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

Agenda item

Application No. & Parish: 20/01480/FUL - Glenvale Nurseries, Hungerford Lane, Bradfield Southend

Proposal:	Demolition of existing outbuilding and polytunnels and erection of a building in flexible use for storage or distribution (Use Class B8) and/or for any light industrial process within Use Class E, with associated access track and parking area.
Location:	Glenvale Nurseries, Hungerford Lane, Bradfield Southend
Applicant:	Mr and Mrs Varley
Recommendation:	Delegated to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Minutes:

Councillor Ross Mackinnon declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that he had been lobbied on the item. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01480/FUL in respect of the demolition of an existing outbuilding and polytunnels and erection of a building in flexible use for storage or distribution (Use Class B8) and/or for any light industrial process within Use Class E, with associated access track and parking area.

Ms Sarah Melton, Senior Planning Officer, gave a detailed presentation on the application and highlighted the key points.

Removal of Speaking Rights

As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights were removed for virtual Council meetings. This right was replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision was made in accordance with The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The above changes to speaking rights were subsequently amended at the Council meeting on 10 September 2020. It was agreed that parties making written submissions in relation to a planning application would be invited to attend the Remote Meeting of the Planning Committee to answer any questions that Members of the Committee might wish to ask in order to seek clarification on any part of their statement.

In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Gareth Osborn, Jim Forrester, Charles Romaine (joint submission on behalf of multiple named objectors), Peter Neal, Rebecca Neal and Meg Nelson, objectors, and Duncan and Helen Varley and Sophie Berry, applicants and agent.

Objector Submission Summary:

The written summarised submission from Gareth Osborn, Jim Forrester, Charles Romaine (joint submission on behalf of multiple named objectors), Peter Neal, Rebecca Neal and Meg Nelson, was read out as follows:

· The development is outside of a defined settlement boundary and within the AONB. There has been no demonstrated need for the development as to justify development in this location.

· The existing mixed-use site will be significantly reduced by the units and the dominating 100m access road, reducing its ability/flexibility to operate as a viable rural business in the future.

· The site is not within a sustainable or accessible location which is contrary to all planning policies. The proposal scheme as a whole is contrary to the Development Plan.

· Industrial uses should be directed to Protected Employment Areas. There are existing vacant farm buildings that could be used instead of the proposal scheme.

· The investment into the infrastructure required for the development will ensure that the units will be expensive to rent for potential occupiers, and will make the proposal commercially unviable in terms of construction.

· Previous housing development applications on this site have been refused by Members. If one considers the form of the current application it has all of the on-site facilities that were part of the original proposal for a multi-house cul-de-sac; namely an access road, street lighting, the necessity to provide a proper sewage system to deal with the four extra toilets, electric car charging facilities and even four double garages. The only thing missing, so far, is the houses.

· Glenvale’s main business activities, generating the typical background noise, have always been conducted at the Northern part of Glenvale. At residences in the south, these background noise levels have always been perceived to be low. Temporary structures (polytunnels) used for horticulture are proposed to be replaced with a permanent building undertaking light industrial activities and a 100m access road, with the consequential adverse impact on the residential amenity. There is no protection for neighbour residents against the proposed B8 element.

· Following advice from Stuart Michael Associates, we understand that it is standard practice for an applicant seeking planning permission for B8 use in close proximity to residential uses to undertake a Noise Impact Assessment, following which the Council can then consider the findings, and then impose noise restrictions if applicable. Should a Noise Impact Assessment not be provided by an applicant for B8 use, the Council can still impose noise restrictions. We note that the Applicant has not undertaken an NIA. In the absence of any NIA, following advice from Stuart Michael Associates, we request that the following conditions be imposed on the B8/Class E use units:

· “Noise generated from the site should not exceed the British Standard and WHO guideline levels of 35 dB (LAeq,T) in living rooms and bedrooms (resting conditions) during the daytime to protect existing residents amenity. External noise levels should not exceed 50 dB during the daytime to maintain existing private amenity to adjacent residences in accordance with British Standards and WHO Guidelines.”

Member Questions to the Objector:

(Mr Gareth Osborn was in attendance to answer questions)

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that it had been stated that there was no proven demand for the facility. Councillor Mackinnon felt that this was an issue for the applicant and not a reason to refuse planning permission. The applicant was taking a risk in applying for planning permission and therefore Councillor Mackinnon queried if Mr Osborn felt that the applicant would agree with the statement made about demand.

