Agenda item

Proposal:	20/01226/FUL
Location:	Land at Old Station Business Park, High Street, Compton
Applicant:	Carbosynth Ltd
Recommendation:	That the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

(Councillor Carolyne Culver declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(1) by virtue of the fact that she had been lobbied on the application and also that the application was within the Ridgeway ward she represented. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial, or a disclosable pecuniary interest, she determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

1.         The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(1)) concerning Planning Application 20/01226/FUL in respect of land at Old Station Business Park, High Street, Compton. The applicant sought retrospective permission for external works, m/e works to include ductwork, steel gantry, external plant, external enclosure (fencing), retaining walls, air handling unit and chiller, gas bottle store, solvent stores all concerning unit 10, 11, 12 (existing building). Building alterations include modifications to internal space planning, revised external door design to fire escape doors, omitting roof lights and glazed top and side panel to entrance doors (front elevation) and two windows on the east elevation at first floor and adjusted soil vent pipes (SVP) positions.

2.         Mr Matthew Shepherd, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion, the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms, and officers recommended that the Head of Planning and Development be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the main and update reports.

3.         Councillor Clive Hooker asked the Highways Officer if he had any observations relating to the application. Mr Paul Goddard, Team Leader - Highways Development Control, confirmed that he had no highway objections and that previous concerns about loss of parking spaces had been addressed in the latest plans.

Removal of Speaking Rights

4.         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.

5.         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.

6.         In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions relating to this application were received from Mr Keith Simms on behalf of Compton Parish Council, Mr Keith Simms, Mr Peter Jones, Dr and Mrs Vaughan, objectors and Ms Jaymeni Patel, Agent. Those able to attend the remote meeting were, Mr Simms, Mr Jones and Ms Patel.

7.         Individual written submissions were published online along with the agenda - http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=155&MId=5735&Ver=4

Parish Council’s Submission

8.         The Clerk read out the representation. Members did not have any questions relating to the written submission.

Objectors’ Submission - Summarised

9.         The Clerk read out the representation. Planning officers had summarised the multiple submissions as follows:

Mr Keith Simms

·         The applicant’s own noise report states that the source of the existing noise nuisance cannot be exactly attributed. I would request that conditions are put on this application to a similar specification on then noise generated on the whole site.

·         I welcome the limitations on time of use and any assistance in ensuring conditions are complied with.

·         The application is retrospective and the units are in use. There is a noise nuisance from this site and we desperately hope it can be resolved by conditions that are enforced.

Dr & Mrs Vaughan

·         There has been some improvement as a result of switching off one of the refrigerated containers and some temporary mitigation measures. However, the noise nuisance of a low humming sound that is very intrusive has not gone away.

·         The noise has been heard by Tony McEvoy during a visit on 2 October from the land immediately behind our property which he felt was coming from the AHU on units 4-6. The AHI on units 10-12 is basically the same and a significant contribution to the overall noise has now started to come from this direction.

·         The noise survey did not establish how much noise this AHU could make under significant load as it wasn’t fully operational at that time. I have tried hard to identify the conditions when the noise is worse but I have no information about loading variability at units 10-12. I don’t believe Carbosynth know when the play is noise because it runs automatically.

·         The solution is to minimise the plant that is required on the site – the time it is on and removal if the function can be off site. A timer switching off the equipment at night and at weekends would still leave a noise nuisance during the working week so mitigation should be the key objective.

·         Please could the committee consider placing a condition that measures are installed and demonstrably shown to mitigate noise nuisance by a reasonable date.

Dr Peter Jones

·         Whilst Carbosynth undertakes commendable work and provides employment it nevertheless has a duty of care and responsibility to respect and maintain both the environmental and social well-being of the location which can’t be overlooked with new buildings and equipment. This area is designated as AONB and we should do all we can to protect that status.

·         I am specifically objecting to those aspects regarding plant and machinery that create noise that extends beyond the site boundary. Effective and robust mitigation should be a condition to successfully and measurably stop the nuisance noise so the HVAC isn’t heard consistently throughout the day and timers switch it off at night, weekends and public holidays.

10.      Members asked the following questions relating to the written submission:

11.      Councillor Carolyne Culver asked Mr Simms what he would consider to be acceptable conditions. Keith Simms confirmed that noise was the main issue. He noted there was a constant noise when the units were running and this was worse in summer. He likened the level of noise to that of a large lorry driving up the road through the centre of Compton. He suggested that conditions were needed to control the noise. He felt that the conditions placed on other parts of the site were robust and that similar conditions should be put on this site, since it was unclear where the noise was coming from. He noted that air handling units made more noise as they aged, and asked for maintenance conditions to be imposed.

