Agenda item

Proposal:	Erection of 11 no. 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 5 x 4 bedroom dwellings, together with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works (including demolition of attached garages and garden walls and the relocation of existing Visitor Centre car parking and pumping station).
Location:	Land Adjacent to Kennet and Avon Canal, Wharf Side, Padworth, Reading
Applicant:	H20 Urban LLP
Recommendation:	To DELEGATE to the Head of Planning and Countryside to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditions and completion of a Legal Agreement no later than the 23rd December 2011.

 

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of English Heritage, he had a registered interest as a member of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and he was a water engineer although he had no connections with H20 Urban. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 11/01564/FULMAJ in respect of the erection of 11 no. 4 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 5 x 4 bedroom dwellings, together with access, car parking, landscaping and associated works (including demolition of attached garages and garden walls, and the relocation of existing Visitor Centre car parking and pumping station).

In introducing the report, Emma Fuller referred to the recommendation summary and advised that the deadline for the Legal Agreement had been extended to 1 February 2012. If the Agreement was not completed by this date then an alternative recommendation for refusal was detailed within the update report.

Emma Fuller also pointed out that Mr Rob Ebrey, who was due to address the Committee as an objector, was in fact unable to attend. As a result the update report contained correspondence from Mr Ebrey. The points raised in this correspondence were addressed within the report.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr David Clark, Parish Council representative, Mr Mike Rodd, supporter, and Mr Dominic Eaton, Mr Aiden Johnson-Hugill and Mr Steven Smallman, applicant/agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Clark in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    More objectors would have been present had the Committee meeting not coincided with the annual parish carol concert.

·                    He questioned whether the objections raised as part of the previous invalid application (approximately 20) remained valid.

·                    The Parish Council was not against the principle of the development, but was opposed to the negative impact this proposal would have on the quality of the environment as it would be out of keeping with the surrounding street scene. They were also totally opposed to the materials proposed to be used as their appearance would differ considerably from existing dwellings. These issues had not been sufficiently addressed from the previous invalid application.

·                    An insufficient number of public car parking spaces were proposed for the visitor centre and there were no barriers between these spaces and resident spaces. This could create conflict particularly during the busy summer months. Overspill from school parking would also contribute to this issue.

In response to the question in relation to the objections raised as part of the previous invalid application, Emma Fuller advised that these were considered as separate to this application and were not carried forward. However, the objections raised for this application were summarised within the report. Mr Clark raised a concern in relation to this practice as some residents did not feel they needed to repeat their concerns.

Councillor Brian Bedwell queried whether the Parish Council had a Parish Plan and whether this covered the appearance of new houses as this was an important area to cover. Mr Clark advised that while a Parish Plan was in place, a Village Design Statement needed to be produced that would cover this aspect.

Councillor Quentin Webb referred to the comment made by the Parish within the report that the building fronting the A340 was 2.5 storeys in height and this was inappropriate. However, an existing building on the opposite side of the river was 2.5 storeys in height. In response, Mr Clark advised that this was a view of the Parish, but was not his own personal view and was not particularly important in his opinion.

Mr Clark was asked for this view on having slate roofs and he acknowledged this was an improvement. However, the proposal for timber cladding was the main concern as it was out of keeping with existing properties.

A request was then made by a member of the public in attendance at the meeting to speak in the absence of Mr Ebrey, who was registered to speak as an objector. The request was put to the vote and Members voted to not allow this in the interest of fairness to other speakers. Councillor Webb added his view that as Mr Ebrey’s letter was included in the update report and the information had been considered then this was sufficient.

Mr Rodd in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He was the Chairman of the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and was speaking on behalf of the Trustees, but not the many Trust members.

·                    The Trust had been actively engaged in discussions with H20 Urban and heritage advisors with respect to this application and this had helped alleviate their concerns. The Trust was of the view that this was an appealing development which was sympathetically designed.

·                    The Trust had also worked closely with British Waterways to maintain the existing original buildings as much as possible. Aldermaston Wharf was an important site but it did need attention. Both H20 Urban and British Waterways had offered assistance with the Trust’s restoration work.

·                    The Trust was very supportive of the application as it would add value to the site and attract more visitors.

In response to Member questions, Mr Rodd advised that:

·                    He did not feel the design was particularly modern in comparison to existing buildings and felt it was sympathetic to the site.

·                    It was important that visitor car parking be maintained as it was well used and Mr Rodd acknowledged that some controls were needed to ensure this was achieved. However, the number of spaces assigned to visitors was not proposed to be changed. In addition, he did not feel that resident parking was a particular issue.

·                    The reduced curtilage for the Visitor Centre was not felt to be a concern as this only related to the rear and the side of the building.

·                    A solid agreement was not in place with regard to a financial commitment to restoration work and British Waterways would cease to exist from April 2012. However, the responsibilities of British Waterways would be taken on by the Canal Rivers Trust and letters of commitment had been received from that body.

Mr Eaton in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    This was an opportunity to provide 11 quality homes across three terraces. This would enhance the existing site.

·                    Amendments were made during the planning process to reduce the application to 11 dwellings which allowed for additional resident parking and the retention of existing visitor parking. Issues of overlooking were also addressed and it was felt that the scheme was sympathetic to the area.

·                    Local materials were proposed to be used. The timber cladding would be untreated cedar which would weather over time and be maintenance free.

·                    Efforts had been made to avoid a sea of parking, but maintain visitor spaces.

Mr Smallman in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The application had been produced following a lengthy consultation process which involved West Berkshire Council, the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust and the wider community by way of a public exhibition. Efforts had been made to address the concerns raised through this process and the majority of the original concerns raised by the Parish Council had been addressed. This included the reduced number of units, a reduced height of the buildings to address the concern of overdevelopment and efforts to alleviate the concern in respect of the listed building. Mr Eaton added that the most significant design change which arose from the consultation process was to have slate roof tiles.

·                    The scheme had been commended by Officers of the Council and this included a very supportive assessment by the Conservation Officer who stated that the modern design and materials would reflect the nature of the Wharf buildings without having any dominant style.

·                    Resident parking was in line with Council standards. Existing visitor parking was unchanged and was separate from resident parking. The parking arrangements would be actively managed.

Councillor Mollie Lock asked what measures were in place to separate the resident parking from visitor parking and how this could be enforced. Mr Eaton advised that access to resident parking would be managed by the installation of bollards. It would also be made clear by a different surface for resident parking and the erection of a roof.

Mr Johnson-Hugill made it clear that a principle objective of the scheme was to attract visitors and there was no wish to see a loss of amenity for visitors. As such efforts would be made to manage parking and discussions had been held with the Area Manager for British Rail. This had led to an offer from British Rail to manage the car park for visitors to the Wharf as part of existing arrangements for the railway car park. This would involve a minimal charge for short term parking which would become more expensive over time as a way of deterring longer term parking. This would be managed on a daily basis, but evening parking would be unrestricted and this would provide additional parking for residents and their visitors.

Mr Smallman made a further point in relation to parking by stating that the scheme had been designed with an intention to contain resident parking and not create pressure on visitor parking. He felt that all possible action had been/would be taken on this issue which was understandably a concern.

Councillor Webb suggested that evening parking could be restricted between certain times by use of a resident permit or agreement.

Councillor Tim Metcalfe felt that a condition of approval should be for the timber cladding to be made of cedar. He then queried the level of investment from the applicant on the two visitor centre buildings and whether any guarantees could be given. Mr Johnson-Hugill explained that the commitments given in this regard by British Waterways would be continued by its successor the Canal Rivers Trust. H20 Urban was also committed to these restoration works as part of the development agreement. The amount of funding could not legally be released at this stage but a sum of money had been agreed.

Councillor Geoff Mayes, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                    He did feel that a car parking pressure would be created due to a lack of overspill parking. He then questioned where the temporary parking would be located during the construction period.

Paul Goddard explained that the need for this detail to be submitted and approved was covered within the conditions. It was likely that the location of the temporary parking would be moved over the course of the development.

Councillor Lock, speaking as Ward Member, made the following points:

·                    She was disappointed at the loss of cartilage to the listed building.

·                    The site was positioned on a straight section of the canal and was highly prominent in views from the surrounding area. This was of concern due to the very close proximity of one of the proposed buildings to the listed building.

·                    The fact that the garden and amenity space serving 14 and 15 Wharfside would be reduced was a concern. She felt that the removal of one of the proposed dwellings would benefit the issue of amenity space.

·                    A barrier system was essential to ensure that resident and visitor parking remained separate.

Councillor Webb felt that there was a need to accept that the car parking provision was sufficient and it would be managed over time. He was content with the design of the buildings which he felt were in keeping with existing properties and was therefore supportive of the application. He did however refer to the fact that no objections had been raised by the archaeologist and questioned why an archaeology survey was not proposed prior to the works due to the age of the existing buildings. Emma Fuller explained that the archaeologist did not feel that a condition in this regard was necessary due to the distance of the development from the older buildings and significant archaeology finds would not be expected. Councillor Webb felt that the developer should bring any finds to the attention of appropriate Officers.

Councillor Alan Law referred to condition 18 which stated that the site was within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and asked for clarification on this point. Emma Fuller acknowledged that this was incorrect and the condition would be reworded.

Councillor Law then went on to say that he was impressed by the design of the new dwellings including the timber cladding and although parking had been raised as a concern, it was in line with Council policy. He therefore proposed to accept Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Webb.

Councillor Metcalfe questioned why a condition of approval was to restrict site clearance to the months of August and September when this would be a popular time for visitors. Emma Fuller explained that this was at the request of the Council’s Ecologist, but she was unaware of the particulars. She did suggest that, subject to approval, the potential to amend this condition could be discussed. Sharon Armour suggested that this could be covered from a legal perspective by the Committee delegating to Officers to investigate this condition in conjunction with Ward Members. Councillor Law accepted this as part of his proposal.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions, including Members delegation to Officers to revise condition 14 if necessary, and completion of a legal agreement no later than the 1 February 2012:

Conditions

1.         The development hereby permitted shall be started within three years from the date of this permission and implemented strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

 

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the desirability of the development to comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning Band Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) should it not be started within a reasonable time.

 

2.         The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:

            Location Plan drawing number 30892_P001 Rev.C received 21^st July 2011

Proposed Site Plan drawing number 30892_ P090 Rec.C received 30^th November 2011

Block A Proposed Plans, Sections & Elevations drawing number 30892_P101 Rev.C received 21^st July 2011 – to include amendment (removal of first floor side window serving plot 4).

Block B Proposed Plans, Sections & Elevations drawing number 30892_P102 Rev.B received 21^st July 2011

Block C Proposed Plans, Sections & Elevations drawing number 30892_P103 Rev.C received 21^st July 2011

Proposed Context Elevations drawing number 30892_P104 Rev.C received 21^st July 2011

Context Elevations and Proposed Materials drawing number 30892_P105 Rev.C received 21^st July 2011

Visibility Splays and Refuse Collection Strategy drawing number 30892_P114 Rev.B received 30^th November 2011.

 

Reason: To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with national planning guidance and the relevant policies within the South East Plan Regional Spatial Strategy, May 2009 and the relevant Policies within the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

3.         No development shall commence on site until samples of the external materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application. Thereafter the materials used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved samples.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

           

4.         No development shall commence on site until details of all fencing and other means of enclosure have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include a schedule of materials and drawings demonstrating the layout of the means of enclosure and details of the acoustic fencing in relation to number 14 Wharfside. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the fencing and other means of enclosure have been erected in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: The fencing and other means of enclosure are essential elements in the detailed design of this development and the application is not accompanied by sufficient details to enable the Local Planning Authority to give proper consideration to these matters in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

5.         No development shall commence on site until details of the external hard surfaced areas of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply irrespective of any indications as to the details that may have been submitted with the application, and shall where necessary include a schedule of materials, means of treatment, and drawings demonstrating the layout of these areas.  The dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the hard surfaced areas have been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

6.         No development shall commence on site until details of the floor levels in relation to existing and proposed ground levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed building and the adjacent land in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

7.         No development shall commence on site (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until a detailed scheme of landscaping for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  The details shall include schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities, an implementation programme and details of written specifications including cultivation and other operations involving tree, shrub and grass establishment.  The scheme shall ensure:

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

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

c)      The inclusion of a number, to be agreed, of small trees along the edge of the canal to the south of building C.

d)     Details of screening around the water pumping station.

e)     Details of pedestrian deterrent fencing to show its location and appearance.

Thereafter the approved scheme shall be implemented in full.

 

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the objectives of Policies CC6 of the South East Plan and Policies OVS2 (a, b) and OVS3 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007. With respect to criteria c) of Policy OVS.2 planting is required to help retain the canal as a dark corridor and minimise light pollution from the houses in accordance with the guidance contained within PPS9.

 

8.         No development shall commence on site (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  Thereafter all works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.  Such a scheme shall include protective fencing, all in accordance with BS5837:2005.  No development works shall take place until the approved fencing has been erected and at least 2 working days notice has been given to the Local Planning Authority that is has been erected.  It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or such a time as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.  No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protection areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.  Note:  The protective fencing should be as specified in Chapter 9 and detailed in Figure 2 of BS5837:2005.

 

Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of existing trees and natural features during the construction phase in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy OVS2(b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

9.         No development or other operations shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection and any special construction works within any defined tree protection area. Thereafter the development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

 

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with Policy OVS2 (b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991 – 2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

10.      No development shall commence on site (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) until details of the proposed foundations providing for the protection of the root zones of trees to be retained have been submitted to 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 Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy OVS2(b) of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

11.      No site works, demolition or development shall take place within the application area until the applicant has secured the implementation of an arboricultural watching brief in accordance with a written scheme of site monitoring, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Thereafter all works must be carried out in full in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991–2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

12.             No development shall commence until details of the design of the cycle storage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling hereby approved shall be bought into use until the cycle storage is provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained.  

 

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles in accordance with Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

13.                   No external flood lighting is allowed on the south (canal) side of buildings B & C or any other external lighting that shines onto the canal.

Reason: To ensure the canal habitat is maintained in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9.

14.             Site clearance will only be undertaken in the months of August to September in any year.

Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9.

15.             No development shall commence until detailed construction drawings showing how 5 swift boxes will be incorporated in the western elevation of building B close to its apex and how 2 bat tubes are to be incorporated in the western elevation of building C close to its apex have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The buildings shall thereafter be constructed in full in accordance with the approved details and the swift boxes and bat tubes thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure the protection of wildlife in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 9.

16.             No development shall commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on and off site drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in full in accordance with the approved details and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: The development may lead to sewage flooding; to ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid adverse environmental impact upon the community in accordance with the guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 25.

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

 

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

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

18.      Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision), no additions or extensions to the dwellings shall be built or ancillary buildings or structures erected within their curtilage, unless permission in writing has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for the purpose.

 

Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 and Policy OVS2 and HSG1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

19.             The bathroom and en-suite windows at first floor level in the rear elevation of Building A shall be fitted with obscure glass before the dwellings hereby approved are occupied and the obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained in position to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision) these windows shall be fitted with top hung opening fanlights only and no additional openings shall be inserted at a first floor level or above in the rear (east facing) or south facing elevations of building A without a formal planning application made to the Local Planning Authority for that purpose.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

20.             The bathroom and en-suite windows at first floor level in the rear elevation of Building B shall be fitted with obscure glass before the dwellings hereby approved are occupied and the obscure glazing shall thereafter be retained in position to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.  Irrespective of the provisions of the Town and Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any subsequent revision) no additional openings shall be inserted at a first floor level or above in the rear (north facing) or west and east facing elevations of building B or the east facing elevation of Building C without a formal planning application made to the Local Planning Authority for that purpose.

 

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy CC6 of the South East Plan 2009 Regional Spatial Strategy and Policy OVS2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007.

 

21.      No development shall commence until details of a temporary parking area to serve the visitor centre while the existing car park is closed, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. On the closure of the existing visitor car park, the temporary parking area shall be made available in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be retained until the car park hereby approved is available for visitor parking.

 

            Reason: To ensure that there is suitable car parking for visitors while works are undertaken to the existing car park and to ensure there is no obstruction to the highway and in the interest of highways safety in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007. 

 

22.      No development shall commence until details of the design and materials for the parking canopy to cover the five residents car parking spaces serving building B have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the dwellings in building B shall not be first occupied until the canopy has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

            Reason: The design and appearance of this structure is important to the overall design of the scheme in accordance with Policy OVS.2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

23.             No development shall commence until details of the vehicle parking and turning areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The vehicle parking and turning areas shall subsequently be provided in accordance with the approved details. No dwelling hereby approved shall be bought into use until the residents parking has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The visitor centre car park shall not be bought into use until the visitor parking has been provided in accordance with the approved plans.  

 

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking which would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic in accordance with Policy TRANS 1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

24.      No development shall commence with respect to the building or other operations on site until the vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated engineering operations have been constructed in full in accordance with the approved drawings.

 

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to accord with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007 and in the interest of highway safety.

 

25.      No dwelling hereby approved, or the car parking for the visitor centre shall be brought into use until the visibility splays at the accesses have been provided in accordance with the approved drawing, number 30892_P114 Rev.B received 30^th November 2011. The land within these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above carriageway level.

 

Reason: In the interest of road safety in accordance with Policy OVS 2 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006, Saved Policies 2007.

 

            Informatives:

 

1.         The Highways (Planning) Manager, West Berkshire District Council, Highways and Engineering, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury RG14 2AF, should be contacted to agree the access construction details and to grant a licence before any work is carried out within the highway.  A formal application should be made, allowing at least four (4) weeks notice, to obtain details of underground services on the applicants behalf.

 

2.         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.         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.         In order to protect the stability of the highway it is advised that no excavation is carried out within 15 metres of a public highway without the written approval of the Highway Authority.

 

5.         Any incidental works affecting the adjoining highway shall be approved by, and a licence obtained from, the Highways (Planning) Manager, West Berkshire Council, Highways and Engineering, Council Offices, Market Street, Newbury, RG14 2AF, before any development is commenced

 

6.         Any works/events carried out either by, or at the behest of, the  developer, whether they are located on, or affecting a prospectively maintainable highway, as defined under Section  87 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, or on or affecting the public highway, shall be coordinated under the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic management Act 2004 and licensed accordingly in order to secure the expeditious movement of traffic by minimising disruption to users of the highway network in West Berkshire.

 

Any such works or events commissioned by the developer and particularly those involving the connection of any utility to the site, shall be coordinated by them in liaison with West Berkshire Council's Street Works Section. This must take place at least one month in advance of the works and particularly to ensure that statutory undertaker connections/supplies to the site are coordinated to take place wherever possible at the same time.

 

            Reason: In order to minimise disruption to road users, be they pedestrians or vehicular traffic, under the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the Traffic Management Act 2004. In order to satisfy the licensing requirements of the Highways Act 1980.

 

7.         Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Waters pipes.  The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development.

 

8.         There is a Thames Water main crossing the development site which may/will need to be diverted at the Developer’s cost, or necessitate amendments to the proposed development design so that the aforementioned main can be retained. Unrestricted access must be available at all times for maintenance and repair. Please contact Thames Water Developer Services, Contact Centre on Telephone No: 0845 850 2777 for further information.

Or

Should the legal agreement not be completed by 1 February 2012 to delegate to the Head of Planning and Countryside to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The development fails to provide an appropriate scheme of works or off site mitigation measures to accommodate the impact of the development on local infrastructure, services or amenities or provide an appropriate mitigation measure such as a planning obligation. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice, Policy CC7 of the South East Plan: The Regional Spatial Strategy for South East England 2006 - 2026 May 2009 and Policy OVS3 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 Saved Policies 2007 as well as the West Berkshire District Council's adopted SPG4/04 - Delivering Investment from Sustainable Development.