Agenda item

Proposal:	This outline application comprises two parts: Part a) The erection of 110 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space and associated landscaping with all matters reserved other than access and layout; Part b) The erection of a 3FE Infant School and 900sq m GP surgery (Use Class D1) with shared parking area with all matters reserved other than access.
Location:	Land South Of St John's Church Of England School, The Street, Mortimer Common, Reading, Berkshire
Applicant:	TA Fisher (Mortimer) Ltd
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions set out in section 8.1 of this report. OR   If the legal agreement is not completed by the 11 June 2018, to DELEGATE to the Head of Development & Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION, for the reason set out in Section 8.2 of the report or to extend the period for completion if it is considered expedient to do so.

 

(Councillor Graham Bridgman declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he supported the development and adoption of the Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Development Plan because he thought that Neighbourhood Development Plans were a good idea and to be encouraged.  At various times in the process he was lobbied by both those in favour of the NDP and those against it.  He also was a named signatory to, and contributor (to the tune of £8.40) to the cost of, a leaflet promoting a “Yes” vote in the NDP referendum. In the same way that councillors voting in favour of the Housing Sites Allocation Development Plan Document (including himself), had accepted the principle of development in respect of each of the DPD sites, he had accepted the principle of the development.  However, in the same way that such acceptance did not preclude such a councillor from coming to an outline or full application for a DPD site with an open mind, Councillor Bridgeman came to this application with an open mind.

Councillor Bridgman had taken advice from the Monitoring Officer, and was content that there was no interest that precluded him from taking part in the debate and voting.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(2)) concerning Planning Application 17/03004/OUTMAJ in respect of an outline application comprising two parts: Part a) The erection of 110 dwellings including affordable housing, public open space and associated landscaping with all matters reserved other than access and layout; Part b) The erection of a 3FE Infant School and 900sq m GP surgery (Use Class D1) with shared parking area with all matters reserved other than access.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Pat Wingfield, Parish Council representative, Mr Peter Marsh and Mr Colin Whitaker , objectors, and Katherine Miles, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Simon Till introduced the report to Members of the Committee which was recommended for approval subject to conditions and ran through the key points. The proposal offered 44 affordable housing units, which met the 40% stated in West Berkshire Council’s Core Strategy. There was an addendum to the report for the item, which included a paragraph that should have appeared in the report concerning the impact on the amenity of existing residential occupants. Simon Till clarified that the proposed dwellings would be at least 50m from existing dwellings. The proposed dwellings would also be at least 21 metres from dwellings proposed as part of a separate development.

Simon Till added that there were an updated list of conditions included within the update report along with an updated reason for refusal and clarification on the officer’s recommendation.

Parish Council Representation

Mr Pat Wingield in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Generally he agreed with the recommendation set out within the report and the site had been identified within the Mortimer Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·         He thanked the applicant and Simon Till for the way that they had engaged the Parish Council over the application.

·         Mr Wingfield asked that if the proposal was approved that the Parish Council be able to have an input into the design for the open space to the north of the site.

·         He also pleaded that the flood policy be enforced.

Member questions to Parish Council

Councillor Alan Macro asked My Wingfield to elaborate on comments made about flooding. Mr Wingfield stated West Berkshire Council allowed a 40% uplift however, the Parish Council would prefer to see an uplift of 30%. Mr Wingfield felt that the flood risk should be calculated on saturated or hard ground. It was hoped that SuDs would be put in place under these circumstances.

Councillor Alan Law referred to a comment made at the site visit regarding the area to the left of the site. The Officer had provided a measurement on the depth of this area however Councillor Law queried why the plan was not the same as that set out in the NDP, where the whole area was green and open. Mr Wingfield stated that the Parish Council only had the indicative drawings, which overall showed the landscaping to be larger. 

Objectors’ Representation

Mr Colin Whitaker and Mr Peter Marsh in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Mr Marsh stated that in principle 60 units were viable for the site. However this had been completely ignored.

·         There were a range of objections listed under section 3.2 of the report.

·         The proposal was far too big for the amount of land available and Mr Marsh compared it to pouring a pint of water into a half pint glass.

·         Mr Whitaker stated that a number of near misses in terms of traffic accidents had been witnessed at the other site nearby. Regarding car parking, there was a blind spot to the east of the site.

·         Blocked pavements would result in dangers for children, particularly during the construction phase.

·         There was concern that residents close by would be subjected to toxic fumes.

·         Residents of the nearby development consisting of 17 dwellings would have to give way to construction traffic for the 110 houses.

·         Mr Whitaker did not feel that the area needed a further 110 houses and queried why other options could not have been explored such as a care home.

Member Questions to Objectors

Councillor Chopping stated that the application for 110 houses on the site was a result of consultation with the village. Councillor Chopping stated that the reason the current site for 110 dwellings had been supported by local people was because it would prevent the site to the west being developed. The site was a result of the NDP whereby 90% of voters, voted in favour of the site being developed. Mr Whitaker stated that 90% of the village was not affected. Mr Whitaker stated that in his opinion there had been a mantra in Mortimer stating that the site was suitable for development and therefore people had been persuaded to vote that way. Councillor Chopping asked Mr Whitaker if he felt like he was part of a small minority opposing the site and Mr Marsh stated that people had been persuaded to vote in favour of the site being developed.

Councillor Macro asked Mr Whitaker to clarify his issue with the sight lines when leaving the site. Mr Whitaker stated vision lines would be particularly difficult when pulling out of the site. He had placed the bumper of his car on the proposed new line and stated that he could not see beyond it. Although this would not be a problem for HGV’s, which were higher up,  in his view cars would struggle greatly.

Agent Representation

Ms Miles in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         There had been three years of consultations, engagement and master planning in respect of the site.

·         The applicant, TA Fisher, was a family run business with a strong reputation for high quality homes. They were currently building 17 homes at Tower House to the north of the site being considered.

·         Her client was committed to community engagement, which was reflected in the extensive consultation that had taken place prior to submission of the application.

·         Through preparation of the Housing Site Allocations DPD, the Council established a requirement for 110 dwellings in Mortimer. This housing requirement was met through the preparation of a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). In 2015 the community voted that all 110 homes should be allocated on one site.

·         In June 2017, at a local referendum the Council asked residents if they wanted to adopt the NDP. There were 1,375 yes votes, representing an 88% turnout.

·         In January 2017 the first community consultation event had taken place regarding the site and in March 2017, TA Fisher commenced preparation of a Site Design Brief taking account of feedback received from the January event. Another consultation event took place in April 2017 and the Design Brief was agreed in October 2017.

·         The site consisted of urban design principles to ensure the development achieved high quality design with generous plots, open spaces and buildings which responded to the local character of the area.

·         A mix of housing types would be provided including bungalows, apartment and houses, from one to five bedrooms.

·         The mix was reflective of policies HD2 and SDB3 of the NDP and the application also delivered 40% affordable homes in line with policy.

·         A leisure trail was proposed to the south of the site with connectivity to the existing right of way to the east. Landscape buffers were proposed to the south comprising of a woodland to soften the edge of the site.

·         This would be in additional to the existing landscape buffer that separated the site from dwellings on the Avenue. There was already and established buffer to the west, which would be retained.

·         One hectare of land was set aside for a three form entry (3FE) infant school. This land would incorporate the school building and outdoor play area and a GP surgery. Parking on this site would be via a shared facility with space for around 50 cars and the provisions of a kiss-and-drop adjacent to the school entrance.

·         The scale of dwellings was reserved however, the plans provided a housing mix and an indicative GIA for each unit. Appearance was also reserved however, information had been provided on the likely materials.

·         Access to the site was taken from The Street via an existing approved access. There would be a 0.3m build out of the kerb line. Trips at the junction had been considered through a Transport Assessment and the access had been designed to accommodate schools traffic. It was hoped that relocating the school to the site would reduce on-street parking within the village.

·         The drainage system was designed to cater for a one in a hundred storm event with 40% allowance for climate change.

·         In conclusion it was an example of an exemplar proposal on consultation and engagement with the Parish Council supportive of the application and Council Officers recommending approval. Mrs Miles therefore hoped that Members of the Committee would concur and support the application.

Member Questions to Agent

Councillor Law queried why the existing track to the  school site was not being utilised. Ms Miles stated that the track had not been used due to its narrow nature.

Councillor Chopping noted that 110 units were proposed however, he noted that the detail of housing under section 6.3.2 of report amounted to 112 dwelling. Ms Miles confirmed that this must be a typographical error as the proposal was definitely for 110 dwellings. Councillor Chopping accepted this response.

Councillor Chopping referred to the concerns raised by the Parish Council regarding flooding. Ms Miles reported that the assessments conducted applied the worst case scenario such as the extreme weather events of 2007.

Councillor Chopping noted that the Parish Council wished to be involved in the design of the public open space and Ms Miles stated that this would not be a problem.

Councillor Richard Crumly asked if there would be double yellow lines placed to prevent cars parking near visibility splays. Ms Miles reported that the length of the splays would be longer than they currently were however, they would be unable to control where vehicles parked.

Councillor Metcalfe referred to Councillor Law’s point about the track that went to the telephone exchange. Using the existing track to access the proposed school seemed much more logical. Councillor Law asked why consideration had not been given to using this track. Ms Miles stated that the width of the road through the Tower House site was very narrow. If the existing track had been used it would create a parking/drop off area to the north of the site, which was close to existing dwellings. Councillor Law felt that using the existing track would have formed a much more logical route in and out of the school and surgery site. The Chairman reminded Members that they needed to base their decisions on the plans in front of them.

Councillor Bridgman referred to the local referendum regarding the adoption of  the NDP and clarified that there had been a 80% turnout, which equated to 51 people and 81.8% had voted in favour of the NPP.

Councillor Bridgman noted the concerns of the Parish Council with regard to flooding and the state of the ground when the assessment had taken place. He suggested that that condition 6 (c) be amended to include the wording ‘falling on saturated ground’. Ms Miles stated that a lot of information had been provided and thorough assessments had been carried out. The calculations used included the infiltration rate with extra capacity built in. Even with these calculations there was still capacity as the worst case scenario for flooding had had been taken into account. Ms Miles was unsure of what further information could be provided.

Councillor Bridgman moved onto to question the adequacy of the road layout in relation to the proposed school and surgery. Parking outside St Johns School during drop of and pick up times was already an issue and once the car park for the school was full, cars used the car park outside the community centre, the Horse and Groom public house and the Church. Councillor Bridgman asked if the parking provided was adequate for the proposed 3FE school. Ms Miles stated that a 3FE would allow journey to the site to be staggered. It was anticipated that the 50 places planned for the development would provide adequate parking provision.

Councillor Bridgman asked Ms Miles if the applicant was happy to commit to 40% affordable housing which equated to 44 units. Mrs Miles confirmed that the applicant was happy to commit to this.

Councillor Richard Somner asked if the applicant had consulted the Clinical Commissioning Group on the provision of a surgery or if it was simply a transfer of Mortimer surgery. Ms Miles confirmed that the applicant had engaged with the existing surgery and NHS Commissioning Group.

Councillor Bale asked how big the site of the existing school was Ms Miles confirmed that it was about a third of the size of the site proposed for the new school. Councillor Bale asked if Ms Miles felt that one hectare of land was adequate space for the school and Ms Miles confirmed that the NDP required one hectare of land. Space required had been calculated on the requirements of a 3FE school.

Councillor Webster referred to the point made by Councillor Chopping regarding the number of units and confirmed that section 6.3.2 listed that there would be 24 two bed dwellings and there would actually only be 22, of which 14 would be affordable.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Bridgman as Ward Member raised the following points:

·         There was a requirement within West Berkshire for increased housing within Service Centres and in Mortimer the community had taken control of this requirement for their area. Just over 50% of the community had turned out to vote regarding the NDP and 81.8% of them had voted in favour of its adoption.

·         Members of the Committee had heard from the Parish Council on the application and a lot of effort had been put into forming the planning document for Mortimer.

·         Councillor Bridgman was concerned about the green barrier between the public house and footpath to the east of the site. He felt that the four metre green barrier would be just about adequate as mentioned by the Parish Council.

·         Councillor Bridgman stated that he was in favour of the application as it had gained the support of the community and there had been a huge level of engagement if the NDP and design.

·         Councillor Bridgman stated that he would preferably not see the development permitted in Mortimer however, it was a service village and the 44 affordable housing units would be of great benefit to the area.

Member Questions to the Ward Member

Councillor Law asked if the access to the site had been considered when adopting the NDP or if it had been decided that this should be left to the planning process. Councillor Bridgman confirmed that aspects such as access and the amount of open space had been left for consideration as part of the planning process.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Metcalfe further queried the access to the site and if what he could see on the plan was a zebra crossing. He felt that certain parts of the road looked particularly narrow. Gareth Dowding confirmed that all roads would be two lanes with a footway provided. On the narrower parts a footway would only be provided along one side of the road. Officers had spent a considerable amount of time investigating the scheme and felt it was fully adoptable from a highway perspective. Gareth Dowding confirmed that the crossing Councillor Metcalfe had referred to would not be a controlled crossing.

Councillor Crumly asked if double yellow lines could be implemented at the site access. Gareth Dowding confirmed that a request for double yellows lines could be made once the access was in place. The Highway Authority would carry out a consultation and follow the normal process for such requests.

Councillor Macro referred to the sight lines and noted that the property to the east had a long set back fence and low wall. Simon Till confirmed that the wall in question did not fall within the visibility splays and Gareth Dowding reported that they could not use private land.

Councillor Law noted that the application was in two parts and reported that he was happy with one part but not the other. David Pearson confirmed that Members needed to consider it as one application.

Councillor Bridgman asked for a response from Officers concerning the Parish Council’s comments of SuDs. Simon Till confirmed that assessment had been conducted and the proposal complied with policy GD3.

Councillor Chopping referred to the request by the Parish Council to be involved in the design of the open space and David Pearson reported that this was a negotiation that would need to take place between the applicant and the Parish Council.

The Debate

Councillor Webster noted the huge amount of work and effort by the applicant to involve the Parish Council and local people throughout the formation of the application. A number of the points raised by objectors had been covered by conditions.

Councillor Webster felt that the SUDs conditions needed to be amended so that they referred to ‘dry or saturated ground’. Councillor Webster felt that it was important that this point, which was raised by the Parish Council, was acknowledged.

Councillor Law concurred with Councillor Webster however, stated that Members were responsible for considering the details and ensuring that these did not compromise aims and principles. Councillor Law was supportive of part (a) of the application however, was not satisfied that the access to the school and surgery was correct and he was unsure if his suggestion, which involved using the existing track, had even been considered. The proposed road would involve users having to negotiate three additional junctions and crossings, when in his view there was a much simpler solution. Councillor Law stated that he would therefore be minded to vote against the application as he felt the access needed revisiting.

Councillor Chopping noted the considerable about of work that had gone into the proposal. There had been a referendum, which voted in favour of the development and supported the NDP. Councillor Chopping felt that the points raised by objectors were irrelevant and the issue raised by Councillor Law was unlikely to persuade him to vote against the application. He however, hoped that Officers and the applicant and agent listened to points raised by Councillor Law.

Councillor Bridgman stated that any period of construction was always an inconvenience and he felt that the inclusion of double yellow lines was an option that needed pursuing. Regarding the construction of the road (GD2) there would be safety humps, 20mph zones, full height kerbs and designated open spaces. This sense of design was something that was applicable to all developments in Mortimer.

Councillor Bale queried if a review of the access could be conditioned. David Pearson stated that if Members wished officers to negotiate changes to the access to the school and surgery site they would have to defer the application. He urged Members not to refuse the application on highway safety grounds as the Highways Authority had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable. Members needed to make a decision on the existing proposal.

Councillor Webster commented that the proposal was in keeping with the NDP and if Members were minded to refuse the application there would most likely be an appeal against the Local Authority. The proposal clearly supported the principles of the NDP and therefore Councillor Webster proposed that Members support the recommendation to approve planning permission subject to additional detail being added to SuDs conditions concerning saturated and dry ground. Councillor Chopping seconded the proposal by Councillor Webster.

Councillor Law asked if a review of the access could be added as an informative and Councillor Webster stated that she would not accept this as part of her proposal. David Pearson stated that it would be unwise to include an informative that undermined the permission being granted.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal put forward by Councillor Webster and seconded by Councillor Chopping and at the vote the motion was carried.

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

Conditions

1.    Reserved matters (3 years)

Application for approval of the reserved matters for each phase of development as set out under Conditions 3 and 4 shall be made to the Local Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this planning permission.

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

2.    Two years commencement

The development hereby approved shall begin no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason:   To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

3.    Reserved matters (Residential details)

Details of the appearance, landscaping, and scale for each phase of the approved residential development of 110 houses including affordable housing, public open space and associated landscaping, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before each phase of development is commenced. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

4.    Reserved matters (School and/or Surgery site details)

Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the 3FE infant school and 900 sq.m. GP surgery (use class D1) with shared parking area (hereinafter referred to as the ‘reserved matters’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any development on the school and/or surgery site is commenced. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason:  To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

5.    Phasing plan

No development shall take place until a Phasing Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The Phasing Plan shall identify the phases by which the development shall be constructed and implemented, including all residential development (including affordable housing), the infant school, the doctor’s surgery, and all public open space.  Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan.

Reason:  To ensure that the overall development proceeds in a coordinated manner assessed in accordance with the advice of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

6.    Approved plans

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

2095 P 01 Rev A; 2095 P 02 Rev G; 2095 P 03 Rev R; 2095 P 06; 2095 P 07; 2095 P 08; 5427.SK05 Rev. B; Landscape Strategy Drawing Number 100 Rev E

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

7.    SuDS 1

No development on the approved residential site shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the residential development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details should be in accordance with the principles of the Stuart Michael Associates Flood Risk Assessment (dated July 2017). 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 including those of Policy GD3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017);

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

c)    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;

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

e)    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; and

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), Policy GD3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017) and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).  A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

8.    SuDS 2

No development of the approved school and/or surgery shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the school 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 including those of Policy GD3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017);

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

c)    Include a drainage strategy for surface water run-off which provides attenuation measures to retain rainfall run-off within the site and allow discharge from the site to the proposed ditch at no greater than greenfield run-off rates;

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)     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.

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), Policy GD3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017) and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).  A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

9.    Hours of work

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

-07:30 and 19:00 Monday to Friday;

-08:00 and 13:00 Saturday;

-No work shall take place on Sundays and Bank Holidays

Reason: To protect residential amenity during the construction period in accordance with the NPPF (2012), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007.

10.Water and waste

The approved residential development shall not commence until an integrated water supply and drainage strategy has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. The strategy shall provide details of any on and/or off site drainage works, and impact studies on the existing water supply infrastructure to determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved integrated water supply and drainage strategy. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed.

Reason: To make sufficient provision for water supply and drainage in accordance with the NPPF (2012), Policies CS14 and CS16 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy GS1 of the West Berkshire HAS DPD (2017).

11.Emergency water supplies

No dwelling shall be first occupied until either:

(a)  Private fire hydrants, or other suitable emergency water supplies, have been provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; or

(b)  Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service confirm that such provision is not required (for example, because a public mains water supply for the development provides sufficient supply) and confirmation of the same has been given in writing by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to this condition. 

Reason:   At present there are no available public mains in this area to provide suitable water supply in order to effectively fight a fire.  Suitable private fire hydrants, or other suitable emergency water supplies, are therefore required to meeting Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service requirements, in the interests of public safety.  The approval of this information is required before development commences because insufficient information accompanies the outline application and it will affect the servicing of the development.  This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

12.Tree protection

Development of each phase of the approved development shall not commence until protective fencing has been be implemented in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved drawings numbered plan 911-02.1 Rev B dated June 18 and supported by tree report by SJ Stephens Associates ref 911 dated 13th June 2018. The protective fencing shall be retained intact for the duration of the development. Within the fenced areas, there shall be no excavations, storage of materials or machinery, parking of vehicles or fires.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of  the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012.

13.Arboricultural supervision

No development in any phase shall take place (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief for that phase in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

14.Landscaping

No development or other operations shall commence on site until a detailed scheme of landscaping for each phase of the site is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include 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)         Details of the phasing of landscaping to accompany the phasing of development;

b)         Completion of each phase of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of each phase of the development;       

c)         Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of this development being completed 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 NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

15.Archaeology

No 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 requirements of the NPPF (2012), Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy SDB1 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

16.Waste Management

No dwelling shall be occupied in each phase of the development until the refuse and recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and in conjunction with the approved Phasing Plan. These facilities shall be retained for the storage of waste and recycling materials thereafter.

Reason:   To ensure that there is adequate and safe refuse/recycling facilities within the site.  This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).

17.Visibility splays

No dwelling shall be occupied until the visibility splays at the access on to The Street have been provided in accordance with drawing no. 5427.SK05 Rev B received on 12th July 2018.  The land within these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above the carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests 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).

18.Construction Method Statement

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement addressing each phase of the development has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application.  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)  Site security arrangements including the erection and maintenance of security hoarding and any decorative displays and facilities for public viewing

(e)  Wheel washing facilities

(f)   Measures to control the emission of dust, smell, dirt and other effluvia during construction

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

(h)  Measures to control of noise

(i)    The proposed method of piling for foundations

(j)    Measures for control of surface water run off

(k)  hours during the construction and demolition phase, when delivery vehicles or vehicles taking materials are allowed to enter or leave the site

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, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policies TRANS1, OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan (1991-2006) Saved Policies 2007 and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

19.Gradient of private drives

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).

20.Parking and turning

No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plans.  The parking and turning spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking and turning of private motor cars 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), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD (2017).

21.Access construction

No dwelling shall be occupied until the existing access to the site has been amended and constructed in accordance with the approved drawings.

Reason: In the interest of road safety.  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 SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

22.Cycle storage

No development within each phase shall take place until details of cycle parking and storage spaces have been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application (where not approved through the reserved matters application for that phase).  No dwelling shall be occupied until the cycle parking and storage space for it has been provided in accordance with the approved details. The cycle parking and storage shall be retained for this purpose thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe cycle storage space within the site.  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).

23.Residential Travel Plan

The residential development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Travel Plan ref: No. 5727/RTP dated February 2018.

Reason: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the site in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP 2017.

24.School travel plan

The 3FE Infant School shall not be brought into use until a School Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.   The operation of the school shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the school site in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP 2017.

25.Pedestrian and cycle accesses

No dwelling within a phase of the residential development shall be first occupied until the pedestrian and cycle accesses within that phase have been provided in accordance with the approved plans.

In order to ensure that safe access to the development is provided for sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

26.Electric charging points

 

No development shall commence until details of electric car charging points and associated infrastructure to serve each phase of the approved residential development has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. Such details shall include a schedule for the implementation of the electric car charging points on each phase of the residential development. The approved works shall be undertaken in accordance with the schedule. The electric car charging points shall be retained thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the site in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy P1 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD (2017).

 

27.Layout and design standards

The detailed layout of all phases of the site shall comply with the Local Planning Authority's standards in respect of road and footpath design and vehicle parking and turning provision. The road and footpath design shall be to a standard that is adoptable as public highway. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given in the current application.

Reason: In the interest of providing adoptable infrastructure, road safety and 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), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

28.Lighting strategy (residential)

 

No development of each phase of the approved residential development shall take place until an external lighting strategy for each phase has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. Such a strategy shall provide details of all external lighting and street lighting to be erected on the site in each phase of the residential  development. No dwelling in any phase of the residential development shall be occupied, until all lighting on that phase of the development has been erected in accordance with the approved lighting strategy. Thereafter the external lighting for the site shall be retained in accordance with the approved strategy and no additional external/street lighting shall be erected on the site

 

Reason: To ensure protect the foraging habitats of bats and to protect the dark night skies of Stratfield Mortimer in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policy GD4 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

 

29.Lighting strategy (surgery)

No development of the approved surgery shall commence until an external lighting strategy for the school has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. Such a strategy shall provide details of all external lighting and street lighting to be erected on the surgery site. Thereafter all external lighting and street lighting on the school site shall be erected in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: In the interest of providing adoptable infrastructure, road safety and 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), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

30.Lighting strategy (school)

No development of the approved school shall commence until an external lighting strategy for the school has been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. Such a strategy shall provide details of all external lighting and street lighting to be erected on the school site. Thereafter all external lighting and street lighting on the school site shall be erected in accordance with the approved strategy.

Reason: In the interest of providing adoptable infrastructure, road safety and 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), Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) and Policy SDB2 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

31.Superfast broadband strategy (residential)

 

No development of any dwelling shall commence until a Superfast Broadband Strategy Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a statement shall set out how superfast broadband is to be provided to the residential development on the site, including a schedule for connection. Thereafter no dwelling shall be occupied until superfast broadband infrastructure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and schedule.

 

Reason: To ensure that the site is provided with high speed communications infrastructure in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the site in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policies CS5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy IS1 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

 

32.Superfast broadband strategy (infant school)

 

No development of the infant school shall commence until a Superfast Broadband Strategy Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a statement shall set out how superfast broadband is to be provided to the school, including a schedule for connection. Thereafter the school shall not be occupied until superfast broadband infrastructure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and schedule.

 

Reason: To ensure that the site is provided with high speed communications infrastructure in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the site in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policies CS5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy IS1 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

 

33.Superfast broadband strategy (surgery)

 

No development of the surgery shall commence until a Superfast Broadband Strategy Statement has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a statement shall set out how superfast broadband is to be provided to the surgery, including a schedule for connection. Thereafter the surgery shall not be occupied until superfast broadband infrastructure has been provided in accordance with the approved details and schedule.

 

Reason: To ensure that the site is provided with high speed communications infrastructure in the interests of the amenity of the occupants of the site in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF, Policies CS5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy IS1 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

 

34.Ecology

An Ecological Management Plan (EMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The EMP shall be based on the recommendations set out within the Ecological Report prepared by AA Environmental Ltd and dated September 2017.  The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide for ecological protection and enhancements and biodiversity and environmental gain in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policies SDB4, B1, B2 and B3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

35.No separate disposal of open space

No parts of the public open space and landscaped areas within the site shown on drawing numbers 2075 P 06 and Landscape Strategy Drawing number 100 Rev E shall be taken into private gardens, or shall be sold or disposed of separately from any other part of the public open space on the site.

Reason:   In order to ensure that the public open space and landscaped areas are retained, in order to mitigate the impact of the development on views from the surrounding landscape and the neighbouring public right of way, and in the interests of securing biodiversity and environmental gain in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policies SDB4, B1, B2 and B3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017).

36.Open space management

No dwelling on the site shall be occupied until details of a management plan to secure the management and retention of the public open spaces on the site have been submitted and approved under a formal discharge of conditions application. The management of the public open spaces shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the details of the approved management plan.

Reason:   In order to ensure that the public open space and landscaped areas are retained, in order to mitigate the impact of the development on views from the surrounding landscape and the neighbouring public right of way, and in the interests of securing biodiversity and environmental gain in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2026) 2012 and Policies SDB4, B1, B2 and B3 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017)

   

      OR

If a S106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing and public open space is not completed within the above specified time, to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reason listed below.

Reason:

S106 Planning obligation

 

The application fails to provide a Section 106 Planning Obligation to deliver necessary infrastructure and mitigation measures, including:

a)  Affordable housing, without which the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Planning Obligations SPD.

 

b)  Public open space, including 3 hectares of publically accessible landscaped open space (provision and governance), without which the proposal would be contrary to the NPPF, Policy CS18, Policies RL.1, RL.2 and RL.3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007) Policy SDB4 of the Stratfield Mortimer NDP (2017) and the Planning Obligations SPD.”