12.      Councillor Culver asked Dr Peter Jones about the impacts that the site had on him as a local resident. Dr Jones indicated that noise was generated across the whole site, which had kept him awake at night for months. He confirmed that he had installed a fan and bought a white noise machine to drown out the noise. He stated that since the new air handling unit had started up in September, he had struggled to drown out the noise and had been unable to sleep, which was unreasonable.

13.      Councillor Culver asked Dr Jones if he had been forced to leave his house to seek respite and get a decent night’s sleep. Dr Jones confirmed that he had used several Airbnb facilities and had also visited his parents in Shropshire. He suggested that his home should be in one of the quietest possible locations, since it was within an AONB in a very rural area.

14.      Agent’s Submission 

15.      The Clerk read out the representation. Members questioned the attendee as follows:

16.      Councillor Adrian Abbs noted that Ms Patel expected the vegetation to attenuate visual and noise impacts and asked for her estimate of this attenuation, once it was fully grown.

17.      Ms Patel indicated that the applicant/agent would need to work with Environmental Health Officers and the acoustic consultant to take measurements at regular intervals, once the landscaping had been given a chance to establish. She indicated that there would be less growth through the winter, but suggested that through the condition they would repeat the acoustic survey, thereby giving the landscaping time to become more established, and therefore have more accurate measurements to show its impact.

18.      Councillor Abbs asked if, when Ms Patel had made her estimate and decided to plant the trees shown on the plan, she had a number in mind for the noise reduction or had just guessed.

19.      Ms Patel confirmed that she had worked on the design with the Council’s duty officer. She indicated that additional trees had been planted along the whole western boundary, rather than just remotely against the gable elevation to units 10-12.

20.      Councillor Abbs asked if it was a single row or multiple rows of trees that had been planted. Ms Patel replied that the design was not simply plucked out of the air.

21.      Councillor Culver asked whether Ms Patel had not thought that the noise aspect was important enough to be mentioned in any great detail within her submission. Ms Patel acknowledged the importance of the noise issue and indicated that she had prepared another written submission on behalf of the client, but this had not been included in the Committee’s papers. She indicated that there was further detail within the applicant’s submission that had clarified the further remedial works that had been carried out to mitigate the acoustic and visual impact.

22.      Councillor Culver noted that members of the public had raised concerns about machine maintenance and asked if there were plans to update the equipment and monitor sound levels as the equipment aged. Ms Patel confirmed that engineers had already provided a plan for regular servicing and remedial works, which would be carried out as required across all of Carbosynth’s units.

23.      Councillor Jeff Cant asked how the decision had been made regarding the location of the equipment in relation to the nearby residential dwellings and whether it would have been possible to have placed the equipment in another position. Ms Patel confirmed that this would have been investigated at the early feasibility stage with the client brief in mind, and every possible option would have been explored with the client. Councillor Cant asked if this would have been considered with the client and the residents. Ms Patel stated that it would have been considered with the client.

Ward Member Representation

24.      Councillor Culver in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·         There were concerns about noise relating to this application, and the application discussed at the previous committee meeting.

·         It was unfortunate that the minutes from the last meeting were not available to allow members to refer to conditions added to the previous application.

·         The development was impacting on local people and at least one resident had been forced to leave their home in order to get a decent night’s sleep.

·         She was unconvinced about potential noise mitigation from trees, since they would lose their leaves in winter.

·         Conditions were needed to reassure residents that if they had concerns about noise, then Planning Enforcement would undertake noise assessments.

·         These assessments should be carried out at different times of day and in summer as well as winter, since the chillers worked at full tilt in summer.

·         She asked why noise assessments were undertaken at an unusual time of day (between 3am and 7am). This would be challenging for Planning Enforcement to check and a more comprehensive approach was needed.

25.      Councillor Hooker asked Mr Shepherd to familiarise himself with the conditions that had been imposed on the previous application to get consistency across both applications.

26.      Members had no questions for Councillor Culver.

Member Questions to Officers

27.      Councillor Tony Vickers indicated that different people had different sensitivities to particular sound frequencies and that it was a subjective area.  He asked how unusual it was to experience a disturbance like Dr Jones’s, when noise was within legally acceptable levels.

28.      Ms Anna Smy, Team Manager - Environmental Quality, stated that there were currently six or seven low frequency noise complaints. She confirmed that it was not that uncommon, and when someone was tuned into the noise it was difficult to ignore it, particularly when equipment was constantly running. She indicated that only one person in a household may be affected. She confirmed that when looking at statutory noise nuisance, an average person was considered. In this instance, it was a low frequency noise that other residents had heard as well.

29.      Councillor Abbs cited page 23 of the Acoustic Report, which referred to an acceptable noise level of 30 decibels for bedrooms, but page 33 stated that low frequency noise levels were between double and quadruple the acceptable noise levels for the sleeping period. Ms Smy confirmed that they would seek to achieve, through effective mitigation, noise levels below the 30 decibel limit set in the British Standard (BS) and World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. She stated that the Council was seeking a level of 27 decibels externally, which would reduce what was heard further inside the property, even with windows open.

30.      Councillor Abbs noted that the application was retrospective and had been causing problems for almost a year. He asked why this was only being looked at now. Ms Smy indicated that Environmental Health had been consulted as part of the planning application and had looked at the mitigation measures to see if they were reasonable. She stated that they were also looking at it as a nuisance investigation, and that previous issues had been addressed in a piecemeal fashion. She confirmed that measurements had shown the BS/WHO standards were being met, but they were just a snapshot in time. She indicated that there was more than one noise source and based on the noise reports and visits undertaken, the proposed conditions were reasonable and achievable.

31.      Councillor Culver asked for evidence that the number of trees proposed would provide effective mitigation. Ms Smy explained that trees were not considered within the mitigation. She was looking instead at solid barriers and the height of the noise sources, since trees would not mitigate the effect of exhausts at roof height.

32.      Mr Simon Till, Principal Planning Officer, confirmed that trees and vegetation were typically not considered within planning as having a significant mitigating effect on noise.

33.      Councillor Howard Woollaston asked if there was any better way to deal with the problem, such as moving the exhaust to a lower level. Ms Smy stated that barriers or fencing would be of benefit if it were at a lower level. She suggested that the proposed mitigation was in line with that proposed at other sites. She explained that now a particular frequency had been identified, it would be easier to address the problem.

34.      Councillor Woollaston asked if the noise was coming out of the top of the flue. Ms Smy replied that some noise was associated with reverberation and air flowing through the ducting and some from the exhaust. She explained that the mitigation would address the problem from all angles and needed technical support from the acoustic consultant.

35.      Councillor Vickers noted that a building could be approved and assessed as meeting noise requirements at the planning stage, but Building Control would then check it was performing at the expected level. He noted that this application was retrospective for an existing building where building regulations checks were not required, and so mitigation was not put in place before it came into use. He asked if this was significant.

36.      Mr Shepherd explained that when previous applications on this site had been approved, the building in its entirety had a condition that no plant should be installed until details were submitted and approved by the local authority. He noted that the applicant had not done this, and so they were seeking approval retrospectively.  He explained that enforcement officers had become involved due to complaints from residents, and it had been determined that there had been a non-compliance with the condition, which had triggered this application.

37.      Councillor Vickers asked if this related to the application considered at the last committee meeting. Mr Shepherd indicated that the condition related to an approval granted in 2017.

38.      Mr Till noted that planning matters did not make significant distinctions between applications for works that had and had not been carried out in terms of relevant considerations. He confirmed that Building Control only checked compliance with building regulations and not with planning permission. He indicated that members should consider whether it would be possible to achieve sufficient acoustic mitigation now that works have been carried out, and he noted that the officer’s recommendation was that it would.

Debate

39.      Councillor Abbs noted that the Committee had considered a lot of retrospective applications in recent years. He indicated that he was nervous about the proposed mitigation. He observed that the proposal was to just meet the BS/WHO standard and that a three decibel difference was significant. He highlighted that there had been several years of noise nuisance from the site. He indicated that he would like to seek additional mitigation over and above what had been sought for the last application.

40.      Councillor Cant agreed with Councillor Abbs. He noted that another unit on the site, which was not part of this retrospective application, had significantly exceeded acceptable sound levels. He suggested that there was nothing to stop future occupants or changes of use on this site from resulting in a similar situation at other units. He expressed concern that the applicant did not consider the impact on local residents before installing plant in that position. He wondered whether a condition should be considered to impose a timescale for mitigation being implemented, after which enforcement would be initiated.

41.      Councillor Dennis Benneyworth agreed with Councillors Abbs and Cant. He suggested that robust conditions should be imposed regarding noise mitigation, including acoustic fencing, and that enforcement would be vital.

42.      Councillor Hilary Cole expressed disappointment at having to determine retrospective applications, since it provided little room for manoeuvre. She agreed with previous comments about the need for good acoustic barriers, but could not see a strong case to refuse the application.

43.      Councillor Woollaston proposed to support the recommendation, on the basis that it was supported by appropriate conditions. Councillor Cole seconded the proposal.

44.      Councillor Hooker sought clarification regarding conditions. Mr Shepherd referred to Condition 5 and noted that the applicant had already submitted details of the proposed noise mitigation measures. He confirmed that these must be installed within one month and subsequently tested to ensure they were effective. He noted that there was a guarantee of plant maintenance to keep noise levels within agreed levels over time. He highlighted Condition 6 (timer system to mitigate noise impacts at night), Condition 7 (external lighting), and Condition 8 (preventing installation of further extractor units). He confirmed that Planning and Environmental Health were satisfied that the proposed conditions were robust and would achieve the required noise levels. He confirmed that the site would be monitored by the parish council and noted that noise nuisance was given a high priority in terms of enforcement. He indicated that the applicant had worked with the Council and the noise level was improving.

45.      Councillor Hooker asked if a condition could be included that imposed a time limit for achieving the required noise levels, since the measures may not be effective. Mr Shepherd stated that Condition 5 addressed this point, including triggers for installation and monitoring, and defined locations for measuring the noise to confirm if agreed levels were being achieved. He also confirmed that the timer system had to be installed within two months.

46.      Councillor Abbs noted that the required standard in Condition 5 was 36 dB between 7am and 7pm. He noted that page 23 of the Acoustic Report specified 35 dB. He suggested reducing the required level to 33 dB to give some margin of error. He also suggested changing the wording so it applied to noise arriving from the site as a whole.

47.      Mr Shepherd agreed that the required noise level could be adjusted, but the applications needed to be considered individually and the Council could not introduce conditions that relied on areas outside the red line of this application.

48.      Ms Smy stated that a reduced level could be sought, but the applicant may need to take extra steps to achieve that.

49.      Mr Shepherd confirmed that the required level would be 33 dB.

50.      Councillor Cant asked for an addition to Condition 5 to say that should the organisation fail to implement the noise mitigation measures within 28 days that enforcement action would automatically be triggered. Mr Shepherd indicated that the Planning Authority would take that view regardless of whether or not this wording was added to the condition.

51.      Councillor Cant suggested that the Council should be explicit on this matter, since this was a retrospective application where the applicant had taken action that had caused suffering for local residents over a significant period of time. He considered that the Council should send a clear message that such behaviour was unacceptable and there would be consequences.

52.      Mr Till stated that it was not possible to stipulate via a condition that was active on an applicant that the Council will take enforcement action. He confirmed that officers would note members concerns and that enforcement action would be taken expediently if required. He stated that a condition requiring action by the Council would not be enforceable or reasonable in accordance with the tests specified in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

53.      Councillor Cant suggested that when officers were under pressure, enforcement could be slower than Members would like, and he wanted it to be on record that enforcement action would be swift and just, if the applicant failed to comply.

54.      Councillor Culver noted that a maximum level of 36 dB was imposed on the application determined at the previous meeting. She asked if it was possible to insist on 33 dB for that application also. Mr Shepherd stated that it could not, since the details had already been included on the decision list.

55.      Councillor Culver noted that the previous application had a condition on the construction of the noise attenuating fence.  Mr Shepherd confirmed that this had already been proposed in the mitigation measures and that the applicant would take this on board when they deliver their scheme.

56.      Councillor Culver asked if conditions could be proposed to reduce noise at weekends and during public holidays. Mr Shepherd indicated that due to the nature of the business, operation would be minimised at those times anyway and suggested that such as condition would be overly-onerous.

57.      Councillor Vickers asked if concerns could be picked up as part of an informative. Mr Shepherd indicated that members’ strong views on this matter would be captured in the minutes. He also noted that officers were very aware of these views, and so any enforcement would be done quickly if necessary. 

58.      Councillor Abbs asked that the dB limit should apply to the full sound spectrum and specifically to the lower frequencies (0-500 Hz), and not an average value. Ms Smy stated that it would be an average level. She noted that the Parish Council’s submission suggested using the ISO standard on low frequency noise. She considered that a specific extra clause would be required to address 125 Hz and below.

59.      Councillor Abbs asked that the dB limit should be applied across 0-500 Hz to cover all likely issues.

60.      Ms Smy agreed that a condition would be drafted based on the ISO standard covering 0-500 Hz.

61.      The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston and seconded by Councillor Cole to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission for the reasons listed in the main report and update report, and subject to the amendments proposed by Councillor Abbs. At the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

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

Conditions

1.	Approved plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below: P152-100 Rev J Location and proposed site plan P152-101 Rev J Detailed proposed site and parking layout plan P152-200 Rev I Proposed ground floor plan P152-201 Rev H Proposed first floor plan P152-400 Rev I Proposed south and north elevation plan P152-401 Rev I Proposed west side elevation plan P152-402 Rev I Proposed east side elevation plan 001 sheets 1 and 2 Left and Right hand 6.0m Walk-in firevaults 003 6.0m Walk-in firevaults HVC Louvre Systems Series AL acoustic louvres document Caice Attenuator Schedule document Swegon Gold RX/PX/CX/SD Generation F installation function manual Central Fans Colasist Ltd data document for Swegon Gold and BlueBox Zeta BlueBox Zeta Rev Series A410A document Allaway Acoustics attenuation document Rosenberg Regel switches and controllers document Rosenberg Linefield Rovent 10 axial fan type DQ 315-4 Ex document Invertek Drives Optidrive E IP20 & IP66 (NEMA 4X) Installation document Venta Acoustics Noise Impact Assessment ref VA2752.200710.NIA dated 23 July 2020. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.
2.	Landscaping Maintenance Any of the 20 trees planted as outlined in the letter from Jaymeni Patel Deign dated 6 th August 2020 and Tree Officer’s consultation response dated 7 th July 2020 that Page 16 West Berkshire Council Western Area Planning Committee 4 November 2020 die or become seriously damaged within three years of this permission shall be replaced in the next planting season by plants of the same size and species. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and policies ADPP1, CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026
3.	Parking in accordance with plans Within a month of this permission the vehicle parking and/or turning spaces shall be surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved parking layout plan. The parking and/or turning spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times. Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic 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 Saved Policies 2007.
4.	Ancillary to use of industrial building The buildings and structures hereby approved shall be used solely for purposes ancillary to the main use of the site. Reason: The buildings and structures are acceptable due to the specific nature of the business operating from the site and their separate use would not be acceptable on the site in the interests of amenity and ensuring a sustainable pattern of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS10, CS14, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Local Plan 2006-2026.
5.	Noise mitigation (amended) All of the mitigation measures identified in section 5.2 of the Venta Acoustics Noise Impact Assessment VA2572.191211.NIA dated 11 December 2019 shall be installed within 1 month of this permission and thereafter retained and details confirming installation submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plant noise emissions shall not exceed, when measured at the eastern boundary of the residential properties off Yew Tree Stables, 33dB (LAeq) between 07:00 - 19:00 hours and 27dB (LAeq) between 19:00 - 07:00 hours. Low frequency noise emitted from the plant shall be controlled so that it does not exceed the Low Frequency Criterion Curve for the 10 to 160Hz third octave bands inside residential accommodation as described in the Defra Procedure for the Assessment of Low Frequency Noise complaints 2005. Should achieving this require additional noise mitigation measures details of the measures shall be submitted within 1 month of this permission, approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and installed within 1 month of the details being approved.  The applicant shall liaise with the Local Authority Environmental Health Officer if assistance is necessary in measuring within the properties of residents.  If this is not possible agreement must be sought in writing from the Local Planning Authority to provide a suitable acoustic methodology to extrapolate from data monitored at the boundary of residents. If no additional noise mitigation measures are required a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of this permission demonstrating the noise does not exceed the Low Frequency Criterion Curve for the 10 to 160Hz third octave bands inside residential accommodation. If additional noise mitigation measures are required the verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the measures having been installed. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of adjacent land users in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, policies CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007.
6.	Timer system Within two months of the date of permission details of a timing control system for the air handling and associated chiller that will prevent that equipment from operating overnight shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Within a month of the details being approved the timing control system shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that suitable mitigation is put in place to avoid disturbance to neighbouring dwellings in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies OVS.5 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
7.	External lighting (new) No additional external lighting shall be installed on site without the prior approval in writing from the Local Planning. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining land users and the character of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies OVS.5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.
8.	Plant machinery and containers (new) No additional extractor units, ducts or other mechanical plant shall be fixed to the external faces or roof of the building or ancillary structures without the prior approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoin land users and the character of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policies OVS.5 and OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.