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

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 20/00047/RESMAJ, Land Adjacent To Hilltop (eastern parcel), Oxford Road, Donnington, Shaw Cum Donnington

Meeting of Western Area Planning Committee, Wednesday, 23rd September, 2020 6.30 pm (Item 23.(2))

Proposal:	Reserved matters application for phased development of 179 dwellings pursuant to outline planning application number 19/00442/OUTMAJ which relates to: Section 73: Variation of Condition 1 (approved plans) of planning application reference 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 dated 20 March 2017 for a mixed use scheme on 23.1 hectares of land, comprising up to 401 dwellings on 11.35 hectares of land. A 400 sq.m. local centre (Use Classes A1/A2/D1/D2 no more than 200 sq.m. of A1) on 0.29 hectares of land, a one form entry primary school site on 1.7 hectares of land, public open space, landscaping and associated highway works). Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, and discharge of Condition 4 (site wide housing mix) and 5 (strategic landscaping plan) of 19/00442/OUTMAJ.
Location:	Land Adjacent To Hilltop (eastern parcel), Oxford Road, Donnington, Newbury.
Applicant:	Taylor Wimpey UK.
Recommendation:	Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and information within 3 months in respect of highways issues to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS or, should such satisfactory plans and information not be received within that period, to REFUSE the application.

Minutes:

(Councillors Phil Barnett and Tony Vickers declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that they were Members of Newbury Town Council’s Planning and Highways Committee. 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 Jeff Cant declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he was a Member of Newbury Town Council. 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 Adrian Abbs reported that he had been lobbied on Agenda Item 4(2).

1. The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 20/00047/RESMAJ in respect of reserved matters application for phased development of 179 dwellings pursuant to outline planning application number 19/00442/OUTMAJ which relates to:

Section 73: Variation of Condition 1 (approved plans) of planning application reference 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 dated 20 March 2017 for a mixed use scheme on 23.1 hectares of land, comprising up to 401 dwellings on 11.35 hectares of land. A 400 sq.m. local centre (Use Classes A1/A2/D1/D2 no more than 200 sq.m. of A1) on 0.29 hectares of land, a one form entry primary school site on 1.7 hectares of land, public open space, landscaping and associated highway works).

2. Matters to be considered: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, and discharge of Condition 4 (site wide housing mix) and 5 (strategic landscaping plan) of 19/00442/OUTMAJ.

3. Simon Till introduced the report to Members, which took account of all the relevant policy considerations and other material planning considerations. In conclusion the report detailed that the proposal was acceptable and a conditional approval was justifiable. Officers recommended the Committee to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and in the update report.

4. The Chairman invited the Highways Officer to comment on the application. Paul Goddard explained that traffic generation and access provision had been approved at the outline application. He noted that a detail he had missed from his presentation on the previous application was that the western side would have a bus service, which would cost the developers £700,000. The service would be funded for 5 years and it was hoped the service would become viable, and thereafter be retained.

5. Highway Officers had long held a concern regarding the eastern site, and were disappointed when it was allowed by the Planning Inspector at appeal. If permission were to be granted, there would be scope for 179 dwellings whose only link to the public highway, the A339, was via a private road owned by Vodafone. Officers were assured by the developer that residents, emergency, and refuse vehicles would have rights of access to use the road. Highways Officers had sought to bring the road under the control of the Council as it would require relatively minor works to drainage, street lanterns and diversion of cables to get it up to adoptable standard.

6. Unfortunately, neither Vodafone nor the developer were willing to work with Officers to achieve this. Officers’ concern was that the roads within the site could not be adopted through the usual Section 38 agreement, because the access was via a private section of road. Therefore it was highly likely, and had been confirmed by the developer, that a management company would be appointed to maintain the roads. This would be carried out at a cost to future residents. As public servants, officers would always endeavour to avoid this, however in this case there was no way to avoid it, as access was approved at outline planning by the Planning Inspector.

7. In the Update Report, on pages 15-16, Officers had included further conditions that they hoped would do as much as they could to help the residents on the site. The conditions stipulate that the roads would be built to adoptable standards and that Council Highway engineers would be able to gain access over the private road to inspect works with appropriate fees paid. Also, that details be submitted on how the roads would be maintained and how the management company would be appointed. In addition, on page 16 the Informative highlighted for future buyers that the roads were private and would remain private for the foreseeable future. Officers believed this was the most the Highway Authority could do in this particular situation.

8. He continued by referring to the main report, page 81 and the Update Report, page 16. There were some further amendments required to the access road designs within the sites and officers’ recommendation was that the application be approved, subject to amendments being submitted that would satisfy officers, within a period of three months. There was also a shortfall in parking provision for some of the apartments. Officers expected developers to comply with parking standards, however in this case there was plenty of visitor parking nearby, which made the parking provision satisfactory.

9. Paul Goddard’s final point was regarding the subway, which had been contested at appeal. Officers had been promised CCTV provision, however their concern was whether this would be maintained in the long term. Highways Officers had worked hard to ensure that the subway was overlooked as best as it could be. He was satisfied on the western side with the number of windows that overlooked it, however on the eastern side, there were fewer overlooking windows and some were obstructed by the car park. Officers’ recommendation was that this aspect of the application could be looked at further within the next three months. He would like the view opened up to allow unaffected views of the subway, as much as possible. Therefore subject to all the conditions, Highway Officers were somewhat reluctantly, recommending approval of this application

Removal of speaking rights

10. 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 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.

11. In accordance with the Extraordinary Council resolution, written submissions had been received from Shaw-Cum-Donnington Parish Council, David Willetts, objector, and Aaron Wright (Turley), agent.

12. Written submissions were read out by the Clerk to the Committee as follows:

Parish Representation - Paul Bryant (Shaw-Cum-Donnington)

Shaw-cum-Donnington Parish Council (PC) does not seek to overturn the outline application 14/02480/OUTMAJ that has led to these two reserved matters applications.

Our main objection to these applications is the reduction, deletion or removal of infrastructure promised in the outline application.

Another objection concerns the environmental impacts of the developments.

Essentially, the PC wants the new development to integrate with the Shaw-cum-Donnington Community rather than become a satellite of Newbury.

Infrastructure

Shaw-cum-Donnington Parish Council (PC) objects to the application as it do not accord with the outline application. Allotments were expected. The Parish has 17 allotments for 650 dwellings and these are over-subscribed. The PC is asking for 11 new allotments overall within this application and application 18/03061, pro rata for this application, 5 of the new allotments would be needed for the 179 dwellings. No allotments are being provided on this site.

A Local Centre was expected. The outline application states that it must be provided in the first phase of development but now it is in the 6^th of seven build phases for both this and 18/03061 developments. CEG stated they would provide it but there is no guarantee The PC want a guarantee that the Local Centre will be built. Also, the PC wants to be consulted on its form.

These 179 dwellings will have no on-site local facilities and will depend on the build of the Local Centre to avoid driving along the A339 for at least 1 mile to the nearest shops.

The PC is concerned that the village hall, which is already fully booked, will be unable to serve the 40% expansion of the parish. Assistance will be needed to provide and enhance new social facilities by developing the redundant old school.

Environmental matters

West Berkshire Council has declared a climate emergency. These developments ignore this strategy. Indeed, the dwellings will only meet minimum building regulations. No energy saving improvements such as better insulation or solar panels are planned. This is very disappointing.

In the past, flooding has engulfed Vodafone and part of Trinity school as a result of run off. The PC is unconvinced that this danger has been addressed. The dwellings will reduce ground absorption. The PC has received no documentation on drainage. In particular what happens to water entering the site from the underpass and how it is dealt with in entering the Vodafone site. The PC has been informed that a scheme has been agreed with WBC and Vodafone but neither has provided any documentary evidence to the PC. Vodafone have failed to respond to the PC. The PC demands assurance that Vodafone and the Trinity areas will not flood.

Objector Representation – David Willetts

My name is David Willetts. I live at the eastern end of Love Lane in Shaw. We moved here not knowing a soul some twelve years ago when our daughter Sara was diagnosed with breast cancer. Sara died two years later. I wish to pay tribute to the kindness of strangers in our Community, strangers who have now become our friends and neighbours. Today I am the Community Coordinator at our parish church, St Mary’s and I am actively involved in our community affairs

Our wish as a Community is to extend the same kindness to new parishioners. The size of our Community will increase by some 25%, with many more to follow if the current HELAA proposals are agreed. The objections to these applications set out the lack of meaningful consultation.

Is our “One Community” ambition so unworthy that neither officers nor house builders have ears to hear or eyes to see the importance of preserving and enhancing our existing social infrastructure on the Love Lane site during their one way “consultations”?

In March St Mary’s established the joint initiative with the Parish Council, SAFE in support the West Berkshire Hub to make sure that no one was uncared for during Lockdown and much more beside.

Why do these applications fail to address Coronavirus and the need to future proof our communities?

The evidence from our Parish Community Plan Consultation is that the loneliness with all its attendant threats to mental health and well-being is

today’s No 1 concern in our Community. We anticipate a significant number of lonely people arriving in our Community over the next few years.

Why have we not learned the lessons from the mistakes of the past such as the Turnpike estate. Can we afford to go on kicking the can further down the road? We need adequate provision for social infrastructure please.

The County Lines drug paraphernalia may have disappeared from the Trinity Academy car park and the Lych Gate at St Mary’s for the time being BUT

Is there anyone here bold enough to assert that the drug peddlers will not return if we fail to ensure that we have social infrastructure fit for purpose to protect our children and young people?

The Parish Planning Group is developing costed options for future economic community use of the present listed School Building and the Village Hall on Love Lane. The Love Lane location connects the existing and new homes to help build one community and it needs to be properly funded.

Why have Consultations with the Community neglected to enquire and discuss how best to collaborate and support this initiative??

Here is a proposition:

As a condition of approving these applications, resolve to depute a planning officer to join the SCD Community Planning Group, allocate CIL monies from these two developments to help fund to the future of the Love Lane site and invite the housebuilders to contribute cash and in kind support.

In expectation of your reasoned response, thank you.

Agent Representation – Aaron Wright (Turley)

As Members are aware outline consent was granted at appeal for a mixed-use scheme comprising up to 401 dwellings, a local centre, one form entry primary school as well as open space, landscaping and highway works. The outline consent approved (at appeal) the principle of development and fixed the access points into the site and the primary vehicular movement network.

Parameter Plans for the whole site were approved under the outline application. The parameter plans provide a framework which the reserved matters applications are required to comply with. These plans fixed elements of the scheme such as land uses, landscaping, scale and access and movement.

This reserved matters application is seeking approval for 179 dwellings with associated public open space, landscaping and a LEAP.

The applicant has undertaken detailed discussions with planning officers and meaningful engagement with key stakeholders. The scheme has been amended to reflect consultation comments received, including changes to landscaping, housing mix, design of the homes and to the layout.

The development will provide 40% affordable housing provision, comprising a mix of 1 to 5 bedroom properties of which 71 would be affordable units, which are distributed throughout the site. The affordable housing will be indistinguishable from the private homes.

The development will be mainly 2 storey in height with some at 2.5 storey in key locations. There are two 3 storey buildings overlooking the public open space and subway to provide natural surveillance. The scale of development accords with the approved storey height parameter plan.

The overall design objective is to create a place with a strong and unique identity that provides a suitable and modern interpretation of Newbury. The scheme incorporates character areas to aid legibility and provide interest at street level through subtle variations in materials, landscaping and boundary treatment. New tree planting is located across the scheme especially along site boundaries and within public spaces including the LEAPs and LAP.

The site will use the existing private section of highway access from the roundabout off the A339, currently serving Vodafone UK to the south, and provide a new strategic access road and roundabout. All roads within the site will be built to adoptable standards as per the outline consent.

Car parking will be provided in-accordance with Council policy. Parking will be provided on plot, with visitor parking located on the shared surface street or in identified bays.

The drainage strategy utilises a series of attenuation basins on both sides of the A339 serving both the individual properties, roads and shared surfaces. The attenuation basin storage volume is designed to take a 1:100 year storm event plus 40% climate change allowance. The applicant is working closely with the Council’s Drainage Engineer on this matter.

In light of the above, the development is consistent with the outline application and will provide for an attractive and high quality development. The proposals are in full compliance with relevant national planning policy and the adopted development plan. We therefore hope that Members can support the scheme.

Ward Member Representation

13. Councillor Lynne Doherty in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

· Councillor Doherty noted that she could use this opportunity to reiterate the points made for the previous application, however she felt that it would not be a good use of time. There were three things that were different on this site and that she wished to highlight:

i. The underpass – natural surveillance had been mentioned, where originally CCTV had been talked about. The underpass went under the A339 and was secluded. She was concerned about the safety of everyone, but in particular about school children during late, dark evenings, especially as this would be an area of low lighting due to its proximity to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). She had real concern about the need for CCTV monitoring, and felt it was not acceptable to have a car park in front of an apartment block and hope that the people in the apartments would hear something that was happening under the A339.

ii. Balancing ponds – how would children in the area be kept safe around the ponds?

iii. Car parking – there was visitor parking on the site, however as Ward Member for the streets surrounding the Vodafone offices, she had heard many residents complain that Vodafone staff used the outlying streets to park their cars, and she was concerned that the visitor parking would in turn become overflow parking for Vodafone.

· Councillor Doherty had real concerns about the access via the private road. She had all the same concerns as she had for the previous application, but would draw particular attention to the underpass which would be in a remote, dark, quiet, position, with very few people around.

14. Councillor Steve Masters in representing the Committee as Ward Member made the following points:

· He would not be reiterating his previous comments, but would add to the concerns of Councillor Doherty and the Parish Council. He took the opportunity to walk the underpass two weekends ago. It was very remote and relying on natural surveillance, which he considered a vague, wishy-washy aspiration, was ill-founded. He echoed the concerns over safety.

· He concurred with the concerns of the Highways Officers around the private access. There was potential for continuing problems for residents. Management companies came and went and fees could be prohibitive. It was unclear how this would be managed, especially for those in social and affordable housing.

· With regard to environmental aspirations, he reiterated his concerns from the previous application. This development was an opportunity where the Council could have done something, and it was frustrating that officers and the Committee were hamstrung by the Planning Inspector’s decision at appeal.

Member Questions of the Ward Member

15. Councillor Tony Vickers referred to the underpass and that it had been under consideration in the context of the proposed development since 2014. The underpass was not like those in central Newbury, as it was at ground level rather than sunk. Once development was built on both sides and would overlook the subway, and in anticipation that lighting would be provided, he questioned whether the Ward Members concerns were exaggerated.

16. Councillor Doherty did not agree with Councillor Vickers. There were plans to plant vegetation to act as a sound barrier to the A339, the underpass was remote and if anyone were to shout for assistance, they would not be heard due to the noise from the A339.

17. Councillor Masters concurred Councillor Doherty’s response that more safety protections needed to be put in place.

Questions to Officers

18. Councillor Phil Barnett asked the Highways Officer to comment on the impact of Vodafone buses parking along the access road off the roundabout into Vodafone at certain times of day, and whether this would obstruct access to the site. Paul Goddard replied that this was possible, however unfortunately there was little the Highways Authority could do about it. If it were to become a problem, the residents would have to contact the developer, and the developer would have to liaise with Vodafone. He hoped that Vodafone would run their bus services to assure that access would be provided at all times to the residential development.

19. Councillor Barnett further questioned Planning Officers as to whether the Police had provided advice on the safety aspects of the development. Simon Till explained that the Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor had been consulted on this, as with other applications, and a condition had been recommended to implement secure by design measures for this reserved matters application.

20. He further reiterated that the questions regarding access and the underpass were resolved in the outline planning permission, and as such were not part of the reserved matters application. He drew the Committee’s attention to condition 14 of the outline planning permission, which stipulated details of the underpass, and the CCTV arrangement to be put in place.

21. Councillor Dennis Benneyworth asked whether officers knew approximately how much it would cost residents to maintain the private roads. Paul Goddard explained that he did not. Residents would be at the mercy of the management company, however through the condition in the Update Report, where the developer was obliged to supply details on how the roads will be maintained by the management company, it might be possible to obtain some information.

22. Councillor Vickers referred to condition 14 of the outline plan as he was puzzled. The conditioned mentioned a diversion at either side of the underpass footpath four being agreed before reserved matters, however this was a reserved matters application that was talking about the layout. He was not sure from the layout plans where footpath four was going, between the east side of the underpass and the Vodafone path. As far as the plans showed it was outside the red line. He did not know how this footpath four had been dealt with. He felt it would be helpful to know if that condition had been discharged and what the result of it was. It would be essential that the footpath was available and yet it was shown as going to area, that if it were to be flooded, would be a pond

23. Simon Till was not aware whether condition 14 of the outline permission had been discharged. He believed that Councillor Vickers was correct that there were matters with regards to the footpath that might be impacted by the drainage scheme. He suspected that the condition had not been discharged. The condition did not require discharge prior to determination of reserve matters, therefore Members were still able to make a determination on the reserved matters application, with the matters that were subject to condition 14 remaining to be discharged. The requirement for that conditioned diversion of footpath four meant that officers would need to consult with the Public Rights of Way Team, to ensure that the diversion was properly administered.

24. Councillor Vickers speculated that the footpath could be diverted through the site, but there was the large area that was outside the developer’s control which is where the footpath was currently shown as leading to. He felt it was a fundamental part of the linkages between both halves of the site, and that the rest of the path network, however it would appear that the diversion was not within the control of the developer.

25. Councillor Clive Hooker queried whether the footpath was outside the development area, and also if the pond that would flood the footpath were also outside the red-line. Simon Till confirmed that drainage still required to be addressed via conditions. He noted that if a diversion were to be required on land outside of the developer’s control, assuming it was in the Council’s control, the Council would have to consider whether to authorise the diversion. However, condition 14 was applied to the outline planning permission.

26. Councillor Adrian Abbs asked for confirmation that the woodland to the north of the development was not ancient woodland. As it was within 50 metres of the development and therefore root systems could be affected, he asked whether it had been taken into account.

27. Simon Till confirmed that the Tree Officer had been consulted and had not objected to the application, and had in fact supported the landscaping scheme. He had raised no concerns regarding the woodland around the site, and it had not been raised as a concern during the outline permission. Simon Till would have suspected that any concerns would have been considered at that outline stage, however, the reserved matters landscaping consideration did allow a certain amount of ‘second bite of the cherry’. The Tree Officer had had an opportunity to raise concerns, and had not done so, therefore Planning Officers were satisfied that there were no adverse impacts from the way this layout had been designed.

28. Councillor Abbs was still not entirely convinced as the woodland was outside the red line. He queried how far outside the development area officers considered. Simon Till replied that Tree Officers occupied themselves considerably with trees both inside and outside the red line.

29. Councillor Carolyne Culver queried how the private road would affect the access for utility companies to work on the roads. In addition she was conscious that, in other areas where social rented houses were managed by Sovereign and there was a private un-adopted road, there had been difficulties in resolving issues like flooding and resurfacing, which had been batted around between Sovereign and the Council. She was concerned that this might happen in this instance too, and problems would be created for residents in the longer term.

30. Finally she queried whether officers were aware at the outline planning stage that the private road was a problem, but was one that they had hoped to resolve quickly. Paul Goddard explained that officers were aware it was an issue at outline planning, however there were bigger issues being considered at the appeal and the matter did get somewhat swept aside by the planning inspector. Also, unfortunately, planning law did not really cover land ownership issues. In regard to utility access, officers expected details to be included in the condition on management plan. Utility companies would need to gain permission from the management company. In terms of social rented housing, this would again need to be included in the management plan.

31. Councillor Culver reiterated the issue that social rented housing was again being described as affordable, these terms were not synonymous. There should be clarity that when the term affordable rent was quoted, social rent was being referred to. She further asked why there were so few two bedroomed houses for private ownership proposed for the site. There were 15 two bedroomed properties, compared to 125 four bedroomed dwellings, and this appeared skewed towards the larger families. She queried whether it was not thought that there might be single people or couples that might want to buy and own their own property. Simon Till answered that the housing mix was consulted on with the Housing Officer and no concerns had been raised. Planning Officers therefore considered that on balance it was an acceptable mix of dwelling types, as no objections were raised from that field of expertise.

32. Councillor Howard Woollaston described that his major concern was the connection to the highway and how the issue would be resolved. He expressed the view that any sensible developer would have agreed terms with Vodafone by now, so there was presumably a problem. He asked for the Planning Officer’s view. Simon Till commented that the matter of land ownership had been quite accurately described by Paul Goddard. The planning situation did not require that the applicant own the land forming part of the planning application. In this case, the Planning Inspector had given detailed consideration to the access at the outline permission stage, and as a consequence had applied a condition requiring that all access to the site should be provided to an adoptable standard. In planning terms, that was the best that could be done, as there was no policy supporting officers to force the developer to have to the roads adopted. If the developer failed to provide access of a sufficient quality then they could not proceed with development.

33. Councillor Benneyworth asked for clarification that the legal agreement for the access would be solid enough to give residents confidence going forward. Simon Till reiterated that the condition called for roads to be built to an adoptable standard. An informative and a condition would allow officers to understand, as much as possible, what the relationship will be between the residents and the access road arrangements. However, officers could not force an adoption, therefore could not give a caste-iron guarantee. This was the position left to Planning Officers following the decision by the Planning Inspector.

34. The Chairman asked Simon Till to share the slide that showed the distribution of housing mix across the site. He asked David Pearson to comment on the application. David Pearson remarked, regarding the adoption of roads, that Officers’ hands were tied by the decision of the Planning Inspector, he expressed the opinion that he felt sorry for future residents, but there was little, if anything, that could be done under reserved matters to address the problem.

35. The Chairman noted that for anyone buying a home on the eastern side, due diligence would be paramount.

36. At 9.23pm, in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the Committee concluded that the remaining business could be concluded by 10.30pm, and therefore decided to continue with the debate.

Debate

37. Councillor Hilary Cole opened the debate by noting that there had been a good debate on the eastern side. She commented that it was disappointing that Vodafone and the developer had not worked together to come to some agreement about this road, which would be installed up to adoptable standards, and yet was not being adopted. Without wishing to labour the point about a management company, there had been a big issue around the development at Kennet Heath with regard to the upkeep of public space. Residents could form their own management company. She believed she was one of the few members who had carried out a site visit, and she shared the Ward Members concerns about the underpass, however if both sites were to be developed it would be more used.

38. Providing the conditions were agreed, and with regards to the comments on brick colour and lighting as for the first application, Councillor Hilary Cole, proposed to accept Officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the main report and update report. This was seconded by Councillor Vickers

39. Councillor Vickers noted that he had also seen residents take control of management. He continued that the residents would be paying the same Council Tax, but would not be getting the same service. He also remarked that this was the position for residents on the Newbury Racecourse development and it was already causing problems. He conjectured whether the local Minister of Parliament should be consulted. He felt it was wrong that the Council did not have control over allowing the residents to have access to their homes for necessary services. However, he felt he had no option but to approve permission.

40. The Chairman concluded that the position had been imposed on officers and the Committee by the Planning Inspector. From this debate the Chairman was concerned about the bus parking, and that very little investment had been made in the underpass. He posited that if the underpass had been developed in such a way as to allow vehicle access, then perhaps Council service vehicles could have accessed the eastern side, albeit down an un-adopted road.

41. The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Hilary Cole, seconded by Councillor Vickers 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

Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and information to address the following technical highways requirements:

· Revised traffic calming measures within the site;

· Internal access road designs to meet adoptable standards;

· Sight lines at the junctions and bends within the site shown for vehicle; speeds of 20 mph; and

· Minor changes to parking provision for the flats near the subway.

within three months of the date of this Committee (or such longer period that may be authorised by the Head of Development and Planning) to delegate to the Head of Development and Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to the conditions listed below (with delegated authority to amend/add/delete the final list of planning conditions to address technical issues and to add conditions relating to materials and a lighting scheme):

1. Reserved Matters Related to Outline Permission

This permission relates solely to the reserved matters referred to in Condition 3 of the Outline Planning Permission granted on 25 June 2020 under application reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ (which is a variation of 14/02480/OUTMAJ allowed under appeal decision reference APP/W0340/W/16/3143214 on 20 March 2017). Nothing contained in this proposal or this notice shall be deemed to affect or vary the conditions imposed on that outline planning permission.

Reason: The reserved matters cannot be considered separately from the permission to which they relate and the conditions imposed on that outline permission are still applicable.

2. Approved Plans

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

• Planning Layout - 0685-102 rev D

• Building Storey Heights Plan - 0685-110 rev C

• External Works Plan 1 - 0685-104-1 rev C

• External Works Plan 2 - 0685-104-2 rev C

• External Works Plan 3 - 0685-104-3 rev C

• External Works Plan 4 - 0685-104-4 rev C

• External Works Plan 5 - 0685-104-5 rev C

• External Works Plan 6 - 0685-104-6 rev C

• Parking Matrix - *0685 rev Issue 4

• Management Plan - 0685-107 rev C

• Housetype Plans & Elevations Pack - *0685 rev 7

• Garage and Cycle Storage - 0685-109 rev A

• Site Location Plan - 0685-101

• Engineering Layout 1 (inc. drainage and levels) - 6103-MJA-PH2-001 rev T4

• Engineering Layout 2 (inc. drainage and levels) - 6103-MJA-PH2-002 rev T3

• Engineering Layout 3 (inc. drainage and levels) - 6103-MJA-PH2-003 rev T3

• Engineering Layout Overall (inc. drainage and levels) - 6103-MJA-PH2-004 rev T4

• External Works Layouts Overall - 6103-MJA-PH2-400 rev T2

• External Works Layouts 1 - 6103-MJA-PH2-401 rev T3

• External Works Layouts 2 - 6103-MJA-PH2-402 rev T2

• External Works Layouts 3 - 6103-MJA-PH2-403 rev T3

• Landscaping Hardworks Plan - 1050623-L-02 rev 07

Housetype Plans & Elevations Pack 0685 Issue 7

HOUSETYPE BOOKLET	0685-HTB	ISSUE 7
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 1	0685-PLOT 1	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 2	0685-PLOT 2	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 3	0685-PLOT 3-1	-
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 3	0685-PLOT 3-2	-
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 4	0685-PLOT 4-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 4	0685-PLOT 4-2	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 5	0685-PLOT 5-1	-
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 5	0685-PLOT 5-2	-
NT42-WAYSDALE - ELEVATIONS PLOT 6	0685-PLOT 6-1	-
NT42-WAYSDALE - FLOOR PLANS PLOT 6	0685-PLOT 6-2	-
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 7	0685-PLOT 7	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 8	0685-PLOT 8-1	-
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 8	0685-PLOT 8-2	-
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 9	0685-PLOT 9-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 9	0685-PLOT 9-2	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 10	0685-PLOT 10	A
NT42-WAYSDALE - ELEVATIONS PLOT 11	0685-PLOT 11-1	-
NT42-WAYSDALE - FLOOR PLANS PLOT 11	0685-PLOT 11-2	-
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 12	0685-PLOT 12	A
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 13	0685-PLOT 13	A
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 14	0685-PLOT 14	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 15	0685-PLOT 15	A
NT42-WAYSDALE - ELEVATIONS PLOT 16	0685-PLOT 16-1	A
NT42-WAYSDALE - FLOOR PLANS PLOT 16	0685-PLOT 16-2	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 17	0685-PLOT 17	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 18	0685-PLOT 18	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 19	0685-PLOT 19	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 20	0685-PLOT 20	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 21	0685-PLOT 21-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 21	0685-PLOT 21-2	A
PT36-EASEDALE - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 22	0685-PLOT 22	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 23	0685-PLOT 23	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 24	0685-PLOT 24	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 25	0685-PLOT 25	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 26	0685-PLOT 26	A
BLOCK A - ELEVATIONS PLOTS 27-35	0685-PLOT 27-35-1	B
BLOCK A - ELEVATIONS PLOTS 27-36	0685-PLOT 27-35-2	B
BLOCK A - PLANS PLOTS 27-35	0685-PLOT 27-35-3	B
BLOCK A - PLANS PLOTS 27-36	0685-PLOT 27-35-4	B
BLOCK A - PLANS PLOTS 27-37	0685-PLOT 27-35-5	B
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 36	0685-PLOT 36	B
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 37	0685-PLOT 37	B
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 38	0685-PLOT 38	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 39	0685-PLOT 39	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 40	0685-PLOT 40	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 41	0685-PLOT 41	A
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 42	0685-PLOT 42	B
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 43	0685-PLOT 43	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 44	0685-PLOT 44	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 45	0685-PLOT 45	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 46	0685-PLOT 46	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 47	0685-PLOT 47	A
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 48	0685-PLOT 48	B
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 49	0685-PLOT 49	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 50	0685-PLOT 50	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 51	0685-PLOT 51	B
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 52	0685-PLOT 52	A
PT36-EASEDALE - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 53	0685-PLOT 53	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 54	0685-PLOT 54-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 54	0685-PLOT 54-2	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 55	0685-PLOT 55	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 56	0685-PLOT 56	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 57	0685-PLOT 57-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 57	0685-PLOT 57-2	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 58	0685-PLOT 58	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 59	0685-PLOT 59	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 60	0685-PLOT 60-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 60	0685-PLOT 60-2	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 61	0685-PLOT 61-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 61	0685-PLOT 61-2	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 62	0685-PLOT 62	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 63	0685-PLOT 63	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 64	0685-PLOT 64	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 65	0685-PLOT 65	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 66	0685-PLOT 66	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 67	0685-PLOT 67	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 68	0685-PLOT 68	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 69	0685-PLOT 69	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 70	0685-PLOT 70-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 70	0685-PLOT 70-2	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 71	0685-PLOT 71-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 71	0685-PLOT 71-2	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 72	0685-PLOT 72	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 73	0685-PLOT 73	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 74	0685-PLOT 74	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 75	0685-PLOT 75	-
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 76	0685-PLOT 76	-
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 77	0685-PLOT 77	-
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 78	0685-PLOT 78	-
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 79	0685-PLOT 79	-
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 80	0685-PLOT 80	-
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 81	0685-PLOT 81	-
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 82	0685-PLOT 82	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 83	0685-PLOT 83	-
PT36-EASEDALE - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 84	0685-PLOT 84	-
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 85	0685-PLOT 85	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 86	0685-PLOT 86	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 87	0685-PLOT 87	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 88	0685-PLOT 88	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 89	0685-PLOT 89	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 90	0685-PLOT 90	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 91	0685-PLOT 91	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 92	0685-PLOT 92	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 93	0685-PLOT 93	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 94	0685-PLOT 94	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 95	0685-PLOT 95	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 96	0685-PLOT 96	A
NB31-BRAXTON-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 97	0685-PLOT 97	B
BLOCK B - ELEVATIONS PLOTS 98-105	0685-PLOT 98-105-1	B
BLOCK B - ELEVATIONS PLOTS 98-105	0685-PLOT 98-105-2	C
BLOCK B - PLANS PLOTS 98-105	0685-PLOT 98-105-3	C
BLOCK B - PLANS PLOTS 98-105	0685-PLOT 98-105-4	C
BLOCK B - PLANS PLOTS 98-105	0685-PLOT 98-105-5	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 106	0685-PLOT 106	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 107	0685-PLOT 107	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 108	0685-PLOT 108	A
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 109	0685-PLOT 109	A
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 110	0685-PLOT 110	A
PA25-CANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 111	0685-PLOT 111	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 112	0685-PLOT 112	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 113	0685-PLOT 113	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 114	0685-PLOT 114	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 115	0685-PLOT 115	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 116	0685-PLOT 116	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 117	0685-PLOT 117	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 118	0685-PLOT 118	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 119	0685-PLOT 119	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 120	0685-PLOT 120	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 121	0685-PLOT 121	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 122	0685-PLOT 122	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 123	0685-PLOT 123	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 124	0685-PLOT 124	A
1BM-ELEVATIONS PLOTS 125-126	0685-PLOT 125-126-1	B
1BM-PLANS PLOTS 125-126	0685-PLOT 125-126-2	A
1BM-ELEVATIONS PLOTS 127-128	0685-PLOT 127-128-1	B
1BM-PLANS PLOTS 127-128	0685-PLOT 127-128-2	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 129	0685-PLOT 129	A
AA41-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOTS 130	0685-PLOT 130	A
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 131	0685-PLOT 131	B
PA34-GOSFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 132	0685-PLOT 132	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 133	0685-PLOT 133	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 134	0685-PLOT 134	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 135	0685-PLOT 135	A
NA43-LANFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 136	0685-PLOT 136	A
PT36-EASEDALE - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 137	0685-PLOT 137	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 138	0685-PLOT 138	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 139	0685-PLOT 139	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 140	0685-PLOT 140	A
PT36-EASEDALE - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 141	0685-PLOT 141	B
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 142	0685-PLOT 142-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 142	0685-PLOT 142-2	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 143	0685-PLOT 143-1	B
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 143	0685-PLOT 143-2	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 144	0685-PLOT 144	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 145	0685-PLOT 145	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 146	0685-PLOT 146-1	B
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 146	0685-PLOT 146-2	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 147	0685-PLOT 147	B
NA51-WAYFORD - ELEVATIONS PLOT 148	0685-PLOT 148-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 148	0685-PLOT 148-2	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 149	0685-PLOT 149-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 149	0685-PLOT 149-2	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 150	0685-PLOT 150-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 150	0685-PLOT 150-2	A
NA45-MARFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 151	0685-PLOT 151	B
NT42-WAYSDALE - ELEVATIONS PLOT 152	0685-PLOT 152-1	A
NT42-WAYSDALE - FLOOR PLANS PLOT 152	0685-PLOT 152-2	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 153	0685-PLOT 153	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 154	0685-PLOT 154	B
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 155	0685-PLOT 155	B
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 156	0685-PLOT 156-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 156	0685-PLOT 156-2	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 157	0685-PLOT 157-1	A
NA51-WAYFORD - PLANS PLOT 157	0685-PLOT 157-2	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 158	0685-PLOT 158	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 159	0685-PLOT 159	B
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 160	0685-PLOT 160	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 161	0685-PLOT 161-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 161	0685-PLOT 161-2	A
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 162	0685-PLOT 162	A
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 163	0685-PLOT 163	B
AA23-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 164	0685-PLOT 164	B
AA41-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 165	0685-PLOT 165	B
AA41-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 166	0685-PLOT 166	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 167	0685-PLOT 167	A
NA44-MANFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 168	0685-PLOT 168	A
NB50-FELTON - ELEVATIONS PLOT 169	0685-PLOT 169-1	A
NB50-FELTON - PLANS PLOT 169	0685-PLOT 169-2	A
NA45-MARFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 170	0685-PLOT 170	A
PA44-MIDFORD - PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 171	0685-PLOT 171	-
NA45-MARFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 172	0685-PLOT 172	A
NA45-MARFORD-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 173	0685-PLOT 173	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 174	0685-PLOT 174	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 175	0685-PLOT 175	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 176	0685-PLOT 176	A
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 177	0685-PLOT 177	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 178	0685-PLOT 178	B
AA31-PLANS & ELEVATIONS PLOT 179	0685-PLOT 179	A

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

3. Housing Unit and Tenure Mix

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the site wide housing unit and tenure mix received by the Local Planning Authority on 25 September 2020.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of condition 4 of Outline Planning Permission Reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ granted on 25 June 2020 which requires the first reserved matters application to include a schedule of the housing unit and tenure mix for the whole site in accordance with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS4, CS6 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

4. Strategic Landscape Plan

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the strategic landscape framework plan (drawing ref 1607/P65d) and supporting landscape note (document reference 1607 29D condition 5 Note AW HM 140820) received by the Local Planning Authority on 14 August 2020.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of condition 5 of Outline Planning Permission Reference 19/00442/OUTMAJ granted on 25 June 2020 which requires the first reserved matters application to include a strategic landscape plan for the whole site in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1, ADPP2, CS13, CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

5. LEAP and LAPS Implementation

No dwelling shall be occupied until a timetable for implementation of the approved LEAP and LAPs has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEAP and LAP shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved timetable

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area, and in the interests of security and safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

6. Details of proposed footpath/cycle link and interface with PROW

Notwithstanding information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until details of the new footpaths, their construction specification and means of integration with Public Rights of Way SHAW/4/1 and SHAW/4/4 around the A339 underpass (identified on drawing 0685-102 rev D) 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 encourage sustainable modes of transport and to ensure development is integrated with the surrounding public rights of way network in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).Notwithstanding details shown on the supporting plans, details of the how any new footpaths, their specification and means of the integration with the PROW around the A339 underpass, and implementation prior to occupation of housing.

7. Samples of External Materials

No development above slab level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling(s) and hard surfaced areas hereby permitted 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 materials.

Reason: To ensure that the external materials are visually attractive and respond to local character in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

8. Secured via Design measures

No dwelling shall be occupied until details of a package of ‘Secured by Design’ measures, which include details of the access control systems and post boxes for the approved apartment blocks, 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, and each respective dwelling shall not be occupied until the measures relevant to that dwelling are implemented in their entirety.

Reason: In the interests of creating a safe and sustainable community in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

9. Additional Windows for Surveillance

Notwithstanding the information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until the details of the following (or alternative package of measures) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

- Details of additional upper floor windows on plots 1,4, 9 and 66

Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To facilitate increased surveillance of the public realm In the interests of creating a safe and sustainable community in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy CS13 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

10. Removal of PD Rights

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement (including side and rear extensions), improvement or other alteration of the dwellinghouses, additions or buildings or enclosures incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouses, or enlargement/alterations to the roofs (including dormer windows) of the dwellinghouses falling within Classes A, B and E as set out below for the respective plots:

• No permitted development under Class B - Plots 2, 38 to 45, 51,52 to 58, 124,129,130,138,139,140,142,143,144,146,150,151,153 and 173 to 179.

• No permitted development under Classes A and E – Plots 2,15,25,26, 44 to 49, 63, 138,144,145,151,153,155,159,161,163,165, 167,171 and 174 to 179.

Reason: Taking into the account the significant changes in levels across the site and proposed garden sizes in order to protect neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

11. Implementation of Landscaping

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme set out in:

• Landscaping Masterplan - 1050623-L-01 rev 08

• Landscaping Softworks Plan - 1050623-L-03 rev 8

• Landscaping Softworks Plan - 11050623-L-04 rev *06

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 2a - 1050623-L-05 rev *03

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 2b - 1050623-L-06 rev *04

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 3 - 1050623-L-07 rev *04

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 4b - 1050623-L-09 rev *04

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 5b - 1050623-L-10 rev *04

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 6b - 1050623-L-13 rev *03

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 7 - 1050623-L-14 rev *05

• Landscaping Softworks Plan 8 - 1050623-L-15 rev *06

• Softworks Schedule 1-3 - 1050623-L-16 rev *05

• Softworks Schedule 4-5 - 1050623-L-17 rev *05

• Softworks Schedule 6-8 -1050623-L-18 rev *06

• Tree Details 1050623-L-23

• Play Area Design 1050623-L-20 rev *04

• Strategic landscape framework plan (drawing ref 1607/P65d); and

• Landscape note (document reference 1607 29D condition 5 Note AW HM 140820)

Any trees shrubs or plants that die or become seriously damaged within fifteen years of this development shall be replaced in the following year by plants of the same size and species.

The approved landscape buffer planting around the boundaries of the site (as set out on soft works perimeter planting plan drawing no L-03 rev 8) shall be completed within the first planting season before the occupation of the 25th dwelling and all remaining planting shall be completed within the first planting season following completion of the development unless an alternative timetable for implementation is otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of a satisfactory scheme of landscaping and to protect the character and appearance of the area. The condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies ADPP1,ADPP2, CS13, CS14, CS17, CS18 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

12. Substation Details

Notwithstanding the information shown on the supporting plans, no dwelling shall be occupied until the detailed design and specification (including noise emission levels), hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments for the electric substation (identified on drawing 0685-102 rev D) has 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 protect neighbouring residential amenity and to protect the character and appearance of the area in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan

13. Obscure Glazing

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), any windows on respective elevations to the dwelling plots identified below, shall be of top opening design and shall be fitted with obscure glazing before each respective dwelling is first occupied and thereafter shall be retained in this form. Any replacement windows shall also be of top opening design and incorporate obscure glazing.

Plots 4, 9, 22, 24, 26, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 53, 55, 87, 97, 129, 131, 142, 144, 156, 157,164,166,175,177 and 179 - west facing 1st floor window(s);

Plots 1,12, 50, 62, 78, 81, 82, 90,108, 113, 115, 118, 121, 124, 136 and 139 – north facing 1st floor window(s);

Plots 3,10, 56, 57, 58, 72, 73, 83, 85, 86, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 167, 168, 169 and171 – east and west facing 1st floor window(s)

Plots 2,11, 23, 25, 39, 41, 43, 47, 54, 74, 84, 130, 145, 153, 161,165, 172, 176 and 178 – east facing 1st floor window(s);

Plots 6, 13, 16, 19, 51, 52, 59, 64, 75, 76, 79, 93, 109, 114, 117, 120, 122, 138 and 141 – south facing 1st floor window(s); and

Plots 5, 8,14,17,18, 20, 21, 60, 61, 65, 70, 71, 88, 89, 94, 95, 116, 119, 134 to 135, 140 – north and south facing 1st floor window(s).

Reason: To protect neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS14 West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy C3 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026 and guidance contained within the West Berkshire Quality Design SPD and the Shaw cum Donnington Parish Plan.

14. Boundary treatment

Each respective dwelling shall not be occupied until boundary treatment has been provided for that dwelling in accordance with the approved plans. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

15. Electric Vehicle Charging Points

No dwelling shall be occupied until details of electric vehicle charging points 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, and each respective dwelling which is allocated an electric charging point shall not be occupied until the electric charging point relevant to that dwelling is provided. The charging point shall thereafter be retained and kept available for the potential use of an electric car.

Reason: To promote the use of electric vehicles and to encourage sustainable modes of transport in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocation DPD and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

16. Layout and Design Standards

The detailed layout of the site shall comply with the Local Planning Authority's standards in respect of road and footpath design and vehicle parking and turning provision. The road and footpath design shall be to a standard that is adoptable as public highway. To ensure that the roads are built to adoptable standards, access shall be made available at all times for Council engineers to inspect the highway works with fees paid in line with highway authority fees and charges. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications to these matters which have been given in the current application.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and flow of traffic and to ensure waste collection. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

17. Maintenance of Roads, Footways and Associated Infrastructure

No dwelling shall be occupied until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established.

Reason: In the interest of future maintenance for the benefit of future residents and other road users. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

18. Visibility splays

Visibility splays shall be provided in accordance with drawings to be submitted. The land within these visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 0.6 metres above the carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of road safety. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019) and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

19. Parking/turning in accord with plans

No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated vehicle parking and/or turning space have been surfaced, marked out and provided in accordance with the approved plan(s). The parking and/or turning space shall thereafter be kept available for parking (of private motor cars and/or light goods vehicles) at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate parking facilities, in order to reduce the likelihood of roadside parking that would adversely affect road safety and the flow of traffic. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

20. Cycle parking

No dwelling shall be occupied until the associated cycle parking has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings and this area shall thereafter be kept available for the parking of cycles at all times.

Reason: To ensure the development reduces reliance on private motor vehicles and assists with the parking, storage and security of cycles. This condition is imposed in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026) and Policy TRANS1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

Informative Notes

1. Private Access Road

The proposed development is linked onto the A339 public highway via The Connection. The Connection is a private road owned and maintained by Vodafone. It is unlikely for the foreseeable future that The Connection will become adopted public highway. This means that the highway authority is unable to enter into a Section 38 Agreement under the Highways Act 1980 to adopt the roads as public highway within the development. The roads will therefore remain private within the development for the foreseeable future and will be maintained by a management company funded by the residents.

2. Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue

The development will need to be designed and built in accordance with the functional requirements of current Building Regulation requirements.

The Fire Authority seeks to raise the profile of these requirements and requests that the relevant documentation is made available to the applicant and/or planning agent by means of web link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-safety-approved-document-b

Full assessment of the proposed development in respect of ‘Building Control’ matters will be undertaken during the formal statutory Building Regulations consultation.

3. Thames Water

Waste Comments

Thames Water has identified that the existing foul water network infrastructure needs upgrading to meet the needs of this development. The applicant is therefore advised to contact Thames Water to agree a position for foul water networks. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents. The developer can request further information by visiting the Thames Water website at thameswater.co.uk/preplanning.

4. Construction Management Plan and Infrastructure Works

The applicant is advised to engage with the local community and local parish council in preparing and implementing a final construction management plan. The plan should be kept under review during the carrying out of the development to protect the amenity of the area.

The applicant is also advised to consult with the local parish council before commencing major infrastructure works that may implications for the local community.

5. Public Rights of Way

Nothing connected with either the development or its construction must adversely affect or encroach upon the Public Right of Way (PROW), which must remain available for public use at all times. Information on the width of the PROW can be obtained from the PROW Officer.

The applicant is advised that the Rights of Way Officer must be informed prior to the laying of any services beneath the Public Right of Way.

6. Secured by Design Guidance

1. External Communal entrances:

All external and internal Communal entrance doors meet the requirements of the minimum physical security requirements of LPS1175 Issue 8 B3)

I. Developments with more than two floors are required to have a visitor door entry system and access control system.

II. All external and internal Communal entrance doors access will be controlled via an electronic remote release locking systems with audio/ visual intercom links to each apartment. This will allow residents to communicate with their visitors without having to open their front door and speak to them face-to-face as this allows them to filter who is allowed into the building and up into their flat.

III. The system will be required to record and store images for a minimum of 30 days.

IV. Tradesperson’s release mechanisms are not permitted as they have been proven to be a cause of ASB and unlawful access to residential areas

V. Postal services: Best practice advises that Tradesman’s Buttons (allowing postal deliveries) must not be fitted as unauthorised individuals can also use these to gain access to private residential areas(negating any physical security a closed door offers) The preferred management of mail delivery is either via external wall amounted letterboxes or via ‘through the wall mail deliveries, if this cannot be achieved, the postal boxes must be located within a secured entrance lobby, (with secondary internal access controlled communal entrance door) this allows postal services to be delivered into the lobby whilst ensuring the internal corridors and stairwells of the apartments remain private.

VI. Residential door Sets: Individual flat entrance doors must also comply with ADP-Q, and meet the minimum physical security requirements of PAS24:2012.

2. Compartmentalisation: The Access control system must provide compartmentalisation of each floor within block

3. Secure communal lobbies: Any internal door sets should meet the same specification as above be access controlled (ground floor and residential floor lobbies)

Bin and cycle store doors. Must be robust and secure (meet the minimum physical security standards of LPS 1175 issue 8 B3, with electronic access control. Double leaf door can be problematic sustainable operation and security, as the active leaf is required to secure against the passive. Additional details as to the type, style and minimum physical security standards of the doors will be required - alternatively a large single leaf door may well be more appropriates and cost effective.

Additional Informative Notes

7. Housing Mix

For the avoidance of doubt, the applicant is advised the development shall be carried out in the accordance with updated housing mix table (which updated references to affordable and social rent) received by the Local Planning Authority via email on 25 September 2020

8. External Lighting

In discharging outline planning condition 22 of 19/00442/OUTMAJ which requires the submission of external lighting details, the applicant is advised to take in account emerging guidance ‘Dark Skies of the North Wessex Downs AONB – Guide to Good External Lighting (September 2020)’ to minimise light pollution and to preserve the beautiful dark skies of the AONB.

9. Working Proactively with the Applicant

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. The local planning authority has worked proactively with the applicant to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

Supporting documents: