Agenda item

Proposal:	Change of use of land from agricultural use to a car park
Location:	Land Adjacent To 10 The Street, Englefield
Applicant:	Englefield Estate Trust Corporation
Recommendation:	To delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to refuse planning permission.

 

(Councillor Alan Law resumed in the Chair)

(All Members of the Committee declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that Richard Benyon, Chairman of Englefield Estate and former MP, was known to them. 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.)

(Councillor Alan Macro declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that his children had attended Englefield Primary School and one of the supporters was an acquaintance of his. 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.)

(Councillor Ross Mackinnon declared that he was the Ward Member for the item and had called it in however, had not pre-determined the application and would consider it with an open mind.)

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/01637/FUL in respect of the change of use of land from agricultural use to a car park.

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

·         The site was within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was adjacent to a listed building.

·         The main issues for consideration were whether the proposed scheme would have an acceptable impact on the protected landscape and designated heritage asset and whether it was justified and appropriate limited development.

·         The application was recommended for refusal for five reasons: inappropriate development for location; harm to Englefield conservation area; harm to the setting of a listed building; landscape and visual impacts within the AONB and loss of green infrastructure.

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 Mr Richard Smith, Parish Council Representative, Mrs Hilary Latimer and Mr Chris Gittins, supporters, and Mr Phil Brown, the Agent.

Parish Council Representation

The written submission of Englefield Parish Council was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                    The proposed development was primarily justified, and overwhelmingly supported, on the grounds of road safety in that it would remove cars particularly from a constricted area around the school and provide for safer walking and cycling in that area. On the basis of road safety alone any sensible risk assessment must surely lead to the conclusion that some such mitigation was essential to provide a level of risk that was as low as reasonably practical. It was particularly noted that the Committee report included a number of photographs taken when there was no traffic but none of those supplied with the application that showed a very different picture.

·                    However, there were other considerations. Englefield remained a real village community that had evolved over time, with the few 18th century buildings added to throughout the 19th century after the old village was removed and with further development in the 20th and 21st century.

·                    Unfortunately, changing social and economic conditions had overtaken the community. Within living memory, the village survived as almost an enclosed community where cars were counted on the fingers of one hand and visitors from outside were rare, for the most part tradespeople some of whom still used horse drawn transport. The number of schoolchildren numbered no more than 30 and all arrived on foot or by bicycle. That was no longer the case and owing to the constraints of the original layout the village suffered greatly from the impact of those changes – suffering that might readily be alleviated.

·                    In landscape terms, while the proposal might impact somewhat adversely on the setting, that impact would be minimal and outweighed by the benefits from the car park. No erection of any structure was proposed, just some permeable surface treatment replacing a small area of grass and some screening vegetation – none of which would have any irremovable effect on the land. Against this must be set the visual intrusion, inconvenience, reduction in air quality and risk to personal safety from the present situation.

·                    Considered on the basis of a full social cost-benefit analysis this proposal must surely succeed and Members were urged to approve the proposal.

Member Questions to the Parish Council

(Mr Smith was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee)

Councillor Jeremy Cottam asked Mr Smith if there was any written agreement signifying that the car park could only be used for school traffic and queried who owned the land. Mr Smith confirmed that Englefield Estate owned the land and there was no agreement that the car park would be for use only by the primary school.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon noted that the written submission highlighted the current traffic situation at particular times of the day and asked Mr Smith to describe this in more detail. Mr Smith reported that the photos submitted as part of the application showed cars parked along the entire length of The Street. There was another road that ran from a point opposite the proposed car park around the back of the housing and then joined back up with the main street. This road was often congested with parked cars and the visual splays at either end were non-existent. The area immediately outside the school was kept clear by the school, but everywhere else within close proximately was often congested with cars. Mr Smith urged Members to view the photos submitted with the application.

Councillor Graham Pask referred to a picture showing the view from The Street and noted that there seemed to be a dropped kerb. Councillor Pask asked if this area was used for parking on an ad-hoc basis. Mr Smith clarified that this area was on the opposite side of the road from the application site and stated that cars did park there from time to time. There was a nursery located at the old fire station, which sometimes used the area referred to for parking.

Councillor Geoff Mayes mentioned that a similar issue had been faced in Mortimer several years ago. He asked Mr Smith to confirm if the car park would replace the on street parking, which he thought was put in place using grasscrete in around 2011 to 2015. Mr Smith was uncertain about the grasscrete area being referred to. The area referred to by Councillor Pask was not grasscrete, but it was possible that there was some grasscrete further down the road. The car park, if approved, would replace all on street parking.

Councillor Alan Law understood that the area referred to by Councillor Mayes had formed part of a previous planning application and conditions had included some grasscrete along the verge closest to the school. Gareth Dowding (Highways) clarified that the area referred to had formed part of a planning application for the nursery in the old fire station and had included a reinforced grass verge area. It had been for use by parents of both school and nursery children.

Supporters Representation

The written summarised submission of the supporters was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                  There were significant concerns that the potential barrier to having this application passed was the perceived lack of need. It was questioned whether the Council required an accident to happen outside the school before they saw a need for safety measures.

·                  The school’s position in the conservation area limited the safety signage and traffic calming measures that could be put in place. With a growing number of pupils from outside of the rural catchment area, the number of cars coming in and out of the village at either end of the day was growing. Surely housing some of these cars in a discreet, off-road parking area would be far preferable to the roads and verges being blocked, both in terms of safety and in terms of preserving the conversation area.

·                  The Council had already passed the building of a large primary school on a green field site in Theale which had had a big impact on the look of the local area. The proposed car park in Englefield would be far more discreet and would ease traffic congestion rather than create it, as the new school seemed to have done on the Englefield Road.

·                  The school was in an extremely fortunate position to have the support of the Englefield Estate who were proposing to provide this car park without any financial burden on the taxpayer.

·                  The objections of the Conservation Officer seemed to be based more on technicalities than on experience and knowledge of the actual village environment that locals wanted to protect.

·                  Despite the fact that limited development was permitted, the objection centred on five aspects claiming that the car park would be to the detriment of a green space and a countryside vista which was part of the special character of the village.

·                  There was a long open vista to the left of The Street as you travelled into the village, more than 60% of this would be retained. The Conservation Officer might not be aware that there was already parking on the other side of The Street, an eyesore causing a muddy mess and disrupting the view of the similar open field on that side of the road. This extended further than the proposed car park so there would be a net gain of open field vistas in addition to the tidying of the area and improvement to green infrastructure at the base of a magnificent stand of trees.

·                  Although the view of and from number 10 The Street would be marginally diminished from one of 4 sides to the building, it would remain in an open setting.

·                  The view of numerous other buildings, including the school, church and Englefield House with its magnificent deer park would be majorly improved by the absence of a long string of parked cars blocking the road and the view of anyone walking down The Street. Including the parents, children and staff of the school coming to and from the school twice a day.

Member Questions to the Supporters

(Mrs Latimer and Mr Gittins were in attendance to answer questions from the Committee)

Councillor Jo Stewart acknowledged Mrs Latimer’s impassioned plea in her written submission. It had been mentioned by Officers that there had not been any incidents in the last 20 years. Councillor Stewart asked why a car park was now being sought and if something had changed recently to spark the need for the application like an increase in pupil numbers or cars. Mrs Latimer stated that she had taught at the school since 2011 and had been Headteacher since 2018 and in this time parking at the school had always been an issue. Recently, fewer children from the local catchment area had attended the school with most of the school’s pupil numbers made up by children living outside of the catchment area. In 2019, there was an intake of 80 children and only two were from the catchment area.

Mrs Latimer stated that there were over 70 families within the school’s pupil population of 100 children and there were very few siblings. This had led to an increase in car traffic to and from the school. Car sharing had always been difficult however, this issue had been compounded due to Covid-19.

Mrs Latimer added that there had been an increased number of lorries, coaches and delivery vehicles to the area due to thriving business and community ventures in the local area. Regarding accidents there had been a number of incidents but nothing that had required reporting because no-one had been injured. Mrs Latimer was aware of incidents were toddlers had run on to the street or where people had needed to walk in to the road to avoid dogs being walked along the narrow path. This was very dangerous with cars parked along the road and partially on footpaths. The advantage of the car park would be that the parked cars would not get as far as the narrow part of the street and it was this area that was most dangerous. Walking buses had been arranged however, due to the school being small there had not been enough staff available to sustain the scheme. Other options had also been looked at with the local community, including use of the garden centre car park, to try and reduce the problem however, every year parking continued to be a concern.

Councillor Law asked Mrs Latimer if she would be happy if there was a condition in place that meant only parents of children attending the school could use the proposed car park and secondly if double yellow lines were placed along The Street near the school. Mrs Latimer commented that the area was a conservation area and therefore yellow lines had never been used. She believed the yellow lines were not something that had been supported by the local community. Mrs Latimer was unsure if she was placed to agree to the conditions however, commented that she would be happy if such conditions were used. 

Agent Representation

The written submission of the agent was read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

·                  This statement was on behalf of the applicant, the Englefield Estate. The Estate’s planning consultant, Mr Brown of Savills, was available to answer any questions that the Committee might have in relation to the application proposals.

·                  Englefield village was at the heart of the Englefield Estate. Together with the community, the Estate was committed to ensuring that the village, under its long-term stewardship, maintained its social, economic and environmental vitality by supporting local people, services and facilities. In this context, the proposal for a car park was one of a number of small scale projects which were key to supporting the long-term vitality of the village. These were discussed with the community at a consultation event in 2019 and the suggestion for a car park was overwhelmingly supported.

·                  As a result, this application had the support of the local primary school, Parish Council and local residents - some 45 letters of support had been noted in the Officer’s report. 

·                  It was accepted that the location of the car park was sensitive, being in the countryside, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and a Conservation Area. Through sensitive use of materials and landscaping efforts had been made to minimise the impacts, and indeed the Officer’s report acknowledged that the harm to these assets was not substantial. Any harm was, in the view of the applicant, clearly outweighed by the benefits of the car park which included:

-           The improvement in highway safety for school children that had consistently been supported by the primary school;

-           The provision of a safe, off-road footpath for children which would be provided from the car park to the school;

-           The removal of a proliferation of parked cars around the village, including that which blocked the entrance to the garden centre (opposite the school) and which damaged the grass verges and tree roots further along The Street and which detracted from the Conservation Area.

·                  This was a case of applying the planning balance: weighing the significant public benefits of the scheme against the less than substantial harm. We recognised that your Officers had recommended that the application be refused, but this was a matter of planning judgement, and so it was open to Members to come to a different view.

·                  We were aware of other cases in the District where car parks for schools (including within the AONB) had been granted, for example close by at Pangbourne School, at Bradfield College and at Ufton Nervet. In all these cases, the harm to the landscape and heritage aspects was judged to be outweighed by the benefits to the schools.  This car park was therefore not a new precedent, and we respectfully request that Members move to approve the application.

Member Questions to the Agent

(Mr Brown was in attendance to answer questions from the Committee)

Councillor Mackinnon asked Mr Brown to explain the look of the material that would be used for the car park if approved. Mr Brown reported that it would be a buff colour resin that would be filled with gravel. It was the same material that was used for Cobbs Farm Shop not far away from the application site. The site would be enclosed by a hedge. The Estate could plant a hedge and this would not require any planning permission.

Councillor Pask referred to comments about the use of the car park being for the school only and he queried why this was not included as part of the proposal. Mr Brown stated that this had been offered as an option to Officers and the report included information on a proposed condition suggested to the Headteacher limiting use to the school. Englefield Estate felt that this was a reasonable condition however, Officers were of a different view.

Councillor Mayes noted that there were gates located at the entrance of the site on the site drawing presented to the Committee and he queried if these would be open all day, seven days per week. Councillor Mayes also queried if there would be lighting within the car park area. Mr Brown stated that if the decision was taken to limit use to the school then the gates could be closed. There were a number of Estate staff who lived in the village, so this could be managed. There was some low level lighting included as part of the proposal for safety reasons however, Mr Brown stressed that this was not street lighting and was in keeping with the rest of the village. Mr Brown was concerned regarding a condition for double yellow lines due to the site being within a conservation area and rural in nature.

Councillor Alan Macro raised a query regarding the pathway shown on the drawing, which he believed was not part of the application. Councillor Macro asked why this was the case. Mr Brown stated that if on street parking was eliminated then this would also reduce conflict between vehicles being parked on the footpath and pedestrians. This would make it safer to walk along The Street. As an alternative, Englefield Estate had considered a route around the rear of number 10 to the school, which would also improve access to the village hall. This would be on land controlled by Englefield Estate and could therefore be delivered if necessary.

Councillor Stewart queried if there would be anything to stop parents from parking in existing areas or did the proposal incorporate or remove this area. Councillor Stewart was concerned that if the car park got too full then parents might chose to avoid it and still park elsewhere. Councillor Stewart queried if this was to be prevented from happening. Mr Brown clarified that the existing area that had been referred to was separate to the car park area on the opposite side of the road to the site and impacted on the pine trees close to it. He added that the school was very proactive in managing school traffic and parking, and Mr Brown therefore felt that some parking enforcement was achievable with the inclusion of controls implemented by the school.

Ward Member Representation

Councillor Ross Mackinnon stated that he was neither for nor against the application and looked forward to hearing and taking part in the debate.

There were no Member questions for the Ward Member.

Member Questions to Officers

Councillor Alan Macro referred to the planning report which stated that there was an 18m gap between the car park and a footpath. Councillor Macro queried if this was the footway along the side of the street. Ms Melton confirmed that this was correct.

Councillor Law noted from the report that Officers were not supportive of the car park being designated to parents of the school as this would be difficult to enforce. Councillor Law accepted this however, queried if there was any other reason why a condition on this could not be included. Secondly, Councillor Law was of the understanding that double yellow lines could be implemented in a conservation area and asked if there was any reason yellow lines could not be used in this instance.

In response to Councillor Law’s question regarding restricting the car park to use by the school, Ms Melton did not believe that this would pass the test of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in terms of what was considered reasonable. Councillor Law queried who would appeal the condition if it was approved. Mr Bob Dray stated that Officers had to make assessments against the tests of the NPPF. If the Committee accepted that the harm identified by officers was justified as a result of the benefits from the proposal, then Officers would question if a limit to parents only was necessary. What added harm could come from others using the car park when it was not full?

Mr Gareth Dowding expressed his concern regarding a condition to restrict use to school access because this could potentially cause parents to park in the road if the gate was not opened on time. Regarding the question of double yellow lines, Mr Dowding stated that yellow lines could be provided in a conservation area however, this would be subject to a full consultation with residents in the area and could be objected to. Councillor Law noted the point and commented that planning permission could be subject to a consultation being carried out with residents.

Councillor Pask queried the suggestion of double yellow lines and suggested that a single yellow line could be used with time restrictions in place, for example, no parking between 8am to 10am and 2.30pm and 4.30pm. Mr Dowding reported that a single yellow line with time restrictions could be provided however, a full consultation would still need to take place. Mr Dray added that because the provision of yellow lines would be subject to a separate process with uncertainty of its success that he would be concerned about planning permission being subject to a condition on this. He advised that it would be considered unreasonable as it was out of the applicant’s control.

Debate

Councillor Mackinnon stated that he understood the objections from reading the Officers report which were in line with policy including the loss of green infrastructure and impact on a listed building. Councillor Mackinnon however felt that the impact on green infrastructure would be low given the site was located in the corner of a paddock and would use materials that were sympathetic to the countryside setting. Councillor Mackinnon reported that the current impact caused by parked cars was high and he felt that this would be improved by the proposal.

Councillor Mackinnon stated the importance of considering the application in context. The policies, if strictly applied, benefitted those who visited the AONB however, they did not benefit the people who lived in the village, who clearly supported the proposal. He acknowledged that it was going to be a difficult decision however, suggested that the benefits of the scheme needed to be taken into consideration and balanced with the concerns of Officers.

Councillor Macro referred to the point that there had been no objections from local residents to the proposal and stated that most of the properties in the area were owned by Englefield Estate and therefore this could have caused some reluctance to object. Councillor Macro knew the area very well and commented that at the end of the street there was a T-junction with a private road leading off it. This used to be open and parents could use the area if they were unable to find a space and needed to turnaround. Councillor Macro noted that this was now gated off and therefore increased the risk of vehicles carrying out three point turns near the school.

Councillor Macro reported that initially he had not been supportive of the application however, he had changed his mind after reading the submissions. Children’s safety was paramount and he felt this outweighed the less than substantial harm that would be caused if the application was approved. Councillor Macro stated that he had some concerns about the 18m gap from the car park to the footpath and then 175m to the school. He felt that this could put off some parents who might try to park more closely. Regarding suggestions to restrict the use of the car park, Councillor Macro felt that this would be a mistake as the car park was near to and could be used by the local shop, post office and tea rooms. Councillor Macro declared that he was reluctantly minded to support the application.

Councillor Graham Pask commented that planning applications were not determined on the level of support or objection. He understood all the points raised within the Planning Officer’s report. Councillor Pask noted from Mr Brown that the Estate could plant a hedge and obscure the gap between the dwellings. Councillor Pask stated that there would still be a gap between dwellings and this could have cars parked on it especially at drop off and pick up times and other times if the use was not restricted. Councillor Pask noted however, that cars currently parked on the road and in front of the site. Councillor Pask queried the ultimate harm in approving the application and noted the benefits. He stated that he was leaning toward supporting the application. Councillor Pask noted the points made by Officers regarding the yellow lines however, he felt assured that the school would manage the situation. Councillor Pask felt there were both advantages and disadvantages of restricting the use of the car park to the school and was interested to hear what other Members had to say on this point.

Councillor Cottam stated that he concurred with the points made by Councillor Mackinnon and the application needed to be judged on balance. Safety was very important and just because there had not yet been an accident did not mean that there would not be one. In his view if the proposal was approved, cars that were normally parked along the road would be moved to a confined area which would decrease the visual impact on the area. Councillor Cottam stated that he was therefore minded to support the application.

Councillor Law noted that the AONB had not commented on the application. He invited Members of the Committee to make a proposal regarding the application.

Councillor Pask felt that on balance the benefits of the application outweighed the disadvantages. Councillor Pask proposed that planning permission be approved. He suggested that a standard set of conditions be applied including start times, landscaping and surface treatment. Regarding restricting access to the school, Councillor Pask noted that no Members had voiced an opinion in strong favour of enforcing this and therefore he did not feel a condition on this should be proposed. Councillor Cottam seconded the proposal.

Mr Dray suggested that conditions be delegated to Officers for determination and he read out the standard ones which would be applied. Councillor Law suggested that the condition regarding dark skies be added and queried if a gate was included within the drawings. Ms Melton confirmed that a gate was shown in the drawing. Mr Dowding suggested that a condition be added regarding drainage and SuDS.

Councillor Law invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Pask, seconded by Councillor Cottam. At the vote the motion was carried.

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

Conditions

1. Commencement of development

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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 following approved plans/documents:

·         Location Plan, reference 6027E/SK24 B, received 17/07/2020;

·         Village Parking Plan, reference 6027ESK9A, received 17/07/2020;

·         Badger Survey Report, by Lockhart Garratt, received 17/07/2020, recommendations at Section 7.

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

3. Schedule of materials

No development shall take place until a schedule of the materials to be used in the construction of the car park hereby permitted, have 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 respect the character and appearance of the area. 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). A pre-commencement conditions is required due to the highly sensitive location of the site and because the materials will be used throughout construction operations.

4. Drainage

No development shall take place until a scheme of surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall incorporate sustainable drainage principles to deal with surface water run-off within the application site. The car park shall not be first brought into use until the scheme of surface water drainage has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved method of surface water drainage shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and the Sustainable Drainage SPD (December 2018). A pre-commencement condition is required because the sustainable drainage measures will need to be implemented during construction.

5. Construction method statement

No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved CMS. The CMS shall include measures for:

(a) A site set-up plan during the works;

(b) Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

(c) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;

(d) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

(e) Erection and maintenance of security hoarding including any decorative displays and/or facilities for public viewing;

(f) Temporary access arrangements to the site, and any temporary hard-standing;

(g) Wheel washing facilities;

(h) Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and pests/vermin during construction;

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

(j) Hours of construction and demolition work;

(k) Hours of deliveries and preferred haulage routes.

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 precommencement condition is required because the CMS must be adhered to during all demolition and construction 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. Tree protection scheme

No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is 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 such fencing shall be erected prior to any development 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.

Note: The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012.

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF and Policies CS14, CS18 and CS19 of West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; tree protection installation measures may be required to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

8. Surface specification (prior approval)

No development or other operations shall commence on site until details of the proposed carpark and access surface specification in the root zones of existing and proposed trees, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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. A pre-commencement condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; details of satisfactory foundations are a key element of the scheme and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

9. Provision of access, parking and turning spaces, and cycle facilities

The car park shall not be first brought into use until the accesses, parking and manoeuvring spaces, and cycle parking facilities have been fully provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring, and the cycle parking facilities kept available for their purpose, at all times.

Reason: To ensure the access, parking and turning is laid out in the approved condition, in the interests of public safety, and to ensure cycle parking is provided as proposed to encourage sustainable modes of transport. 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 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007), and the Council's Cycle and Motorcycle Advice and Standards for New Development (November 2014).

10. Soft landscaping (prior approval)

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 use of the car park (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. 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.

11. Lighting strategy (prior approval)

No external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall:

(a) Include and isolux diagram of the proposed lighting.

(b) Ensure all lighting 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.

12. Hard landscaping (prior approval)

The car park shall not be first brought into use 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. fences and gates) and hard surfaced areas 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. 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.

13. Permitted development restriction (gates, fences, walls etc)

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 gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of that Order shall be erected, constructed, or materially altered without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. This restriction excludes any development expressly permitted by this permission, and does not prevent repairs or replacements (in full or in part) that do not materially affect the external appearance of any gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure.

Reason: To prevent the erection of such development which may have an adverse impact on the rural character and appearance of the area, or fail to conserve the open landscape of the AONB. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Quality Design SPD (June 2006).

The decision to grant Planning Permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the National Planning Policy Framework, South East Plan 2006-2026, West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (WBDLP) Saved Policies 2007, the Waste Local Plan for Berkshire, adopted 1998, the Replacement Minerals Local Plan for Berkshire 1991-2006 (incorporating the alterations adopted in December 1997 and May 2001) and to all other relevant material considerations, including Government guidance, Supplementary Planning Document; and in particular guidance notes and policies.

The reasoning above is only intended as a summary. If you require further information on this decision please contact the Council via the Customer Call Centre on 01635 519111.

INFORMATIVES:

1 The applicant’s attention is drawn to the fact that above conditions must be complied with in full before any work commences on site, failure to do so may result in enforcement action being instigated.

2 The above Permission may contain pre-conditions, which require specific matters to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before a specified stage in the development occurs. For example, “Prior to commencement of development written details of the means of enclosure will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority”. This means that a lawful commencement of the approved development cannot be made until the particular requirements of the pre-condition(s) have been met. A fee is required for an application to discharge conditions.

3 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 secured and accepted what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

4 Before arriving at its decision, the Eastern Area Planning Committee considered the recommendation of planning and conservation officers, and listened to the representations made by interested parties. It was determined that the public benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm to the landscape and heritage assets.