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

Agenda item

Application No. & Parish: 19/01038/FULD - Land Adjacent To 1A King Street, Mortimer Common

Meeting of Eastern Area Planning Committee, Wednesday, 18th September, 2019 6.30 pm (Item 22.(3))

Proposal:	Erection of 2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed apartments with associated parking and infrastructure following reconfiguration of existing retail car park (accessed from King Street) and creation of new loading bay with associated alterations to shop frontage (accessed from Victoria Road).
Location:	Land Adjacent To 1A King Street, Mortimer Common, Reading, West Berkshire, RG7 3RS
Applicant:	Fresh As A Daisy Food Stores Limited
Recommendation:	Delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission.

Minutes:

(Councillor Geoff Mayes re-joined the meeting at 8.25pm)

(Councillor Graham Pask in the Chair)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 19/01038/FULD in respect of the erection of 2 x 1 bed and 2 x 2 bed apartments with associated parking and infrastructure following reconfiguration of existing retail car park (accessed from King Street) and creation of new loading bay with associated alterations to shop frontage (accessed from Victoria Road).

Mr Bob Dray introduced the item to Members of the Committee and ran through the key points. The application was a third application for a similar scheme. The first two applications had been refused and the proposal before Members had evolved from the previous applications. There were no technical objections raised by consultees. Seven public representations had been received and all objected to the application.

The main reasons for objections could be viewed under section 4.3 to the report and included highways concerns and loss of amenity. Mr Dray added that the Highway’s Officer had scrutinised the plans and was satisfied with the visibility splay and how traffic would manoeuvre within the site.

Mr Dray drew attention to the update sheet, which clarified the timing and frequency of deliveries to the existing retail unit (Budgens). The updated sheet also provided clarification on amenity space and provided two additional conditions. In conclusion, Mr Dray reported that the recommendation was to approve planning permission.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr Kevin Johnson, Parish Council representative, Mr and Mrs Hakhnazarian, objectors, Emily Temple, agent and Councillor Graham Bridgman, Ward Member, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish Council Representation:

Mr Johnson in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Stratfield Mortimer Parish Council’s Planning Committee had strongly objected to the application. Mr Johnson referred to West Berkshire Council’s Planning Policy GD1, regarding sites that were detrimental to the street scene.

· The proposed parking layout was impractical as the parking bays were too small at only 1.8 metres wide, which was less than the West Berkshire Council’s standard of 2.4 metres wide.

· The private parking area for the apartments showed 6 spaces, whereas the total required was 6.5 spaces. The Parish Council felt that therefore 7 spaces should be provided.

· The proposed amenity space was too small and was less than the size of the ground floor apartments and appeared to be below the recommended mixture of 25m2 per apartment.

· The frontage of the proposed apartments extended onto the pavement with the entrance door directly onto the pavement.

· Mr Johnson stated that the above points confirmed that the proposal would cause an overdevelopment of the site and an overcrowded layout. The amenity space was too small and the apartments were very close to retail parking which conflicted with the National Development Plan Policy HD4.

· The Parish Council’s Planning Committee had strongly objected to the loading/delivery bay proposed, which would be situated at the front of the store on Victoria Road. This would cause safety issues for parents and children walking to and from school.

· The Parish Council was not convinced that the loading bay could be constructed while allowing sufficient footpath width to accommodate wheelchairs and buggies. This would cause safety issues for parents and children walking to school.

· There was concern that comments submitted about the previous application (18/00477/FULD) including articulated lorries arriving from the wrong direction; the removal of the much used dropped crossing point opposite the bus stop and large vehicles parking in the layby near the road junction, would cause road safety issues.

· Mr Johnson also drew attention to a telegraph pole to the front of the store, which would need removing if the proposal was approved, to make way for the loading/delivery bay.

Member Questions to the Parish Council:

Councillor Geoff Mayes noted the comments Mr Johnson had made about the telegraph pole to the front of the shop and stated that this was actually an active electricity line pole and would be one of three poles that would need repositioning. This would be particularly difficult. He asked Mr Johnson if he was aware that the pole serviced a power line. Mr Johnson stated that he was aware of this.

Councillor Mayes referred to the parking area on the corner of the site that included two disabled parking spaces and felt that this would make the corner particularly tight and difficult for vehicles to navigate past. Councillor Mayes was reminded by the Chairman that only questions to Officers were permitted in this section of the meeting.

Councillor Mayes referred to the frontage of the apartment block onto King Street and asked for further clarification on Mr Johnson’s concerns. Mr Johnson was concerned that the frontages of the apartments opened onto the pathway and were positioned too far forward.

Objector Representations:

Mr Hakhnazarian in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Mr Hakhnazarian highlighted that the application suggested that his property was number 1A whereas it was actually number 1.

· His property would be the most impacted upon if permission was granted. The distance from Mr Hakhnazarian property to the site was about one metre.

· The development would not be in keeping with the surrounding area and would cause overshadowing.

· The Human Rights Act gave particular emphasis to protecting family life and this would be adversely affected if permission was granted.

· There would be loss of sunlight caused to Mr Hakhnazarian’s property caused by a proposed double storey bike store, which in Mr Hakhnazarian’s view would be better suited to Reading Station.

· The development would encroach on his family’s private space. Mr Hakhnazarian’s wife worked from home and therefore it would have an impact on her home and work life, as the car park would be in operation until 10pm at night.

· There would be a detrimental impact on Kings Street.

· There was a small car park for the Budgens store opposite the site however, this was not sufficient and therefore customers would be forced to park on the street, which would compromise highway safety.

· If the proposal was granted permission then Mr Hakhnazarian’s garden would be severely overlooked and filled with pollution.

· Mr Hakhnazarian referred to Planning Policy CS14 and stated that the development was out of character and would be a monstrous development.

· Mr Hakhnazarian voiced his concern regarding the reduction in amenity space. Currently there was 175m2 of amenity space on the site and this would be reduced to 60m2 if the application was approved.

Member Questions to the Objector:

Councillor Mayes noted on the drawing that there were four trees along the red site line and asked if these were in Mr Hakhnazarian’s garden. Mr Hakhnazarian confirmed that there were two trees in his garden. Mr Hakhnazarian added that there was an oak tree on the site that had a Tree Preservation Order. There was also an apple tree and there was uncertainty regarding what would happen to this tree.

Agent’s Representations:

Ms Emily Temple in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Ms Temple expressed that she was grateful to the Case Officer for summarising the application and for the report that had been produced.

· The proposal included two x one and two x two bedroom flats

· The applicant wanted to serve the local community and provide units that were central to local services.

· 60 percent of the homes in the area were owned by one or two people.

· The site was within the boundary and within the centre of the village and therefore was in line with Planning Policy.

· A design Statement had been prepared along with a Road Safety Assessment and Tree Survey.

· The plans represented three years of correspondence with Planning Officers. There would be minimal impact on shoppers and deliveries to the Budgen’s store.

· There were two additional parking spaces proposed for the Bugden’s Store. If Members of the Committee had concerns about the number of spaces then one space could be re-allocated to the housing.

· The amount of amenity space proposed was in line with West Berkshire Council’s standard. Detail on the roof terrace was included within the Planning Officer’s report.

· A number of conditions had been accepted by the applicant and a delivery management plan would provide an element of control of this aspect.

· Ms Temple urged the Committee to approve the application.

Member Questions to the Agent:

The Chairman referred to the table included with the update sheet which detailed changes in the number of parking spaces on the site and queried the increase from 15 to 17 in total spaces. The Chairman was uncertain as to whether these numbers accounted for parking spaces, to the front of the store, on the other side of the road. Ms Temple stated that no changes were being made to the store and therefore there was no requirement to increase the spaces from the 15 spaces already available.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that there would be eight extra car parking spaces provided on the site overall and queried what the width of the spaces would be. Ms Temple did not have these figures to hand however, believed they would meet the Council’s standard of 2.4 metres.

Councillor Alan Macro asked for confirmation of the stores opening times and it was confirmed that this was 7am until 9pm from Monday to Saturday and 10am until 4pm on Sundays.

Councillor Mayes was concerned about access to car parking spaces on the two forward facing plots. Ms Temple confirmed that this would require a vehicle to carry out a three point turn. All spaces met the relevant standards. Transport Officers had been consulted accordingly.

Councillor Joanna Stewart referred to the Travel Management Plan and asked for further details on this. Ms Temple confirmed that there would be a Delivery Management Plan and on average deliveries to the store took around 10 minutes. Because no changes to the store were being proposed, there were no plans to change how it currently operated.

Councillor Stewart noted that an articulated lorry sometimes made deliveries to the store and asked when and how often this took place currently. Ms Temple confirmed that currently all deliveries were made to the back of the store.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Graham Bridgman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

· Councillor Bridgman confirmed that he had been lobbied on the application by the applicant and objectors. Councillor Bridgman wanted to ensure that his points were considered as part of the debate on this item.

· The proposed development was an improvement on the former application. In his view the proposal was in keeping with the street scene in relation to Number One Kings Street.

· Councillor Bridgman referred to the car parking spaces for the proposed residential area and felt that these could be increased.

· Councillor Bridgman had requested that the plans from the previous application be put forward for the Committee meeting.

· He was particularly concerned about the plan to convert the current amenity space into car parking.

· Councillor Bridgman had a real issue with the safety of the proposed loading bay to the front of the store. This had also been mentioned by the Parish Council. There was a bus stop to the right of this area and if a delivery was to take place at the same time that a bus was using the bus stop, there would be safety issues. It would be important to ensure that delivery vehicles did not encroach onto the road.

· Councillor Bridgman questioned if the sight lines out of Victoria Road and Kings Road would be obscured if a lorry was in the loading bay. A large vehicle in the loading bay could also obscure the sight lines of pedestrians when attempting to cross the road.

· Councillor Bridgman stated that he did not oppose the application however, felt that conditions were required to take account of the possible road safety issues, particularly in relation to the loading bay.

Member Questions to Officers

The Chairman sought confirmation from Highways Officers regarding the sight lines for pedestrians in relation to the proposed loading bay and asked if this was acceptable. Mr Dowding confirmed that there had been some concerns on this point and a Road Safety Assessment had been carried out by an independent auditor. It had concluded that there were no safety issues regarding sight lines for pedestrians or road users. Therefore the Highways Department had accepted the proposal. Mr Dowding understood the concerns that were being raised and therefore commented that if Members were minded to approve the application then a Stage One and Two Road Safety Audit could be requested. The Chairman asked if this condition was not met if the application would subsequently be refused and Gareth Dowding confirmed that this would be the case.

Councillor Andrew Williamson referred to the 100m2 of amenity space that was proposed as part of the development however, felt that the area to the front of the site was of little use. Mr Bob Dray confirmed that it was the quality of the space that was most important that the minimum standard in the SPD was generous, and that this proposed provision was considered acceptable.

Councillor Mackinnon noted that the Parish Council had raised concerns about parking spaces being 1.8 metres wide, which did not meet the required standard set by West Berkshire Council. Mr Dray confirmed that the car parking spaces would be 2.4 metres wide

Councillor Williamson understood that the application was the third proposal and sought to understand what made the current application different enough to cause Officers to recommend approval. Mr Dray referred to section two of the report regarding the planning history for the site which explained the reasons why the two previous applications had been refused. He highlighted that the excessive scale of the first scheme, and that the second scheme had placed the development too close to neighbouring properties.

Councillor Williamson asked if any Planning Policy could protect Mr Hakhnazarian’s property from pollution. Mr Dray explained that it was important to take the specifics of a case into account. There was already a car park on site and this needed to be kept in mind.

Debate:

Councillor Mayes stated that the Parish Council were completely against the development and the Parish Council’s Planning Committee had voted unanimously against the application.

Councillor Mayes felt that the disabled parking spaces were far too close to the pavement. Mr Mayes also felt that the proposed disabled parking bays were too narrow. Councillor Mayes noted that the original plans for the store showed trees that were no longer on the site and therefore had not been maintained.

The frontage and loading bay in Councillor Mayes opinion would be a danger to pedestrians and other road users, particularly if the loading bay was used by an articulated lorry or two smaller vehicles. The bus stop would also create a hazard. The development would impact upon an existing pinch point on Badger Croft Road.

Councillor Mayes stressed that if the power line pole was moved then this would affect the other two in the area. This would require all three poles to be moved or possibly the cables would need to be moved underground. This would cause further obstruction along Victoria Road.

Councillor Mayes noted that one of the previous applications for the site showed a waste disposal unit to the back of the site. This was not shown on the present plans and therefore Councillor Mayes was concerned about where this would be located. Councillor Mayes was in favour of the delivery/loading bay staying at the rear of the store.

Councillor Longton declared that he was undecided on the application. Councillor Williamson voiced concern about the intention to reposition the amenity space next to car parking spaces that backed on to Mr Hakhnazarian’s property (Number One). He was concerned about the impact the car parking spaces would have on Mr Hakhnazarian’s property including noise pollution. He was also concerned about the need for vehicles to conduct a three point turn to exit some of the car parking spaces. This would be particularly awkward.

Councillor Mayes felt that the Committee should refuse the application on the grounds of access to car parking; the requirement to move overhead power lines and the use of the frontage for deliveries and the dangers this would cause.

Sharon Armour, Legal Officer, asked Councillor Mayes to clarify one of his proposed reasons for refusal and he stated that he wished to add sight lines and impact on the street scene to his list of reasons. Councillor Mayes proposed refusal of the application, but the proposal did not find a seconder.

Councillor Alan Macro stated that he was particularly concerned regarding the impact on Number One and the lighting and noise pollution that would be caused by the car park. Councillor Macro proposed that Members refuse the application and this was seconded by Councillor Mayes.

The Chairman invited Members to vote on the proposal by Councillor Macro, seconded by Councillor Mayes and at the vote the motion was refused.

Councillor Williamson asked for further guidance in relation to the option mentioned by Highways Officer, Mr Dowding earlier in discussions. Mr Dowding confirmed that a Stage One Road Safety Audit had been completed. A Stage Two Road Safety Audit could be required and this would provide a more in-depth analysis at what would be constructed and the impact this would have on pedestrians and road users. This would help to prove beyond doubt whether or not the application was detrimental to highway safety.

Sharon Armour asked if the intention would be to have this information prior to approving the application. Councillor Williamson asked if the Stage Two Road Safety Audit would consider car parking and Mr Dowding confirmed that it purely looked at road safety on the highway.

Councillor Mackinnon stated that like Councillor Longton he felt undecided on the application. He understood and sympathised with the concerns of local residents however, also acknowledged that the area was in need of further housing.

Councillor Stewart sought clarification on the option mentioned by Mr Dowding. She asked if the Committee could accept the application on the basis that the future Road Safety Audit would be conducted or should it object to the applications subject to the Road Safety Audit.

Sharon Armour advised that the Committee could approve the scheme subject to the Head of Planning being satisfied that the applicant had conducted a Stage Two Road Safety Audit. The Chairman added that if the Stage Two Road Safety Audit concluded a satisfactory result then the application would be approved however, if it failed the application would be refused.

Councillor Longton proposed that the Committee approve the application subject to a Stage Two Road Safety Audit. The decision as to whether this Audit was acceptable would be deferred to the Head of Planning. Mr Dray suggested a timescale for completion of three months for the Stage Two Road Safety Audit or such longer period as agreed with the Chairman. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Longton, seconded by Councillor Williamson and at the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Head of Development and Planning be authorised to grant planning permission provided that a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit is submitted to and approved by the Head of Development and Planning within three months (or any longer period agreed with the Chairman) and subject to conditions (as per recommendation);

Or,

if a RSA is not provided/approved within the timeframe, to refuse planning permission on highway safety grounds.

Conditions

1.	Commencement of development 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).
2.	Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below: · Location plan 1:1250 · 821D800 rev E (site plan) · 821D801 (floor plans) · 821D802 (elevations) · 821D803 (sections) · 821D804 (street scene) · 821D805 (roof plan) · 170430-03A (HGV service bay) · 170430-04 (Van service bay) Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3.	Parking and Turning Areas No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied 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 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 (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
4.	Servicing/Loading Bay Construction The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new servicing/loading bay and any associated footway works to the Victoria Road frontage have been provided in accordance with drawing no.170430-03Rev A. Reason: In the interests of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
5.	Visibility Splays No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the access visibility splays have been provided in accordance with drawing number 170430-03 Rev A. 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 (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
6.	Delivery Management Plan No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Retail Delivery Management Plan 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 Delivery Management Plan should include: · Timings of deliveries – these should be outside of peak times on the highway network; · Details of management of deliveries in the interests of pedestrian safety (such as the use of a banksman); · Haul route to and from the site; · Maximum sizes of delivery vehicles; and · No loading or unloading of commercial goods vehicles shall take place on the public highway outside of the confines of the designated lay-by. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses/occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policies CS5 and CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). A pre-commencement condition is required because deliveries will likely be impacted early in the development process.
7.	Construction Method Statement No development hereby permitted shall take place until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall provide for: a) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials and hours of delivery including building supplies; 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) Hours of construction works limited to 0800 to 1800 Mon-Friday, 0900-1700 Saturdays with no works on Sundays and public holidays. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses/occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), 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). A pre-commencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all construction.
8.	Sustainable Drainage No development hereby permitted 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, particularly the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018; b) Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels; c) Include attenuation measures to retain rainfall run-off within the site, off site discharge will not be permitted; d) Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site; e) 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; f) Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil or groundwater; g) Ensure any permeable paved areas are designed and constructed in accordance with manufacturers guidelines; h) 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 development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 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 (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006). A pre-commencement condition is required because the design of the sustainable drainage measures must be known early in the development process.
9.	Landscaping Notwithstanding the information submitted within the application documentation, no dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping for 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) Completion of the approved landscape scheme within the first planting season following completion of development; b) 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 National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
10.	Boundary Treatment The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details, to include a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment/s shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied. The boundary treatment shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
11.	Refuse and Recycling Facilities Notwithstanding the information submitted within the application documentation, prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, details of refuse and recycling storage areas/facilities within the site shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for this purpose. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate and safe refuse/recycling facilities within the site and to ensure the physical form of the facilities would harmonise with the surroundings. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
12.	Cycle Storage Notwithstanding the information submitted within the application documentation, the dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the cycle parking and storage space (including height and elevations) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the cycle parking and storage space has been provided in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained for this purpose at all times. 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 (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), 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).
13.	External/Facing Materials No development hereby permitted shall take place above foundation level until details and samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with The National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and the Quality Design SPD (June 2006).
14.	Obscure Glazing The first floor and second floor windows in the east facing elevations of apartment no.3 indicated on drawing 821-D-801 hereby permitted shall be fitted with obscure glazing to a height of 1.7 metres when measured from the floor level of the rooms in which they are located before the individual rooms are first occupied. The obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained as such. Reason: To avoid potential overlooking/loss of privacy for the occupiers of the adjacent property at no.1 King Street. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 04/2 House Extensions (July 2004).
15.	Electric Charging Points The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the electric vehicle charging point has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. The charging point shall thereafter be retained and kept available for use by electric vehicles. Reason: To promote the use of electric vehicles. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
16.	Noise Mitigation The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the noise mitigation measures relating to window glazing/external building fabric specification set out in the noise report prepared by Clark Saunders Accoustics submitted as part of the approved planning application documentation. The approved mitigation measures shall be completed in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory living environment for future occupiers in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006).
17.	Tree Protection Measures Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development hereby permitted in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified on approved drawing(s) numbered plan Appendix 5 of the Landscape collective tree report ref LC/00271 dated June 2018. Within the fenced area(s), 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 requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Policies CS14,18 and 19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2012).
18.	Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation No development hereby permitted shall take place within the application site 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 to accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and Policy CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Core Strategy (2012). A pre-commencement condition is required because archaeological investigation must take place before or concurrent with any development.
19.	Contamination If contamination is found at any time during site clearance, groundwork and construction within the application site, the discovery shall be reported as soon as possible to the local planning authority. A full contamination risk assessment shall be carried out and if found to be necessary, a ‘remediation method statement’ shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved ‘remediation method statement’ and a final validation report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the dwellings hereby permitted are first occupied. Reason: In order to protect the amenities of proposed occupants/users of the application site. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006).
20.	Piling No piling shall take place until a piling method statement detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. All piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement. Reason: The proposed works will be within 15m of a strategic sewer/underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to impact on local underground sewerage utility infrastructure. The condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017) and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
21	Measures to restrict residential parking for residential use only The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the measures to restrict the residential car parking spaces to residential use only have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the parking spaces have been provided and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved measures. Reason: To ensure existing and future occupiers of the residential accommodation are 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 (2019), Stratfield Mortimer Neighbourhood Plan (2017), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
22.	Trolley storage areas for retail use The new serving bay/loading bay to Victoria Road hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until details of areas for the storage of trolleys associated with the operation of the existing retail unit within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The servicing bay/loading bay shall not be brought into use the approved trolley storage areas have been provided and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the appropriate placement of trolley storage following the reconfiguration of the application site, and to ensure that this does not have an adverse effect on use of the car park or surrounding footways in the interests of highway safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

Supporting documents: