Agenda item

Proposal:	Proposed erection of 30 flats with associated car parking and coffee shop, with external amenity space.
Location:	Land at Station Yard, Hungerford
Applicant:	Oakes Bros Limited.
Recommendation:	To note the resolution made by the Western Area Planning Committee on 27 June 2018 and resolve to approve the application, subject to conditions and a Section 106 obligation.

 

(Councillor Anthony Pick declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1)  by virtue of the fact that he had had a discussion with Network Rail in the last couple of weeks. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application No. 18/00837/FULEXT in respect of the proposed erection of 30 flats with associated car parking and coffee shop with external amenity space.

Application number 18/00837/FULEXT had been submitted to the Council on 19^th March 2018. It was a full application to redevelop the existing temporary private car park at the Station Yard, to a new five storey scheme of 30 flats with associated under croft parking (33 spaces), with nine of the flats (30%) being affordable. Associated with the proposal was a communal amenity space to the rear, and a new coffee shop for the public on the west aspect of the site. Vehicular access would continue to be from Station Road.

The Planning Officer advised that this was a brownfield site which was located south of the railway line in Hungerford. The levels in the area had a considerable height difference as the land to the south was some 5 or 6 metres higher than that on the car park itself. However, the difference in levels worked well as it allowed the undercroft parking to slot in to the development. The application site abutted a local conservation area and therefore any development on the site should fully respect the setting and value of that conservation area without detriment.

The whole of the application site was within a defined protected employment area [PEA] as designated under adopted policy CS9 in the Core Strategy. This meant that any non-employment generating use approved on the site would not be consistent with that policy - housing was not employment generating, (beyond initial construction), so would, if approved, be contrary to the Council’s policy. The Council’s constitution required that the District Planning Committee consider applications where there was a possibility of conflict with a policy that would undermine the Development Plan and where there was a district-wide public interest.

In terms of access and parking, Officers were satisfied that the net loss of just three car parking spaces from the public network rail car park in the Yard would not be so harmful as to merit a recommendation of refusal. There had been concerns around the poor pedestrian routes to and from the site up to and across Station Road. Highway Officers considered it was essential to ensure a safe pedestrian route to and from the site and further detailed plans would be submitted by the applicant to cover this point. It was noted that 96 parking spaces would be lost in the temporary car park but that would also be the case should an employment application be submitted.

Concerns had been raised in relation to noise and the applicant has submitted an acoustic report which had concluded that the development would be double or triple glazed particularly on the northern elevation which would be most sensitive to noise. It was felt that the external amenity space would be sufficient.

The appended Western Area Planning Committee agenda report, set out the reasoning by Officers as to why in this case policy CS9 did not need to be the dominant planning policy consideration in these specific circumstances as set out below:

(a)     A recent appeal decision on land in the same PEA in 2017 had been allowed for housing. The Inspector in his decision letter made it clear that there was no justification to reject the appeal, on the basis of continuing to protect employment land, when the land had been vacant for some considerable time and had been marketed for employment uses for a considerable time, to no avail: the same situation applied at the current application site. In addition, he noted the advice in paragraph 22 in the NPPF on this issue. This noted that planning authorities should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use, where there was no reasonable prospect of the site being used for that purpose. Where this was the case applications for alternative uses, should be treated on their merits.

(b)     There were clear regeneration benefits arising from the project, should it be granted planning permission, which (inter alia) the local Town Council were fully supportive of, notwithstanding the loss of the car parking on the site. In addition, not only would more dwellings be built out in a very sustainable location, but there would be the advantage of nine more affordable units in the town.

(c)     The economic vitality and viability of the local area would also be enhanced by the new coffee shop proposed, which would be a local community benefit.

(d)     Officer conclusions were that in the specific circumstances approving a residential scheme on the Station Yard PEA, did not undermine the protection of the remaining CS9 sites in Hungerford, such as at Charnham Park, and nor would it undermine similar PEA sites in other parts of the District.

The Update Sheet noted that the applicant had formally accepted the Council’s request for a contribution of £30,000 towards the provision of additional covered and secure cycle storage at the Station in lieu of the loss of the three Network Rail car parking spaces on the site, should the application be approved.

It had been suggested that the formal designation of the Hungerford Neighbourhood Development Plan [NDP] should accord some weight to be attached to the consideration of this application.  Whilst the Committee should of course be aware of the prospective NDP, the Planning Policy Section had advised that no weight could be attached at this early stage.

The Planning Officer advised that for clarity, the Committee report appended to the cover report had been modified already to include the update points from the Western Area Planning meeting.

Further details had been sought from the Council’s Highways Officer and the Council’s own car parks operation in order to examine to what extent the surrounding car parks to the site in public ownership were used. No detailed usage figures were available although figures of about 60% had been suggested.

For information, the planning permission for the residential scheme for the former ambulance station adjacent to the application site did not need to appear at the District Planning Committee since it was outside the CS9 protection area. Accordingly, an approval was not a departure from adopted policy.

Officers were therefore recommending that the application be approved, subject to the necessary Section 106 planning obligation noted in the report and the full recommendation. Members of District Planning Committee noted the objections raised by the Transport Policy Officer and Great Western Railway, in response to the permanent loss of the 96 space car park on site, identified as valuable to train users/commuters in particular. This was an issue which had been carefully considered by Officers in making the recommendation and by Members at the Western Area Planning Committee meeting on 27^th June 2018.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Keith Knight, Parish Council representative, Ms Nicola Scott, objector, and Ms Kirstin Gray, applicant, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Keith Knight in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                Mr Keith Knight was representing Hungerford Town Council and was also Deputy Mayor for Hungerford;

·                The Town Council were fully supportive of the application and this land had been vacant for the last ten years. It had been used as a temporary car park for the last five years providing 96 parking spaces but the land was in private ownership;

·                The Town Council were currently looking at six options for the provision of additional parking in the town which included:

-   25 spaces on the Network Rail site to the north of the Station;

-   A temporary park and ride scheme operating from the Triangle Field;

-   Hungerford Town Council to take over the running of the West Berkshire Council car parks as part of the Neighbourhood Plan;

-   The Town Council was currently working with West Berkshire Council on a number of other possible sites.

·                The Station area was a gateway in to Hungerford and an additional 30 apartments would bring new residents into the town;

·                Mr Knight recognised that this was a Protected Employment Area but the recent appeal decision had changed the perspective around that;

·                The land had been up for sale for a considerable period of time but there had been no interest from any potential purchasers;

·                For the above reasons the Town Council supported approval of the application.

 

 

 

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the options being considered in respect of additional car parking and he asked if those options presumed some further investment by the Town Council. Mr Knight responded that it would be necessary to look at the relationship with West Berkshire Council Car Parks in respect of using revenue to offset costs. However, a business case had not been put together as yet and discussions would need to take place with various landowners.

Councillor Paul Bryant asked if Hungerford had sufficient industrial space. Mr. Knight felt that it did as there was quite a bit of industrial development on Charnham Park and some of the businesses by the Station had relocated to Charnham Park as it was easier to access this site with large lorries. This was also something that was being considered in the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Hilary Cole referred to the Neighbourhood Plan and recognised that it was in the early stages. She asked what the vision was in the Neighbourhood Plan for that piece of land. Mr Knight replied that the view was similar to that which had been included in the Town Plan. This site was a gateway into the town and it could provide much needed housing for local people.

Councillor Anthony Pick raised the issue of parking and whether consideration had been given to the potential increase in demand arising from electrification of the line. Mr Knight agreed that from 2019 new IET trains would be operating which would provide a capacity increase. The use of a hybrid train would allow a service from Bedwyn through to London. This was a well-used route but he was not sure whether the new trains would encourage additional growth from Hungerford.

Councillor Marigold Jacques referred to the park and ride option and she queried whether this would run from one site or various sites. Mr Knight advised that it would run to and from the Triangle Field in the morning and evening but that in the daytime it could support the local bus service.

Ms Nicola Scott in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                Ms Scott represented Great Western Railway who objected to the application on the basis of the reduction in the number of car parking spaces;

·                Over 90 car parking spaces would be lost and that would have a negative impact on the town;

·                The plan was to increase the number of parking spaces rather than reduce them and the new trains would further increase demand for parking;

·                There were 70 official parking bays in the Station car park and these were at capacity on weekdays already;

·                Rail passenger trips had increased by 78% from Hungerford since 2006 and a further 60% growth was anticipated by 2023/24;

·                Alternative parking options would have an impact on the ability to access the town and there would still be a deficit of 50 spaces which would result in displacement parking in residential areas;

·                Stations at Bedwyn, Kintbury and Newbury did not have any spare capacity for parking;

·                The station at Hungerford was used widely by residents outside the Hungerford area;

·                Great Western Railway would like to work more closely with the landowner and West Berkshire Council to consider options to protect the parking provided on the site.

Councillor Alan Law said that if it was so important why had Great Western Railway not considered purchasing the land during the ten years that it had been on the market. Ms Scott confirmed that Great Western Railway took a different view now than it had some 8 years ago.

Councillor Hilary Cole noted that permission to operate a temporary car park had expired two years previously and she queried whether any consideration had been given to paying for a lease of the land. Ms Scott confirmed that it had been considered in the past but that it had not been viable at the time.

Councillor Alan Macro queried the fact that it had been stated that there were 70 official spaces in the Station car park but the sign at the top of the road indicated that there were 120 spaces.

Ms Kirstin Gray in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                In terms of the fact that the application site was within a defined protected employment area as designated under adopted policy CS9 in the Core Strategy, Ms Gray confirmed that the site had not been used since 2007. It had been marketed but there had been no interest in purchasing the site during that time as it was not attractive as employment land;

·                The site had no prospect of development for employment purposes and the recent appeal on another site had been allowed which was also relevant to the application site;

·                Alternative sites should be considered for car parking as they had capacity and were constantly underused;

·                The scheme had not been simple to design and issues with previous schemes had now been addressed through working closely with Officers;

·                The applicant had agreed to make a contribution of £30k towards the provision of additional covered and secured cycle storage at the Station;

·                Neither Network Rail or Great Western Railway had never sought to purchase the land in question;

·                The site as it currently was detracted from the area.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that Ms Gray had mentioned that the site was not attractive for employment use and he questioned why that was. Ms Gray confirmed that the site had been marketed for a long time and there had been no interest at all in commercial use only for residential development. The site was not easy for lorries to access.

Councillor Paul Bryant noted that this was a high density five storey development with an undercroft and he queried whether consideration had been given to installing sprinklers.

Councillor Graham Pask queried how many parking spaces would be provided in the undercroft. It was confirmed that there would be 32 car parking spaces which were two in excess of the number of flats.

Councillor Paul Hewer, as Ward Member, advised that over the years he had defended the site at meetings of Hungerford Town Council as an employment site. However, he could no longer do so as it had been marketed to no avail. He now considered that the best option for the site would be to use it for housing as it included nine affordable housing units. This would go some way to addressing the housing crisis. In respect of the car parking neither Network Rail or Great Western Railway had enquired about purchasing the site or the adjacent site and no representation from Great Western Railway had been received. He was of the opinion that it was a good scheme and he was fully supportive of it.

In considering the above application Members asked for clarification on the number of car parking spaces on the official Station car park. The Highways Officer confirmed that the capacity in the car park was for 120 cars. He had counted the cars in the car park on one occasion and there had been 70 cars in there. However, he urged caution on relying on that occupancy figure as he had only been able to undertake one count.

Councillor Graham Pask stated that much of the discussion had been around car parking at the Station but he queried whether there was sufficient parking within the development as there was only 32 spaces for 30 dwellings. The Highways Officer confirmed that it was sufficient and that it complied with Policy P1.

Councillor Jeff Beck asked that if the application was to be approved then could a condition be added in relation to hours of work.

Councillor Alan Law said that the key reason that this application was being discussed that evening was in relation to the fact that it was against policy. In particular he referred to reason (d) in the covering report by Officers where it stated that approving a residential scheme on the Station Yard PEA, would not undermine the protection of the remaining CS9 sites in Hungerford, such as at Charnham Park, and nor would it undermine similar PEA sites in other parts of the District. He asked what the exceptional circumstances were in this case. Was it because the site had been marketed for the last ten years and there had been no interest. Bryan Lyttle, the Planning Policy Manager, confirmed that there had been a previous appeal on a PEA and the Council had vigorously defended it. However, the Inspector had concluded that the site had been on the market for some time and there had been little interest and therefore PEA status could no longer apply in that respect. That was why this site was being treated as an exception. He referred to the viability argument in the NPPF in terms of what the landowner wanted to receive and what the developer was willing to pay. The Government had consulted on densities around railway stations and this development would comprise a net density of around 100 dwellings per ha if built out whereas what the Government considered acceptable was 350 dwellings per ha.

Councillor Jeff Beck proposed agreement with the Officer recommendation together with an additional condition in relation to hours of work. This was seconded by Councillor Keith Chopping.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions (with the addition of the condition around hours of work) and subject to the prior completion of the s106 obligation to deliver the nine affordable housing units and the £30,000 cycle parking contribution.

Conditions:

3 years

1       The development shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

          Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development against the advice in the DMPO of 2015, should it not be started within a reasonable time.

Materials 

2       No development, shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the proposed development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include the submission of samples of glass, plastic and mortar materials. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CS19 of the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.

Floor levels

3       No development shall commence until all details of floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed building and the adjacent land in accordance with Policy CS19 of the WBCS of 2006 to 2026.

Contamination

4.     Prior to each phase of development approved by this planning permission no development (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:-

i)         A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:-

a)      all previous uses

b)      Potential contaminants associated with those uses

c)      a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors

d)      potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

ii)      A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

iii)     The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

iii)     A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that  the works set out in the remediation strategy in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements  for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:  To protect Controlled Waters from pollution. In accord with the advice in the NPPF.

Verification report

5    No occupation of each phase of development shall take place until a verification report   demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in   accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan for longer-term   monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that contamination at the site is remediated, such that the site does not pose   a threat to controlled waters. In accord with advice in the NPPF of 2012.

Unforeseen contamination

6       If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

Reason:  To protect Controlled Waters from pollution. In accord with advice in the NPPF.

Tree fencing

7       Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the   development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved   drawing(s) numbered plan 980-02. Within the fenced area(s), there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires. In addition ,no development shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory  works) until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in  accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In addition, no trees, shrubs or hedges shown as being   retained on tree survey 980-02 shall be pruned, cut back, felled, wilfully damaged or destroyed in any way without the prior consent of the local planning authority. Any trees, shrubs or hedges felled, removed or destroyed, or any that dies, become seriously damaged or diseased within five years from completion of the approved development, shall be replaced with the same species in the next planting season unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent for any subsequent variation.  In addition, no development shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory   works) until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and   approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the treatment of hard  surfacing and materials to be used, a schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and  proposed numbers/densities), an implementation programme, and details of written specifications  including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment. The   scheme shall ensure:

a) completion of the approved landscaping within the first planting season following the  completion of the development; and b) Any trees, shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of the completion of the development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species. In addition the as approved landscaping plan 5 shall be implemented within the first planting season following completion of development or in accordance with a programme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees, shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

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

Waste Water Network

8      No properties shall be occupied until confirmation has been provided that either:- all wastewater network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development  have been completed; or- a housing and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames  Water to allow additional properties to be occupied. Where a housing and infrastructure phasing   plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed housing   and infrastructure phasing plan.

Reason: The development may lead to sewage flooding and network reinforcement works are anticipated to be necessary to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to accommodate additional flows anticipated from the new development. In accord with the protection of public health in accord with the NPPF advice of 2012.

SUDS

9    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 the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and West Berkshire Council local standards;

b)      Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which confirms the soil   characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels (to be monitored through the winter   months);

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

d)      Include run-off calculations, discharge rates, infiltration and storage capacity calculations   for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm + 40% for climate change;

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

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

g)      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.  The above sustainable drainage measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved   details before the dwellings are first 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 applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and  Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

Noise mitigation

10     The applicant shall implement the noise mitigation measures recommended in the   submitted 'Assessment of Noise and Vibration '(Ian Sharland Limited Ref M3863 Dated 09/03/18 v.4) to achieve suitable internal noise levels in accordance with BS8233 guideline values.  Noise from building plant services shall not at any time exceed a level 10dB below the prevailing  background sound when measured at the facade of the nearest noise sensitive location. 

Reasons: To protect the amenity of future residents and to minimise the potential commercial   impact on the existing public house, in accord with policy OVS6 in the WBDLP of 1991 to 2006.

Construction method statement

11    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

(c)    Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development

(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).

Footway/cycleway details

12   The development shall not be brought into use until the 1.5 metre wide footway fronting the site from the proposed Café eastwards has been constructed in accordance with the approved drawing(s) and any statutory undertaker's equipment or street furniture located in the position of this footway/cycleway has been re-sited to provide an unobstructed footway/cycleway.

          Reason: In the interest of road safety and to ensure adequate and unobstructed provision for pedestrians and/or cyclists. 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).

.Vehicle parking

13    The development shall not be brought into use until the vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and 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).

Gradient of private driveway

14     The gradient of private drives shall not exceed 1 in 8 or, where buildings are likely to be occupied by the mobility impaired, 1 in 12.

Reason: To ensure that adequate access to parking spaces and garages is provided. 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).

Access construction

15    No development shall take place until details of the proposed accesses   into the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  As a first development operation, the vehicular, pedestrian/cycle access and associated engineering operations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved drawing(s).

Reason: To ensure that the accesses into the site are constructed before the approved buildings in the interest of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Train station cycle parking

16    No dwelling shall be occupied until a financial contribution of £30,000 has been provided for the provision of addition cycle storage facilities within Hungerford Train Station.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles.  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).

Station Road footway improvements

17     No dwelling shall be occupied until dropped kerbing and tactile paving is provided across Station Road south of the Railway Tavern under a Section 278 Agreement or other appropriate mechanism.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the encouragement of walking as a sustainable mode of travel. 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).

Hours of Construction Work

18     The hours of work for all contractors for the duration of the site development shall unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing be limited to:

7.30 am to 6.00 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays 8.30 am to 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays and NO work shall be carried out on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. In accordance with CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).