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

Agenda item

Application No. and Parish: 23/02550/FULMAJ - Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury

Proposal:

Demolition of Redundant Farmstead Buildings, New House, Relocated Barn, Change of Use of Field Area for ReLocation of Solar Panels and Significant Landscape/ Biodiversity Enhancement.

Location:

Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, RG20 0HR

Applicant:

Mr and Mrs D Oppenheim

Recommendation:

To delegate to the Development Manager to REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the reasons listed in section 8 of this report.

 

Minutes:

1.       The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 23/02550/FULMAJ in respect of the demolition of redundant farmstead buildings, proposed new house, relocated barn, change of use of field area for re-location of solar panels and significant landscape/biodiversity.

2.       Mr Jake Brown 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 unsatisfactory in planning terms and officers recommended that the Development Manager be authorised to refuse planning permission for the reasons listed in the main and update reports.

3.       The Chairman asked Mr Paul Goddard if he had any observations relating to the application. In summary it was confirmed that Highways Officers raised no objection to the proposal.

4.       In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Anne Budd, Parish Council representative, Nick Wallis, supporter, and Martin Leay, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Parish/Town Council Representation

5.       Ms Anne Budd addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Parish/Town Council

6.       Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·     To clarify comments regarding part of the site being converted into a conference centre, Ms Budd stated she had first entered the structure over 20 years ago when it was still a working agricultural barn. Shortly after it was sold to the Organic Research Centre as a conference centre and offices. There had been a number of ‘bolt ons’ since, which had added to the complexity and awkwardness of the design.

·     Ms Budd elaborated on what she had meant by the ‘land invasions’, which she felt the development, if approved, would help deter. Any large expanse of land was subject to land invasion by hare coursing, theft, fire, and menace. These were all very distressing situations. The location was very close to the road and this attracted unwarranted negative attention.

Supporter Representation

7.       Mr Nick Wallis addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Supporter

8.       Members did not have any questions of clarification.

Applicant/Agent Representation

9.       Mr Martin Leay (Agent) addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Applicant/Agent

10.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·     Option A, which had involved pursuing a new scheme for converting the barn had been submitted at the preapplication stage as an option for consideration. It did not form part of the current application and would form a fall back option.

·     Regarding whether solar panels would be replaced, currently all solar panels were on the southeast face of the large agricultural barn. As part of the current application a proportion of the panels would be placed on the barn and the rest would be placed in a field area.

·     It was clarified that the first floor of the proposal would consist of bedrooms and the second floor would be storage with two gable end windows for natural light.

·     All of the land outside of the green line boundary would remain as farmland for seasonal sheep grazing.

Ward Member Representation

11.   Councillor Tony Vickers addressed the Committee. The full representation can be viewed here: Western Area Planning Committee 18th September 2024

Member Questions to the Ward Member

12.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·     Regarding detail in the report that the proposal did not accord with the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) position statement or housing or management plan 2019-2024, Councillor Vickers reported that he had not found anything specific on this. The AONB management plan devolved planning policy matters to the individual seven planning authorities. Preparation of the new management plan had begun and one of the aims was to try and bring some consistency across the planning authorities. Councillor Vickers had not been able to find anything specific in the AONB management plan that was strongly against the proposal.

Member Questions to Officers

13.   Members asked questions of clarification and were given the following responses:

·     Regarding a similar application that had been considered by the District Planning Committee and the difference to the current application, Ms Inston reported that with the last application there had been an appeal decision that carried significant weight and therefore there was a difference in terms of the material considerations. Technically the current application was contrary to the spatial strategy policy in the Local Plan.

·     Ms Inston confirmed that advice would have to be sought from the Development Manager on whether the application would be deferred to the District Planning Committee if approved.

·     The Chairman highlighted that a further difference between the current application was that it was on balance rather than weighted as it had been with the previous application referred to.

·     Ms Inston highlighted that one further difference between the two applications in terms of balance and material considerations was that there was a designated heritage asset adjacent to the current application site and whether a planning application enhanced the setting of a designated heritage asset was a material consideration. This was an additional material consideration that officers had given limited weight to as part of the current application.

·     Regarding weighting and whether harm would be caused to the designated heritage site if the development went ahead, officers confirmed that the weight in respect of this had been assessed as neutral. The harm caused by losing the agricultural use of the site could be weighed against the benefits of reestablishing the historic orchard that was once there.

·     In terms of if the application was refused and subsequently taken to appeal, officers were confident in their recommendation and that it could be defended at appeal. All the material considerations had been looked at accordingly and officers were comfortable with the recommendation. The Chairman was of the opinion that the possibility of an appeal should not influence the Committee’s decision.

·     Regarding what constituted conserving and enhancing the landscape in a changing climate in light of challenges to the rural economy, Mr Brown drew Members attention to paragraph 6.3 of the report, which detailed that the applicant had submitted a commercial use appraisal for the existing barns carried out by Carter Jonas. The information provided with the application had not demonstrated that the barns were redundant for agricultural purposes. Regarding the changing nature of farming, there was nothing to prevent the applicant from demolishing some of the barns and turning the land into grazing land. This would conserve and enhance the character of the area.

·     In reference to various plots of land mentioned, the ownership of these plots and if these had been developed in a similar way, setting a precedent, it was clarified by officers that only the application before the Committee was for consideration and officers were not aware of any examples of new dwellings nearby that had been permitted in similar circumstances. Regarding what had been mentioned in relation to new residential use, this had related to the conversion of the barn to residential. Councillor Vickers clarified that the barn referred to by Ms Budd was the old, listed barn and was a heritage asset within the courtyard next door. The farmhouse, which had been referred to as not suitable for modern day living, was part of the original farm and not believed to be a listed structure. It was confirmed by officers that although the farmhouse was not listed it was considered as having local heritage significance. Councillor Vickers clarified the point on the wider ownership and explained that Elm Farm had originally been a very large holding, and many of the parcels of land now accommodated an agricultural building. They did not contain a dwelling like that proposed as part of the current application.

·     Regarding the planning application for the conversion of the former research laboratory, which was approved in 2020, it was confirmed by officers that this was the listed barn that was adjacent to the proposed site.

·     In relation to a query about the height of the proposal, Mr Brown confirmed that the slide showing the proposal overlaid with the existing was not to scale and was a generated image provided by the applicant as part of the application.

·     Mr Brown stated that as detailed in the report and update report, the highest point of the ridge of the proposed dwelling was approximately 1.3m taller than the existing barn and if the chimneys were included this increased to 3.1m. If Members were minded to approve the application there was the ability to put on a condition requiring details of existing and proposed ground levels that would enable some levelling of the ground and possibly some reduction in height as it would be set down further into the site. Officers would not wish to see any significant change in ground levels comprising of metres or more as this would require engineering works such as retaining walls, and this type of work would need to form part of an application. 

Debate

14.   Councillor Adrian Abbs referred to the officer’s recommendation that was on balance however, he referred back to a recent application considered by the District Planning Committee, which in his view was very similar to the one being considered. If there was no significant difference, then he would be minded to vote the same way. He was not convinced regarding the lack of sustainability as there was a bus stop/route very close to the site. In terms of what was being designed, it was noted that it was a large dwelling and one of the floors had the potential to be increased beyond what was proposed. Councillor Abbs was aware of other developments in the district that had started off quite large and subsequently continued to grow in size. Councillor Abbs was minded to vote in line with the officer’s recommendation as it was policy driven.

15.   In response to the comments from Councillor Abbs on adhering to policy, the Chairman stated that he was of the view that there was plus or minus five to ten percent of flexibility that the Committee could apply to policy if it wished.

16.   Councillor Vickers felt that there were some large differences between the current application and the previous application referred to that was considered by the District Planning Committee. The similarity was the in principal objection and this could only be challenged if there were some very good reasons to do so, which Councillor Vickers felt there were regarding the current application. These reasons included the bus route and secondly, he felt that the application was honest in comparison to the other application in that a statement building was proposed from the outset. Councillor Vickers referred to the opinions expressed by officers regarding the weight given to the impact of the proposal upon the neighbouring amenity and environment, and stated he would take a much more positive stance on this and disagreed with some of these points, particularly in relation to the impact of the appearance of the proposal.

17.   Councillor Foot agreed with the comments raised by Councillor Vickers. It was a difficult matter due to the nature of the area being within the AONB and the policies set out by officers. In his view the proposal would enhance the environment, and it was important to note the support from local residents. He felt the biodiversity net gain and environmental credentials would be enhanced by the proposal. It was felt that the fact that more people were turning to electric vehicles had been overlooked and it was also possible to cycle into the town from the site. Councillor Foot felt that an area of significance was that the Parish Council had endorsed the proposal and whilst he fully respected the position taken by officers in outlining the policy, he felt a common sense approach was required and in his view the proposal should not be refused.

18.   Councillor Woollaston agreed with the points raised by Councillor Foot. He also noted the support from the Parish Council and residents, and felt weight needed to be put behind this. He fully understood the officer recommendation, which was based on policy however agreed a common-sense approach needed to be taken. Councillor Woollaston stated that he was in support of the proposal.

19.   Councillor Denise Gaines referred to paragraph 6.3 of the report which stated the applicant had submitted a commercial use appraisal for the existing barns, which considered there to be a strong demand for rural commercial workshop storage   units and advised the existing barns were suitable for such uses. Councillor Gaines was concerned that one proposed house would remove all the barns, which had the potential to contribute to the rural economy. Councillor Gaines was still undecided on the application but was mindful that approving planning permission would go against AONB policy and three of the Local Authority’s own policies. Councillor Gaines was concerned that the proposal would place a four bedroom property in the middle of a farm where there could be barns that could have agricultural use and help to inflate the local rural economy.

20.   The Chairman reminded Members to think about possible conditions if they were minded to approve the application.

21.   Councillor Woollaston proposed that the Officers recommendation to refuse planning permission be rejected. He therefore proposed to grant planning permission.

22.   Ms Inston advised Members that they needed to very clear in their reasons for approving the application when the particular circumstances of the site were such that they weighed against the policies in the Local Plan. Reasons would need to be very clear in terms of the weight given to the material planning considerations and how they outweighed the development plan policy.

23.   Councillor Vickers highlighted the reinstatement of a historic orchard as a reason and other reasons included the greater than required biodiversity enhancements. It was felt the proposal would enhance and conserve the local environment as it would remove an eye sore and a great deal of concrete.

24.   Councillor Woollaston agreed the site was an eye sore and there was a risk it would remain this way. It was important to take account of the local people’s views even if slightly against policy.

25.   Ms Inston reminded Members that they needed to be very clear on reasons and needed to be mindful that there were a lot of similar barns across the district. How the particular circumstances of the site in question differed to other sites needed to be clear, to ensure a precedent was not set.

26.   Councillor Vickers felt that the circumstances were different to other barns he had seen around the district, as most sat within existing large farming units. The site in question had been broken up into a number of much smaller farming units. These ownership circumstances had led to the building deteriorating. Councillor Vickers could not imagine the existing structures being turned into something agricultural without unreasonable expense. In his view it would be a mistake to refuse the application.

27.   Councillor Abbs believed there was an example of a similar barn up the road from the application site, which could be demolished under the same reasons if the current application was approved.

28.   Councillor Foot queried if the proposed house would enhance the heritage barn next door to the site and if this could be included as a reason to support approval against the recommendation. Currently there was a heritage barn with a collection of eye sores and derelict barns adjacent to it. Ms Inston responded that it was within the power of the Committee to give weight to this as a consideration. As set out in the report, officers had given this limited weight.

29.   Councillor Vickers noted in the comments from Highways within the report that by granting planning permission HGV movements would be reduced within the area, which were minor, unstable roads. He queried if this added to the weight in favour of the application.

30.   Debra Inston reported that based on the Highways Officer’s comments the current impact on the highway network was not an issue. There might be less movements if the dwelling was approved however, officers would not advise this as a strong material consideration to give weight to.

31.   Councillor Abbs added that heavy vehicles formed part of the natural rural economy. He felt that adding the reduced impact on the highway as a reason risked setting another precedent.

32.   The Chairman reminded the Committee of the issues for consideration. The principles of development were what the majority of the discussions had focused on. The design character and appearance of the proposal were acceptable in his opinion. The historic element seemed to be acceptable. The impact on highways was acceptable. The neighbouring amenity seemed to be acceptable. Flooding and drainage was not an issue, and biodiversity and landscape were areas where the proposal excelled. The Chairman commented that when looking on balance there was a great deal in support of the application. Members needed to consider if they were content with applying some flexibility to the principle of development.

33.   Councillor Vickers seconded the proposal by Councillor Woollaston. He agreed that all the areas mentioned by the Chairman apart from the principles of development were positive, in particular the area of biodiversity. Councillor Vickers anticipated that there were a number of conditions required and sought advice on this point from officers.

34.   Councillor Abbs suggested that if the proposal was approved, then a condition should be added to remove any further development rights.

35.   Mr Brown went through each of the conditions in detail, which would need to be included if planning permission was granted (listed below and can be listened to here: Western Area Planning Committee - 18th September 2024).

36.   Councillor Woollaston queried if there was an archaeological requirement. Jake Brown confirmed that there had been no request from the archaeological officer for a condition.

37.   Councillor Abbs queried if the current EV capacity (65KW) could be maintained. Jake Brown confirmed that this could be added as a condition.

38.   Councillor Vickers queried if the development was CIL liable. Jake Brown referred to paragraph 3.5 of the report, which suggested the proposal was CIL liable. This would be formally confirmed by the CIL charging authority.

39.   Councillor Gaines referred to the closeness of the site to a listed building and queried if they could be specific about the use of certain materials to ensure they enhanced the listed building. Debra Inston reported that the condition that was being recommended would ensure, once details were submitted, that materials were of high quality and suitable for the site. Debra Inston further recommended a condition be included regarding eaves and facia details to ensure this consisted of traditional detailing.

40.   The Chairman asked officers if a land contamination survey was required in order to protect the interests of West Berkshire Council. Mr Brown confirmed that the site had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Team who had raised no concern regarding contaminated land however, an unexpected contamination condition could be added. If contamination was found an assessment would have to be carried out along with any required remediation.

41.   The Chairman invited the Committee to vote on the proposal by Councillor Woollaston, seconded by Councillor Vickers to grant planning permission, against the officer recommendation set out in the report, for the reasons set out above with the inclusion of the conditions set out by Members and officers (listed below in full). At the vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED that the Development Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

 

1.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans and documents listed below:

Received 7 November 2023:

- Roof Plan, drawing number 001 Rev P0.

- Location Plan, Scheme B, drawing number 07 Rev P1.

- Ground Floor Plan, drawing number 009 Rev P0.

- First Floor Plan, drawing number 010 Rev P0.

- Proposed Elevations, Scheme B, drawing number 016 Rev P0.

Received 20 March 2024:

- Second Floor Plan, drawing number 021 Rev P0.

- Sections, Main House and Outbuildings, drawing number 022 Rev P0.

- North Barn, Proposed, drawing number 023 Rev P0.

Received 4 June 2024:

- Solar PV panels Proposed Plan and Elevations, drawing number 024 Rev P1.

Received 20 August 2024:

- Site Plan Proposed, Scheme B, drawing number 08 Rev P4.

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

3.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, and vegetation clearance) until a Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall include the following:

(a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.

(b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".

(c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

(d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.

(e) The times during demolition and construction when specialist ecologists need to

be present on site to oversee works.

(f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.

(g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or

similarly competent person.

(h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

(i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors.

(j) Loading and unloading of plant and materials.

(k) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development.

(l) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing.

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

(n) Wheel washing facilities.

(o) Measures to control dust, dirt, noise, vibrations, odours, surface water run-off, and

pests/vermin during construction;

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

(q) Details of how surface water will be managed and contained within the site during demolition and construction works to prevent silt migration and pollution of watercourses, highway drainage and land either on or adjacent to the site.

Thereafter the demolition and construction works shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved statement.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of adjoining land uses and occupiers, existing biodiversity within the site and in the interests of highway safety. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS13 and CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policies OVS.5, OVS.6 and TRANS.1 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007). A pre-commencement condition is required because the Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan must be adhered to during all demolition and construction operations.

4.

No development (including site clearance and any other preparatory works) shall commence on site until a scheme for the protection of trees to be retained is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include a plan showing the location of the protective fencing and shall specify the type of protective fencing. The protective fencing should be as specified at Chapter 6 and detailed in figure 2 of B.S.5837:2012. Any ground Protection shall be in accordance with paragraph 6.2.3.3. of the same British Standard.

All such fencing shall be erected prior to any development works taking place and at least 2 working days notice shall be given to the Local Planning Authority that it has been erected. It shall be maintained and retained for the full duration of works or until such time as agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

No activities or storage of materials whatsoever shall take place within the protected areas without the prior written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

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

5.

No development shall take place until an updated ecology survey has been undertaken and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The survey shall be undertaken no more than one month prior to the commencement of development. The report shall detail the methods, results and a discussion on the survey, and include recommendation measures for any working practices or other mitigation measures.

Reason: To ensure that any working practices or other mitigation measures are informed by up-to-date survey information in the interests of protecting species. A pre[1]commencement condition is required for updated surveys given the mobile nature of protected species. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

6.

No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed ground levels and finished floor levels of the buildings, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and the adjacent land and impact on the character of the area and heritage assets. These details are required before development commenced because insufficient information accompanies the application, and the agreed details will affect early construction activities. This condition is applied in accordance with the NPPF, Policies ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD (June 2006).

7.

No development other than site clearance and demolition of the existing building shall take place until details of sustainable drainage measures to manage surface water within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

These details shall:

a) Incorporate the implementation of Sustainable Drainage methods (SuDS) in accordance with the Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS (March 2015), the SuDS Manual C753 (2015) and the WBC SuDS Supplementary Planning Document December 2018 with particular emphasis on Green SuDS and water re[1]use;

b) Include full information of catchments and flows discharging into and across the site and how these flows will be managed and routed through the development;

c) Include attenuation measures to retain rainfall run-off within the site;

d) Include and be informed by a ground investigation survey which establishes the soil characteristics, infiltration rate and groundwater levels. Soakage testing shall be undertaken in accordance with BRE365 methodology;

e) Include run-off calculations based on current rainfall data models, discharge rates (based on 1 in 1 year greenfield run-off rates), and infiltration and storage capacity calculations for the proposed SuDS measures based on a 1 in 100 year storm +40% for climate change;

f) Include construction drawings, cross-sections and specifications of all proposed SuDS measures within the site;

g) Include pre-treatment methods to prevent any pollution or silt entering SuDS features or causing any contamination to the soil, groundwater, watercourse or drain;

h) Ensure permeable paved areas are designed and constructed in accordance with manufacturers guidelines if using a proprietary porous paved block system;

i) Include a management and maintenance plan showing how the SuDS measures will be maintained and managed after completion for the lifetime of the development. This plan shall incorporate arrangements for adoption by the Council, Water and Sewage Undertaker, Maintenance or Management Company (private company or Trust) or individual property owners, or any other arrangements, including maintenance responsibilities resting with individual property owners, to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage scheme throughout its lifetime. These details shall be provided as part of a handover pack for subsequent purchasers and owners of the property/premises.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer demonstrating that the drainage system has been constructed as per the approved scheme (or detail any minor variations thereof), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This report shall include plans and details of all key drainage elements (surface water drainage network, attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls) and details of any management company managing the SuDS measures thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner; to prevent the increased risk of flooding; to improve and protect water quality, habitat and amenity and ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system can be, and is carried out, in an appropriate and efficient manner. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS16 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), Part 4 of Supplementary Planning Document Quality Design (June 2006) and SuDS Supplementary Planning Document (Dec 2018). A pre-condition is necessary because insufficient detailed information accompanies the application; sustainable drainage measures may require work to be undertaken throughout the construction phase and so it is necessary to approve these details before any development takes place.

8.

No above ground development shall take place until a schedule of all materials and finishes visible external to the buildings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples shall be made available to be viewed at the site or by arrangement with the Planning Officer upon request. All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved schedule and samples.

Reason: To ensure that the materials are appropriate to the character of the area and heritage assets. 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).

9.

No works shall take place on the construction of the roof until full details of the eaves and fascia, at a minimum scale of 1:20, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter the development shall incorporate and be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 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).

10.

No above ground development shall take place until a schedule of all hard surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Samples shall be made available to be viewed at the site or by arrangement with the Planning Officer upon request. All materials incorporated in the work shall match the approved schedule and samples.

Reason: To ensure that the hard surface materials are appropriate to the character of the area and heritage assets. 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).

11.

No new external doors and windows shall be fitted to the new dwelling until working drawings (scale 1:20, 1:10, 1:5, half or full size etc.) fully detailing the new windows and external doors (cross sections for full glazing bars, sills, heads, window/door reveals etc.) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved specification and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed works are sympathetic to the special architectural and historic interest of the heritage assets and to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. 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).

12.

external lighting shall be installed until a lighting strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall:

(a) Identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging.

(b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places.

(c) Ensure all lighting levels are designed within the limitations of Environmental Lighting Zone 1, as described by the Institute of Lighting Engineers.

All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity assets of the site and to conserve the dark night skies of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. The introduction of artificial light might mean such species are disturbed and/or discouraged from using their breeding and resting places, established flyways or foraging areas. Such disturbance can constitute an offence under relevant wildlife legislation. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Plan 2019-24, and Policies CS17 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

13.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Tawny Owl Box, 10 bat boxes, and 10 dormouse boxes have been installed in accordance with details shown on the submitted Site Improvements Plan, drawing number C101.E received on 4 June 2024.

Reason: To ensure biodiversity enhancements are incorporated into the development. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

14.

No dwelling shall be first occupied until a detailed soft landscaping scheme for the application site and land within the ownership of the applicant as denoted by the blue line shown on Whole Site - red and blue outlines Plan, drawing number C101.C received on 4 June 2024, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping scheme shall include detailed plans, planting and retention schedule, programme of works, and any other supporting information. All soft landscaping works shall be completed in accordance with the approved soft landscaping scheme within the first planting season following completion of building operations / first occupation of the new dwelling (whichever occurs first).

Any trees, shrubs, plants or hedges planted in accordance with the approved scheme which are removed, die, or become diseased or become seriously damaged within five years of completion of this completion of the approved soft landscaping scheme shall be replaced within the next planting season by trees, shrubs or hedges of a similar size and species to that originally approved.

Reason: Landscaping is an integral element of achieving high quality design. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026), and the Quality Design SPD.

15.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought in first use until the surfacing of the access has been completed in accordance with details of the surfacing arrangements that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall ensure that bonded material is used across the entire width of the accesses for a distance of 5 metres measured back from the carriageway edge.

Reason: To avoid migration of loose material onto the highway in the interest of road safety. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

16.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought in first use until vehicle parking and turning spaces have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (including any surfacing arrangements and marking out). Thereafter the parking and turning spaces shall be kept available for parking and manoeuvring 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 applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

17.

The dwelling hereby approved shall not be first occupied until details of the electric vehicle charging point have been provided in accordance with details that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the charging points shall be maintained, and kept available and operational for electric vehicles at all times.

Reason: To secure the provision of charging points to encourage the use of electric vehicles. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS13 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and Policy P1 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD 2006-2026.

18.

All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (AE Ecology, November 2022), Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Windrush Ecology, 22 September 2023), Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment (Windrush Ecology, 15 September 2023), and the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (October 2023), with the exception of the proposed new pond.

Reason: To ensure the adequate safeguarding of protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS17 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

19.

The dwelling hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the Energy and Sustainability Statement produced by Green & Castle dated 29 September 2023 and received on 7 November 2023.

Reason: To ensure the delivery of adequate renewables and low/zero carbon on-site energy generation, reduce the impact on climate change, contribute to the reduction of CO2 and other emissions. This condition is imposed pursuant to the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS14 and CS15 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026, and the West Berkshire Environment Strategy 2020-2030.

 

No demolition or construction works shall take place outside the following hours:

7:30am to 6:00pm Mondays to Fridays;

8:30am to 1:00pm Saturdays;

No work shall be carried out at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining land uses and occupiers. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy 2006-2026.

21.

If any previously unidentified contaminated land is found during demolition and construction activities, it shall be reported immediately in writing to the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Appropriate investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken, and any necessary remediation measures shall be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. These submissions shall be prepared by a competent person (a person with a recognised relevant qualification, sufficient experience in dealing with the type(s) of pollution or land instability, and membership of a relevant professional organisation), and conducted in accordance with current best practice. The remediation scheme shall ensure that, after remediation, as a minimum, the land shall not be capable of being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Thereafter, any remediation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the LPA, the development shall not be occupied until any approved remediation measures have been completed and a verification report to demonstrate the effectiveness of the remediation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that any unexpected contamination encountered during the development is suitably assessed and dealt with, such that it does not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy OVS.5 of the West Berkshire District Local Plan 1991-2006 (Saved Policies 2007).

22.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations, buildings or other development which would otherwise be permitted by

Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A and E of that Order shall be carried out to the houses approved, without planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To prevent the spread of development within the site located in the interests of respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area and heritage assets. This condition is applied in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026).

23.

The curtilage of the new residential dwelling is limited to the area as shown on Site Plan Proposed, Scheme B, drawing number 08 Rev P4 received on 20 August 2024 only.

The land outside of the residential curtilage shall remain in agricultural use.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area and heritage assets. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policies C1 and C3 of the HSA DPD as well as Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026)

 

 

 

Supporting documents: