approval of a written
scheme of archaeological investigation is attached to any planning permission
granted, to properly investigate and mitigate the impact of the development.
4.5
4.6
4.7
RBC Leisure
There are no objections to the proposal from a leisure point of view subject to the
appropriate conditions and informatives in relation to the proposed open space and
play area.
RBC Housing Strategy
When considering the affordable housing proposed on this development, this
application should be considered in conjunction with the Elvian School Bath
Road/Southcote Lane site development.
Across both sites, after considerable negotiation, the developer has proposed 50
affordable units (see table below for details of tenure and location). This
represents around 26.5% of the total number of housing units being developed and
after consideration of the viability of the scheme, the tenure, type and level of
affordable housing proposed is acceptable at just below the 30% that would
normally be provided as per planning policy.
Table 2 Tenure Split
Tenure Split
Rent – 70%
Shared Ownership – 30%
Table 3 Elvian and Coley
Elvian,
Southcote
Lane
1BA
2BA
Defra, Coley Avenue
2BA
2B FOG
2BH
3BH
4BH
4.8
4.9
Rent
6 @ 485sqft
10@727sqft
Rent
10@732sqft
2@808sqft (2st)
5@1113sqft (2.5st)
2@1255sqft (3st)
Shared Ownership
3*2B FOG @ 692sqft
Shared Ownership
10@781sqft
1@653sqft
1@875sqft
RBC Housing Strategy will work with a registered provider housing association to
enable these affordable housing units to come forward.
RBC Natural Environment – Trees
With reference to Proposed Site Layout drawing (02)002 P4, Tree Report
TW19741tr, Tree Reference Plan TW19741-01, Arboricultural Impact Assessment
TW19741aiaA, Arboricultural Method Statement TW19741ams, Tree Protection Plan
TW19741-03A, Landscape Strategy Plan TWWL 19741-09 C, Landscape Masterplan
TWWL 19741-10A and Street Lighting Layout drawing 25995/2003/004 A, there are
no objections to the proposal, subject to appropriate conditions on tree protection
and landscaping.
4.10
RBC Natural Environment – Ecology
Subject to appropriate conditions to protect endangered species and biodiversity
enhancement, there are no objections to the proposals on ecology grounds.
4.11
RBC Transport – Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS)
The applicant has submitted a substantial flood risk assessment and drainage report
and its conclusions are found acceptable.
4.12
The report acknowledges that the site is outside of a flood risk area and provides
details of how the drainage will comply with the SuDS requirements and reduce
surface water runoff.
4.13
The proposed drainage complies with the requirements of the NPPG and is
acceptable. Subject to appropriate conditions, there is no objection to the
proposals.
4.14
4.15
Thames Water
No objection to the proposals in terms of sewerage and water infrastructure
capacity, subject to appropriate conditions and informatives regarding surface
water drainage, waste and water.
RBC Transport - (see Appendix 1 for full comments)
The Coley Park site is located between the A4 Berkeley Avenue and the C411
Wensley Road where frequent premier bus route No.11 is located. The site is
currently accessed by two access points one from the Coley Avenue, which
connects to the A4 Bath Road and one from Rembrandt Way which connects to the
C411 Wensley Road. The site was previously occupied by the Department of
Fisheries and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with an office space of 6,766m² and
accommodated approximately 300 people at its peak, although approximately 80
staff occupied the building at the time of its closure in 2011.
4.16
The site is also well located with regards local services and schools and from the
sites entrances is within a maximum of 250 metres of bus stops on Wensley Road
served by premier route 11 which operates on a 20 minute frequency, linking the
site with Reading Town Centre.
4.17
Although my comments below are solely for this application reference will be made
to an application for the Elvian School site which has been submitted
simultaneously given they are linked. Given the link between the two sites and the
proposed level of development a Transport Assessment has been submitted with the
application which has been produced in a way that assesses the transport
implications of both developments, an approach which was agreed by officers
during the pre-application discussions.
Comments on the submitted Transport Assessment are as follows:
Trip Rates
4.18
The trip rates generated for the existing office use have been taken from the Trip
Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) 1 and on reviewing the sites it is
confirmed that these represent a suitable comparison to the application site and
comply with the requirements of the TRICS Good Practice Guide.
4.19
The trip rates generated for the proposed residential use have however been taken
from a survey of the traffic flow along Coley Avenue. Coley Avenue accommodates
vehicular access to a total of 89 residential units comprising of 56 houses and 33
flats and therefore is a suitable comparison to the proposed residential
development.
4.20
Given the existing office use on the application site the proposed development will
result in a reduction in trips on the network and therefore the principle of the
development is acceptable.
4.21
It is also confirmed that that the trip rates for Elvian School Site are acceptable. It
is important to stress given that these trip rates also feed into the junction
assessments undertaken as part of this application. This ensures that the impacts of
both developments have been thoroughly examined.
Junction Assessments / Road Capacity
4.22
During pre-application discussions, assessments of the following junctions were
required to ensure that the number of vehicle movements generated by the
development would not have a detrimental impact on them.
•
•
•
Circuit Lane / Southcote Lane
Bath Road / Circuit Lane
Bath Road / Liebenrood Road
1
TRICS is the national standard system of trip generation and analysis in the UK and Ireland, and is used as an
integral and essential part of the Transport Assessment process. It is a database system, which allows its users
to establish potential levels of trip generation for a wide range of development and location scenarios, and is
widely used as part of the planning application process by both developer consultants and local authorities and
is accepted by Inspectors as a valid way to ascertain likely trip generation
•
•
•
•
•
Southcote Lane / Bath Road
Bath Road / Berkeley Avenue
Berkeley Avenue / Coley Avenue
Berkeley Avenue / St Saviours Road and;
Berkeley Avenue / Rose Kiln Lane
4.23
Assessment of the existing site has been undertaken in accordance with the
requirements of the Department for Transport (DfT) document Guidance on
Transport Assessments (March 2007), which states in section 4.7 “the quantification
of the person trips generated from the existing site and their modal distribution,
or, where the site is vacant or partially vacant, the person trips which might be
generated by any extant planning permission or permitted uses”
4.24
To determine existing vehicular movements on the network surveys of the above
junctions were undertaken together with automatic traffic counts (ATC) along the
A4 Bath Road, A4155 Bath Road, A4 Berkeley Avenue, Southcote Lane, Liebenrood
Road and Coley Avenue during March 2015. These surveys have been checked
against Reading Boroughs own permanent ATC sites in the area and the results
obtained are acceptable and accurately reflect base flows.
4.25
The main junction to consider for this planning application is the Berkeley Avenue /
Coley Avenue signalised junction given that all vehicles accessing the site will be
required to travel through it. The assessments have been accepted and confirm
that following development, the junction stays within capacity with only a minimal
increase incurring which is within the daily fluctuations on the network. It should
also be stated that the proposals result in betterment when compared against a
fully occupied 550-pupil Elvian School and Defra offices.
4.26
Given bullet point 3 of paragraph 32 of the NPPF which states proposals should only
be refused on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts are severe, a
refusal on traffic generation grounds would be hard to defend at an appeal.
4.27
The proposed development will generate less vehicular movements in the AM peak
than the existing office use on the site., This is due to the office having the
majority of its trips concentrated around the AM peak, whereas residential
development trips are undertaken over a wider period and are not as concentrated.
The proposed developments on this site and that of the Elvian school site will result
in an increase in trips in the AM and PM Peaks above the existing uses on both of
these sites but these are insignificant and therefore will not detrimentally impact
the flow of traffic in the vicinity of the site.
4.28
The capacity of main urban roads is assessed in accordance with the requirements
of Department for Transport Document TA 79/99 Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads.
This document provides details of the capacity of different types of urban roads
dependant on the urban environment they travel through. The 2-way capacity of
the A4 Berkeley Avenue at the junction with Coley Avenue according to TA 79/99
equates to 1550 vehicles per hour in each direction and the traffic from the
proposed development when added to the network results in flows that are
considerably under the capacity of the road. The 2-way capacity of Coley Avenue
Lane is 900 vehicles per hour in each direction and again the predicted flows are
considerably below the capacity of the road.
4.29
For robustness, an analysis has been undertaken of the committed developments in
the vicinity of the site and includes the proposed / completed developments at the
Bath Road Reservoir, St James Court, the Happy Prospect public house and the IKEA
Store. When the trips from these developments are included, the road network is
still within capacity as stated by TA 79/99 and as the increases are within the daily
fluctuations experienced on the network, they can be accommodated.
Access Design and general layout
4.30
All the proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access to the site via the existing
Coley Avenue access, but only a limited number of dwellings will use it to egress
the site. Measures in the form of alligator teeth have been proposed around the
site to limit the amount of vehicular movement exiting from this point and in order
to distribute vehicular movements between the 2 accesses. The distribution is 21
dwellings exiting from Coley Avenue and 50 dwellings exiting from Rembrandt Way.
No vehicular access will be permitted from Rembrandt Way therefore the majority
of the traffic flow through the site will be in the form of one-way flow, this
arrangement has been deemed acceptable as this reduces the demand for vehicles
utilising the Coley Avenue arm of the A4 Berkeley Avenue / Coley Avenue signalised
junction.
4.31
The vehicular access located onto Coley Avenue is reduced in width to
approximately 3.5m which would only be sufficient to accommodate one-way
movement. In principle this is deemed acceptable subject to a drawing being
submitted illustrating a give way marking at the access as has previously been
agreed. These can however be dealt with by way of a condition.
4.32
The vehicular egress onto Rembrandt Way is to be reduced to 2.75m but a section
will be over runnable to allow for refuse vehicle to exit the site.
Parking Standards
4.33
The proposed parking standards comply with the national policy as contained within
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), taking account of local
circumstances including car ownership figures, public transport provision and
proximity to local facilities.
4.34
The car parking spaces are to the correct dimensions including the garages which
are 3m x 7m to ensure that as well as parking they can also be utilized for storage
if required.
4.35
Cycle parking for the site complies with the required standards.
General Comments
4.36
Access to refuse bins on days of collection can be accommodated without the
requirement of extensive carrying distances and is therefore deemed acceptable.
4.37
A Residential Travel Plan has been submitted and is deemed sufficient in principle,
however Table 5-1 within the Travel Plan only targets a reduction of 3.8% in vehicle
trips over a 5 year period, which does not appear to be a significant reduction.
There also appears to be limited measures to entice residents to move away from
the use of the car following occupation. However, it is acceptable for this to be
looked at in more detail once the full travel plan has been submitted.
4.38
Although the proposed development will result in fewer pedestrian movements than
the existing permitted use the proposal will increase the number of trips likely to
be undertaken by parents with push chars / buggies, in particular to the parade of
shops and also the bus stops along Wensley Road. Given this the applicant should
contribute towards the following improvements within the vicinity of the
application site.
•
•
Introduction of pedestrian dropped crossings along with tactile paving at the
end of Coley Avenue to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs /
buggies and people in wheelchairs to and from the application site.
Upgrade of the Kissing gate located between Coley Avenue and Wensley
Road to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and
people in wheel chairs to and from the application site.
4.39
The proposed improvements set out above meets the tests specified within the
National Planning Policy Guidance (Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 23b-001-20150326
Planning obligations), the levy Regulations 122 and 123 and paragraph 204 of the
National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed improvements are therefore a
reasonable request.
4.40
In the circumstances, there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to
appropriate conditions and informatives.
4.41
4.42
4.43
4.44
4.45
4.46
4.47
RBC Conservation and Listed Buildings
The proposed development would, in general, have a less visually intrusive effect
on the setting of the listed buildings than the current DEFRA site buildings.
RBC Environmental Health
No objection to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions and informatives
regarding the following:
•
Noise between residential properties – sound insulation of any building
•
Contaminated land
•
Construction and Demolition phase
RBC Public Health
There is no objection to the proposals subject to the provision of sustainable
transport modes, highway safety and capacity, communal green space/play area,
disabled access, local community services and energy efficiency mechanisms.
RBC Sustainability
The submitted application energy statement is considered acceptable as it accords
with current policy.
Reading UK CIC
Discussions are taking place to establish if Taylor Wimpey’s current Employment
and Skills Plan scheme meets our policy requirements and if it is compliance with
the plan will need to be included in a S106 legal agreement. Alternatively a
financial contribution needs to be provided, again as part of the legal agreement.
RBC Valuations
No objection. Discussions and negotiations about the submitted Viability Report has
resulted in consensus that the development of both sites (Elvian and Coley Park)
will remain financially viable notwithstanding the package of S106 contributions,
affordable housing and other development associated charges (CIL, legal costs, fees
etc) as required to comply with adopted policy.
(iii)
Public Consultation
The application was advertised in the local press as a major development and a
total of 3 site notices were posted around the site. A total of 558 residential
properties within the vicinity of the application site were consulted.
4.48
A total of 33 letters were received with 27 letters objecting to the proposal and 5
providing comments on the proposal. Below is a summary of the issues raised in
letters objecting to the development:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.49
(iv)
Transport – highway capacity and safety in terms of two way traffic on Coley
Avenue
Inadequate parking provision
Use of access road to the site as short cut to Rembrandt Way
Noise and disturbance
Existing office use accessed during day time only
Size and scale of the development
Too high a density
Design of flatted blocks is of poor architectural merit
Impact on listed lodges
Light pollution
Impact on biodiversity
Loss of trees
Community Involvement
In accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and
the provisions of the NPPF, the applicant engaged in pre-application discussions
with the Council. The applicants held a public exhibition at the Coley Park Baptist
Church, Wensley Road in March with 41 people attending, 7 of which provided
written comments mainly related to traffic concerns, the layout, trees and ecology.
5.
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1
National and Local Policy
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
National Planning Policy Framework (2012)
5.2
Reading Borough Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document, 2008
Policy CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design)
Policy CS2 (Waste Minimisation)
Policy CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity)
Policy CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development)
Policy CS5 (Inclusive Access)
Policy CS7 (Design and the Public Realm)
Policy CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities)
Policy CS11 (Use of Employment Land for Alternative Uses)
Policy CS14 (Provision of Housing)
Policy CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix)
Policy CS16 (Affordable Housing)
Policy CS20 (Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy)
Policy CS22 (Transport Assessments)
Policy CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking)
Policy CS29 (Provision of Open Space)
Policy CS30 (Access to Open Space)
Policy CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment)
Policy CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
Policy CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology)
Policy CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
5.3
Sites and Detailed Policies Document, (SDPD), Adopted 2012 Revised 2015
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
Policy
DM1 (Adaption to Climate Change)
DM2 (Decentralised Energy)
DM3 (Infrastructure Planning)
DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity)
DM5 (Housing Mix)
DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space)
DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters)
DM16 (Provision of Open Space)
DM18 (Tree Planting)
5.4
Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
Revised Parking Standards and Design (2011)
Sustainable Design and Construction (2011)
Employment, Skills and Training (2013)
Affordable Housing SPD (2015)
Statement of Community Involvement (2014)
Planning Obligations under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990,
(Revised 1/4/2015).
5.5
The Council introduced the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), on planning
decisions made on or after 1 April 2015. This partially replaced the Section 106
system, under which tariff-based payments were sought, often subject to a process
of negotiation. CIL has no such scope for negotiation and is a levy per sq m of
floorspace with the Council’s CIL Charges approved at Council on 27 January 2015.
The role of Section 106 is now restricted to securing affordable housing (dealt with
in the Council’s adopted Affordable Housing SPD) and dealing with site-specific
infrastructure requirements.
6.
APPRAISAL
6.1
6.2
Principle of the Development – Loss of non-core Employment Land
The site is currently in employment use and the individual criteria in Core Strategy
policy CS11 for developments outside the core employment land need to be
addressed for any change to the use of the site. The submitted Planning Statement
outlines how the development satisfies the criteria within policy CS11. In terms of
access, the site is located between the A4 Berkeley Avenue and the C411 Wensley
Road where frequent premier bus route No.11 is located. As such the site would be
accessible by a choice of means of transport. Whilst a full assessment of the
transport requirements of the proposal undertaken separately below, the Council’s
Transport Development Manager has assessed the proposals and concluded that the
development will result in a reduction in trips on the network compared to the
existing office use.
To allow for the loss of employment land, CS11 require proposals to demonstrate
that the continued use of the site for employment, including the potential for
employment uses, is no longer viable. Details submitted by the applicant show that
the site has been vacant since 2010 and the condition of the site has been in
constant deterioration. The site was acquired by the Department for Education with
the express intention of providing a school and as a result the site has not been
available to the market for employment use. However, the applicant submits that
the offices are now dated and the cost of bringing them to modern day standards
are very high and would therefore have discouraged any takers if the site was on
the market. As such, it is considered the continued use of the site for employment
purposes is no longer viable.
6.3
The proposed development would also need to take into account the available
supply of similar office use in Reading, the amenity of the surrounding residential
area and alternative uses. The site is not part of a core employment area and is
situated within a predominantly residential area. Whilst there may be an argument
that dispersed employment uses should be retained within residential areas, as
advised during pre-application discussions, there are more sustainable locations for
general office employment within the Borough, particularly in the town centre.
Whilst there has been a number of new permissions for change of use from office to
residential under the new prior approval process, the available Council’s monitoring
report of non-residential commitments (March 2014) confirms there to be
outstanding permissions that continue to show a reasonable amount of office
floorspace is available. Therefore, it is concluded that the loss of offices in this
location will not undermine employment floorspace provision in the Borough in the
near future. The siting of the proposed residential development will also
complement the predominantly surrounding residential area and the redevelopment
of the whole site for residential purposes is comprehensive in nature rather than
piecemeal.
6.4
The proposed development has adequately addressed the issue of loss of
employment land outside the designated core employment land and is considered
to adhere with the provisions of policy CS11 of the Core Strategy.
6.5
In accordance with Core Strategy policy CS14, Reading has a housing requirement to
deliver an average 572 dwellings per annum up to 2016 and 521 dwellings per
annum in the period 2016-2026. The proposal will make a positive contribution
towards meeting the local housing needs.
6.6
In accordance with the NPPF ‘the effective use of land by reusing land that has
been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high
environmental value’ should be encouraged. At the local level the broad spatial
vision also encourages the redevelopment and regeneration of previously developed
land. Core Strategy Policy CS14 (Housing Provision) among other things also seeks to
ensure ‘development comes forward on large and small previously developed
windfall sites including changes of use.
6.7
The proposal is for the redevelopment of a brownfield site within the urban area
and would therefore accord with the NPPF and policy CS14. The principle for
residential development would, from a planning policy point of view, be an
acceptable alternative use of the site.
6.8
6.9
Housing mix and density
The development needs to accord with Core Strategy policy CS15 and policy DM5 of
the Sites and Detailed Policies SPD in terms of housing mix and density. These
policies seek to ensure that developments provide an appropriate range of housing
opportunities in terms of a mix of housing types, sizes and tenures, in accordance
with the findings of a housing market assessment. The mix of dwellings should
include an appropriate proportion of units designed to the Lifetime Homes
standard. However, the Deregulation Bill 2015 has in effect removed our policy
requirement that all new build dwellings should be built to Lifetime Homes
Standards so while we still encourage this approach as best practice we no longer
impose conditions to ensure a standard is met as this should now be part of the
building regulation regime.
In accordance with policy CS15, net densities of below 30 dwellings per hectare will
not be acceptable, with preference being the indicative density ranges as shown
below that were based on the now superseded draft Planning Policy Statement 3
(Housing):
Town Centre (Above 70 dwellings per ha)
Urban (40-75 dwellings per ha)
Accessible Suburban (35 – 55 dwellings per ha)
Less Accessible Suburban (30-50 dwellings per ha)
6.10
The site is considered to be accessible suburban area that would require density
levels of 35 – 55 dwellings per hectare. Based on the approximate area of 2ha for
the site the proposed development would yield a density of approximately 39 dph
so is within the accessible suburban range and therefore acceptable.
6.11
Policy DM5 (Housing Mix) seeks to ensure that on new developments for 10 or more
dwellings outside the central area and defined district and local centres, planning
decisions will ensure that over 50% of dwellings will be of 3 bedrooms or more, and
the majority of dwellings will be in the form of houses rather than flats, having
regard to all other material considerations.
Table 4 below shows a summary of the proposed type and mix of dwellings as well
as the affordable housing offer.
6.12
6.13
Dwelling Type
Private
Affordable
Total
2 bed flats
2 bed FOG
2 bed house
3 bed house
4 bed house
Total
0
0
20
1
2
6
2
31
(43.7%)
20
1
2
18
31
71
(67.6% 3bed+)
12
28
40
(56.3%)
Considered independently of the development at the Elvian site, the proposed
development of Coley Park will have 67.6% of the dwellings being 3 bedrooms or
more and with the majority of the dwellings, 50 of the total of 71, being houses.
The proposed development is considered to achieve the appropriate mix as set out
in policies CS15 and DM5.
Affordable Housing
In accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS16, developments of 15 dwellings and
above are required to provide 30% of the total number of dwellings in the form of
affordable housing to meet the needs of the area, as defined in a housing needs
assessment. Affordable housing is subsidised housing that enables the asking price
or rent to be substantially lower than the prevailing market prices or rents in the
locality, and is subject to mechanisms that will ensure that the housing remains
affordable for those who cannot afford market housing.
6.14
In determining residential applications the Council will assess the site size,
suitability and type of units to be delivered in relation to the current evidence of
identified needs. The Council will seek an appropriate tenure mix of affordable
housing to include social rented, affordable rent, intermediate rent and shared
ownership affordable units. The affordable units provided should be integrated into
the development.
6.15
Independent of the proposal at the Elvian site, the proposal at the Coley (Former
DEFRA) site is to provide 31 of the dwellings (43.7%) as affordable units, well above
the 30% policy requirement. Whilst the tenure split of 61% affordable rent and 39%
shared ownership fails to meet the preferred tenure split of 70% to 30%, it is
considered on balance the overall provision of affordable housing well above the
minimum policy requirement would mitigate the tenure split shortfall.
Table 5 – Affordable Housing Tenure split
Tenure Split
Affordable Rent – 61%
Shared Ownership – 39%
Table 6 – Affordable Housing Types
Defra, Coley Site
2BA
2B FOG
2BH
3BH
4BH
6.16
6.17
6.18
6.19
6.20
6.21
Affordable Rent
10
2
5
2
Shared Ownership
10
1
1
The mix of the type of affordable housing units as outlined on the table above
comprising 2 bedroom flats, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses is considered to accord
with policy and is therefore acceptable. The affordable housing provision will be
secured by a S106 legal agreement.
Transport Issues
RBC Transport Strategy has fully assessed the transport issues associated with the
proposed development as summarised in paragraphs 4.15 to 4.40 above and full
comments in Appendix 1 and raised no objection to the proposed development on
transport grounds. As highlighted in paragraph 4.17, the assessment is linked to the
proposed development at the former Elvian School site (151175) due to the
proximity nature of the sites and level of development that would affect the same
transport network.
The site is considered highly sustainable in terms of access to public means of
transport. The site is located between the A4 Berkeley Avenue and the Wensley
Road where frequent premier bus route No.11 located with site being a maximum
250m of bus stops on Wensley Road.
Trip Rates
The trip rates of the existing office use have been compared with anticipated trip
rates of the proposed development. Based on the survey details of the traffic flow
along Coley Avenue, which is an acceptable comparison to the development as it
currently accommodates vehicular access to a total of 89 residential units (56
houses and 33 flats), the proposed development will result in a reduction in trips on
the network. The principle for the development is therefore considered acceptable.
Junction Assessment/Road Capacity
A number of junctions were assessed. However, the main junction assessed for the
proposed development is the Berkeley Avenue/ Coley Avenue signalised junction.
The assessments outlined in paragraph 4.15 to 4. with scenarios that include the
proposed development at the former Elvian School site have confirmed that
following the proposed development, the junction stays within capacity with only a
minimal increase incurred that is within the daily fluctuations of the network. As
such the residual cumulative impacts of the proposed development are not severe
to warrant refusal on traffic generation grounds as provided for with the NPPF.
Assessment on road capacity, Berkeley Avenue and Coley Avenue was carried out in
terms of AM and PM peak vehicle flows as well as school peak flows. The
assessment include 5 scenarios of baseline flows; a) with offices closed, b) with
offices fully operational, c) with the proposed development of 71 dwellings, d) with
proposed development of 71 dwellings plus proposed Elvian School site
development and e)with proposed development of 71 dwellings plus 550 capacity
Elvian School. Whilst the assessments conclude that the developments on sites,
Coley and Elvian School will result in an increase in trips in the AM and PM peaks
above the existing uses on both sites, the Transport Officer advises that these are
insignificant and therefore will not detrimentally impact the flow of traffic in the
vicinity of the site. Similar findings are drawn when the impact onto the A4 within
Reading is assessed as well as the cumulative impact from committed developments
within the vicinity of the site.
6.22
6.23
6.24
6.25
6.26
6.27
Access Design and general Layout
All the proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access to the site via the existing
Coley Avenue access, but measures in the form of alligator teeth have been
proposed around the site to limit the amount of vehicular movement exiting from
this point. The distribution is 21 dwellings exiting from Coley Avenue and 50
dwellings exiting from Rembrandt Way. No vehicular access will be permitted from
Rembrandt Way therefore the majority of the traffic flow through the site will be in
the form of one-way flow. The Transport Officer has deemed this arrangement
acceptable as this reduces the demand for vehicles utilising the Coley Avenue arm
of the A4 Berkeley Avenue / Coley Avenue signalised junction. This is considered to
address concerns raised by most of the objectors regarding access and traffic
movement to and from the site.
Concerns have been raised regarding the narrow access entrance sandwiched by the
listed lodges. Subject to a condition requiring the submission of drawings showing
the presence of a give way marking that will ensure that the drivers of vehicles
exiting the site know that they are required to give way and therefore reduce
conflict at this point, the Transport Officer considers the arrangement acceptable.
Parking
The parking provision for the proposed development accords with policy, with a
marginal increase above the Council’s standards. In addition, 23 visitor spaces will
be provided, which is 21 above the required standard. The car parking spaces are to
the correct dimensions including garages. Cycle parking for the whole development
is also considered acceptable. Recycle and bin areas are considered acceptable.
Residential Travel Plan
The Council’s Transport Officer has assessed the submitted Travel Plan and deemed
it sufficient in principle subject to all details being provided with the full travel
plan.
Transport improvements within the vicinity.
To mitigate the likely increase in number of trips to be taken by pedestrians,
especially parents with push chairs/buggies visiting the local parade of shops and
bus stops along Wensley Road, the Council’s Transport Officer has recommended
that the applicant make contributions towards the following:
•
Introduction of pedestrian dropped crossings along with tactile paving at the
end of Coley Avenue to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs /
buggies and people in wheelchairs to and from the application site.
•
Upgrade of the Kissing gate located between Coley Avenue and Wensley
Road to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and
people in wheel chairs to and from the application site.
The required planning obligations are considered to satisfy the requirements of
Regulations 122 and 123 as well as Planning Policy Guidance that place limits on the
use of planning obligations. The planning obligations would be secured as part of
the S106 legal agreement.
6.28
Layout
The proposed layout comprises plots fronting the proposed loop access road from
east to west creating a back to back relationship for the plots on the central area
and those to the south overlooking Rembrandt Way. To the north, the site would be
backing onto the residential properties on Froxfield Avenue and Baydon Drive, with
a screening buffer in terms of the existing tree lined public path that will be
retained. To the west side the proposed flatted development would adjoin the
existing flatted development on Rembrandt Way. To the south-east side the
proposed development would adjoin the flatted development on Wensley Drive.
6.29
The proposed plots for all house types would average 20m deep and 5m wide. The
proposed dwellings would on average project 10m within the plots retaining rear
gardens 10m deep with variation in setback from the frontage to break up
monotony. The retained 10m rear gardens would result in an average 20m back to
back relationship between the proposed dwellings (plots 23-43 and 55-71). Plots 1
and 2 would be backing onto the West Lodge that forms part the main entrance,
with rear gardens being the recommended 10m deep. To north of plot 2 are 4 car
parking spaces providing a buffer with the tree lined public footpath. Plots 3 to 8
would be south facing fronting the main loop road and backing onto the tree lined
public footpath with 10m deep rear gardens. Plots 10 to 12 would be east facing
with 8 car parking spaces to the front separating the plots with proposed play area.
6.30
The proposed layout that is mainly informed by the proposed access loop road
through the site and the relationship with the adjoining developments is considered
acceptable.
6.31
6.32
Scale and Appearance
The proposed storey heights of the buildings would range from 1 storey to 4
storeys. The single storey buildings are the detached single (4m high) and double
(5m high) garages, the houses being 2 storeys (types A Fog, B and C maximum 7.2m
high), 2.5 storeys (Type D maximum 10m high) and 3 storeys (Type E and F
maximum 10.5m high) and Block 1 (maximum 12m high) and Block 2 (maximum
12.5m high) flatted developments to the western side of the site being 3 and 4
storeys respectively. The 2.5 and 3 storey dwellings are concentrated within the
central area forming the main block of the development. To the south overlooking
Rembrandt Way is a mixture of the flatted development (Block 2), flat over garage
(FOG), 2.5 storey dwellings (Type D) and 3 storey dwellings (Type F). To the east
side, the status of the Listed lodges has been retained by restricting the built form
immediately adjoining the two-storey buildings with the nearest proposed dwellings
on plots 1,2, 23 and 24 being 2 and 2.5 storeys high.
The proposed 1, 2 and 2.5 storey height levels for the dwellings is considered
acceptable. The mix of the dwellings in terms of storey height along the loop road
on which the development is centred is considered to introduce an appropriate
contrast for the dwellings in terms of size and scale. Retaining adequate separation
distances between the semi-detached and terraced dwellings, with variation in
setback, massing and roof orientation, the proposed dwellings would provide
variety and rhythm when viewed from the street scene and the wider area.
Street Elevations (Source: Design and Access Statement)
6.33
Viewed from Rembrandt Way, the proposed dwellings on the south side would be
set on higher ground overlooking The Berkshire Independent Hospital and Doctors’
Surgery. To prevent the proposed dwellings being visually dominant when viewed
from Rembrandt Way, an appropriate mix in terms of 2, 2.5 and 3 storey dwelling
types set back from the main frontage in a staggered way has been used.
Appropriate soft landscaping along the southern boundary and retention of the
existing trees near the egress of the one way road is considered to soften the visual
impact of the proposed dwellings. In addition, the proposed dwellings are
considered to be of lesser bulk and massing as compared to the existing office
buildings to be demolished. The dwellings enjoy adequate separation distances that
provide acceptable visual gaps between the proposed dwellings and therefore
breaking up the bulk and mass of the built form.
6.34
To the north-western end of the site is the flatted block 1 that is part 3 part 4
storey high adjoining existing block of flats, Sherwood House. The flatted block
responds in type, scale and plan orientation to the development on Rembrandt Way
that includes Sherwood House. Block 2 sited to the western end of the central block
of the development has been designed in a such a way that there is a gradual
transition in terms of storey levels with the 3 storey wings adjoining the dwelling
houses to the east of the block.
6.35
The appearance of the dwellings is informed by a contemporary approach, utilising
the prevailing pattern of facing materials, mainly red brick, within the site’s
context and the historic character of the wider area. To add contrast and interest,
white render is used within the layout. As highlighted in the submitted Design and
Access Statement, the proposed dwellings incorporate a range of familiar
contextual elements that include, ‘gabled frontages, sometimes expressed in
contrasting material, vertical alignment of windows with a sense of rhythm,
dormers and pitched roofs,’ with dark grey slate concrete tiles as well as occasional
projecting bay windows. The design and appearance of the dwellings is considered
to accord with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy.
6.36
6.37
The design of the flatted blocks with flat roofs contrasts with the adjoining flatted
development on Rembrandt Way that has pitched and hipped roofs. Whereas this
has been criticised by some of the objectors, the flat roof design on the blocks of
flats reinforces the contemporary character of the whole development. The
emphasis on the vertical alignment of windows within facades is considered to bring
some sense of order and rhythm to the development. The Design and Access
Statement highlights the ‘interplay between brickwork and render that adds
liveliness and reduces the apparent mass of the buildings’. The choice of materials
and vertical elevational treatment of the blocks of flats is considered to help the
flats appear less institutional and be more homely. The appearance of the proposed
flatted blocks is therefore considered to accord with policy CS7 of the Core
Strategy.
Residential Amenity of future occupiers
The submitted details of floor plans in terms of the house types A-E and the floor
plans of the block of flats provide layouts for the proposed dwellings considered to
have taken into account the impact onto the amenity of the respective dwellings. It
is noted from the layout of the plots and the siting of the proposed dwellings within
the plots that building lines have been maintained that would minimise issues to do
with loss of light or being overbearing. The average back to back distances of 20m
are considered adequate to prevent loss of privacy from overlooking from upper
floor rear elevation windows. Windows to habitable rooms have been carefully sited
within mainly front and rear elevations to prevent any overlooking. The windows
within side elevations of the houses (A-E) would serve stair cases and bathrooms
that are not habitable rooms and therefore would be conditioned to be obscure
glazed to prevent overlooking neighbouring properties. As such the development is
considered to accord with policy DM4.
6.38
The internal space standards and room layouts for the proposed dwellings (A-E) and
flats are considered appropriate. As such, it is considered that the dwellings and
flats would provide a suitable standard of accommodation for future occupants.
The dwellings designed to lifetime homes standard provide for disabled access
needs within individual buildings, in accordance with policy CS5. In addition, it is
considered that the proposed layout and assignment of rooms to windows would
allow for adequate outlook and daylight for each flat.
6.39
The retained outdoor amenity space within the plots averaging 10m in depth is
considered to be appropriate. The same applies for the communal outdoor amenity
space for the blocks of flats. In addition provision has been made for a play area to
the north-west side of the site within easy reach of the proposed flatted
development. The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policy DM10
(Private and Communal Outdoor Space).
6.40
Neighbouring Amenity
The site is well screened to the north along the public footpath that forms the
separation boundary with properties on Froxfield Avenue and Baydon Drive. With
the trees and screening along the footpath shown to be retained, coupled with
adequate separation distances, the dwellings on the Plots 1-12 will not result in
harm to the amenities of the properties on Froxfield Avenue and Baydon Drive. In
relation to the listed West Lodge at the main entrance, plots 1 and 2 retain
adequate rear gardens and hence separation distances that would not result in loss
of privacy or being overbearing to this listed lodge.
6.41
In terms of Block 1 of flats to the north-west corner of the site, the north elevation
of the flatted block overlooking the rear gardens of 16-18 Baydon Drive would not
include windows to habitable rooms serve for bathrooms windows that will be
obscure glazed. The same applies to the south-west elevation overlooking Sherwood
House on Rembrandt Way. The windows to the west elevation of the flatted block 1
serving habitable rooms are within distances that would not result in loss of privacy
to Sherwood House and the rear gardens of properties on Baydon Drive.
6.42
Flatted block 2 to the south west corner and the dwellings on plots 54 to 71 would
all overlook the loop road to the development and are within acceptable separation
distances with the properties adjoining the application site comprising Ashdown
House, Berkshire Hospital and Dental Surgery.
6.43
Whereas the impact of the development in terms of transport is assessed
separately, the proposed development is not considered to result in harm to the
amenities of the properties adjoining the application site. As such the proposal is
considered to accord with policy DM4.
6.44
6.45
Trees and Landscaping
The site is covered by an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO). In terms of the
submitted arboricultural details, the scheme retains the primary groups of trees to
the northern and southern boundaries of the site that forms a green network. To
the north the trees along a public footpath provides screening to the site from
properties on Froxfield Avenue and Baydon Drive. As outlined in the submitted
Design and Access Statement the ‘landscape structure within the layout is designed
to reinforce the northern and southern edges of the site, with new planting
interspersed with retained existing trees along both these key edges’ and the main
proposed loop road. Additional tree planting is proposed along the rear boundary of
plots forming the main central block to the development. The Council’s Natural
Environment Officer (Trees) has assessed the submitted details and concluded that
subject to conditions, the proposed development would enhance the character and
appearance of the area, provide biodiversity opportunities as well as contribute to
measures to reduce carbon and climate change adaptation. The proposals would
therefore accord with SDPD policies DM17, DM18 and Core Strategy policy CS38.
Open Space/Play Area
In accordance with policy CS29 of the Core Strategy, all new development should
make provision for the open space needs of the development through appropriate
on or off-site provision, or through contributions towards the provision or
improvement of leisure or recreational facilities, including open space. New
provision will be sought on residential sites of 50 or more units, or for
developments where the availability and quality of existing provision has been
identified as deficient in the provision for open space. The provision and
improvement of Children’s Play Areas and Neighbourhood Recreation Areas should
be made, as appropriate, in order to ensure a satisfactory level of provision within
the urban area. An open space that includes a children’s play area is proposed to
the north west of the side between flatted block 1 and plots 10-12. The play area
providing onsite recreational facilities will be equipped and managed by the
Management Team responsible for the whole development site. The paly area is
overlooked by the flatted Blocks 1 and 2, the dwellings on plots 10-12 and 40-43
giving a sense of security to the children’s play area. To the north it is screened by
the trees along the public footpath. Subject to all play equipment, gates (including
maintenance gates), safety surfacing and ancillary items meeting or exceeding the
requirements of EN 1176 (European Standards for Play Equipment) and EN 117 the
council’s Leisure Officer did no object to the proposals. As such further details
regarding play equipment would need to be submitted to and approved by the
Council.
6.46
6.47
In addition to the proposed play area, Coley Recreation Ground is approximately 5
minutes’ walk from the site. The proposals are therefore consistent with policy
CS29 and DM16.
Ecology
The proposal involves the demolition of existing office buildings that are considered
a potential habitat for bats that are a protected species. The Council’s Ecologist
has not objected to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions to protect the
endangered species. The submitted Bat Survey details show that building B1b hosts
a small common pipistrelle and brown long eared bat roost exists. As such, before
this building can be demolished a licence for development works affecting bats will
need to be obtained from Natural England. Having due regard to the EC Habitats
Directive 1992 and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 it is
considered that this application passes the tests set out there in and a licence for
development works affecting bats is likely to be obtained from the Statutory Nature
Conservation Organisation (Natural England). In this instance it is considered that:
•
•
•
6.48
6.49
6.50
Appropriate mitigation can be provided which will ensure that there will not
be a detrimental impact on the favourable conservation status of the bat
species concerned.
The development is for an imperative reason of overriding public interest of
an economic nature as the development will contribute to a social and
economic need of the local community for housing
That there is no satisfactory alternative to the development as without
developing the site the aforementioned need will not be met.
Nesting birds
The buildings, trees and scrub on the site are likely to be used by nesting birds and
will need to be cleared outside of the nesting season. In order to protect the
nesting birds the Council’s Ecologist has recommended an appropriate condition
that will be appended to any permission granted.
The proposed mitigation measures are considered to ensure the biodiversity
interests of the site in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS36.
Heritage Assets
There are no existing structures within the application site boundaries that would
warrant retention as heritage assets and the principle to redevelop the brownfield
site is considered acceptable. However, sandwiching the main entrance to the site
are Grade II Listed lodges known as West and East Lodge. The listed buildings are
outside the application site but define the main entrance to the site from Coley
Avenue. The lodges were constructed in the early 19th Century and frame the
former north-eastern entrance to Coley Park. The setting of the listed lodges has
been altered over the years as part of the 20th Century fragmentation of the Coley
Park Estate. As highlighted within the submitted Heritage Statement, the lodges
now form part of the larger suburban townscape comprising the existing office
buildings on the application site, adjoining residential dwellings, flatted
developments at Wensley Road and Rembrandt Way, and institutional buildings
such as The Berkshire Independent Hospital. The setting of the listed lodges is well
defined by the tree lined Coley Avenue that provides access to the site that has
survived the fragmentation of the Coley Park estate. Whilst this part of Coley
Avenue is outside the boundaries of the application site, the setting and views from
the tree lined Coley Avenue would remain unchanged as a result of the proposed
development.
East and West Lodges (Grade II Listed)
6.51
The re-development of the site for residential purposes is considered to be
consistent with the residential use of the listed lodges as the proposal would
‘deliver a domestic scale/character for the proposed built form’ that is considered
an improvement to the existing office buildings. Nearer to the listed lodges would
be dwellings on plots 1, 2, 23 and 24. These dwellings are set within acceptable
distances considered not to have an adverse effect to the setting or significance of
the listed lodges. Plans were amended to remove the proposed electricity substation adjoining West Lodge and the area would be soft landscaped. The Council’s
Conservation Officer has assessed the proposed development and concluded that
overall, the development would not have a detrimental effect to the Grade II listed
lodges.
6.52
The proposal would retain Coley Avenue as the main access, ensuring the listed
lodges maintain their gateway status that represents ‘a continuation of their
historic function’. As submitted within the Transport Assessment and agreed by the
Council’s Transport Officer, the proposed development would result in a net
reduction in vehicle trips than the existing office use. Therefore, the traffic
movements generated by the proposed development passing between the listed
lodges, are not considered to result in additional impact, if any, than the existing
office use to the Grade II listed lodges. The proposed development is therefore
considered to accord with policy CS33 and the NPPF.
6.53
6.54
Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
The site lies in Flood Zone 1, which is land assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000
annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%). All uses of land are appropriate
in this zone. As the Coley Park site lies within Flood Zone 1, it is therefore at the
lowest risk of flooding and is therefore considered to have passed the Sequential
Test. The NPPF Technical Guidance confirms that an Exception Test does not need
to be carried out within Flood Zone 1. The Environment Agency, who is the
statutory consultee, has not objected to the proposal subject to the local authority
fully assessing the proposals with regards to flooding and SuDS.
As the development is considered appropriate, the developer and local authority
should seek opportunities to reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area and
beyond through the layout and form of the development through the appropriate
application of sustainable drainage systems. The proposal will need to comply with
the requirements for major developments that came into effect from 06/04/2015.
6.55
The site currently drains into the existing drainage system although some
soakaways are provided. The existing 1.9 hectares consists of 0.96 hectares of
impermeable ground, while the proposed development will only have 0.8 hectares
of impermeable ground, thus increasing the permeable area. Given the grounds
conditions on the site, it is proposed that run off from the site will be discharged to
the existing surface water sewers via cellular attenuation tank with a flow control
mechanism (Hydro brake). During 1 in 100 year plus 30% climate change storm
events the runoff will be restricted to 5 l/s. Such a system will ensure run off is the
same as the equivalent green field run off for the site which by using HR
Wallingfords, Green Field Runoff Calculation tool on the UK Suds website is
calculated for a 1 in 100 year storm as 5l/s.
6.56
The submitted flood risk assessment and drainage report that has been assessed by
the Council’s SuDs Officer (Transport Development Control Manager) has been
found acceptable. The report acknowledges that the site is outside of a flood risk
area and provides details of how the drainage will comply with the SuDs
requirements and reduce surface water runoff. Subject to the recommended
conditions, the proposed drainage complies with the requirements of the NPPG,
NPPF and Core Strategy policy CS34.
6.57
6.58
6.59
Sustainability
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 proposals are supported by an Energy
Statement that explains that 50% of the houses on site will be designed to achieve
an equivalent standard to Code 4 with a 25% reduction in C02 emissions achieved
over the base case. The dwellings have been designed to meet lifetime homes
criteria as required by policy DM5 notwithstanding the Deregulation Bill 2015
referred to above. The Council’s Sustainability Officer has assessed the submitted
details and concluded that the details accord with current policy. As such the
development is not considered to have an adverse effect on the environment and
will take account of the effects of climate change.
Contaminated Land
The applicant has submitted a Geo-environmental & Geotechnical interpretive
report regarding the proposed housing development which is particularly sensitive
to contamination. The Council’s Environmental Health (Land Contamination) has
assessed the report and raised no objection to the proposed development subject
to appropriate conditions to ensure that future occupants of the development are
not put at undue risk from contamination. In addition an informative must be added
advising that asbestos must be reported, investigated and remediation carried out.
Employment, Skills and Training
In accordance with Reading Borough Core Strategy Policies CS9: Infrastructure,
Services, Resources and Amenities and CS13: Impact of Employment Development
and the Council’s SPD ‘Employment, Skills and Training’ the developer is required
to provide for a Construction Employment and Skills Plan which identifies and
promotes employment opportunities generated by the proposed development, or
other developments within west Reading, for the construction phase of the
proposed development. Sometimes this requires a payment to Reading UK CiC, the
Council’s partner, to prepare the plan usually payable at least 1 month prior to
implementation and index linked from the date of issue of planning permission.
The applicant is in discussion with Reading UK CiC about how their own plan works
and this will be secured within the S106 legal agreement to be signed with Council.
6.60
6.61
Representations
Issues raised in representation letters from third parties have been addressed
within the above report.
Community Infrastructure Levy
The proposal will be subject to the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy at a
rate of £120 per sqm. Regulation 40 of CIL outlines that the floor area of relevant
existing buildings can be discounted from the chargeable area provided the
premises have been in active use for 6 months from the last 3 years. Details
submitted by the applicant, which are not disputed by the Council confirms that
the existing office buildings on the site have not been in active use for 6 months
from the last 3 years and therefore cannot be discounted from the chargeable area.
As such the chargeable area would comprise the total floor area of the proposed
development.
Equality
6.62 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.
6.63
In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would
be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development.
7.0
7.1
Conclusion
The application site is in a sustainable location and presents an opportunity to
maximise and make efficient use of this sustainable brownfield site. The
application site is located within the existing built up area and the development of
the site for housing is consistent with the national and local planning policy and the
principal of the development is acceptable. The sensitive development of the site
will enhance the character and the visual amenity of the area.
7.2
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in the context of
national and local planning policy and other material considerations as set out in
this report. As such the application is recommended for approval, subject to the
completion of a S106 legal agreement.
Case Officer: Ralph Chakadya
APPENDIX 1: RBC TRANSPORT STRATEGY FULL COMMENTS
Memo
From:
Darren Cook Transport Development Control Floor 1 North Rear Civic Offices Bridge
Street Reading RG1 2LU
To:
Ralph Chakadya 0118 9372993 Ralph.chakadya@reading.gov.uk
Date:
28th October 2015
Re:
Consultation on Planning Application
Application Number: 151173
Application Type: Full Planning Approval
Address: Government Buildings, Coley Park, Wensley Road, Reading, RG1 6LY
Proposal: Residential development consisting of 71 residential dwellings (20 apartments)
with associated landscaping, open space, parking and access following the demolition of
the existing office buildings.
Transport comments
The proposed development consists of the demolition of an existing office building
previously occupied by DEFRA and the erection of 71 residential dwellings.
The Coley Park site is located between the A4 Berkeley Avenue and the C411 Wensley Road
where frequent premier bus route No.11 is located. The site is currently accessed by two
access points one from the Coley Avenue, which connects to the A4 Bath Road and one
from Rembrandt Way which connects to the C411 Wensley Road. The site was previously
occupied by the Department of Fisheries and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) with an office space of
6,766m² and accommodated approximately 300 people at its peak, although approximately
80 staff occupied the building at the time of its closure in 2011.
The site is also well located with regards local services and schools and from the sites
entrances is within a maximum of 250 metres of bus stops on Wensley Road served by
premier route 11 which operates on a 20 minute frequency, linking the site with Reading
Town Centre.
Although my comments below are solely for this application reference will be made to an
application for the Elvian School site which has been submitted simultaneously given they
are linked. Given the link between the two sites and the proposed level of development a
Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application which has been produced in
a way that assesses the transport implications of both developments, an approach which
was agreed by officers during the pre-application discussions.
My comments on the submitted Transport Assessment are as follows:
Trip Rates
The trip rates generated for the existing office use have been taken from the Trip Rate
Information Computer System (TRICS) 2 and on reviewing the sites used I can confirm that
2
TRICS is the national standard system of trip generation and analysis in the UK and Ireland, and is used as an
integral and essential part of the Transport Assessment process. It is a database system, which allows its users
to establish potential levels of trip generation for a wide range of development and location scenarios, and is
these represent a suitable comparison to the application site and comply with the
requirements of the TRICS Good Practice Guide.
The trip rates generated for the proposed residential use have however been taken from a
survey of the traffic flow along Coley Avenue. Coley Avenue accommodates vehicular
access to a total of 89 residential units comprising of 56 houses and 33 flats and therefore
is a suitable comparison to the proposed residential development.
Given the existing office use on the application site the proposed development will result
in a reduction in trips on the network and therefore the principle of the development is
acceptable.
I can also confirm that that the trip rates for Elvian School Site are acceptable. This is
important to stress given that these trip rates also feed into the junction assessments
undertaken as part of this application therefore ensures that the impacts of both
developments have been thoroughly examined.
Junction Assessments / Road Capacity
As requested during pre-application discussions the following junctions require assessment
to ensure that the number of vehicle movements generated by the development would not
have a detrimental impact on them.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Circuit Lane / Southcote Lane
Bath Road / Circuit Lane
Bath Road / Liebenrood Road
Southcote Lane / Bath Road
Bath Road / Berkeley Avenue
Berkeley Avenue / Coley Avenue
Berkeley Avenue / St Saviours Road and;
Berkeley Avenue / Rose Kiln Lane
Assessment of the existing site has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements
of the Department for Transport (DfT) document Guidance on Transport Assessments
(March 2007), which states in section 4.7 “the quantification of the person trips generated
from the existing site and their modal distribution, or, where the site is vacant or
partially vacant, the person trips which might be generated by any extant planning
permission or permitted uses”
To determine existing vehicular movements on the network surveys of the above junctions
were undertaken together with automatic traffic counts (ATC) along the A4 Bath Road,
A4155 Bath Road, A4 Berkeley Avenue, Southcote Lane, Liebenrood Road and Coley Avenue
during March 2015. These surveys have been checked against Reading Boroughs own
permanent ATC sites in the area and the results obtained are acceptable and accurately
reflect base flows.
The main junction to consider for this planning application is the Berkeley Avenue / Coley
Avenue signalised junction given that all vehicles access the site will be required to travel
through it. This has been assessed and includes three separate scenarios which include the
following:
widely used as part of the planning application process by both developer consultants and local authorities and
is accepted by Inspectors as a valid way to ascertain likely trip generation
•
•
•
Scenario 1: 2021 growthed baseline (with committed development flows)
Scenario 2: 2021 growthed baseline (with committed development flows) +
consented 550-pupil Elvian School + Consented Defra Offices
Scenario 3: 2021 growthed baseline (with committed development flows) +
proposed Elvian Residential + Proposed WRFS + Proposed Coley Park Residential
All of these assessments have confirmed that following development the junction stays
within capacity with only a minimal increase incurred which is within the daily fluctuations
on the network. It should also be stated that the proposals result in betterment when
compared against a fully occupied 550-pupil Elvian School and Defra offices, this is also the
case for the other junctions listed above.
Given bullet point 3 of paragraph 32 of the NPPF which states proposals should only be
refused on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts are severe, a refusal on
traffic generation grounds would be hard to defend at an appeal.
Tables 1.1 - 1.3 below detail the implications of the proposals on the capacities of
Berkeley Avenue and Coley Avenue.
Table 1.1 AM peak Vehicle Flows
Berkeley
Avenue within
close proximity
of Coley Avenue
Junction
Coley Avenue
Baseline
Flows with
Office
Closed
Baseline Flows
with Office
Fully
Operational
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings plus
550 Capacity
Elvian School
1296
Baseline Flows with
Proposed
Development of 71
dwellings plus
Proposed Elvian
School site
Development
1413
1282
1366
330
344
339
339
339
1408
Table 1.2 School peak Vehicle Flows
Berkeley
Avenue within
close proximity
of Coley Avenue
Junction
Coley Avenue
Berkeley
Avenue within
close proximity
of Coley Avenue
Junction
Coley Avenue
Baseline
Flows with
Office
Closed
Baseline Flows
with Office
Fully
Operational
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings plus
550 Capacity
Elvian School
1186
Baseline Flows with
Proposed
Development of 71
dwellings plus
Proposed Elvian
School site
Development
1247
1182
1252
389
400
395
397
395
Baseline
Flows with
Office
Closed
Baseline Flows
with Office
Fully
Operational
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings
1207
1266
392
401
Table 1.3 PM peak Vehicle Flows
1317
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings plus
550 Capacity
Elvian School
1214
Baseline Flows with
Proposed
Development of 71
dwellings plus
Proposed Elvian
School site
Development
1224
407
407
407
1217
As can be seen the proposed development in the AM peak will generate less vehicular
movements then the existing office use on the site, this is due to the office having the
majority of its trips concentrated around the AM peak, whereas residential development
trips are undertaken over a wider period and are not as concentrated. The proposed
developments on this site and that of the Elvian school site will result in an increase in
trips in the AM and PM Peaks above the existing uses on both of these sites but these are
insignificant and therefore will not detrimentally impact the flow of traffic in the vicinity
of the site.
From these results it is possible to assess the likely impact on the A4 within Reading. The
capacity of main urban roads is assessed in accordance with the requirements of
Department for Transport Document TA 79/99 Traffic Capacity of Urban Roads. This
document provides details of the capacity of different types of urban roads dependant on
the urban environment they travel through. The 2-way capacity of the A4 Berkeley Avenue
at the junction with Coley Avenue according to TA 79/99 as the road accommodates 2
lanes of traffic equates to 1530 vehicles per hour in each direction. As can be seen from
the results in tables 1.1 – 1.3 above, even if the traffic from the proposed development is
added to the network the predicted flows are considerably under the capacity of the road.
The 2-way capacity of Coley Avenue Lane is 900 vehicles per hour in each direction and
again the predicted flows are considerably below the capacity of the road.
For robustness an analysis has been undertaken of the committed developments in the
vicinity of the site and includes the proposed developments at the Bath Road Reservoir, St
James Court, the Happy Prospect public house and the IKEA Store. Tables 2.1 and 2.2
include the additional vehicle trips these developments will generate distributed on to the
network. The trips from the Bath Road reservoir proposals are from the Transport
Assessment submitted with the 2009 planning application, which was found to be
acceptable to the Inspector at the Planning Inquiry and is for a larger scheme than that
permitted for added robustness. With regards St James Court, all the trips from the
proposed development of 53 apartments have been included and no reduction made for
the previous use as Sheltered Accommodation. With the Happy Prospect the same
approach has been undertaken given the previous site was vacant when the base surveys
were undertaken. This will mean the vehicle trips added to the network will be robust. For
further robustness the trips from the consented IKEA store at Calcot, application
11/00365/ADJ, have also been included instead of the latest proposal which reduces the
proposed floor area of the store.
I would also add that it has been assumed that all the traffic along the A4 Bath Road
generated by these committed developments would utilise the A4 Berkeley Avenue instead
of Coley Avenue.
Table 2.1 AM peak Vehicle Flows including other development schemes
Berkeley
Avenue within
close proximity
of Coley Avenue
Junction
Baseline
Flows with
Office
Closed
Baseline Flows
with Office
Fully
Operational
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings
1290
1374
1304
Baseline Flows with
Proposed
Development of 71
dwellings plus
Proposed Elvian
School site
Development
1421
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings plus
550 Capacity
Elvian School
1416
Table 2.2 PM peak Vehicle Flows including other development schemes
Berkeley
Avenue within
close proximity
of Coley Avenue
Junction
Baseline
Flows with
Office
Closed
Baseline Flows
with Office
Fully
Operational
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings
1264
1323
1271
Baseline Flows with
Proposed
Development of 71
dwellings plus
Proposed Elvian
School site
Development
1281
Baseline Flows
with Proposed
Development of
71 dwellings plus
550 Capacity
Elvian School
1274
It can be seen that even if the trips from other developments are included, the road
network is still within capacity as stated by TA 79/99 and as the increases are within the
daily fluctuations experienced on the network, they can be accommodated.
Access Design and general layout
It is disappointing that a link to the Public Right of Way will not be provided as it would
provide increased permeability through the site therefore encouraging alternative modes
to the private car, however given the safety / security concerns I am happy that this is not
provided.
All the proposed dwellings will gain vehicular access to the site via the existing Coley
Avenue access, but measures in the form of alligator teeth have been proposed around the
site to limit the amount of vehicular movement exiting from this point. The distribution is
21 dwellings exiting from Coley Avenue and 50 dwellings exiting from Rembrandt Way. No
vehicular access will be permitted from Rembrandt Way therefore the majority of the
traffic flow through the site will be in the form of one-way flow, this arrangement has
been deemed acceptable as this reduces the demand for vehicles utilising the Coley
Avenue arm of the A4 Berkeley Avenue / Coley Avenue signalised junction.
The vehicular access located onto Coley Avenue is reduced in width to approximately 3.5m
which would only be sufficient to accommodate one-way movement, in principle this is
deemed acceptable as this will act as a calming feature between the West and East Lodge
buildings and the entry to the site. However, the location of the carriageway narrowing is
not ideal as it is situation within close proximity of the bend as you enter the site and
therefore this could cause conflict between vehicles entering and exiting the site. The
narrowing should therefore be relocated 5m north east of its currently proposed location
to allow a vehicle exiting the site to get round the bend and clearly see vehicles entering
the site. Any shortening of this proposed narrowing would still allow pedestrians to utilize
the existing footway that provided pedestrian access to the offices and would therefore be
acceptable.
Alternatively the give way marking illustrated on drawing No. 33794/001/005 Rev B dated
14.05.15 should be provided and therefore would require including on all the submitted
plans. The presence of the give way marking will ensure that the drivers of vehicles
exiting the site know that they are required to give way, therefore reducing conflict at this
point.
It has previously been agreed that a give way marking would be provided but the latest
drawings show neither of the above. A revised set of drawings should therefore be
submitted illustrating the proposed access arrangement. However, I am happy for this to
be dealt with by way of a condition.
The vehicular egress onto Rembrandt Way is to be reduced to 2.75m however a revised
drawing has now been submitted (drawing No. 33794/001/005 Rev D dated 16.09.15) that
illustrates an area to the west of the access road to be in the form of an over runnable
area to allow for refuse vehicle to exit the site.
Parking Standards
The proposal is for 71 new residential dwellings comprising of 21no. two bed apartments,
2no. two bed houses, 18no. three bed houses and 30no. four bed houses, this is not the
dwelling mix specified within the TA therefore I have specified in the table below the
required provision.
Table 3 Car Parking Provision
Unit Type
No. of Units
2 Bed Flat
2 Bed House
3 Bed House
4 Bed House
Total
21
2
18
30
71
RBC Standard
Zone 2
1
1
2
2
119
Proposed
Ratio
1
2
2
2
Proposed
Provision
21
4
36
60
121
The standards specified in the table above are the required standard given the SPD is
written in accordance with national policy as contained within the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), the final requirement therefore takes into account local circumstances
including car ownership figures, public transport provision and proximity to local facilities.
As illustrated at the above Table the proposal will be provided with a marginal increase
above the Councils standards (119 spaces required 121 proposed). However in addition to
this number of spaces, a provision of 23 visitor spaces will be provided which is 21 above
the required standard and these will be distributed throughout the site. This will ensure
that visitors to the development are provided with adequate space to park off the
carriageway which will ensure the flow of traffic through the site.
Overall the car parking provision complies with the Councils Policy.
The car parking spaces are to the correct dimensions including the garages which are 3m x
7m to ensure that as well as parking they can also be utilized for storage if required.
Cycle parking is proposed for the houses and can be accommodated within the garages or
the rear gardens, which are all accessible. The cycle store for the flats is to be covered,
lockable, conveniently located and equipped with Sheffield type stands. The required
provision for the flats is 0.5 spaces per unit which equates to 3 Sheffield stands per block.
The accesses to the stores also provide adequate access to the proposed cycle spaces.
Cycle parking has now been illustrated for the flat over garage (unit 54) is also covered,
lockable and conveniently located and is acceptable.
General Comments
Access to refuse bins on days of collection can be accommodated without the requirement
of extensive carrying distances and is therefore deemed acceptable.
A Residential Travel Plan has been submitted and is deemed sufficient in principle,
however Table 5-1 within the Travel Plan only targets a reduction of 3.8% in vehicle trips
over a 5 year period, which does not appear to be a significant reduction. There also
appears to be limited measures to entice residents to move away from the use of the car
following occupation. I am however happy for this to be looked at in more detail once the
full travel plan has been submitted.
Although the proposed development will result in fewer pedestrian movements than the
existing permitted use the proposal will increase the number of trips likely to be
undertaken by parents with push chars / buggies, in particular to the parade of shops and
also the bus stops along Wensley Road. Given this the applicant should contribute towards
the following improvements within the vicinity of the application site.
•
•
Introduction of pedestrian dropped crossings along with tactile paving at the end of
Coley Avenue to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and
people in wheelchairs to and from the application site.
Upgrade of the Kissing gate located between Coley Avenue and Wensley Road to aid
the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and people in wheel chairs
to and from the application site.
The proposed improvements set out above meets the tests specified within the Planning
Policy Guidance below.
Paragraph: 020 Reference ID: 23b-020-20141128
Some planning obligations may still be required to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. For sites where a threshold applies, planning obligations should not be
sought to contribute to affordable housing or to pooled funding ‘pots’ intended to fund
the provision of general infrastructure in the wider area. Local planning authorities can
still seek planning obligations for site specific infrastructure – such as improving road
access and the provision of adequate street lighting – where this is appropriate, to make a
site acceptable in planning terms.
094 Reference ID: 25-094-20140612
When can planning obligations be used?
The levy is intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area,
rather than making individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms. As a
result, some site specific impact mitigation may still be necessary in order for a
development to be granted planning permission. Some of these needs may be provided for
through the levy but others may not, particularly if they are very local in their impact.
Therefore, the Government considers there is still a legitimate role for development
specific planning obligations to enable a local planning authority to be confident that the
specific consequences of a particular development can be mitigated.
However, in order to ensure that planning obligations and the levy can operate in a
complementary way, the levy Regulations 122 and 123 place limits on the use of planning
obligations in three respects:
•
•
•
they put the Government’s policy tests on the use of planning obligations (also
found in paragraph 204 of the National Planning Policy Framework) on a statutory
basis, for developments that are capable of being charged the levy
they ensure the local use of the levy and planning obligations does not overlap;
and
they impose a limit on pooled contributions from planning obligations towards
infrastructure that may be funded by the levy.
A planning obligation can only be taken into account when determining a planning
application for a development, or any part of a development, if the obligation meets all
of the following tests:
•
•
necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
directly related to the development; and
•
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The proposed improvements therefore meet the required tests and are therefore a
reasonable request.
In the circumstances there are no transport objections to the proposal subject to the
below conditions.
Suggested conditions on any consent
Access detail
No dwelling shall be occupied until the access onto Coley Avenue has been provided with a
give way marking located within the site in accordance with a layout to be submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Sites and Detailed Polices
document Policy DM12.
Alligator teeth detail
No dwelling should be occupied until the alligator teeth, restricting two-way movements
through the site have been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The alligator
teeth shall thereafter be retained in working order at all times.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and
Sites and Detailed Polices document Policy DM12.
Roads to be provided
No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until the private road(s) serving it have been provided in
accordance with the approved drawings to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority
in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and Detailed Polices document
Policy DM12.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans
No dwelling shall be occupied until vehicle parking space has been provided in accordance
with the approved plan. The space shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all
times.
Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate parking facilities in
order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which could be a danger to other road
users in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS24 and Sites and Detailed Polices
document Policy DM12.
Bicycle storage
The covered bicycle storage spaces shown on the approved drawings shall be provided and
equipped with secure Sheffield cycle stands before occupation of the dwellings to which
they relate.
Reason: To encourage travel by sustainable alternatives to driving a motor car in
accordance with the Local Planning Authority's approved transport policies in accordance
with Core Strategy Policies CS23 and CS24.
Construction Management Statements
No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction
Method Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning
authority to provide for:
(A) The parking of vehicles and site operatives and visitors – to be shown on a Plan not
less than 1.500.
(B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in constructing the development
– Areas to be shown on a plan not less than 1.500
(C) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development – Areas to be
shown on a plan not less than 1.500
(D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding if required.
(E) Wheel washing facilities
(F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads
during construction.
(G) Footpath Closures /Road Closures needed during construction
(H) Traffic Management needed during construction.
(I) Times, routes and means of access into and from the site for construction traffic
and delivery vehicles (including the removal of waste from the site and methods of
preventing deposition of materials on the public highway).
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout the
development process unless agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring
residents and highway safety in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS20 and Sites and
Detailed Polices document Policy DM12.
Informatives
Damage to the highway
The attention of the applicant is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980, which
enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to damage caused by extraordinary
traffic.
Works affecting the highway
Any works affecting the highway shall be in accordance with Reading Borough’s Council’s
document “Guidance Notes for Activities on the Public Highway within the Borough of
Reading”. The applicant should be made aware that compliance with this document is
mandatory and licences to work on the highway will only be issued if the requirements
contained
within
it
are
met.
A
copy
can
be
obtained
at
http://www.reading.gov.uk/ltp/General.asp?id=SX9452-A782F664 (within the Transport
Strategy area of the Transport Section on the Reading Borough Web Site).
Suggested reasons for refusal if refused
N/A
S106
Introduction of pedestrian dropped crossings along with tactile paving at the end of Coley
Avenue to aid the movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and people in
wheelchairs to and from the application site.
Upgrade of the Kissing gate located between Coley Avenue and Wensley Road to aid the
movement of pedestrians with pushchairs / buggies and people in wheel chairs to and from
the application site.
Darren Cook
Transport Development Control
APPENDIX 2: APPLICATION DRAWINGS
Block 1 Floor Plans
Block 1 Elevations
Block 2 Floor Plans
Block 2 Elevation Plans
Type A - Flat Over Garage (FOG) Floor and Elevation Plans
Type B House
House types C
Type D & D1 Houses
Type D2 & D3 House
Type E & E1 House
Type F & F1 House