Agenda item

Proposal:	Refurbishment, partial demolition and extension of existing Community Youth Centre to modernise and enhance the facilities together with hard landscaping, boundary treatment and external lighting
Location:	Waterside Youth and Community Centre, Waldegrave Place, Northbrook Street, Newbury
Applicant:	Berkshire Youth
Recommendation:	Approve

 

(Councillors Jeff Cant and Andy Moore declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2), by virtue of the fact that they were members of Newbury Town Council. As their interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, they 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 19/01672/FUL in respect of the refurbishment, partial demolition and extension of existing Community Youth Centre to modernise and enhance the facilities together with hard landscaping, boundary treatment and external lighting.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Gary Norman, Newbury Town Council representative, Paul Woods (Edge 4 Planning on behalf of Morley Stores Ltd (Camp Hopson)) and Emma Cooper (Camp Hopson – Furniture Store Manager), objector, and Robert James (Carter Jonas), David Seward (Berkshire Youth) and Nick Kirby (Pegasus Group), applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

1.     Janine Wright introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Update Report where additional Conditions had been presented and Natural England’s concerns met.

2.     The Chairman thanked the planning officer for their presentation and invited the Highways officer to comment. Paul Goddard noted that the location was in the Town Centre with several public car parks nearby and was therefore very sustainable. He had no objection to the application.

3.     Mr Gary Norman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         New Town Council (NTC) wholeheartedly supported this application.

·         It was a much needed facility that specialised in services for young people, which were scarce due to West Berkshire Council budget cuts.

·         Young people were often maligned for doing things they should not, and this was a golden opportunity to provide them with a facility and to improve the general appearance of a building that was a very tired eyesore in a conservation area.

·         The development fitted in with improving this area and with the canal corridor design statement. The design statement did not want to preserve the area in aspic, but use it, while encouraging a proper relationship between the buildings and the canal. The overall structure would remain intact, but the appearance and the environmental impact would be improved, with very few neighbours affected.

·         NTC had been looking for more sites for solar panels and this building could be a candidate for that.

4.     Mr Paul Woods in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Morely Stores Ltd had no objection in principle and would welcome the building coming back in to use. They were very supportive of phase one and two. However, phase three, and the climbing tower would have an adverse impact on the store and the conservation area, due to its size scale and the proximity to the store.

·         The proposal would impact on the windows and outlook of the store, and the design and siting bore little resemblance to the surrounding buildings. It was an awkward shape. The closeness to the store would mean a loss of light. The Core Strategy stated that a proposal should not have an impact on the character of the area or harm amenities.

·         Morely Stores Ltd, were also considering this site for development and were in the early stages of discussion. This development would restrain them from expanding the store.

·         The historic character of the conservation area should be preserved and the design should be of a high quality, sustainable and appropriate to location scale and design. His clients did not consider this to be the case with this proposal. There was a lack of assessment of the conservation area, the designated character assets and heritage impact.

·         There would be a negative impact on the views from the canal.

5.     Councillor Adrian Abbs encouraged Mr Woods to describe Morely Stores Ltd plans for the site. Mr Woods explained that they had discussed a wider development, but had not moved forward with the site.

6.     Councillor Abbs noted that the windows mentioned as suffering from light loss, had until recently been blocked off with shop stock. Mr Woods explained that the windows served the store, and that stock had been reconfigured to open up half of the window.

7.     Councillor Claire Rowles observed that trees already blocked the light to the windows, and there was therefore already a loss of light. Mr Woods ventured that a climbing tower would have a bigger impact that the trees.

8.     Councillor Hilary Cole remarked that she was struggling with Mr Wood’s comments regarding the Core Strategy. This development would enhance the character of the area. The Camp Hopson furniture store was relatively new and very modern, compared to the parent store. She found his comments quixotic. Mr Woods responded that the tower would have an impact on the character of the conservation area, but that this was subjective.

9.     Councillor Cole noted that there was vehicular access to the site through the furniture stores car park. She asked if this would continue to be blocked off at night. Mr Woods was unsure.

10.  Councillor Jeff Cant regaled that as he walked along the canal-side the building struck him like a dead rat in a salad. He felt that Mr Woods held no particular strong feeling to the majority of the development, but that the tower was the problem. Mr Woods confirmed this was the case.

11.  Councillor Carolyne Culver commented that the tower would be 6m away from the furniture store. She inquired as to the height of the store in comparison to the tower. Mr Woods confirmed that they were of a similar height.

12.  Mr Nick Kirby in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·         Berkshire Youth had been a charity set up to help vulnerable young people in 1945. The proposal was to refurbish the interior, improve the external face of the building, build a climbing tower, carry out hard landscaping and thereby revive an essential facility that supported government policy, social interaction and wide-ranging support for young people.

·         In response to the points made by the objector, he noted that Camp Hopson had wanted to develop the site, but had made no recent proposals.

·         The Charity had carried out painstaking work towards re-developing this site, and there was an urgent demand for youth services.

·         The tower would be 6m from the Camp Hopson store, and visible only at an oblique angle. Retail stores did not have the same light rights as residential properties. The tower would not significantly affect the retail function of the store.

·         The height of the tower was broadly the same as the surrounding buildings, however it would have visual interest due to the use of wooden cladding and external lighting.

·         The Core Strategy called for developments to preserve and enhance character and to regenerate brownfield sites. This proposal therefore met local policy, and provided for much needed leisure and community activities.

13.  Councillor Tony Vickers referred to the location plan, and a red dot outside of the red-line area. He asked what this part of the site would be. Mr James answered that the initial thinking was this could be a place to site feature lighting, which could be used for special events. It was outside the ownership of the applicant, but this facility was under discussion. A footbridge was also being considered, and plans would be submitted in the future, but as discussions with consultees had taken so long, other priorities had to come first.

14.  Councillor Claire Rowles sought clarification on the nature of the climbing tower. Mr Seward explained that inside the building there was an existing climbing wall for bouldering. The idea of the climbing tower was to allow for a high enough wall to enable young people to learn rope skills, and working at height. There was a serious problem in the town of young people climbing up onto rooves.

15.  Councillor Cole asked how the site would be accessed at night once Camp Hopson had closed their car park. Mr James stated that there was plenty of car parking close by, but if necessary a vehicle could access the site through the archway. He expected that most people would park in the town and then access the site on foot.

16.  Councillor Clive Hooker inquired as to the anticipated number of users for the tower. Mr Seward explained that the wall was a progression for those already using the bouldering wall. Climbing was a growing sport and would feature in the upcoming Olympics. Climbing allowed young people to access a thrill and adventure in a safe place.

17.  Councillor Abbs asked if there was a connection to the Climbing centre in Reading. Mr Seward advised that this was a commercial venture and had much higher walls than the proposed site. There was also a site in Bristol which was a world leading facility. The hope was to get young people interested in indoor and speed climbing.

18.  Councillor Vickers expressed the view that the Natural England objection had been formed by someone who had not visited the site. Janine Wright explained that any objection from Natural England had to be referred back to them for a response within 21 days. There were ongoing discussions with the Ecology officer, and it was felt that any issues would be overcome.

19.  Councillor Vickers had concerns over Condition 7 in the Update Report. He asked for assurance the applicant would not be liable for any damage to the tower, due to its construction or ground subsidence.

20.  Councillor Cole was mystified by Natural England’s objection, as the development was taking place in a really built up area.

21.  Councillor Rowles enquired if a heritage impact assessment had been carried out. Derek Carnegie asserted that this was not a listed building and Janine Wright concurred that heritage was not impacted. Councillor Rowles asked for further assurance on the design of the tower. Janine Wright explained that the materials used would be similar to those used by Camp Hopson and other buildings in that area. The use of wooden cladding would soften the appearance and create visual interest. Long views of the development were hindered by the bridge, and the site was set back so as to be less dominating.

22.  Councillor Andy Moore proposed that the Committee accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Abbs.

23.  Councillor Abbs asked if a Condition could be added for the inclusion of solar panelling on the south facing slopes. Derek Carnegie considered this would be more appropriate as an informative.

24.  Councillor Vickers stated that the tower was clearly contentious, however it would allow young people to take risks in a safe and controlled environment and save residents from having to travel to Reading or Bristol. He was mildly concerned that the cladding would require more maintenance than the more traditional brickwork, and hoped that this would be looked at again.

25.  Councillor Cole was pleased to see the application, as it would bring back into use a dedicated youth centre. It would enhance the canal frontage. In her opinion the tower looked like a cooling tower, but understood that it would attract young people and that the objection to it was weak.

26.  Councillor Jeff Cant asserted that he had great respect for Camp Hopson as an asset to the town. The development of this property would remove an eyesore and satisfy some of the demand for youth support.

27.  The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Moore as seconded by Councillor Abbs, which was carried unanimously at the vote.

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

Conditions

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.     The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and other documents listed below:

Location Plan Drawing:  PL100-Rev P4 dated 27/03/2019

Proposed Site Plan: PL106-Rev P3 dated 27/03/2019

Proposed Elevation Plans: PL111-RevP2 dated 27/03/2019

Proposed Floor Plans (ground floor):  PL108-RevP4 dated 27/03/2019

Proposed Floor Plans (first floor): PL109-RevP4 dated 27/03/2019

Proposed Demolition Plan: PL107-RevP3 dated 27/03/2019

Flood Risk Assessment (FRA): Submitted by Archibald Shaw Issue 4 dated 28 November 2019

Design and Access Statement: prepared by Carter Jonas dated June 2019 (revision P4)

Construction Management Plan: Submitted by Calco Construction on 11 September 2019 (revB)

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

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

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

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

4.     4   No development, other than site clearance, shall commence until a method statement, which details how dust from the site will be controlled during the demolition and construction phases of the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority.  The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of amenities of neighbouring occupiers and guidance within the NPPF.    

5.     No external lighting shall be installed at the site, until details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.  The external lighting shall be installed, maintained and operated in accordance with the approved details unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to the variation. 

Reason: to protect the wildlife and the residential amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and to comply with policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

6.     No phase II (single storey extension with viewing gallery) and phase III (climbing tower) development 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 should be 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.

7.     Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved,  a survey of the condition of the waterway wall, and a method statement and schedule of works for its protection during the construction of phase II and III development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Any necessary repair works identified shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed method statement and repairs schedule by a date to be confirmed in the repair schedule.  Following the completion of the works a further waterway wall shall be carried out and the details submitted to the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that any necessary repair works have been carried out and that no additional damage to the wall has occurred.

Reason: To ensure that the structural integrity of the waterway is retained.  This condition seeks to prevent harm to the canal during the demolition and construction of the phase II and III development and is therefore required prior to the commencement.

8.     Prior to the commencement of works a risk assessment to protect users of the towpath and prevent pollution of the waterway during the phase II and phase II development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: to ensure the safety of users and prevent pollution of the water environment.  This condition seeks to prevent harm to the canal and its users during the demolition and construction of the phase II and III development.

9.     Within 3 months from the date of the decision notice, details of the proposed materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason:  In order that the development harmonises with the surroundings and in interest of visual amenity.

10.  Within 3 months from the date of the decision notice full details of both hard and soft landscape works should be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall include the treatment of hard surfacing and materials to be used, a schedules of plants (noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities), an implementation programme, and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment.  The scheme shall ensure:

a)    completion of the approved landscaping within the first planting season following the completion of the development; and

b)    Any trees, shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within five years of the completion of the development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.

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

11.  Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing, and shall specify the type of protective fencing.  All protective fencing shall be erected prior to the start of any construction and demolition works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of 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 the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

12.  Prior to commencement of development hereby approved an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection and any special construction works within any defined tree protection area.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

13.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the construction management plan submitted by Calco Construction on 11 September 2019 (revB).

Reason: To protect the wildlife and the residential amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and to comply with policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

14.  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Archibald Shaw Issue 4 dated 28 November 2019 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

a)    The lower section of the climbing tower within the flood plain will be of flood resilient construction.

b)    Free draining flood storage will be provided beneath and local to the shop in order to mitigate and manage the risk, and avoid displacing waters to third party land.

c)    Finished floor levels will be set no lower than 76.30m AOD.

The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason:  To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants. To prevent flooding elsewhere by ensuring that the flow of flood water is not impeded and the proposed development does not cause a loss of flood plain storage.

15.  Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing. The CEMP shall include the following:-

·         A lighting plan showing the construction phase and phase lighting positions (including power rating / range and direction).

·         Details of the vegetation management for the site

Reason: To protect the ecological value, prevent pollution and degradation of the SSSI and to comply with policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. 

16.  Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, details (including the number, design and position) of proposed bat boxes, bat bricks and a swift boxes are to be incorporated within the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  Such details as may be approved shall be incorporated into the development prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby granted and permanently maintained thereafter.

Reason: In accordance with the terms of the application and to ensure the provision of suitable mitigation in accordance with policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy and guidance within the NPPF. 

17.  Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a landscape and ecology management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing. The LEMP shall include the following:-

·         Description, plan and evaluation of landscaping and ecological features to be managed on site.

·         Ecological trends and constraints on site

·         Aims and objectives of management.

·         Appropriate management options for achieving the aims and objectives of the management plan

·         Preparation of a schedule of work

·         Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures where appropriate

Reason: To protect the ecological value and prevent pollution of the SSSI and to comply with policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and the NPPF.

Informatives:

1.     This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to the Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development.  In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant.

2.     This development may require an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency under the terms of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016 for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of designated 'main rivers'. This was formerly called a Flood Defence Consent. Some activities are also now excluded or exempt. An environmental permit is in addition to and a separate process from obtaining planning permission. Further details and guidance are available on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-activities-environmental-permits.

3.     No alteration of the surface of the right of way must take place without the prior written consent of the Rights of Way Officer.

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

5.     Nothing connected with either the development or the construction must adversely affect or encroach upon the footpath, which must remain available for public use at all times.

6.     The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not in any way allow the public right of way to be obstructed at any time during the course of the development.

7.     Due to the proximity of the works to the waterway, the applicant should contact Works Engineer Phil J White on 07710 175496 or email phil.white2@canalrivertrust.org.uk to ensure that the proposed works comply with the Trust's Code of practice for works affecting the Canal & River Trust.

8.     The attention of the applicant is drawn to the requirements of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in respect of the minimisation of noise on construction and demolition sites.  Application, under Section 61 of the Act, for prior consent to the works, can be made to the Environmental Health and Licensing Manager.

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

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