Mr Osborn stated that the demand for the units was a significant consideration given the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and impacted upon Policy CS9. The Travellers Rest development was in close proximity to the application site, which had 31 industrial units of a similar size and many of which were vacant. Mr Osborn had once been a board member of the Thames Valley Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and therefore understood some of the issues associated with demand for small buildings in locations of a similar nature. There were already 31 units in close proximity to the site with a fair degree of vacancies. Therefore Mr Osborn felt that it was possible that the demand was unproven. Demand in his view was a key element of the application, particularly as the site was within the AONB.

Applicant/Agent Submission:

The written submission from Mr and Mrs Varley (Applicant) and Sophie Berry (Agent) was read out as follows:

· Glenvale Nurseries has traded in this rural location for over 40 years. The applicants have owned Glenvale Nurseries for over 16 years and have experienced a considerable decline in turnover over the last 7 years, and even more so during the current pandemic. There is an obvious need to diversify the existing business through more efficient use of the application site. You will be aware of previous unsuccessful applications which sought a solution through housing. The loss of a rural business was previously resisted by the committee and this encouraged the applicants, who are determined for their business to survive, to proceed with the current proposal to diversify the existing use.

· The current proposal for the creation of units for rental will not only supplement the income of Glenvale Nurseries but it will meet an evidenced demand for the shortfall of such units in the area, whilst giving the rural economy a much needed boost during this uncertain time. Such diversification is supported by both national and local policy.

· Gabrielle Mancini, West Berkshire Council Economic Development Officer, has been supportive of the proposal and encouraged use of the Thames Valley Hub, who has provided days of expertise to assist the applicants in developing their proposal. They have also been successful in attracting the support of the Rural Payments Agency, who encourage diversification of rural businesses in this area through the creation of units, such as those proposed, through the allocation of European funds. The ultimate success of the funding application relies on whether planning permission is granted today and, with the UK leaving the EU, this is the last round of funding available.

· Previously, it was considered that a house in the car park would be too prominent. The current proposal therefore logically seeks to replace buildings that are present already on the site which, through more efficient use of land, means Glenvale Nurseries is able to continue trading. Every effort has been made to be respectful to the surrounding area and neighbours and all requests made by the Council, including removing B1, adjusting the building position, hours of operation and changes to the vehicle access have all been met positively.

· Prospective tenants, complement the existing operation and include landscapers, gardeners, and a beauty product business. Currently trades using Glenvale, load vehicles daily from the polytunnels on an unrestricted basis. Any permission granted will be restricted to ensure no adverse harm to neighbouring amenity.

· The committee wished to avoid the loss of the existing business and the applicants are hopeful that members will therefore recognise the need to diversify in this way, especially in the current economic climate, where rural businesses are struggling to survive, and give the applicants and their prospective tenants a chance to adapt to current circumstances and thrive.

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent:

(Mr and Mrs Varley (Applicant) and Sophie Berry (Agent) were in attendance to answer questions)

Councillor Jo Stewart asked Mr and Mrs Varley if the lights included as part of the plans were skylights and it was confirmed that this was correct.

Secondly, Councillor Stewart queried current vehicle usage in the area where the units were proposed, to try and gain an idea of the noise being generated. Mrs Varley confirmed the current vehicles accessing the site included forklifts, lorries, vans, flatbed lorries including landscapers, and builders. The area was accessed multiple times throughout the day. Mr Varley highlighted however, that movements were currently restricted due to Covid-19.

Councillor Graham Pask stated that he had a question for Mr and Mrs Varley. The objector had made a comment regarding a Noise Impact Statement and he asked why one had not been carried out. Mrs Varley stated that the business was currently closed due to Covid-19 and therefore any assessment of the site would have given a false representation.

Councillor Alan Law stated that he had a question for the Agent. He referred to section 6.10 of the report, which stated that there was no definite end user identified for the development. Councillor Law therefore queried where the evidence was of an identified need. Ms Sophie Berry stated that the applicant had received a lot of interest from potential businesses that could use the units however, because they had not yet been built, there were not currently any contracts in place and therefore this would be subject to planning permission being granted. The identified need could also be found in the Council’s documentation and the report under section seven, Planning Balance and Conclusion.

Ward Member Representation:

Councillor Ross Mackinnon, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

· Mr and Ms Varley had approached him about the application previously however, as a Member of the Committee he had explained that he could not pre-judge the application. He therefore would not be speaking for or against the application and wanted to hear views from both Officers and other Members of the Committee.

· He felt that the letters in support and against the application were balanced.

Member Questions to the Ward Member:

There were no questions from Members for the Ward Member.

Member Questions to Officers:

Councillor Law referred to section 6.3 of the report where the arguments were outlined relating to policy. It detailed that you could have appropriate limited development in the countryside if needs were identified and it helped to retain a strong rural economy. However, in 6.10 of the report the Officer stated that there was no definite end use identified for the development and went on to state that it had the potential to accommodate start-up businesses. Councillor Law asked if there had been any evidence of an identified need provided.

Ms Sarah Melton explained that during the application process the applicant had submitted a heavily redacted statement of potential users. This had been redacted to such an extent that it had not been possible to take it into consideration when assessing the application and this had been made clear to the applicant.

Regarding the need, Ms Melton referred to section 6.18 of the report, which included the detail on the supportive consultation response from the Council’s Economic Development Officer. The Economic Development Officer had stated that there was need for such a facility. The Thames Valley Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership had also indicated that there was not sufficient availability of such units. Mr Bob Dray added that ADDP1 was a strategic policy, which guided other policies in the plan. Therefore the assessment of the application had also included Policy CS9 and CS10.

Councillor Graham Pask explained that he knew the site well as Bradfield had once been part of his own Ward and Bucklebury, which he still represented, was immediately to the south of the application site. Councillor Pask drew Members’ attention to Page 33 of the report, which showed one of the block plans of the site. The plan showed the building development to the east and also clearly car parking to the south of this. The property to the west of this was called Bird Care Cottage and it stood adjacent to the site, which was currently accessed by private cars with electric charging points and car parking. There would be a marked change in the type of noise if the development went ahead and Councillor Pask referred to the applicant’s answer to the earlier question regarding the use of fork lift trucks. Councillor Pask stated that he had read all of the conditions however, sought assurance from the Planning Officer that hours of working and other noise mitigation measures had been taken into account to manage a different level of noise that would occur if planning permission was granted. This needed to include hours of operation and not just during the construction phase. Lighting was also another issue that required consideration.

Mr Dray reported that there were a suite of conditions recommended, which would restrict hours of working to certain times of the day. Conditions had been applied to ensure any industrial processes or storage must be retained within the building. The residual impact would be incidental movements to and from the site. It was an existing premises and the worst case scenario already permissible also had to be considered. An additional condition had been included within the update report requesting a noise mitigation scheme. There would be a change to the use however it would remain commercial in nature. Conditions were also included regarding soft and hard landscaping.

Councillor Pask reiterated the issue that the site was within the AONB where skies were dark, particularly during the winter months. The units, if granted permission, would require a degree of lighting. Care needed to be taken within the AONB and therefore Councillor Pask sought reassurance that any lighting would be low level as the current horticultural use would have little to no lighting requirement. Mr Dray reported that condition 15 requested that a lighting strategy be produced. There was a lighting engineers technical specification document which set out levels of lighting appropriate for certain areas and the AONB was of the highest sensitivity.

Councillor Tony Linden raised a question about the Use Order Class E and referred to section 6.38 of the report, which detailed ‘light industrial’. In the past this had also included office buildings and Councillor Linden queried if this was the case. Ms Melton reported that Use Class E accounted for a number of previous uses and was combined. The description of the applications specifically said ‘light industrial’ under Use Class E and it would therefore be restricted to this. Mr Dray added that condition 17 limited what the development could be used for.

Councillor Alan Macro noted that the applicant had stated that the turnover of the nursery had declined over the years and Covid-19 was adding further pressure. Councillor Macro was concerned that in the future this business could return and lead to further development of the site. He queried, if approved, if the development would set a precedent for more development on the site. Councillor Macro also noted that drainage on the site used a septic tank however was aware that it was a ground water redaction zone. He asked if Thames Water had been informed of this when consulted on the application.

Ms Melton referred to Councillor Macro’s query about setting a precedent and stated that every planning application must be assessed on its own merits. Regarding the issue of drainage, Thames Water had provided an informative condition to be added and also condition five of the report included details on foul sewage. Councillor Macro further questioned if it would be difficult to resist further development of the site if planning permission was granted and Mr Dray stated that Officers and Members had to focus on the application before them. In Mr Dray’s view the application would not set a precedent however, any future application would be assessed.

Debate:

Councillor Mackinnon stated that he liked the application from an economic development point of view. He understood the concerns raised by Mr Osborn however, overall he felt the development would be positive for Bradfield and the surrounding area. He had listened to comments from Officers and felt that impact on amenity could be sufficiently managed and had been covered by conditions. On balance Councillor Mackinnon stated that he was minded to support the application.

Councillor Pask concurred with Councillor Mackinnon. The planning history for the site was varied. It was already used for commercial purposes of a horticultural/agricultural nature. He had been reassured by Officers that amenities of neighbouring properties were fully protected. Councillor Pask was minded to support the application in line with the Officer recommendation. He was however, concerned regarding the significant change in the type of use of the site that would involve vehicles travelling to the bottom of the site, which were not necessarily owned by the site owner.

Councillor Stewart stated that she had a similar view to Councillors Pask and Mackinnon regarding the application. Councillor Stewart had been concerned about lighting however, with conditions and the fact that it had been confirmed that these would be skylights, Councillor Stewart did not feel this should be an issue. One remaining area of uncertainty was around the number of vehicles that would be operating potentially all at the same time on the site. The applicant had worked with Officers to find the best route however, Councillor Stewart was not certain how this would operate in practice. Councillor Law concurred with this concern.

Ms Melton reassured Members on this point due to the scale of the site proposed. There would be four units and each one would be 34 square metres, which was approximately the size of a double garage. Mr Dray stated that there were figures under the Highways section 6.31 of the report. Mr Dray added that any adverse impacts that prejudiced neighbouring health may also fall into the remit of Environmental Health.

Mr Paul Goddard commented that there was a transport statement that was submitted with the planning application. The existing nursery use caused varying levels of vehicle movements throughout the year. It was estimated that during winter months there were 20 vehicles movements per day and in the summer this could be double. The proposal would generate less than the winter movements of 20 per day for the nursery as it would generate about 17 vehicles movements and therefore traffic levels would reduce.

Councillor Keith Woodhams proposed that Members support the Officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission and this was seconded by Councillor Linden. 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:

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: · Proposed Elevations, reference RAC/8816/4, received 14/07/2020; · Proposed Site Plan, reference RAC/8816/3 Rev2, received 11/09/2020. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
3.	Construction method statement (prior approval) No development 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; (c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; (d) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding including any decorative displays and/or facilities for public viewing; (e) Wheel washing facilities; (f) Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction; (g) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and 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 demolition and construction operations.
4.	Spoil (prior approval) No development shall take place until details of how all spoil arising from the development will be used and/or disposed have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall: Show where any spoil to remain on the site will be deposited; Show the resultant ground levels for spoil deposited on the site (compared to existing ground levels); Include measures to remove all spoil from the site (that is not to be deposited); Include timescales for the depositing/removal of spoil. All spoil arising from the development shall be used and/or disposed of in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is required because spoil may arise throughout development.
5.	Foul sewage No development shall take place until details of how foul sewage is to be disposed of have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include pre-treatment measures (e.g. oil interceptors) to prevent the release of pollutants. Thereafter no unit shall be first occupied until the foul sewage disposal measures have been provided in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of foul sewage, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS5 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is required because insufficient information accompanies the application and such measures may need to be incorporated into early building operations.
6.	Hours of work (construction/demolition) No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: 7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays; 8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays; No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
7.	Schedule of materials The construction of the building hereby permitted shall not take place until a schedule of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples of materials shall be made available upon request. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the external materials respond to local character. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
8.	BREEAM The building hereby permitted shall achieve an “Excellent” rating under BREEAM (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainable building which replaces that scheme). The building shall not be occupied until a final Certificate has been issued certifying that BREEAM (or any such equivalent national measure of sustainable building which replaces that scheme) rating of “Excellent” has been achieved for the development, has been issued and a copy has been provided to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the development contributes to sustainable construction. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006).
9.	Site access No unit shall be first occupied until the site access road to the site from Hungerford Lane has been completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The timely completion of the site accesses is necessary to ensure safe and suitable access for all. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
10.	Parking and turning No unit shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out). Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring 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 applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1992-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
11.	Cycle parking/storage No unit shall be first occupied until the cycle parking/storage facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved drawings. Thereafter the facilities shall be maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times. Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking/storage facilities in order to encourage the use of cycles and reduce reliance on private motor vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1992-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), Quality Design SPD, and the Council’s Cycle and Motorcycle Advice and Standards for New Development (November 2014).
12.	Electric vehicle charging points No unit shall be first occupied until electric vehicle charging points have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter, the charging points shall be maintained, and kept available and operational for electric vehicles at all times. Reason: To secure the provision of charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1992-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
13.	Hard landscaping (prior approval) No unit hereby permitted shall be occupied until the hard landscaping of the site has been completed in accordance with a hard landscaping scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard landscaping scheme shall include details of any boundary treatments (e.g. walls, fences) and hard surfaced areas (e.g. driveways, paths, patios, decking) to be provided as part of the development. Reason: A comprehensive hard landscaping scheme is an essential element in the detailed design of the development, and is therefore necessary to ensure the development achieves a high standard of design. These details must be approved before the dwellings are occupied because insufficient information has been submitted with the application, and it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is of a high standard. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design SPD.
14.	Soft landscaping (prior approval) No unit shall be occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, and any other supporting information. All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first occupation of any new unit (whichever occurs first). Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved. Reason: A comprehensive soft landscaping scheme is an essential element in the detailed design of the development, and is therefore necessary to ensure the development achieves a high standard of design. These details must be approved before the dwellings are occupied because insufficient information has been submitted with the application, and it is necessary to ensure that the scheme is of a high standard. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Quality Design SPD.
15.	Lighting strategy (prior approval) No external lighting shall be installed within the application site until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall include a plan to show the location of any lighting, and specifications all lighting to ensure that levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers. No external lighting shall be installed within the application site except in accordance with the above strategy. Reason: To conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
16.	No extractor units, ducts, plant Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no extractor units, ducts or other mechanical plant shall be fixed to the external faces of the building without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. Reason: In the interest of local amenity. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policies OVS5 and OVS6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
17.	Permitted uses The units hereby permitted shall be used for storage or distribution purposes (Use Class B8) and/or for any light industrial process within Use Class E (being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit). The units shall not be used for any other purpose, including any other purpose in Use Class E of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). This restriction shall apply notwithstanding any provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: Any other use may not be acceptable on the site, having regard to surrounding uses and its rural location. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS9, CS10, CS11, CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
18.	Customer opening hours The premises hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside of the following hours: Mondays to Fridays: 08:30 to 18:00 Saturdays: 09:00 to 13:00 Sundays and public holidays: closed Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
19.	Operating hours (machinery/processes) No machinery shall be operated, and no industrial processes shall take place, outside of the following hours: Mondays to Fridays: 08:30 to 17:00 Saturdays: 09:00 to 13:00 Sundays and public holidays: no operating Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
20.	Delivery hours No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the following hours: Mondays to Fridays: 08:30 to 18:00 Saturdays: 09:00 to 13:00 Sundays and public holidays: no deliveries Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
21.	No industrial processes outside No industrial processes [as defined by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)] shall take place outside of the building hereby permitted. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).
22.	No external storage No materials, goods, plant, machinery, products, equipment, vehicles, storage containers or waste containers shall be stored, processed, repaired, operated or displayed in the open land on the site. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).
23.	Noise Assessment A scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site. The scheme shall include an assessment of the prevailing background sound level and calculation of noise levels that are not to be exceeded beyond the boundary of the premises. Thereafter, the use shall not commence until the approved scheme has been fully implemented. Mitigation measures installed/implemented shall be retained and maintained thereafter. Reason: To safeguard the living conditions of surrounding occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Informatives

1.	Statement under Article 35(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Revision and Representations This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.
2.	Damage to footways, cycleways and verges 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.
3.	Damage to the carriageway The attention of the applicant is drawn to the Highways Act, 1980, which enables the Highway Authority to recover expenses due to extraordinary traffic.
4.	Industrial processes For clarity on the permitted uses defined by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), any industrial process permitted under Class E must be a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit. An “industrial process” as a process for or incidental to any of the following purposes:— (a) the making of any article or part of any article (including a ship or vessel, or a film, video or sound recording); (b) the altering, repairing, maintaining, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, washing, packing, canning, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolition of any article; or (c) the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals; in the course of any trade or business other than agriculture, and other than a use carried out in or adjacent to a mine or quarry.
5.	There are water mains crossing or close to your development. Thames Water do NOT permit the building over or construction within 3m of water mains. If you're planning significant works near our mains (within 3m) we’ll need to check that your development doesn’t reduce capacity, limit repair or maintenance activities during and after construction, or inhibit the services we provide in any other way. The applicant is advised to read our guide working near or diverting our pipes. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-development/Working-near-or-diverting-our-pipes
6.	The proposed development is located within 15m of our underground water assets and as such we would like the following informative attached to any approval granted. The proposed development is located within 15m of Thames Waters underground assets, as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are not taken. Please read our guide ‘working near our assets’ to ensure your workings are in line with the necessary processes you need to follow if you’re considering working above or near our pipes or other structures. https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/Developing-a-large-site/Planning-your-development/Working-near-or-diverting-our-pipes. Should you require further information please contact Thames Water. Email: developer.services@thameswater.co.uk
7.	The applicant is advised that their development boundary falls within a Source Protection Zone for groundwater abstraction. These zones may be at particular risk from polluting activities on or below the land surface. To prevent pollution, the Environment Agency and Thames Water (or other local water undertaker) will use a tiered, risk-based approach to regulate activities that may impact groundwater resources. The applicant is encouraged to read the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection (available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/groundwater-protection-position-statements) and may wish to discuss the implication for their development with a suitably qualified environmental consultant.

Supporting documents: