To report any issues with the information below please email executivecycle@westberks.gov.uk.

Agenda item

Application No. & Parish: 16/01603FULMAJ Land North of Winterbourne Farm, Winterbourne

Meeting of District Planning Committee, Wednesday, 28th September, 2016 6.30 pm, NEW (Item 14.(3))

Proposal:	Replacement of redundant barns with a single dwelling, redevelopment of an existing barn to provide garaging, associated landscaping, provision of a community parking area and additional wider landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to an AONB
Location:	Land North of Winterbourne Farm Winterbourne
Applicant:	PAC Farms Limited
Recommendation:	That the District Planning Committee REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in paragraph 8.2 of the report to the Western Area Planning Committee on 31^st August 2016

Minutes:

(Councillor Jeff Beck declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was acquainted with the owner of the property next door to the application site. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial, registerable or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Paul Bryant advised that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(3)).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application No. 16/01603/FULMAJ in respect of the replacement of redundant barns with a single dwelling, redevelopment of an existing barn to provide garaging, associated landscaping, provision of a community parking area and additional wider landscaping and biodiversity enhancements to an AONB.

The Planning Officer confirmed that this application had previously been considered at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 31^st August 2016.

The site was located outside of any defined settlement boundary and within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The village of Winterbourne did not have a settlement boundary as defined by Policy HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 and as such the application site fell within the open countryside as identified within Policy ADPP1 of the Core Strategy where ‘only appropriate limited development in the countryside will be allowed, focussed on the addressing identified needs and maintaining a strong rural economy’. Policy C1 of the Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD), (November 2015) also identified settlements where there would be a presumption in favour of development and redevelopment within the settlement boundaries. Winterbourne was again not identified as a settlement where such proposals would be considered. The DPD went on to state that exceptions to this were limited to rural exception housing schemes, conversion of redundant buildings, housing to accommodate rural workers and extension to or replacement of existing residential units. This proposal however did not meet any of these specific criteria. The support text to Policy C1 did allow for limited infill In settlements in the countryside with no defined settlement boundary, subject to:

i. It being within a closely knit cluster of 10 or more existing dwellings adjacent to, or fronting an existing highway; and

ii. The scale of development consisted of infilling a small undeveloped plot commensurate with the scale and character of existing dwellings within an otherwise built up frontage; and

iii. It did not extend the existing frontage; and

iv. The plot size and spacing between dwellings was similar to adjacent properties and respected the rural character and street scene of the locality.

On this basis, whilst the application site was adjacent to a group of 10 or more dwellings, it could not be considered as a closely knit cluster. Winterbourne Farm was itself not reflective of the main pattern of development within Winterbourne. The farmhouse was set on a stand alone, substantial site and clearly defined the end of the pattern of residential development. The site could not be classified as an ‘infill’ plot as it was not a small undeveloped plot between existing properties. It would be larger than any other plot within the settlement and would extend the existing frontage, all of which would be contrary to policy. Therefore it was considered that approval of this application could potentially set an undesirable future precedent for numerous similar application sites within the District which could be difficult to resist.

The proposed dwelling would result in a new dwelling in the countryside in an unsustainable location that would not minimise the need for travel by car and would not be accessible by an alternative means of transport. Furthermore the proposal would not be well related to the existing settlement pattern and was not considered to fall within any of the special circumstances for isolated new homes in the countryside, particularly as the design was not considered to be of exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design as detailed in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. Therefore, the principle of the development of a new dwelling and detached garage was not considered acceptable and was contrary to Policies ADPP1, ADPP5 and CS1 of the Core Strategy and Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as the NPPF.

The proposed dwelling, detached garage and public car parking would result in a detrimental impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the rural character and appearance of the AONB. Although the existing barns which were visible in the wider landscape were to be removed, the roof form of the replacement dwelling would be substantial and whilst sited further toward the road, it would remain highly visible in this sensitive AONB landscape, thus negating any benefit derived from the removal of the barns. Furthermore, the detached siting of the proposed dwelling and garage set well back from the road did not follow the existing pattern of development and would be seen in isolation from the remainder of the village (with the exception of Winterbourne Farm), which had a close knit pattern with substantially smaller curtilages. It was not considered to be an infill plot as it would extend Winterbourne further northwards and create a curtilage, more in depth than any other plot within the village. This substantial residential curtilage with the strong formal domesticated boundary treatment of the brick wall proposed along the public right of way, and associated domestic paraphernalia within the residential curtilage, was considered to significantly harden and domesticate in appearance the existing transition between the built form of Winterbourne Village and the countryside. The parking of vehicles in this highly visible location outside of the settlement pattern of Winterbourne was also considered to contribute to the detrimental impact on the rural character and appearance of the AONB. Together these elements as a whole were not considered to provide any beneficial impact on the rural character and appearance of the AONB. Therefore the application was considered to be contrary to Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the Core Strategy and Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as the NPPF.

The application contained a significant amount of wider landscaping proposals, which could clearly improve the character and appearance of the site and the AONB if implemented. It should be noted that the AONB Officer confirmed that support as detailed for the application was on the basis of the inclusion of these wider landscape proposals. It was, however, critical to note that these improvements could not be secured by means of conditions or a legal obligation. To secure the landscaping proposals the works would need to meet the tests set out in the NPPG. These stated the condition or legal obligation must be necessary, relevant to planning and the application itself, enforceable, reasonable and precise. In this instance, the only landscaping which was considered to meet these tests was the planting immediately surrounding the site. Therefore, given these tests, if at any point in the future an application was submitted to vary or remove such a condition/obligation the Council would be likely to find it difficult to continue to require the works to be undertaken. Whilst the works could be implemented without the need for planning permission, any recommendation for approval would be on the basis of boundary planting and that alongside the bridleway only. The remaining landscaping and environmental enhancements therefore could not be considered as forming part of this application.

Members at the Western Area Planning Committee had considered that the existing degraded condition of the site had an adverse effect on the village and wider AONB landscape. The proposal and in particular the removal of the barns and restoration of the site represented a public benefit in terms of environmental improvements which would outweigh the harm and justify the departure from national and local planning policy. Officers therefore determined that the issues involved should be considered by the District Planning Committee due to the conflict with planning policy that would undermine the development plan and the forthcoming Housing Allocations DPD.

The Highways Officer stated that this proposal would produce a relatively low number of vehicle movements and an existing access with poor sight lines would be closed up. The development also included a number of community parking spaces and for those reasons there were no objections to the application from a highways perspective.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the report stated that the site was outside of any defined settlement boundary. However, the Planning Officer had stated in his introduction that Winterbourne had no settlement boundary. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was a settlement boundary in nearby Chieveley but that Winterbourne had no such boundary. Councillor Marigold Jacques stated that as most of Winterbourne was not situated in any settlement boundary she therefore felt that an exception could not be made of this application. The Planning Officer replied that it was still necessary to limit development in the area.

Councillor Richard Crumly referred to paragraph 2.1 of the report where it stated that the barns were considered to be an eyesore in the AONB landscape, and he queried whether this was a planning consideration. The Planning Officer confirmed that it was not a planning consideration but was something which had been raised by neighbouring properties. The applicant always had the option of demolishing the barns on the site in order to remove the eyesore.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that the AONB had raised no objections to the application and she asked if this was due to the additional planting which was proposed. The Planning Officer felt that that was clearly the case and that there was no specific comment in support of the proposed dwelling on the site.

Councillor Alan Macro referred to paragraph 6.2.13 on page 118 of the agenda where it stated that the proposed wider landscaping would improve the appearance of the area and that the majority of it was not related to the proposed development. He asked whether any of the additional planting would help to mitigate the development. The Planning Officer confirmed that the dark green area indicated on the plan was the planting which would help in screening the dwelling.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr. John Hayward, Parish Council representative, Mr. Charles Flower, objector, and Mr. Paul Clarke and Mr. Mark Cherrington, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr. Hayward in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Mr. Hayward confirmed that he was the Chair of the Winterbourne Parish Meeting;

· Mr. Hayward stated that the majority of Winterbourne village were in support of the application and indeed the Planning Officer had received 18 letters of support;

· Chieveley Parish Council and the North Wessex Downs AONB had also been supportive of the application;

· It was noted that Planning Officers had concluded that the application was contrary to policy as Winterbourne had no settlement boundary. They had argued that the flint wall delineated the settlement pattern but this was not the case and the walls were the remains of three historic Winterbourne manors;

· Mr. Hayward stated that the proposed dwelling would not be an isolated house in the countryside as there was an existing dwelling about 40m away on one side and a bund for flood relief on the other side;

· Officer had stated that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the AONB but the AONB were supportive of the ecological enhancements and the application as a whole;

· The northern approach to the village was a mess and the barns were ugly and dangerous. It was felt that it would be preferable to have a sensitively designed dwelling on the site which fitted in well with the neighbouring property and the village as a whole;

· The application included off road parking for village events and additional planting;

· If the application were to be refused then the benefits to the village would not happen and therefore Mr. Hayward stated that he would be grateful if the Committee could use its flexibility to go against policy.

Councillor Clive Hooker noted that Mr. Hayward had mentioned that the approach into the village was a mess and he asked if he had asked the landowner to tidy up the site. Mr. Hayward responded that the site required more than a tidy up especially in relation to the barns.

Mr. Charles Flower in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Mr. Flower confirmed that he had an interest in the AONB as he had been on the Committee that had set it up. The village was very active in respect of the AONB with ancient woods being brought back into management;

· The village had a new enhanced flood protection scheme which was spoilt by the eyesore of the barns on the edge of the scheme;

· The proposed development would enhance the village and the AONB. The North Wessex Downs AONB supported the scheme and the village. Mr. Flower therefore hoped that the Committee would be able to support Winterbourne and the AONB to enable this area to be enhanced rather than keep the existing eyesore.

Councillor Clive Hooker asked Mr. Flower what he thought about the dereliction of eyesores and the fact that the applicant could potentially be rewarded for letting the barns fall in to disrepair. Mr. Flower responded that in this case the barns would cost a considerable amount of money to remove. The yard was mainly concrete and would also be expensive to remove and it was his opinion that the development of this site would enhance the village. There was therefore a balance to be considered.

Mr. Cherrington and Mr. Clarke in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Mr. Cherrington confirmed that he was the agent and that Mr. Clarke was the applicant and was in attendance to answer any questions from the Committee;

· The revised scheme had been developed in collaboration with the village and the AONB;

· The scale of the house had been reduced and careful consideration had been given to the landscaping to ensure that it respected the natural land;

· The AONB had not raised any objections to the proposed development and indeed had made recommendations about the look of the house and had supported the ecological enhancements which were proposed;

· Mr. Cherrington confirmed that the applicant was agreeable that the planting and landscaping could be conditioned to ensure that it was implemented;

· It was noted that whilst it was policy to restrict residential development in the countryside it was not prohibited and therefore there should be some degree of leeway;

· The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had a presumption in favour of sustainable development and this development would enhance the village;

· One material benefit was the substantial planting proposed on the site which included improved hedgerows, the planting of 94 trees, meadow planting and a five year maintenance programme;

· An informal green parking area would also be provided for village events which would improve highway safety by removing congestion from the main street;

· The environs of the listed dovecote would be improved and the proposed development would secure the removal of the redundant buildings which were an eyesore;

· The achievement of sustainable development was the key aim in the countryside and Mr. Cherrington felt that this scheme delivered that as the scheme had been well thought out.

Councillor Alan Macro asked whether the barns on the other side of the road were in the same ownership and queried why the barns on the application site had been allowed to deteriorate. Mr. Peter Clarke replied that the site had been a dairy prior to his ownership but that running a dairy herd had not been viable. The plot was not of a sufficient size to enable it to be cropable and the demise of the dairy farm had already indicated that a business of this type would not be viable. The barns on the other side had been enhanced around six years ago. In response to a query as to how it could be ensured that development would not take place on the other side of the road it was stated that a considerable amount had been spent on upgrading the facilities for the storage of grain and the applicant was happy to condition that if necessary.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked why the applicant could not clear the site and plant up with grain. Mr. Clarke stated that the planting scheme would cost up to £40k plus the five year maintenance scheme. The sides of the barns were asbestos and it would cost a considerable amount of money to dispose of this material. The structure was concrete framed rather than steel and this would be difficult to recycle. The concrete yard would also need to be broken up and Mr. Clarke advised that he could not justify spending that amount in order to return the site to a grassland and woodland area.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe asked if Mr. Clarke had used the High Level Scheme (HLS) which was an environment scheme run by the Government. Mr. Clarke confirmed that he would pay for the planting through his company and was not a member of the HLS.

Councillor Paul Bryant, as Ward Member, in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Councillor Bryant noted that the application was contrary to policy but he felt that the proposal was common sense;

· It was not economically viable to repair and reuse the barns but they could be converted into housing as the land was not suitable for modern farming;

· The site could be left as an eyesore or redeveloped into something which was useful but in order to redevelop it it would need to be identified as an exception site. The only remaining option was to build a house;

· There had been no objections raised and 18 letters of support had been received;

· Planning was not an exact science and exceptions could be made when there were good reasons for doing so;

· Councillor Bryant referred to the following paragraphs of the Officer’s report:

Paragraph 6.1.12 - mentioned paragraph 55 of the NPPF which stated that ‘Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there were special circumstances ....’. He said that the house would not be isolated and the special circumstances were that the unsightly barns would be removed.

Paragraph 6.1.16 - ‘the proposal was considered to harm and undermine the existing relationship of the settlement within the open countryside’. Councillor Bryant felt that the replacement dwelling would not undermine the relationship’.

Paragraph 6.2.5 – ‘The detached siting of the proposed dwelling and garage from the existing built form within the village of Winterbourne ...’. Councillor Bryant stated that there was no coherent form of dwellings within the village – some were big, some small and all were unique.

Paragraph 6.5.14 – ‘the replacement of the barns with residential development was not justified and considered to be inappropriate due to the adverse impact upon the character of the area ...’. The proposed development would have less of an impact than the existing barns.

· In summary Councillor Bryant stated that this was a good use of a brownfield site for the erection of an attractive house.

In considering the above application Members felt that the benefits had been well articulated. The application was contrary to policy but the options for development of the site were limited and it would be expensive to remove the redundant buildings. Councillor Garth Simpson therefore proposed to approve the application and this was seconded by Councillor Jeff Beck.

Councillor Marigold Jaques also noted that the proposed application was against policy but that it was well supported and would enhance the life of the community.

Councillor Anthony Pick supported the AONB and the settlements within it. The objections set out in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.5 were all subject to question and Councillor Pick disputed them.

Councillor Jeff Beck noted that the development would be sandwiched between the flood prevention scheme on one side and the last dwelling on the northern edge of the village and therefore it could not be said that the site was in open countryside.

Councillor Alan Law stated that the Council had policies for a reason. The site was in the open countryside as it was outside the Settlement Boundary. The Core Strategy dealt with hamlets and allowed infill. However, development should not take place on the outskirts as this could mean that the hamlet would grow step by step. The only reason for making this an exception was that the current site was an eyesore and if that was the case then the Council could be subject to a large number of similar applications in the future from elsewhere in the district. Councillor Law was sympathetic but in principle it was necessary to take a planned approach across the district as a whole.

Councillor Richard Crumly supported the Officer’s recommendation and the views expressed by Councillor Law. Just because something was an eyesore was not a planning consideration. The site was in the open countryside and the Council had policies which went against such applications.

The Planning Officer referred to the point made by Councillor Clive Hooker earlier in the meeting where he asked whether dereliction should be rewarded by development. This was a good point and it was difficult to be consistent in this respect.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe felt that the application was not against national policy as the Government was pushing the conversion of barns into residential accommodation and he made reference to a recent appeal case. Councillor Law made the point that the application in question was not for a barn conversion but a new build.

Councillor Clive Hooker confirmed that he had voted against the application at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting and he was still of the same view. The site was in the countryside and the new dwelling would be a dominant feature in the landscape. The only reason the AONB had not raised any objection was due to the additional planting on the site.

Councillor Hilary Cole in summing up stated that West Berkshire was a plan led authority and this application was contrary to policy which would undermine the emerging HSA policy. There was nothing to stop the applicant demolishing the eyesore and the only issue preventing him from doing so was the cost.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004); to enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development should it not be started within a reasonable time.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with:

Site location plan Fig 1 D

Block Plan and section 1611/PL01

Proposed dwelling ground floor 1611/PL02

Proposed dwelling first floor 1611/PL03

Proposed dwelling N & E elevations 1611/PL05

Proposed dwelling S & W elevations 1611/PL06

Proposed garage plans 1611/PL07

Existing garage elevations 1611/PL08

Proposed garage elevations 1611/PL09

Existing barn elevations 1611/PL11

Proposed barn plans 1611/PL12

Proposed barn elevations 1611/PL13

Car Park Layout 1611/PL14

Landscape and Ecological Enhancements Report dated May 16

Landscape and Ecological Enhancements Plan Fig 2 dated May 16

Landscape Strategy Plan Fig 5 Rev D dated May 16 received 28.17.16

Design and Access Statement

Flood Risk Assessment received dated May 2016

Foul Sewage and Utilities Statement dated May 2016

Bat Roost Survey Report dated September 2014/ amended 2016

Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report dated July 2014

All received with the application validated 20.06.16 unless otherwise specified.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted details in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS 13, CS 14, CS 17, and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, policies TRANS.1, ENV.19, ENV.20, TRANS.1 and OVS.5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, and Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Design 2006.

3. No construction above foundation level shall take place until samples and an accompanying schedule of all external visible materials and finishes (including to windows and doors) to be used in the dwelling and conversion of the outbuildings hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to these matters which have been detailed in the current application. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are appropriate to the historic interest of the building, are visually attractive and respond to local character. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS 14, and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies ENV.19 and ENV.20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design 2006.

4. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, schedule of planting and retention, programme of works and other supporting information as specified in The WH Landscape Consultancy Ltd Landscape Report and the WH Landscape Consultancy Ltd Landscape and Ecological Enhancements Report (May 2016) and associated plans including Figure 2 Landscape and Ecological Enhancements (Addendum) and Figure 5 Landscape Strategy. The approved landscape works shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of development or in accordance with a programme submitted before any development takes place and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of the approved landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies ADPP5, CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy July 2006-2026.

5. No development or other operations on site (other than investigative work) shall commence until an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, has been completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site and submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site, and a written report of the findings must be produced. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

- human health,

- property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,

- adjoining land,

- groundwaters and surface waters,

- ecological systems,

- archaeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's `Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: Previous uses of the site could have caused contamination of land. The Phase 1 investigation recommends an intrusive investigation. There is a need to make sure any unacceptable risks are remediated to ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy OVS5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

6. No development or other operations on site (other than investigative work) shall commence until a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

7. No development shall take place until remediation works approved under condition 9 have been carried out in full on site. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved remediation works or development, that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and all works must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing. No further works shall occur until an investigation and risk assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 8, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 9, and the assessment and scheme has be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, and any subsequent remediation scheme, a verification report must be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. This condition shall not be discharged until a verification report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation carried out and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

If required, a monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period to be agreed with Local Planning Authority, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or an order revoking and re-enacting that Order, with or without modification), no additions or extensions to the dwelling shall be built or ancillary buildings, structures, fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling unless permission in writing has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose.

Reason: To protect the open plan character of the site and surrounding area. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS 14 and CS 19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

9. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The statement shall provide for:

(a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors

(b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials

(d) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing

(e) Wheel washing facilities

(f) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

(g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

10. The existing southern vehicular access at the site as shown on approved plan 1611/PL14 shall be stopped up and abandoned immediately after the development hereby approved has been brought into use. The verge shall, at the same time as the stopping-up and abandonment, be reinstated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and highway maintenance. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

11. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning space have been provided in accordance with the approved plan(s). The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

12. No development shall take place until details of the surfacing arrangements for the vehicular access to the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall ensure that bonded material is used across the entire width of the access for a distance of 5 metres measured back from the carriageway edge. Thereafter the surfacing arrangements shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To avoid migration of loose material onto the highway in the interest of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

13. No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.

14. No construction of the dwelling hereby approved shall commence until all of the barns, indicated for demolition on drawing number 1611/PL01 have been fully demolished to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity within this highly sensitive AONB landscape. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006)

15. No development or site works or development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To ensure that any significant archaeological remains that are found are adequately recorded in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

16. No development shall commence until details of external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No external lighting will illuminate the bat roost access points provided as part of the mitigation scheme or the boundary vegetation. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the external lighting has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. No additional external lighting shall be installed on the site without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority by way of a formal planning application made for that purpose.

Reason: The site is located within the North Wessex Downs AONB and the area is unlit at night and benefits from dark skies. Inappropriate external lighting would harm the special rural character of the AONB and potentially harm a protected species. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14, CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

17. No development shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These details shall:

a) Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with best practice and the proposed national standards;

b) Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels;

c) Include a drainage strategy for surface water run-off from the site that ensures that no discharge of surface water from the site will be directed into the public system;

e) Include attenuation measures to retain rainfall run-off within the site and allow discharge from the site to an existing watercourse at no greater than Greenfield run-off rates;

f) Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

g) Include run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +30% for climate change;

h) Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil or groundwater;

i) Ensure any permeable paved areas are designed and constructed in accordance with manufacturers guidelines;

j) Ensure any permeable areas are constructed on a permeable sub-base material such as Type 3 or reduced fines Type 1 material as appropriate;

k) Include details of how the SuDS measures will be maintained and managed after completion. These details shall be provided as part of a handover pack for subsequent purchasers and owners of the property/premises;

l) Include a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This plan shall incorporate arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory undertaker, management and maintenance by a residents' management company or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

All sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling hereby permitted is occupied or in accordance with a timetable to be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority as part of the details submitted for this condition. The sustainable drainage measures shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner. To prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design - Part 4 Sustainable Design Techniques (June 2006).

18. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until a Management Plan for the proposed Package Treatment Plant (PTP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan for the PTP must include details of a maintenance contract with a suitably qualified contractor to manage the PTP as well as details of a visual and audible alarm system to be installed with the PTP that would be triggered by a mechanical failure, or a reduction in the effluents quality. Discharge from the proposed PTP must be to the ground, via a soakaway as confirmed in the email from Alexa Conder dated 1st June 2015. If it is found that discharge to the ground, for any reason, is not suitable the dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a proposed alternative system has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the PTP has been installed strictly in accordance with the approved details. The PTP will be maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The proposed development site is within close proximity of the Winterbourne Stream, which is a tributary of the River Lambourn Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Such measures would ensure that the proposed system is appropriate, and would not result in polluted runoff reaching the Winterbourne Stream. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 as well as the NPPF.

19. The area of land to be used for informal car parking as shown on approved drawing number 1611/PL14 shall be used solely for car parking and for no other purpose.

Reason: Any other use may not be acceptable on the site. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

20. No development shall take place until detailed drawings showing the location and type of 3 built in cavity wall bat boxes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the bat boxes have been installed in accordance with the approved details and the roosts created hereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected by law. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

21. No development shall commence until a copy of the Natural England EPS Licence required has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless it can be shown to the Local Planning Authority's satisfaction that such a licence is not required.

22. Should the development hereby permitted not be commenced within 1 year of the date of this permission, no development shall commence until the bat survey has been repeated and a report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report will include updated detailed bat mitigation measures. Such approved updated mitigation measures will be implemented in full and shall be retained thereafter.

23. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the Bat Mitigation recommendations made in Section 4.3 of the Bat Roost Survey report dated September 2014 and amended 2016 for this site by ENIMS have been implemented in full.

24. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until a report from an qualified ecologist which confirms that the approved mitigation and enhancement measures have been implemented in full has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of species protected by law and the implementation of biodiversity enhancements proposed as part of the application. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy ENV20 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

This decision has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP), the Berkshire Structure Plan 2001-2016 (BSP), the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire 1998-2006, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991-2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, supplementary planning guidance notes; and in particular guidance notes and policies:

INFORMATIVE:

1. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that any conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2. The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met.

3. For further information regarding the discharge of the conditions or any other matters relating to the decision, please contact the Customer Call Centre on: 01635 519111

4. This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

5. The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure. A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice. You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges. For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil

6. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Berkshire Act, 1986, Part II, Clause 9, which enables the Highway Authority to recover the costs of repairing damage to the footway, cycleway or grass verge, arising during building operations.

7. The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.

8. The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not in any way allow the Public Right of Way to be obstructed at any time during the course of the development.

9. The applicant is advised that all visitors to the site should be made aware that they would be driving along a Public Right of Way. As a result they should drive with caution when manoeuvring into and out of the site and should give way to pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians at all times.

10. Nothing connected with either the development or its construction must adversely affect or encroach upon the Public Right of Way (PROW), which must remain available for public use at all times. Information on the width of the PROW can be obtained from the PROW Officer.

11. The applicant is advised that the Rights of Way Officer must be informed prior to the laying of any services beneath the Public Right of Way.

12. Where the ground levels adjacent to the path are to be raised above the existing ground levels, a suitable drainage system must be installed adjacent to the Public Right of Way, to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing.

13. The applicant is advised to give the Local Authority 21 days notice prior to the development commencing. Before the development starts, the Local Authority must obtain from the applicant a written undertaking that they will meet any costs incurred by the Local Authority in the repair of the surface of the Public Right of Way, as a result of construction traffic using the route.

14. No alteration of the surface of the Public Right of Way must take place without the prior written permission of the Rights of Way Officer.

15. The Highways Manager, West Berkshire District Council, Highways & Transport, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 5LD, telephone number 01635 - 519803, should be contacted to agree the access construction details and to grant a licence before any work is carried out within the highway. A formal application should be made, allowing at least four (4) weeks' notice, to obtain details of underground services on the applicant's behalf.

Supporting documents: