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

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 20/00612/FULD, Riverbend, Upper Eddington, Hungerford

Proposal:

Section 73A variation of condition (2) plans of approved 18/02374/FULD – demolition of 2-bed dwelling house and erection of new 3-bed dwelling house.

 

Location:

Riverbend, Upper Eddington, Hungerford, RG17 0HH.

 

Applicant:

Mr & Mrs Denny.

 

Recommendation:

The Head of Development & Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission.

 

 

Minutes:

(Councillor James Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of Newbury Town Council. As his interests were 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 Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that he was a member of the Local Access Forum and was until recently a member of the Ramblers Association Committee for West Berkshire and since all applications are adjacent to public rights of way, this interest was relevant. As his interests were personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest, he determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.)

(Councillors James Cole and Phil Barnett declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(3) by virtue of the fact that they had been lobbied in respect of the application.)

1.            The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(3)) concerning Planning Application 20/00612/FULD in respect of a Section 73A variation of condition (2) plans of approved 18/02374/FULD – demolition of 2-bed dwelling house and erection of new 3-bed dwelling house

2.            Lydia Mather introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. She summarised her conclusions by noting that in terms of amenity, the application was considered acceptable as the increase in height of 30cm was not enough to warrant refusal, and the impact of the noise from the air source heat pump on the adjacent property would be mitigated with acoustic screening.

3.            In terms of impact on the character of area, the cladding would be put in place with the addition to the condition that it should not be painted, so as to blend in better with the landscape.

4.            Considerable harm had been caused to the setting from the loss of trees, which had made the building more prominent in its surroundings. The proposed planting scheme differed from what was meant to be retained to the south of the property, but this was considered acceptable. There was an additional recommended condition in the Update Report regarding supplementary lower level planting to be put in place, while trees matured.

5.            In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and approval was justifiable, subject to the conditions contained in the report and on the Update Sheet. Therefore, on balance, officer’s recommended the Committee grant planning permission.

Removal of Speaking Rights

6.            As resolved at the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 29 April 2020, public speaking rights had been removed for virtual Council meetings. This right had been replaced with the ability to make written submissions. This decision had been 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.

7.            In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution written submissions had been received from Hungerford Town Council, the Chief Executive of the Town and Manor of Hungerford, objector and Justin Packman (WYG Group Ltd), agent

8.            The written submission were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Parish Council Representation

Written by Hungerford Town Council.

HTC had no objection to the original plans submitted for this planning application. Although it is a very distinctive modern design there are a variety of different designed houses within the immediate area of the proposed property.

However, the original plans were not implemented and the resulting structure bears only a passing resemblance to the original plans. The vast majority of these changes to proposed conditions are retrospective. Major changes were made in a blatant disregard of the original planning consent.

The natural larch wood cladding was disregarded and replaced with a garish tasteless bright blue with the assertion that it “reflected the colour of the sky” so was more in keeping with the landscape. Nothing could be further from the truth. The applicant has now agreed to revert to the original plans. If the committee are minded to approve this application, we urge them to state explicitly that all areas of the structure that are currently blue are replaced with the original Natural Wood in natural colour.

Trees on this site have been decimated, as the photographs demonstrate and the committee report supports. Again, if the committee is minded to approve the variations then we would ask that the new planting is rigidly enforced to mitigate the visual impact of the building.

The height of the structure has been increased; the applicant would have us believe this was due to an apparent architect error. This is a third of a metre, which would have been spotted long before the structure was complete. This is a major change to the building which is unacceptable. This makes the structure much more visible from every direction. As a consequence, this has a significant impact on the AONB and nearby SSSI.

The fascia boards on the building were originally supposed to be 300mm in depth. They are 600mm and a change in colour again ignoring completely the original plans.

There are other changes which appear to have “slipped under the radar”. The roof lights are dome shaped which make the structure look like a swimming pool building these, fortunately, are to be replaced under these new conditions. The balcony is the full width of the northwest elevation the original plans had the balcony only part way across the elevation. The timber screening, again on the North west elevation, to the study should remain as it softens the whole structure on that elevation.

This is another example of a planning application being approved according to the plans submitted and a completely different structure being built. The applicant is only requesting these amendments because he has been found out.

If the committee is minded to approve this application, we would urge West Berkshire Council’s building control officer to be extra vigilant in enforcing these approved conditions.

Objectors’ Representation

Written by the Chief Executive of Hungerford Town and Manor

As the neighbouring land owner to the south of the property, across the River Kennet, we welcome the decision that the upper floor areas, currently finished in blue render, are to be finished in vertical larch cladding. May we ask that it be made completely unambiguous in your consent that this must apply to all the blue painted areas and that the cladding must be natural coloured?

On the issue of landscaping, we challenge most strongly the conclusion that the unauthorized felling of the majority of the trees on the site, and the consequent loss of screening, particularly when viewed from the river, is acceptable in planning terms.

The Committee Report acknowledges that the extensive tree felling is materially harmful to the countryside setting, the AONB and the SSSI. It states incorrectly that the proposed landscape planting returns trees to the site to mitigate the impact on the SSSI and the river to the south.

There is no new planting shown which would screen the property from the river (see the lower image on slide 2 of the Committee Report Photos) which clearly shows the loss of screening.

May we also point out the “Existing open view to River” shown in the proposed landscaping scheme only exists because the applicant felled nearly all of the mature trees to create it.

Agent’s Submission

Written by Justin Packman (WYG Group Ltd).

Consent was granted for the replacement dwelling in November 2018. The approved design was for a house to be fabricated in and sourced from Germany. With the possibility of a no deal Brexit looming in the autumn of 2019, my clients had no choice but to significantly accelerate their timetable for construction to avoid significant financial penalties that would have rendered the scheme unviable. Pre- commencement conditions were discharged during the course of 2019 but there was no time to gain approval for amendments to the design before construction began.

In retrospect my clients regret this, as the changes to the scheme were clearly the source of some distress to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Since undertaking these changes my clients have worked constructively and cooperatively with the Local Planning Authority to regularise them, scale them back, or reverse them completely.

The use of blue render instead of timber cladding was considered to be a particular point of contention with neighbours and officers alike. As such my clients have agreed to revert to the original elevational treatment of timber cladding.

Other more minor matters relating to the installation of a retaining wall, the relocation of a flue, fenestration changes and clarification about the finished height of the dwelling have also been agreed. The officer has noted in her report that the 30cm height difference is not considered to materially harm the outlook from the neighbouring dwelling.

The design of the rooflights was also discussed and my clients have agreed to replace the domed tops with flat ones, this and the sedum roof will make the rooflights less intrusive.

Finally, my clients have also agreed to a revised and expanded scheme of landscaping to include native species (to replace conifers including leylandii) to soften the appearance of the dwelling especially when viewed from the west.

The end result is a scheme that meets the needs of my clients without departing significantly from the original approved design or resulting in increased visual harm.

Given the extensive work that has been undertaken to rectify these changes and the constructive manner in which we have engaged with the Council it is hoped that members will support the officer recommendation for approval this evening.

Ward Member Representation

9.            Councillor James Cole in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

·                    There was immense unhappiness within local residents as to what the applicant had done without planning permission given in the original build.

·                    However Lydia Mather’s recommendations were indicative of the fact that she had listened to people’s concerns, with regard for example to the removal of the trees ruining the landscape, and that the open view of the river only existed because the applicant had felled so many mature trees to create it.

·                    It could be argued that the striking blue cladding and large fascia boards were totally inappropriate to the area. The applicant had ignored the approved height of the building and increased it, which would be difficult to change retrospectively as this was a pre-fabricated building. When talking to the Town Council, the applicant had suggested this was an architect error.

·                    Other changes had also been agreed, such as the heat pump and the inclusion of the acoustic screening which Lydia Mather had added. Consequently the building had now come a long way. The trees were in part to be replaced and a suggestion for shrub cover would be beneficial.

·                    However Hungerford Town Council and Hungerford Town and Manor would want the changes to go further, with a specification for larger trees, and the cladding to be returned to natural, timber cladding.

·                    In order to resolve the height issue, Councillor James Cole appreciated that it would be necessary to demolish the current structure and it would be for the Committee to agree if this would be appropriate.

·                    Hungerford Town Council believed there was a real issue with planning permissions being ignored. If the Committee determined to follow the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission, he felt it was necessary to send a message through the press or a suitable medium, that simply ignoring planning permission will not be allowed. In the future, if a similar scenario occurred and the circumstances meant that the structure had to be torn down, he would have no hesitation in asking for this to happen.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

10.         There were no questions from Members for Councillor James Cole.

Questions to Officers

11.         Councillor Adrian Abbs asked whether the way to send a clearer message to applicants would be to refuse the application. Councillor James Cole responded that as the officer had worked hard to address everything except the height that would be difficult, and would effectively require the applicant to demolish the property.

12.         Councillor Tony Vickers asked Lydia Mather why officers had accepted that the view would not be screened from the south, and asked if it was possible to instruct the applicant to reinstate the planting, using semi mature trees. Lydia Mather responded that she had consulted the Council’s Tree Officer, who was satisfied with the landscaping proposals and the size of the trees. She added that this was the fourth or fifth landscaping proposal she had received, as she had been continually pushing for further changes. The tree planting scheme proposed would provide sufficient screening from the river, although they would take a little while to mature. To be fair to the applicant, the previous screening had included leylandii and the proposed screening would use more native species and would include a hedge.

13.         Councillor Carolyne Culver offered her thanks to Lydia Mather for the work she had carried out on the application, tackling the frankly outrageous contraventions of the original planning permission. She noted that as Hungerford Town Council had asked for more planting by the river, whether it would be possible to include this as a condition. Lydia Mather responded that in the areas where the trees would take a while to mature, she had recommended the planting of lower level shrubs to help the house blend in with the surroundings, and this was covered in the Update Report.

14.         Councillor Hilary Cole echoed her thanks to Lydia Mather for her thorough work and felt she was a credit to the service. She asked if some of the trees had been felled to create a view from the house of the river. Lydia Mather responded that this was possible, but it was speculation and she was unsure of the applicant’s reasoning for this, as she had not been involved with the application at the time.

15.         Councillor Abbs enquired what methods were available to send a strong message to other applicants that this behaviour was unacceptable, for example whether it would be possible to impose a fine. Lydia Mather said that if the site had been in a conservation area or if there had already been Tree Preservation Orders in place, it would have been possible to do so. However this did not apply in this case and she had been working closely with the agent to achieve the amendments before the Committee. Consequently, she would not be recommending refusal.

16.         Councillor Abbs further enquired whether the changes that had been secured with the plans were sufficient to result in the Council losing an appeal to the Planning Inspector if the application was refused. Lydia Mather affirmed that this was her view.

17.         Councillor Clive Hooker asked if the changes included retaining the roof with a plastic thermal material or if it would be reverted back to zinc. Lydia Mather responded that she was happy for it to remain as thermos- plastic roof as it was the same colouring. Also, a neighbour had been concerned that a zinc roof might be too reflective.

18.         Councillor Hooker then asked if the condition relating to the replacement of dead or removed trees and shrubs was set at the usual five year period. Lydia Mather confirmed that it was. Councillor Hooker asked if it would be possible to extend this beyond the five year period. Lydia Mather responded that five years was a normal time period, however it would be possible for Members to increase it.

19.         Councillor Culver queried whether the applicant was being asked to replace all the blue areas with natural wood and Lydia Mather confirmed that this was the case.

20.         Councillor Abbs enquired whether Tree Preservation Orders had been imposed on the remaining trees and those yet to be planted. Lydia Mather replied that this could be raised with the Tree Officers.

21.         Councillor Barnett’s connection did not allow him to be heard. He therefore exited and re-joined the meeting to resolve the issue.

Debate

22.         Councillor Howard Woollaston stated that he had been shocked to learn that the original scheme had been approved. He congratulated the officer for remedying what appeared to be a disastrous situation. He wanted to see the applicant penalised for making a mockery of the Committee. He asked whether it could be made a requirement for the applicant to plant mature replacement trees, at their own cost.

23.         Councillor Vickers noted that the top end of the site had now been transformed by the removal of the trees. He also commented that he wished there was something the Council could do to prevent people building fences along the entire length of their curtilage, as it ruined the view over the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). He added that he was aware that it was not relevant to this application, but he wished there had been Tree Preservation Orders on the trees. However he was glad that the hedge was being reinstated and although he felt that the Committee would have to approve the application it should not have reached this stage.

24.         Councillor Culver observed that the damage to the landscape was outrageous and the problem with removing trees was that once they were gone, they were gone. She noted that the agent had used the excuse of his concern about the possible consequences of Brexit for having to act so quickly, however she felt that everyone would have to live with the consequences of Brexit, whatever they may be. If everyone were to act on what they predicted the consequences of Brexit might be, then there would be chaos. She added that she would like to see the agent and applicant reprimanded in the strongest manner available to the Committee, as this situation was not acceptable.

25.         Councillor Abbs voiced his support for Councillor Woollaston’s suggestion that mature trees should be planted. He would also like to ensure that screening be returned to the river.

26.         Simon Till interjected to advise that there were no punitive measures available under planning legislation. Outside of taking formal planning enforcement action to have the works reverted to their approved form, the purpose of the planning process in considering this application was to apply conditions, if necessary, for genuine planning reasons to mitigate the harm of development. Conditions could not be used to impose sanctions or punitive measures on the applicant. He asked that Members be clear when arriving at any additional conditions that they met the tests of planning conditions stipulated within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), including being necessary and reasonably related to the planning permission granted.

27.         Councillor Barnett remarked that his first reaction on visiting the site was that it looked like someone had started painting an NHS rainbow on the side of the house. He thought it was too striking and totally unsuitable for the area. He clearly saw that the site had been levelled off and there was therefore a change in gradient. The north side of the site, which he had viewed from the Leverton Road, was very striking so even if a hedge or mature trees were planted it would still be a very imposing property for some years to come. Therefore it was important to ensure the building was more enclosed.

28.         Councillor James Cole commented that it was practical to consider planting older, larger trees, as although it would be expensive, it could be achieved and would find favour with the residents of Hungerford. Copper Beech trees had been suggested in the plan and in his experience they did not always survive for long, it would therefore be advisable to extend the five year period for their replacement should they die.

29.         Councillor Hilary Cole agreed with the comments made by Councillors Cole and Culver about the anger and irritation these Section 73A applications caused. She noted that a strong message needed to be sent, stating that the planning authority objected to any departures from the approved plans. However, there was not much that could be done about the current application and she acknowledged that the Members would probably have to approve it. She also recommended that sufficiently mature trees were planted that would survive, and she reluctantly proposed that the Committee should accept the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Cant.

30.         Councillor Abbs noted that he was inclined to vote in favour of the application as Lydia Mather had suggested, as she had done well to achieve all the changes. With regard to the conditions, he proposed that there should be a stipulation for more trees, in the expectation that not all of them would survive, and that they should be a mixture of large and small trees.

31.         Councillor Vickers added his support but requested that Condition five was changed from five to seven years from completion of the approved landscaping scheme, instead of the completion of the development.

32.         Councillor Hilary Cole was happy to second the proposed change to the condition. The Chairman asked the Committee if they were in favour of Councillor Vickers’ proposed changes and all voted in favour.

33.         The Chairman further asked whether the Committee wished to go through the rest of the conditions or if they would be happy to leave them for officers to finalise.

34.         Lydia Mather confirmed that the wording in Condition five was quite clear and the change from five to seven years was justified. However she asked if the Committee was proposing to accept the conditions in the report, as well as those included in the Update Report and the Committee confirmed that this was the case.

35.         The Chairman asked Councillor James Cole for a recommendation as to the size of tree that should be planted. Councillor James Cole replied that the scheme typically proposed trees with diameters of 8-12cm, he would suggest that adding 5cm to these diameters would give the desired height.

36.         Simon Till suggested that the officers drafted the revised conditions and agree them with the Chairman and Councillor Hilary Cole. The Committee confirmed that they were happy with this.

37.         The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal of Councillor Hilary Cole as seconded by Councillor Cant to grant planning permission. 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.     Approved plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents listed below:

Drawing 02,

Bat Survey Report by Ecology By Design,

Biodiversity Report by Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre,

Primary Ecological Assessment by Windrush Ecology,

Archaeological Evaluation by Thames Valley Archaeological Services Ltd, Design and Access Statement received on 4 September 2018,

Email and drawing received on 29 April 2020 with details of the wall to the parking area,

Email received on 14 May 2020 with details that the roof lights shall be flat,

Drawings 01 J and 11 F (excluding the annotation on the external wall materials) received on 1 June 2020,

Structural Landscaping document by Certhia Consulting Ltd including drawing ccl/rb/ls01 Rev 04 received on 6 July 2020.

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

2.     Acoustic screening of air source heat pump

Within 2 months of this permission details of acoustic screening to go around the installed air source heat pump shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include the noise reduction specification of the screening materials. The acoustic screening shall be provided in accordance with the approved details within 2 months of the date of the approval of the details..

Reason: In the interests of amenity and respecting the designated landscape and rural character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with policies ADPP5 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, policy OVS.6 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.     Tree Protective Fencing

Protective fencing shall be implemented and retained intact for the duration of the development in accordance with the tree and landscape protection scheme identified in the Arboricultural Report by Certhia Consulting Ltd including drawing ccl/rb/tp/001. Within the fenced areas, there shall be no excavations, no storage/mixing of lime based products or fuels, no storage of materials, or machinery, no parking of vehicles, no fires.

Reason: To ensure the protection of trees identified for retention at the site. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

4.     Materials (amended condition)

The changes to the external materials shall be completed within 6 months of the date of this permission. Notwithstanding the annotations, fascia depth, and balcony on the northwest elevation on drawing 11 Rev G received on 1 June 2020 the external materials shall be:

Vertical larch cladding to the upper level, (where parts of the building are currently painted blue), and the larch cladding shall be natural and not colour painted;

White coloured render to the lower level and inset areas on the upper level (which are not currently painted blue);

Anthracite coloured fascia and balcony balustrade;

Sedum roof to the garage element;

Rhenofol CV (thermoplastic polymer) in grey to the main roof;

Flat/flush roof lights;

Fascia depth of 300mm;

Timber slats to the balcony on the northwest elevation outside the study;

Gravel stabilisation grids to the driveway/parking area.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character and the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies C3 and C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026; and Supplementary Planning Document: Quality Design 2006.

5.     Landscaping

(NB: this condition is to be amended in consultation with the Council’s Tree Officers and Councillors Hilary Cole and Hooker, for larger trees to be planted and further planting to provide additional screening to the River Kennet)

All landscape works shall be implemented in full and carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, schedule of planting and retention, programme of works and other supporting information within the Certhia Consulting Ltd Arboricultural Report including drawing number ccl/rb/ls01 rev 04 received on 1 July 2020, document titled Condition No. 6 and associated site plan received on 8 August 2019 detailing the orchard area with 20 fruit trees/bushes spaced 5-8m apart.

The approved landscape works shall be implemented in full within the first planting season following first occupation of the dwelling. 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 seven years of completion of this development/completion of the approved 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: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations 2006-2026.

6.     Bat boxes

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the bat mitigation measures shown on drawing 11 G received on 1 June 2020 have been provided and shall thereafter be retained.

Reason: To ensure the protection of bat species, which are subject to statutory protection under European Legislation in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations 2006-2026.

7.     Lighting

The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the external lighting has been installed in accordance with drawings DD/M-M/RD/215-4 Rev B and DD/M-M/RD/215-3 Rev B, luminaire data sheets and document titled Condition No. 7 detailing that all external lights will be sensor operated (PIR) and be LED received on 13 August 2019.

Reason: To maintain dark night skies in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and conserve protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and policies ADPP5 and CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

8.     Spoil

Any spoil arising from and not used as part of the development hereby approved shall be removed from site within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwelling.

Reason: To ensure appropriate disposal of spoil from the development and to ensure that ground levels are not raised in order to protect the character and amenity of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations 2006-2026.

9.     Means of enclosure

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no means of enclosure or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of that Order shall be carried out to the west side boundary or south boundary towards the River Kennet, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: In the interests of respecting the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area including the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14, and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations 2006-2026.

10.  Extensions and outbuildings

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, C and/or E of that Order shall be carried out, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), policies C3 and C7 of the West Berkshire Housing Site Allocations (2006-2026), and Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (2006).

11.  Shrub Planting (additional condition)

Details of shrub planting towards the river to the south of the site around the retained and additional tree planting shall be submitted within 3 months of the date of this permission. The approved shrub planting shall be implemented in full within the first planting season following first occupation of the dwelling. Any shrubs planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of the approved shrub planting shall be replaced within the next planting season by shrubs of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and policy C7 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

Informatives

1.         This decision has been made in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development having regard to Development Plan policies and available guidance to secure high quality appropriate development. In this application whilst there has been a need to balance conflicting considerations, the local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure and accept what is considered to be a development which improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

2.         The development hereby approved results in a requirement to make payments to the Council as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) procedure. A Liability Notice setting out further details, and including the amount of CIL payable will be sent out separately from this Decision Notice. You are advised to read the Liability Notice and ensure that a Commencement Notice is submitted to the authority prior to the commencement of the development. Failure to submit the Commencement Notice will result in the loss of any exemptions claimed, and the loss of any right to pay by instalments, and additional costs to you in the form of surcharges. For further details see the website at www.westberks.gov.uk/cil

3.         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.

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

5.         The applicant is advised that this planning permission does not in any way allow the Public Right of Way to be obstructed at any time during the course of the development.

Supporting documents: