COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 13 January 2016 Ward: Abbey App No.: 151426/OUT/RE and 151427/VARIAT Address: Station Hill, Reading Applicant: Sackville Developments (Reading) Limited (SDRL) Date received: 10/8/2015 These applications are subject to a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA), with a current agreed target date for determination of 13 April 2016. 151426: Outline application with all matters reserved for mixed use redevelopment of Plot E of the Station Hill site and neighbouring Telecom House site (48 to 51 Friar Street & 4 to 20 Garrard Street) to comprise the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings/ structures to provide residential units, a range of town centre uses including retail and related uses (Use Class A1 - A5), associated infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development. 151427: Section 73 application to vary conditions 2, 5, 6, 54 and 57 of outline permission 130436 to remove reference to Plot E. RECOMMENDATION for 151426/OUT: Subject to: (1) The Committee taking into account the submitted Environmental Statement (noting the later document, ‘EIA implications of design amendments’ under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2011; (2) Confirmation of full details of agreed Heads of Terms of for a legal agreement to address the policy requirements (to be set out in the Update Report) Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services (HPDRS) to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement by 13 April 2016 (unless a later date is agreed by the HPDRS) for a Deed of Variation s106 agreement linking this outline proposal to the extant outline planning permission (130436). Conditions to include Note: the conditions below use the same numbering as the 130436 decision notice wherever possible, with adjustments and deletions noted. Where new conditions are indicated, these are inserted in gaps where conditions in permission 130436 are not required in this proposal and are shown in italics. 1. No development (except demolition) until details and supporting material have been submitted in respect of: means of access; scale of buildings; layout of
Transcript
COMMITTEE REPORT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT & NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 10 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 13 January 2016
Ward: Abbey App No.: 151426/OUT/RE and 151427/VARIAT Address: Station Hill, Reading Applicant: Sackville Developments (Reading) Limited (SDRL) Date received: 10/8/2015 These applications are subject to a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA), with a current agreed target date for determination of 13 April 2016.
151426: Outline application with all matters reserved for mixed use redevelopment of Plot E of the Station Hill site and neighbouring Telecom House site (48 to 51 Friar Street & 4 to 20 Garrard Street) to comprise the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings/ structures to provide residential units, a range of town centre uses including retail and related uses (Use Class A1 - A5), associated infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development.
151427: Section 73 application to vary conditions 2, 5, 6, 54 and 57 of outline permission 130436 to remove reference to Plot E.
RECOMMENDATION for 151426/OUT:
Subject to:
(1) The Committee taking into account the submitted Environmental Statement (noting the later document, ‘EIA implications of design amendments’ under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2011;
(2) Confirmation of full details of agreed Heads of Terms of for a legal agreement to address the policy requirements (to be set out in the Update Report)
Delegate to the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services (HPDRS) to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement by 13 April 2016 (unless a later date is agreed by the HPDRS) for a Deed of Variation s106 agreement linking this outline proposal to the extant outline planning permission (130436).
Conditions to include
Note: the conditions below use the same numbering as the 130436 decision notice wherever possible, with adjustments and deletions noted. Where new conditions are indicated, these are inserted in gaps where conditions in permission 130436 are not required in this proposal and are shown in italics.
1. No development (except demolition) until details and supporting material havebeen submitted in respect of: means of access; scale of buildings; layout of
buildings, routes and open spaces; the appearance of buildings; and landscaping.
2. All Reserved Matters applications to be made not later than 9th. January 2022(i.e. seven years from the permission date of extant outline planningpermission 140436).
3. All applications to be in accordance with the Updated Design Codes (December2015), revised parameter plans and in general accordance with the DAS (exceptwhere indicated elsewhere in the conditions below).
4. Commencement before either (a) 9th. January 2020 (i.e. five years from thepermission date of 130436); or (b) the expiration of three years from the dateof approval of the last reserved matter (whichever is the later).
5. Development to be carried out in accordance with the approved ParameterPlans.
6. Total quanta of floorspaces approved by this outline permission.7. Active frontages to be provided for not less than x% of the defined active
frontage , as set out in Parameter Plan 6 ‘Ground Floor Uses’ (figure to beadvised in Update Report).
8. Development to conform to the “Phasing Sequence” approved in extant outlinepermission 130436, but substituting Plot E/Telecom House.
9. Submission of car and cycle parking details10. Retention of car parking and servicing for each plot.11. Entrance widths to courtyard minimum of 2.5 metres12. TV and radio interference report to be submitted for any buildings within the
plot.13. Building maintenance and cleaning systems details to be submitted for any
buildings within the plot.14. In tandem with permission 130436, not less than 20% of the A1-A5 uses
approved shall be 100 sq.m. (GEA) or less.15. Residential numbers, mix (to meet Policy RC9 minima), size of units and tenure
and Lifetime Homes units to be submitted, for any buildings containingresidential within the plot.
16. Plans for internal layout to be submitted, for any buildings containingresidential within the plot.
17. Room layouts, window dimensions/positions to meet daylighting standards tobe submitted, and 70% of all living rooms to meet sunlighting standards (as setout in British Standard BS8206 Part 2), for any buildings containing residentialwithin the plot.
18. Wind tunnel testing report to be submitted for any building within the plot.19. Sustainability/environmental performance details to be submitted for any
building within the plot.20. New condition: submission of scheme for courtyard security strategy21. New condition: submission of high quality materials for gates to courtyard
(e.g. stainless steel)22. Habitat mitigation works details to be submitted for each relevant Reserved
Matters application, to include bird nesting opportunities (swift bricks andperegrine platforms)
23. Air quality assessment and mitigation required before occupation24. New condition: no openings along western boundary with 52-55 Friar Street.25. No development to occur within the site before submission and approval of an
archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.26. No development on any plot within the site before submission and approval of
an archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation.27. No development (including demolition) to take place within any plot until
contaminated land studies submitted (preliminary contaminated land risk
assessment; site investigation scheme; options appraisal and remediation strategy; verification plan; dealing with unforeseen contamination).
28. No development (including demolition) to take place within any plot until gas monitoring has been carried out and any necessary mitigation proposed.
29. No development (except demolition) to take place within any plot until foundation details submitted
30. Updated bat survey required if demolition within a plot has not been undertaken within timeframe as advised by Ecologist
31. No demolition or site clearance within the bird nesting season (mid-Feb-Mid-Sept)
32. Demolition management statement required before demolition 33. Construction management statement required before any construction 34. New condition: submission of full floorspace schedule for back of house
requirements 35. Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved before
commencement of any demolition/construction 36. New condition: provision of minimum of 25% of roof area as ‘green roof’ 37. Access(es) to be supplied before occupation 38. Water supply/drainage/sewerage strategy required before occupation 39. Notification of postal addresses of units before occupation 40. Occupiers of units to be notified of no entitlement to parking permits, before
occupation 41. Private amenity area for each flat (as relevant) to be supplied before
occupation 42. Sound attenuation details to be submitted before occupation 43. Servicing/waste details for commercial uses to be submitted before occupation 44. Servicing/waste times: 0800-2200 (Mons-Sats) and 1000-1800 otherwise 45. Hours of use of A1-A5 units to be submitted before occupation 46. BREEAM post-construction review to be submitted before occupation 47. External lighting details to be submitted before occupation 48. Submission of details of noise-generating plant before occupation 49. Details of flue/extraction/ventilation equipment to be submitted before
occupation 50. No bonfires 51. Development to be constructed in accordance with submitted Flood Risk
Assessment 52. No uncontrolled filtration of surface water drainage into the ground 53. No telecoms equipment to be erected under ‘permitted development’ 54. 1,000 sq.m. minimum retail floorspace to be provided 55. In tandem with permission 130436, at least one unit within the scheme shall be
an A4 (Drinking Establishments) retail unit of not less than 150 sq.m. 56. New condition: submission of an access feasibility strategy for seeking disabled
persons’ access to north and south entrances of the new public courtyard Informatives to include:
Positive and proactive statement
Terms and conditions
Pre-commencement conditions
Fee for conditions discharge
Environment Agency informatives
S.278 agreement also applies in respect of works to be conducted by the developer within the Public Highway
S.59 Highways Act (damage to Highway)
Canopies and structures overhanging Highway
Excavation in proximity to Highway
Incidental works affecting Highway
Works affecting Highway to be in accordance with RBC Guidance Notes
No parking permits informative
S.106 agreement applies
Network Rail informatives RECOMMENDATION for 151427/VARIAT:
Delegate to the HPDRS to GRANT a variation planning permission by 13 April 2016 (unless a later date is agreed by the HPDRS), subject to:
(1) Satisfactory completion of a Deed of Variation to the s106 agreement to
permission 130436l; and (2) Delegated authority being given to the HPDRS to allow other minor alterations
to the wording of clauses/conditions, as may be required. If the agreement is not completed by 13 April 2016, delegate to the HPDRS to REFUSE planning permission. The relevant conditions of outline permission 130436 shall be adjusted/deleted as follows: Condition 2: time period for submission of reserved matters applications, link to 130436 Condition 5: parameter plans, adjust parameter plans to remove Plot E Condition 6: maximum floorspaces: reduce floorspace and residential unit numbers to reflect the deletion of Plot E Condition 54: minimum retail areas per plot, remove 1,000 sq.m. retail for Plot E Condition 57: maximum height of elevated courtyards, delete condition. (Plus any minor alterations to other conditions wording, as necessary, in accordance with (2) above.) Informatives to include: Various informatives in relation to any confirmations required relating to the three planning permissions: 130436; 151426 and 151427.
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is 0.77 hectares and consists of ‘Telecom House’, a six
storey former 1970s British Telecom office building with 58 car parking spaces which includes two retail units on the ground floor on Friar Street (currently occupied) together with part of the former Friars Walk Shopping Centre (which remains vacant). Garrard Street is located to the north of the site and Friar Street to the south. The site is bounded to the west by Nos. 52-55 Friar Street, the Sainsbury’s supermarket.
1.2 There are several listed structures in the immediate vicinity: 39 Friar Street
(currently an amusement arcade, but retains Georgian features above) and Greyfriars Church (Grade I). The site is not within or adjacent to a conservation area, although this development will be visible from the Market Place/London Street Conservation Area to the east and the St. Mary’s Butts/Castle Street Conservation Area to the south. The application site is shown in red below, with the wider Station Hill 3 (SH3) site (as covered by the extant outline planning permission 130436) shown in green.
1.3 Following the grant of planning permission for the SH3 scheme, the site has been subject to preliminary works for the first phases of development with demolition having recently taken place in the northern part of the site. The Xafinity House office building on Greyfriars Road and the whole of the current NCP car park remain in situ and occupied. There is a general fall in levels across the SH3 Site, being highest in the north-east near the entrance to the railway station, falling to the lowest point at the west/south-west at the junction of Garrard Street and Greyfriars Road and rising again to Friar Street. Pedestrian permeability though the SH3 Site is currently poor owing to its built form, poor internal access routes and the closure of the Friars Walk Shopping Centre.
Location plan, not to scale Green line is extant outline permission site, red line is current application site
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 Consideration of these applications should also acknowledge the context set by the assessment of the extant outline permission (130436). The relevant Committee reports can be found here:
..\..\..\..\Committee Reports\2013\11 December\Part 2\ABB - 130436 Station Hill 3.doc ..\..\..\..\Committee Reports\2013\11 December\Updates\ABB - 130436 SH3 UPDATE REPORT.docx
2.2 Before the issuing of the outline planning permission for Station Hill 3 in January 2015, the applicant had taken ownership of the current application site and it was the intention to add this to the SH3 scheme to create a larger residential-led element in the south-western part of the SH3 site. However, due to the advanced nature of the negotiations on the outline planning application (the resolution to approve outline permission was given in December 2013, and work to agree the detailed wording of the s106 legal agreement continued throughout 2014), the decision was taken to receive planning permission for the SH3 scheme and then apply separately for this additional land.
2.3 In order to incorporate this additional land into the wider SH3 scheme, the applicant has submitted two planning applications. The first is a variation application under Section 73 of the Planning Acts. This is to adjust the relevant conditions of the SH3 outline planning permission (and alter the legal agreement accordingly) to remove all reference to ‘Plot E’, thereby
effectively deleting it from the extant outline permission and reducing the red line area of the permission. The second planning application then seeks a new outline consent for Plot E as extended by the inclusion of the Telecom House site. In doing so, the new site area straddles the original SH3 outline red line area. The overall effect will be to incorporate Plot E/Telecom House ‘seamlessly’ into the SH3 redevelopment, enlarging the overall SH3 area to 2.53 hectares. As with the SH3 outline permission, the development is in a generalised and flexible outline form, with control over the extent of the overall building massing (height, widths, etc.) via ‘parameter plans’ and control of the design detail through Design Codes (which provide the over-arching rules for design detail and quality).
Alterations to floorspace as a result of these applications
Proposed Plot E/Telecom House
Resulting total for enlarged SH3 site
Use Min. Max. Min. Max.
Retail A1-A5 1,000 7,000 6,000 13,500
Leisure 0 0 0 2,200
Residential 20,000 33,550 14,500 26,000
29,500 41,050
Office B1(a) 0 0 69,000 122,000
Car parking (spaces)
0 200 550 1,000
‘Back of house’
0 1,200 1,000 2,000 3,200
Notes 1. All figures are gross external areas;2. Floorspace figures exclude roof top and basement plant (incl. the Combined Heat and Power(CHP plant) 3. The Back of House facilities would include elements such as basement servicing, shared coresand corridors; management facilities for the development; and 4. As with permission 130436, the public realm could include some small retail kiosks (A1-A5),which will not exceed 10% of the A1-A5 retail floorspace figure specified above.
2.4 This application proposes to incorporate the adjacent Telecom House to allow for a more comprehensive form of mixed use development. An additional (maximum of) 12,000 sq.m. of residential development is proposed, together with an increase in back of house floorspace (of up to 1,200 sq.m.). This enlarged area alone (the Plot E/Telecom House site) could deliver up to 281 residential units to be located on the upper floors. Previously up to 110 residential units were shown in Plot E. The proposals would enable the combined site (Plot F + Plot E/Telecom House) to provide up to some 471 new homes compared to the maximum of 300 which were to be supplied under the extant outline permission.
2.5 The current application is in outline form with all matters reserved for later approval following submission of applications for the approval of reserved matters. As with the extant outline permission, it proposes a mix of uses, with floorspace ranges for each, although in this particular (expanded) plot, only residential and retail uses are proposed. Whilst the Plot E/Telecom House site is much smaller and more contained than the larger Station Hill site, officers advise that the ‘extension’ of the redevelopment site via a further outline permission is suitable and would provide a consistency of approach.
2.6 The submitted DAS sets out the design rationale for the Plot E/Telecom House site, with the Design Codes controlling the most important design aspects for the subsequent reserved matters applications, although in reality, there may only be one reserved matters application pursuant to this outline application.
2.7 Due to the issues raised, this report will primarily focus on the new outline application (151426), with the issues arising from the ‘variation’ application (151427) mentioned where relevant. The outline application has been submitted with the following supporting information (and these documents tend to cover the variation application as well):
Affordable housing statement
Design and Access Statement (DAS)
Design Codes
Development Specification and Framework (DSF) (a standard statementof the scope of the application, common to all submitted documents)
Energy Strategy
Environmental Statement
Parameter Plans
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Engagement
Sustainability Statement
Transport Assessment (TA)
Travel Plan
Viability assessment
3. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The most relevant planning history in relation to Station Hill is detailed below.
Application no. Proposal Decision
07/00188/OUT (070202) ‘Station Hill 1’
Outline application for mixed use development comprising: residential development (C3), office development (B1A), retail uses (A1), financial and professional services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), bars (A4), community space (D1), arts and cultural space (D2), health and fitness (D2), car and cycle parking, structural landscaping and formation of public spaces and associated infrastructure and public realm works (access, scale and layout only)
Planning Applications Committee resolved to Grant permission (subject to S.106) in 2008. This decision was then referred to the Government Office for the South East and subsequently ‘called in’ by the Secretary of State. ‘Call-in inquiry’ arranged, but application/Inquiry subsequently withdrawn by applicant/appellant, in order to pursue the SH2 scheme.
09/01079/OUT (090622) ‘Station Hill 2’
Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising
Permission with S.106 3/10/2011. Whilst this permission is technically
residential development (C3) , office development (B1A), retail uses (A1), financial and profession al services (A2), restaurants and cafes (A3), bars (A4), community space (D1), cultural/leisure space (D1/D2), bowling alley (D2), health an d fitness (D2), car and cycle parking, structural landscaping and formation of public spaces, associated infrastructure and public realm works (access, layout and scale only)
still extant, it would need to be heavily modified to take it forward, hence comparatively little weight is to be attached to its deliverability.
130436 Outline application for mixed use redevelopment of the site through the demolition and alteration of existing buildings and erection of new buildings & structures to provide Offices (Use Class B1), a range of town centre uses including retail and related uses (Use Class A1-A5)leisure (Use Class D2) and residential units, associated infrastructure, public realm works and ancillary development (all matters reserved).
Permission with S.106 15/1/2015. This is referred to in this report as the ‘extant outline permission’
130440 Demolition of Station Hill Retail Parade (including 26 to 58 Station Hill) to create a multipurpose area to be used for holding temporary events. Works of hard and soft landscaping and other incidental works.
Temporary permission 20/1/2014.
141124 EIA Scoping Opinion in relation to the proposed Telecom House Application.
Opinion provided 8/10/2014.
151543 Application for approval of reserved matters following outline approval (130436), matters of Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale.
Pending consideration. This is Plot B Station Hill and is for a 19-storey B1 office building.
151544 Public realm works associated with outline planning permission reference 130436.
Pending consideration. Public realm application for additional small area of land on Station Hill.
3.2 Officers are also currently dealing with several other applications to discharge various planning conditions in relation to the extant outline permission. Some of these have recently been approved, others are pending consideration.
4. CONSULTATIONS
(i) Statutory:
RBC Transport Strategy: this is a very sustainable location. The application would potentially result in an increase of 175 [now 171] dwellings over the Station Hill development but this is a mixed use scheme and accordingly, an assessment has been made of the increase in trips overall to the development, which indicates that for Telecom House, the proposed development represents a reduction in the number of trips.
The existing Telecom House is provided with 58 spaces and the extant outline permission would provide 1000 spaces with 900 spaces in the existing multistorey car park and 100 spaces within Plot E. As the result of this expanded Station Hill scheme, the proposed development will still have 1000 spaces with 800 spaces in the multistorey and 200 spaces within Plot E. While this increases the parking for the residential units within Plot E by 100 spaces, the number in the multistorey for the commercial uses reduces by 100 spaces. This is, however, considered to be acceptable given the parking restrictions on the neighbouring network, and the close proximity of the site to Railway Station and Bus Interchange. There are no objections, subject to conditions
Historic England (formerly English Heritage) is principally concerned with the potential impacts on the settings of Greyfriars Church (Grade I) and 39 Friar Street (Grade II). In relation to Greyfriars Church, advised in relation to the extant outline permission (130436) that there would be ‘very serious’ harm to its setting. In commenting on the current application (as originally submitted, before height reductions were proposed) HE advises that the larger building is likely to have more of a presence in views of the church and would therefore entail a degree of additional harm over that in the extant permission. Recommends that the application should be assessed on the basis of National and local policy and on the basis of the Council’s own conservation advice. HE has been consulted on the reductions proposed and any further response will be reported to you.
Natural England has not provided a response at the time of writing.
(ii) Non-Statutory:
RBC Natural Environment Team (Tree Officer) and RBC Retained Ecologist: no objections to the principle of the proposal as it retains proposed tree planting, including that down Friars Walk, as was included as part of application 130436; further tree planting and landscaping is included along Friar Street and within the courtyard and green roofs and terraces are proposed. The tree planting in all areas will pose some challenges in ensuring each tree has adequate soil volume to reach its full potential. Would like to see further details of tree pit and planter design (relevant to the courtyard and roof terrace/green roof) along with confirmation that existing and proposed services will not affect any of the tree planting proposed. It is reasonable, given the scale of development, to request these details now to show the planting indicated is practically feasible as landscaping is an integral part of the development. A planting palette should also be provided. Officer comment: further details have been submitted and comments are awaited.
It would appear that 25% of the roof area is to be green roof as required by condition 22 of 130436, however can the applicant provide area figures to demonstrate this. The applicant should also show the location of the bird nesting habitats (ref condition 22 of 130436).
RBC Environmental Protection advises that if approving, the same conditions should be attached as for the extant outline permission (contamination-related conditions, noise, odour abatement, construction disturbance, etc.). In terms of air quality, there will be an increase in emissions due to increased parking spaces and the number of residential receptors will increase, therefore an updated air quality assessment will be required and a condition is recommended.
RBC Sustainable Urban Drainage Officer advises that the rest of SH3 was approved when there was not a requirement for drainage to be a material consideration and as a result no detailed drainage proposals have been undertaken. Therefore given the build out of the site it is very likely that the drainage will be designed to accommodate the whole site as SuDs offers a comprehensive approach. Therefore until the earlier phases which are not part of this application are designed up it is hard to design a comprehensive one for this site in isolation.
The RBC Sustainability Team’s comments are currently awaited and will be set out in the Update Report.
RBC Head of Valuation and RBC Housing Development have assessed the viability report which has been submitted. An assessment of the relevant issues is provided in the Section 106 part of the Appraisal to this report.
Berkshire Archaeology advises that the archaeological report indicates similar potential for finds as the extant outline permission (possibility of Medieval features or the Civil War ditch). A condition for submission of an archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) is recommended.
The Environment Agency does not object to the application, subject to the addition of conditions regarding contaminated land and details of the method of piling of foundations, in order to limit the migration of any contaminants to watercourses.
The Crime Prevention Design Advisor (Thames Valley Police) advises that a security strategy will be required and has raised concerns with the use and security of the courtyard area. This is discussed within the Design section of the Appraisal below.
At the time of writing, no response has been received from the RBC Waste and Recycling Officer, Southern Gas Networks, BT Openreach, the Berkshire Bucks and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT), Thames Water, Network Rail or the Civil Aviation Authority but any responses received will reported to your meeting.
15427/VARIAT:
In relation to this planning application, there have been few responses. Responses have been received from the Environment Agency, Historic England, the Natural Environment Team and the Council’s Ecologist. There are no objections from these consultees.
(iii) Public/local consultation and comments received
Public consultation on the outline application consisted of the following:
Notices placed in the local press (Reading Chronicle)
Public notices posted in locations around the perimeter of the applicationsite
Letters were sent to the following neighbouring properties:
One letter of objection has been received from the owner of the adjacent Sainsbury’s site, who whilst supporting the principle of the development, is concerned to ensure that no side (west) facing openings are allowed within the development, as such would unacceptably prejudice the ability of the Sainsbury’s site to come forward for a residential redevelopment.
Developer public consultation
Whilst pre-application discussions were undertaken with officers before submission of this application, the developer did not undertake public consultation on this proposal.
The main SH3 scheme was subject to a CABE/Design Council Design Review, but officers did not consider it necessary for this application to be reviewed.
5. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
5.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include relevant policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) - among them the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development'. Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 requires that when considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting.
5.2 The following national planning policy and guidance is relevant to this application:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)
The following chapters are relevant:
1. Building a strong, competitive economy2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres4. Promoting sustainable transport6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes7. Requiring good design8. Promoting healthy communities10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
The following PPS companion document was not replaced by the NPPF and is also relevant: PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide (2010)
Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
The Government’s Planning Portal advises that local planning authorities should take account of the following practice guidance. This adoption of this suite of guidance notes also led to the cancellation of various former guidance documents. The most relevant topics are:
Assessment of housing and economic development needs
Conserving and enhancing the historic environment Design
Natural Environment
Planning Obligations
Viability
Other Government Guidance which is a material consideration
HM Government: Crowded Places: The Planning System and Counter-Terrorism (2012) Historic England: Advice Note 4 “Tall Buildings” (2015).
5.3 The following local policies and guidance are relevant:
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (January 2008) (as amended 2015)
CS1 (Sustainable Construction and Design) CS2 (Waste Minimisation) CS3 (Social Inclusion and Diversity) CS4 (Accessibility and the Intensity of Development) CS5 (Inclusive Access) CS7 (Design and the Public Realm) CS8 (Waterspaces) CS9 (Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities) CS10 (Location of Employment Development) CS13 (Impact of Employment Development) CS15 (Location, Accessibility, Density and Housing Mix) CS16 (Affordable Housing) CS20 (Implementation of The Reading Transport Strategy (Local Transport Plan 2006-2011)) CS21 (Major Transport Projects) CS22 (Transport Assessments) CS23 (Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans) CS24 (Car/Cycle Parking) CS25 (Scale and Location of Retail, Leisure and Culture Development) CS26 (Network and Hierarchy of Centres) CS29 (Provision of Open Space) CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) CS32 (Impacts on Community Facilities) CS33 (Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment) CS34 (Pollution and Water Resources)
CS36 (Biodiversity and Geology) CS37 (Major Landscape Features and Strategic Open Space) CS38 (Trees, Hedges and Woodlands)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Reading Central Area Action Plan (RCAAP) (2009)
RC1 (Development in the Station/River Major Opportunity Area). RC1b and RC1c. RC5 (Design in the Centre) RC6 (Definition of the Centre) RC7 (Leisure, Culture and Tourism in the Centre) RC8 (Drinking Establishments) RC9 (Living in the Centre) RC10 (Active Frontages) RC11 (Small Shop Units) RC12 (Terraced Housing in the Centre) RC13 (Tall Buildings) RC14 (Public Realm)
Reading Borough Local Development Framework: Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (as amended 2015)
SD1 (Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development) DM1 (Adaptation to Climate Change) DM2 (Decentralised Energy) DM3 (Infrastructure Planning) DM4 (Safeguarding Amenity) DM5 (Housing Mix) DM6 (Affordable Housing) DM10 (Private and Communal Outdoor Space) DM12 (Access, Traffic and Highway-Related Matters) DM15 (Protection of Leisure Facilities and Public Houses) DM16 (Provision of Open Space) DM18 (Tree Planting) DM19 (Air Quality) DM23 (Shopfronts and Cash Machines)
Supplementary Planning Documents
Station Hill South Planning and Urban Design Brief (March 2007) Reading Station Area Framework (December 2010) Sustainable Design and Construction (July 2011) Parking Standards and Design (October 2011) Employment, Skills and Training (April 2013) Affordable Housing (July 2013) Planning Obligations under S.106 (2015)
Other Reading Borough Council corporate documents Reading 2020 Partnership: Sustainable Community Strategy (2010/11) Central Reading Parking Strategy (2004) and Interim Parking Strategy (2011) Reading Borough Council’s Cultural Strategy: A Life Worth Living Reading Biodiversity Action Plan (2006) Local Transport Plan 3: Strategy 2011-2026 (2011) Artists in the City: A Public Art Strategy for Reading
6. APPRAISAL
6.1 The previous committee reports in relation to the extant outline permission (see links in section 2 above) explain in detail the mechanics of the outline application process. This report will therefore focus primarily on the principal issues raised by extending the outline application site westwards, and will refer to the mechanics and controlling conditions only when necessary. The main issues for the consideration of this application are therefore:
(i) Effect on townscape, skyline and heritage assets due to bulk and massing
(ii) Suitability of a perimeter block approach with internal courtyard; (iii) Issues in relation to s73 (variation) planning application; and (iv) S106, CIL and affordable housing
(i) Effect on townscape, skyline and heritage assets due to bulk and massing
Principle of the use and justification for height/massing/density
6.2 The extant outline permission will produce a very distinct new ‘office quarter’ next to the station. This application would in effect partially re-balance the Station Hill redevelopment in terms of a mix of uses, by removing 5,967 sq.m. of redundant B1a offices and providing additional residential units. The enlarged development will therefore continue to be a key central site to deliver housing units in the short/medium term and is acceptable in terms of the main Core Strategy and RCAAP policies: RC1b and RC1c, CS4 and CS10.
6.3 The extant outline permission features some very tall buildings, which reflects the policy aspirations of the tall buildings policy (RC13), the redevelopment designation (RC1) and the guidance in the Planning Brief and the RSAF. As the site is within the RC1 area, it is in principle suitable to link this application site to the SH3 scheme already approved.
6.4 Accordingly, this site is being presented as an ‘extension’ to the Station Hill redevelopment. Within the Reading Station Area Framework (the RSAF), it is clear that the Telecom House element of the site needs to respond to the more sensitive context of the smaller-scale residential to the west of Greyfriars Road (covered by the RC12 designation) and the Heritage Assets in this area. There are listed buildings on West Street and the listed vicarage wall on Friar Street/Greyfriars Road, but the settings of 39 Friar Street, Greyfriars Church and views from St. Mary’s Butts Conservation Area are the Assets which are most affected by this proposal. Accordingly, the RSAF sets the development density for Telecom House (area S9 of Figure 6.6 of the RSAF) at ‘Medium’, i.e. less than for Plot E, which is ‘Medium-High’ (area S10). Additionally, Figure 6.9 advises that the benchmark height for S9 at 6 commercial storeys and S10, 8 storeys. The planning brief (p.16) clearly shows development ‘respecting local scale’ towards Friar Street. There is therefore clearly anticipated to be a discernible change in scale along the Friar Street frontage. These issues are discussed in more detail in the Design section below.
6.5 The extant permission would allow a tall and intensive redevelopment scheme near to the station but the considerations for this application – whilst it still being a major development – are much more focused on issues such as compatibility with townscape and streetscape.
Consideration of a ‘perimeter block’ as an extension to SH3
6.6 As currently approved in the extant outline permission, SH3 provides a pedestrianised street from Friar Street in the south, to Garrard Street in the north, which then meets the SH3 Central Square. This street, provisionally known as Friars Walk, steps down gently from Friar Street northwards and is flanked by Plot F to the east and Plot E to the west. Plot F is largely a residential block and includes affordable housing units, but also retail to the Friars Walk street, a family leisure facility and the CHP (combined heat and power plant) for Plots E and F.
6.7 Plot E, as approved in permission 130436 is also largely a residential block which includes retail towards Friars Walk and wraps around to Friar Street and a large underground car park accessed from Garrard Street at the lower level. The illustrative scheme for Plot E in the extant outline permission indicated that there would be two high-level courtyards to the rear of the flats (on top of the retail units below). The flats would also extend into these rear areas and the courtyards would mean these upper floors would in plan assume a reversed capital E-shape. This was to allow adequate light penetration and suitable privacy levels via these private courtyards.
6.8 In proposing the expansion of what was Plot E westwards, the additional area provides the opportunity for a more pleasing option of building form and greater floorspace for this part of the SH3 scheme. Various diagrams in the RSAF (for instance Figure 8.3) show the development form wrapping around to provide built form to the edges on the east and south and west (to form a ‘U’ shape).
6.9 In terms of its relationship to the extant outline planning permission and the remainder of the SH3 redevelopment, this additional land will have relatively little impact. There will be a longer façade of development towards Garrard Street and an appearance of increased massing towards properties on Greyfriars Road.
6.10 Extension of the site westwards has brought further width and the opportunity to provide open space as part of the enlarged development plot. However, given the shape and size of the plot and the urban context (partially set by the extant outline permission itself), officers consider that there are limited massing options. One potential option looked at by the applicant was a continuation of the inverted Capital ‘E’ layout, with two longer higher level courtyards, but this has not been pursued, therefore it is not clear if this would have been an acceptable design solution for increased units on the enlarged plot.
6.11 The planning application was originally submitted in outline form but with limited information as to the eventual articulation of the buildings which would make up the enlarged plot. However, the Design and Access Statement (DAS) shows, as an illustrative scheme, a perimeter block type arrangement, with an internal courtyard. Following extensive discussion
with officers, it has been agreed that this is the applicant’s preferred solution and in accordance with officer advice, the submitted documents have been amended to provide more of a commitment to such a configuration.
6.12 The layout now shown in the parameter plans and design codes features a perimeter block around an essentially public courtyard. This is considered to be a good use of the available space, but there are a number of considerations to ensure success of this arrangement: adequate light levels, adequate privacy to the surrounding residents, suitability of functions/uses, security and quality of materials. This would be a new kind of public space in the central Reading area and would be a potentially exciting and different space to contribute to the public realm offer of the town. The section below will discuss these specific matters in detail.
Impact of additional massing on streetscene, townscape, other properties and Heritage Assets
6.13 From the parameter plans and the Design Codes it can be seen that the development has been submitted as a westwards extension to the consented Plot E. As originally submitted, the massing of the development was simply no more than taking the consented parameters for Plot E and extending these westwards across the expanded site. However, officers identified a number of concerns with this approach. In the main, it was considered that the unrelieved massing towards the west was appearing overly-dominant in the streetscene, producing a long, monolithic façade. It was also overbearing on neighbouring properties (particularly 522-55 Friar Street) and from views towards Greyfriars Church (Grade I Listed) and views from St. Mary’s Butts (the conservation area, which includes St. Mary’s Butts Church (also Grade I). Related concerns were for how the development would be perceived from Friar Street and how the height and bulk would affect light levels and overbearing effects to the internal courtyard.
6.14 Following officer advice, the massing has been adjusted and reduced. This has resulted in a stepping of the front elevation of the plot and as can be seen from the streetscene view at the end of this report, this ensures that the impact of this long façade is modulated and now pays sufficient deference to the small building to the west. To a certain extent, this is achieved by the reduction in height of the buildings for the first 22 metres of depth of the block, but the parameters also reduce the height of the development on the south and western edges. There are now five different height levels set out in the revised parameters and these are set out in the table below:
Part of site Maximum parameter height
Minimum parameter height
Comment
North and central
85m AOD 63m AOD Tallest part of the site, towards the taller office buildings further north in the SH3 scheme
North-western corner
82.5m AOD 63m AOD Allows for a reduction in height in this area, but in reality, this merely reflects the applicant’s ‘maximum illustrative scheme’ and will achieve little
modulation to the bulk and massing when viewed from Greyfriars Road
Central-south
78m AOD 63m AOD A step is introduced, so that the building massing is pulled back and away from Friar Street
South-west frontage
66m AOD 63m AOD Introduces a definite step-down on the frontage, if other parts of the development are provided towards the maximum parameter heights.
6.15 Officers advised during negotiations on this application that for reasons of massing, light penetration and impact on streetsene and Heritage Assets, the height of the proposal should be reduced in the western part of the scheme and in particular, a full two storeys in height should be removed from the western part of the site, from front to back. As the table shows, the applicant has gone part way to meeting your officers’ concerns. The reduction in height on the frontage helps to break up a potentially monolithic block which would have looked overly large in the Friar Street streetscene. It is still a large structure, but the design codes will now allow the eventual design, via reserved matters applications, to respond more successfully. Matters to consider will be the rhythm of building frontages and establishing a clear visual ‘break’ between the taller and shorter sections of the frontage.
6.16 The mid-way step-change in height allows for the largest massing part of the building to be pushed further back into the site. Officers advise that this approach has a number of benefits: it relieves massing in the streetscene (particularly from views along the street); it reduces impact on the setting of Greyfriars Church; and it will lessen the perception of bulk (albeit, at a distance) when seen from the St. Mary’s Butts Conservation Area. There are also related gains to the courtyard, discussed in the section below. It should also be noted that in proposing the mid-way step change in height, the applicant is reducing the parameters for Plot E as was approved in the extant permission. It will also reduce the massing towards the southernmost area of identified small-scale terraced housing (Sackville Street and Vachel Road), whose scale is to be considered under Policy RC12.
6.17 In terms of the other requirements of the tall buildings policy (Policy RC13) the proposal will have a limited impact on the longer-distance skyline and will be more suitable in its context than originally proposed. The proposal maintains car parking at a sub-surface level.
Impact of massing on lighting levels at surrounding properties
6.18 The linked reports (see links in Section 2 above) set out the policies and rationale relating to the importance of seeking to protect light levels to surrounding properties as far as possible. The SH3 scheme had a significant impact on various properties near to the site and the linked reports set out these impacts. In assessing the additional impact as a result of this westward extension of the redevelopment site, officers again used the services of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for advice as to the suitability on surrounding properties in terms of harm caused to daylighting levels.
6.19 The BRE’s overall advice is that the new development, as extended, will have a degree of negative daylighting impacts on the surrounding area. However, most of these impacts are due to the other blocks already approved within the extant outline permission and the changes via the current application result in additional impact to a relatively small number of properties.
6.20 The BRE identifies an additional ‘minor adverse impact’ on No. 9-11 Stanshawe Road, a small housing development halfway down the south side of the Road, with mostly service windows facing eastwards towards the SH3 scheme. The extra impact on these properties is considered to be small.
6.21 The Gateway public house on the west side of Greyfriars Road has residential accommodation over (the landlord/manager’s flat). Loss of daylight (and sunlight) to the pub’s four east-facing windows as a result of the extant outline permission was substantial in SH3; but on balance and given the urban location, type of accommodation and overall benefits of the scheme, it was considered to be acceptable. The BRE advises that the current application proposals, will result in an additional impact, with around 20% more daylight and 25% more sunlight being lost. Such a loss would normally be considered by the BRE to be significant, however the applicant’s lighting consultant points out that the absolute drop in VSC (the ‘Vertical Sky Component’), compared to the consented scheme is only 1-1.5%, but this is because the consented scheme would have reduced the daylight reaching these windows to low levels already. Therefore, officers advise that also more harmful, the increased detriment to the lighting levels is comparatively small.
6.22 The BRE identifies significant daylight reductions for the property formerly known as Bridewell House, now known as Central Studios, at the corner of Friar Street and Greyfriars Road. This former office/retail building was refurbished and extended to provide student accommodation (with consent for retail at ground floor). Typical losses - mostly attributable in this case to the current application only – will be 40-50% of direct daylight. For the key windows, this is typically 25-40% worse than for the consented SH3 scheme.
6.23 In considering the above impacts, some considerations should be borne in mind. The lighting impacts on these buildings due to the recent reductions in bulk have not been fully re-tested since the reductions in massing proposed by the applicant, but given the relatively minor additional nature of the reductions, this is likely to only very marginally worsen these impacts on the affected properties. Additionally, light levels to the east-facing windows of the student rooms in Central Studios may benefit slightly from the reductions. Additionally, it is officers’ view that as student accommodation is not permanent residential accommodation it cannot be expected to enjoy similar amenity standards, particularly in such a dense urban location.
6.24 The impact on the light levels received at the landlord’s flat at the Gateway will clearly be even more harmful to its amenity. Nevertheless, this additional negative impact is small and limited to one single unit of accommodation and when weighed against the other benefits of the application scheme, is considered to be suitable. In a purely townscape
sense, with the additional bulk which will occur on the east side of Greyfriars Road as a result of Plot A of SH3, buildings such as The Gateway (and the Greyfriar pub further north on this street) will seen more as a local landmark in the street amongst the larger office buildings, but more due to its architectural detailing as opposed to its scale.
6.25 Officers have also taken the BRE’s advice on how the current proposal will
affect sunlight levels on the central square compared to the extant SH3 scheme. The applicant states that there is no difference as a result of the proposed development (overall sunlight penetration levels are still low, but do not get any worse) and following consideration of further information from the applicant’s lighting consultant, the BRE agrees.
6.26 Overall, officers consider that the sunlight and daylight harm which is
caused to the pub and the other properties is outweighed by the suitability and benefits of the re-development, which is in general accordance with development aspirations in the RCAAP and complies with policies DM4, CS34, RC1 and RC13. Impact on Heritage Assets
6.27 Chapter 12 of the NPPF is entitled Conserving and enhancing the Historic Environment and is relevant to consideration of the effects on heritage assets. The previous PPS planning practice guide is also relevant. These documents require the application to identify the significance of the heritage assets affected and the impact of the development on those assets.
6.28 The Listed Building at 39 Friar Street (Grade II) would have its setting
affected by the development, replacing the present five storey Friars Walk Shopping Centre with the new proposed Plot E. The introduction of the new street will mean the removal of the present shopping centre, which means the setting will be altered, exposing the flank wall of the building, but this is acceptable, since the building is small in scale. This impact is similar to that in the approved outline permission (save for the inclusion of the step in height, described above). The reduction in height on the western part of the frontage lessens the impact on this building’s setting.
6.29 Historic England is concerned for the impact on the setting of the Grade I
Listed Greyfriars Church and raises particular concern with the maximum height parameters and that the development comes closer to the Church than previously approved. It therefore has the potential to adversely affect its setting.
6.30 The changes to the massing described above are considered to suitably
address the issue of harm to the Church’s setting. The applicant has been asked to prepare streetscene CGI images of Friar Street (one a night-time view) to demonstrate how the development would respond to the smaller scale of Friar Street, even using the maximum parameters of the scheme. These will be presented to your meeting. Initial indications from the updated ‘wirelines’ (which will also be presented) are that the reductions in bulk proposed by the applicant assist in relieving the massing when seen from the west and thereby significantly lessen the impact on the setting of the church. This is also partially mitigated by the intervening additional
height now constructed to form the Central Studios building. An additional comment has been sought from Historic England on these changes and will be provided in the Update Report.
6.31 The additional impact on the St. Mary’s Butts Conservation Area will be
marginal and this is partly to do with the larger buildings in the other SH3 plots in the background. A wireline image to explain this will be presented to your meeting.
6.32 Officers consider that this application will not appear sufficiently different
to the extant outline permission from the Market Place/Town Hall Square part of the Conservation Area, nor will there be any additional discernible impact on the settings of the listed buildings therein (St. Lawrence’s Church, the Town Hall). Nearer the site, there is also the listed wall and further listed buildings on West Street, but officers advise that given their urban locations and their function, their settings will not be adversely affected by the development.
6.33 Given the assessment above, officers note that the proposal would result in
a significant westwards extension of bulk and the massing form will be noticeable from various vantage-points. Importantly, in dealing with reductions on the frontage and front part of the building, officers are now satisfied that, on balance, suitable attention has been paid to the most sensitive aspects of this massing and that overall, the development is considered to be suitable in terms of Chapter 12 of the NPPF, the retained PPS5 guidance and policies CS33 and RC13.
(ii) Suitability of a perimeter block approach with internal courtyard
6.34 The principle of an open area in this part of the site is reflected in the
aspirations of the 2007 planning brief which shows a public space in this part of the site, as well as a further space where the new Friars Walk link meets Friar Street.
6.35 As discussed above, the lack of detail as to any other massing arrangement
coupled with the indicative illustrative design for a perimeter block with courtyard arrangement, has led officers to consider this option as a definite design solution and then to address the necessary issues which arise from this.
6.36 Firstly, the perimeter block in this instance has its limitations, as it is not a
true perimeter block, as these need to be street blocks, constructed all at once, with flats (or houses) enjoying dual front and rear outlooks. This space is more constrained, with a lot of the flats likely to be single-aspect overlooking the new courtyard and any related disturbance arising in that area. In such situations, the light and amenity levels to such flats need to be of a high standard. Also, the advantage of a ‘traditional’ perimeter block is that it is inherently secure, with a continuous development around the edge allowing a completely private internal courtyard. However, the context of this site (immediately abutting other developments and the high density of units envisaged) means that a private-only approach was seen as a potentially lost opportunity in this dense urban location.
A new public space
6.37 During negotiations it became clear that the applicant’s preference was not
for a private residential (permanently gated) square, but to produce an additional area of public realm for central Reading, which was more suitable for this mixed use development. The applicant has been looking at numerous intensive central London examples of where these mixed use spaces have been delivered, but officers have approached this aspiration with caution, as there are a range of potential issues to control/resolve, to ensure such a courtyard is successful.
6.38 The main issue is the conflict between the demands and expectations of the
various users of such a space, primarily the visitors to the cafés at the rear of the retail units, passing pedestrians looking for a way through the town centre or looking for a place to rest and the amenities of the residents. It will be a challenge in the final design to ensure all the requirements of these groups can be met. Central to the suitability of attractiveness of the space will be the quality of the finished design but equally, the amount of light which would be received.
6.39 As originally submitted (as an illustrative arrangement in the DAS), the
courtyard was shown as a divided space, with a private garden behind railings in the northern half of the space and a public space to the south. A concern of officers was that there was little reason for the public to enter the public area (towards the south, but abutting high walls on three sides) as this was the more gloomy part of the courtyard. Whilst the parameter plans have not been adjusted to show this central public space, the design codes have been updated to show this open area.
6.40 The removal of the separation is considered to be helpful for a number of
reasons. It will allow a properly-sized public space to be visited and it means that there is more of a choice for users of the courtyard to decide where they want to be (nearer certain uses or facilities, in the shade or in the sun). Officers also felt that the division of the space would have hinted at a conflict of the uses, rather than harmony. Although this layout was only shown indicatively in the DAS, officers feel strongly that it is not the correct design solution. This will require careful management as a public space in this location as the associated noise and activity could conflict with the adjoining residential uses.
Separation distances for residential privacy
6.41 The design codes have been adjusted to try to ensure that adequate
separation distances will be achieved between the east and west faces of the inside façades of the development and ensure a courtyard of adequate dimensions that receives reasonable levels of light. These seek to ensure that separation distances increase in response to increased height. However, whilst the intention of the revised codes is laudable, officers are not currently satisfied with the wording proposed as the rules could be capable of misinterpretation and suggest a code wording along the following lines:
“Where the development of the plot is no more than 6 storeys (or xm in height), a face-to-face separation distance (not including any balconies which may be) must be not less than 21 metres. Where the development of the plot is (for any part) more than 6 storeys (or xm in height) but no part is more than 8 storeys (xm) a face-to-face separation distance (not including any balconies) must be not less than 23 metres. Where the development of the plot is (for any part) more than 8 storeys (or xm in height) a face-to-face separation distance (not including balconies) must be not less than 25 metres.”
6.42 Officers seek delegated authority to finalise this wording. Balconies,
parapets or other protrusions would of course be relevant to light levels, overshadowing/ overbearing, etc., but officers are content to deal with these details at the reserved matters stage.
6.43 A dimension control such as the above is considered necessary to allow a
suitable level of privacy to be afforded and comply with Policy DM4. Distances of this order are considered to be adequate in such an urban location, although it must be remembered that this is a space enclosed on all four sides, which may add to the perception of overlooking. The separation distances above will also allow more light penetration into the flats and more light into the courtyard.
Light levels to flats
6.44 RCAAP Policy RC13 seeks to ensure adequate levels of daylighting and
sunlighting are able to reach the buildings within the development. With the concentration of single-aspect flats, gaining suitable light levels will be important. Light levels to flats facing eastwards across Friars Walk will essentially have the same relationship as that approved in the extant outline permission. Single-aspect flats facing onto Friar Street will receive more than adequate light levels, in fact, the usual issue with this arrangement is often one of ‘overheating’. However, officers have raised concerns with the amount of light which would be received by the single aspect flats which would face onto the courtyard only, particularly at lower levels.
6.45 The BRE raised concerns with the application as initially submitted, as there
was no controlling element to the size of the space needed to achieve suitable light levels to the flats and the high mass of the block being applied for with an apparently small gap in the middle was likely to be unrealistic, in their view. The BRE requested a more realistic massing to increase daylight and sunlight provision to the flats. Accordingly, separation distances of minimum 21 metres up to a minimum of 25 metres (in proportion to increasing height) have been suggested by the applicant.
6.46 The applicant has not re-tested the light levels to these flats. Officer
advice is that the same light level standard that was required for SH3 should be achieved here. That provision is found in the SH3 condition which requires that 70% of all living rooms are to meet the sunlighting standards as set out in British Standard BS8206 Part 2. The BS also sets out minimum
values for daylighting as well. The BRE have not seen re-testing of this, but are satisfied that the revised separation distances above are capable of achieving these light levels. Additionally, there are a number of things the final design can do in order to comply with this condition: altering the configuration of the flats, balconies, overhangs and window openings and these can adjust depending on their position in the courtyard to ensure that the flats facing the darker areas of the courtyard are able to receive the maximum amount of daylight available. With the BS condition above and the control on the width of the courtyard, light levels to the flats will be acceptable.
Light levels to the proposed courtyard
6.47 Light levels to the courtyard will be governed to a large extent by the height of the surrounding buildings which make up the perimeter block. Direct sunlight penetration will be comparatively limited and more towards the northern part of the space, given the north-south orientation of the courtyard. Daylighting will be aided by the separation distances above. In any event, the BRE advises that the applicant’s daylight analysis into this courtyard (in considering the then illustrative scheme with an east-west separation distance of circa. 22 metres and a north-south distance of 60 metres), would be reasonable. With the conditions indicated, officers are satisfied that suitable light levels to the space can be achieved within the reserved matters application(s). However, it is accepted that sunlight will be limited to certain times of the day.
Courtyard use, security and disturbance/amenity issues
6.48 As discussed above, careful attention will need to be paid to the design of
this space to ensure its success. One important aspect of this will be the perception of safety of the courtyard: will it be a space which is inviting, rather than one where pedestrians can choose not to use it? The Police’s Crime Prevention Design Advisor (CPDA) has raised a number of concerns with the configuration of this space and advises that a number of improvements will need to be included to ensure that this space is successful. She has a particular concern that the needs of residents and the needs of the public are quite different and may be difficult to reconcile. She also has concerns for the width of accesses into the site and the views within the space and feeling of security this produces.
6.49 To be successful as a contributory part of the public realm of central
Reading, this public space will need to have a particular ‘draw’ and that is partly going to be the uniqueness and attraction of the courtyard itself and partly the advantages of using the space for ease of movement (permeability).
6.50 The applicant has considered these points and the design codes have been
revised to include three entrance/exit points to the courtyard: from Friars Walk, from Garrard Street and from Friar Street. The revised codes also set a minimum width for these entrances. These aspects are considered to be important. The applicant’s aim is for this to be an attractive public square, allowing residential amenity space (benches, green space, shrubs, planters, etc.) with café space which is linked to the rear of A3 units which would line Friars Walk. The connection through to Friar Street involves a
significant change in levels, nonetheless, officers consider that this is a worthwhile link as an alternative to the new Friars Walk and although it will not be accessible to wheelchair users or suitable for pushchairs, it will provide an alternative daytime connection.
6.51 Officers’ primary concern is to ensure a satisfactory level of residential
amenity is achieved and the revised design codes are not considered to be sufficiently robust to achieve this. This space is capable of disturbance through noise and reverberation through public use, but also any children’s playspace. The applicant advises that most aspects of disturbance or any anti-social behaviour can be minimised by the management regime of the Station Hill scheme, but also by ensuring that the courtyard gates are closed from dusk until dawn. Whilst these measures will certainly assist, the CPDA identifies the time just after the gates are opened and after office staff go home (but before dusk) when impact on residential amenity could be most affected. As currently drafted, the codes identify this as an issue to address, but fall short of saying how. The design of the gates to the entrance gates is also going to be important in setting the design standard for the space.
6.52 Accordingly, officers advise that the amended design codes are supportable,
but additional conditions will be required for:
The quality of entrance gates
Hard and soft landscaping; and
Hours of use of the courtyard/management plan/security strategy/surveillance.
6.53 In summary, officers are pleased with the progress which has been made so
far regarding the design codes, but in certain areas these are still falling short of the standard which is required. On balance, the submitted information is much improved and officers are now content to offer their support to the mixed use space option for the courtyard and advise that this is capable of becoming a high-quality, multi-use space as an important component part of the Station Hill redevelopment and would comply with policies CS7 and RC1 and RCAAP Policy RC14 (Public Realm). Quality of residential environment
6.54 Detailed flat layouts have not been supplied but will need to be supplied with the relevant reserved matters application(s). However, indicative layouts show that the majority of flats will have access to communal amenity space in the form of roof gardens and the courtyard and some flats will have their own balcony. Given this central location, this is a suitable design response and complies with Policy DM10.
6.55 The Council’s Environmental Protection Team has considered the various
studies included in the ES regarding noise to residential, contaminated land, etc. and advises that these are suitable, subject to controlling conditions which are included in the Recommendation above. However, there is a large increase in unit numbers within the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) and an assessment of the suitability of proposed mitigation needs to be provided. All homes should be built to Lifetime Homes standards.
(iii) Issues in relation to the s73 (variation) planning application
6.56 Concurrently with the application for outline planning permission, the
applicant has submitted a separate variation application to ‘remove’ the extant Plot E from the outline permission (to allow Plot E, as now to be expanded by Telecom House, to be inserted). In order to do so, the various references to Plot E within the outline application need removing and the s106 agreement attached to the outline permission will need to be supplemented with a Deed of Variation.
6.57 The majority of the conditions within the outline permission are unaffected
by the proposed removal of reference to Plot E. In summary, the alterations proposed to the relevant conditions are as follows:
Condition number
Purpose/relevance Proposed change
Condition 2 Time period for submission
Applicant suggests adding that this condition does not relate to Plot E. However, officers advise that as Plot E/Telecom House is intrinsically related to SH3, the time period should match that set out in the extant outline permission (so that the entirety of the development has the same date restrictions).
Condition 5 Parameter plans Adjust parameter plans to delete Plot E.
Condition 6 Maximum floorspaces
Reduce floorspace and residential unit numbers to reflect the deletion of Plot E.
Condition 54 Minimum retail areas per plot
Minimum retail level for Plot E (1,000 sq.m.) to be deleted. The reason is that this has specific reference to Plot E and will need to be updated in any outline permission on application 151426, i.e. the expanded site.
Condition 57 Maximum height of (elevated) residential courtyards
The applicant is saying that this condition is no longer required. This re-affirms officers’ advice that the only realistic design formation to result from the outline application is a perimeter block arrangement and hence why discussions have been focused on making sure that the design shown must be acceptable.
6.58 Officers consider that the applicant’s approach is largely acceptable and
reference to Plot E can largely be removed as suggested. However, officers consider that the timing of reserved matters submissions should align with the timings as set out in the extant outline permission, for consistency across the SH3 redevelopment. Delegated authority is also sought for more minor changes, as necessary, as some other conditions look to be potentially affected and may require further discussion.
6.59 Overall, there are no objections from consultees to the variation planning
application and officers have not identified any legal or other conflicts to the principle of adjusting the extant outline permission as sought by the applicant. The SH3 development would therefore be delivered and suitably extended by the new outline permission.
6.60 The s106 agreement which accompanies the extant outline permission is extensive and there will be many instances where the document will need to be adjusted to remove/adjust to the removal of Plot E.
(iv) S106, CIL and affordable housing
6.61 Paragraphs 173 of the NPPF link sustainability to viability and costs and that
infrastructure contributions or other requirements should not make the development undeliverable. Against this, paragraph 176 advises that safeguards may be necessary to ensure that correct mitigation is achieved.
6.62 Unlike the extant outline permission, the current application has been
submitted in the context of the Council’s CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Charging Scheme. The CIL charge in relation to Telecom House itself is currently nil, as the building is part-occupied (the retail units which continue to trade). Friars Walk also contains a retail unit which is still in use. This has been built in to the viability, which also provides a level of affordable housing and other planning obligations which are outside the remit of CIL. The application has been submitted with an ‘open book’ viability assessment, which indicates that not all of the planning obligations normally required by policies are likely to be achievable.
6.63 Officers have therefore considered how the application can be made
acceptable in the light of guidance in the NPPF which requires ‘sustainable development’ to be acceptable in terms of the three central tenets: economic, social and environmental. This major redevelopment scheme must be able to support a reasonable S.106 package/CIL to be able to adequately mitigate the wide range of its effects on the social and environmental infrastructure of the Borough.
6.64 The approach to reviewing the s106 agreement has required examination
and agreement on a number of matters:
(1) Calculation for CIL in relation to the increase in floorspace for residential uses (complicated by the fact that the site includes buildings which are CIL exempt);
(2) Adjustment of the current s106 agreement to account for the change in floorspace/dwelling units;
(3) Acknowledging the new viability assessment and the impact of CIL on the s106 package;
(4) Delivery of a supportable affordable housing package in the light of the above considerations; and
(5) Deletion of references to Plot E in the original s106 agreement, with insertion of clauses for the site to be added.
6.65 The viability assessment indicates that additional affordable housing can be
delivered on site. The Council’s Housing Development Team advises that given the suitability of the site and the difficulties in the Council being able to source sites for affordable housing elsewhere in the Borough, on-site affordable housing should be secured in this instance.
6.66 At the time of writing, discussions are continuing on the CIL level and how
that relates to the affordable housing offer and other s106 requirements. The final affordable housing level has not been confirmed but would alter
depending on what the situation was at the time of implementation of the reserved matters application (what was occupied; what the floorspace actually proposed is). This is not known at this time, therefore it will be necessary for the legal agreement to allow for such adjustments.
6.67 Other obligations will be required, such as trigger points for contributions
and affordable housing. There are also various reasons for tying the two applications together, primarily to ensure that Plot E/Telecom House takes the place of the previous Plot E and is phased accordingly. For instance, simply ‘removing’ retail floorspace/units on Friars Walk would lead to a loss of animation of the street and fail to provide an adequately surveyed public street. Likewise, the ‘removal’ of housing units, without replacement, would lead to concerns of an over-emphasis on employment-generating floorspace
6.68 Negotiations on these matters are continuing at the time of writing but
officers are confident that a detailed summary of the agreed Heads of Terms will be presented in the Update Report. Subject to a satisfactory agreement being reached on these Heads of Terms, officers advise that the application is in accordance with the relevant policies and guidance documents for planning obligations. Other issues:
Landscaping and ecology
6.69 Landscaping would be a reserved matter, however the DAS includes an illustrative landscape plan identifying the general location for trees within the application site. Whilst this does not go into precise details of whether these locations are achievable, it does provide a suitable indicative layout for the scheme and individual reserved matters should be in general accordance with the layout. The design codes only provide information for the Friars Walk element with the recently submitted illustrative landscaping scheme providing an arrangement/layout for the courtyard. Further input from the Natural Environment Team is required, but the approach is considered to be generally consistent with Policy CS38, although the Update Report will discuss these matters in more detail. Regarding ecology, it is recommended that the area of green roof is suitable (at 25% of the total) and the roof area should also include opportunities for Peregrines and Swifts and conditions are recommended. With these inclusions, the application is considered to comply with Policy CS36. Wind/microclimate
6.70 The SH3 scheme was subject to wind tunnel modelling to ensure that the development would provide a suitable wind environment. Policy RC13 of the RCAAP requires that tall buildings should, “…mitigate any wind speed or turbulence or overshadowing effects through design and siting”. This statement therefore accepts that tall buildings will have an effect on wind conditions, but that these can be mitigated through careful design.
6.71 The rear part of this further outline application site is capable of being a
tall building. Therefore, it needs to be demonstrated that the actual wind environment which would be created would be suitable for its purpose.
This aspect of the proposals is set out in a specific study in the accompanying Environmental Statement (ES) and this has been reviewed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) on behalf of the Council. The BRE has identified no in principle concerns with the wind study. Therefore officers advise that in terms of this application, no further wind mitigation works are required and the design of the development in suitable to provide a comfortable and safe environment and complies with Policy RC13.
Transport and parking 6.72 This is a very sustainable site, where the emphasis should be on sustainable
modes of travel, and maintain pedestrian permeability and controlling parking demand. On-site parking is increased in overall numbers in this application, but overall, still low at an average of approximately 0.4 spaces per dwelling (were 475 units within Plot F and expanded Plot E to be provided). Other elements of parking and servicing are acceptable and the Highway Authority identifies no specific issues and the permission would be subject to the usual conditions and informatives and similar obligations to the extant outline (although RUAP contributions no longer apply). Accordingly, the application is considered to be in accordance with policies CS4, CS20-C24, DM12 and the Council’s parking standards. Environmental considerations
6.73 The Council’s Environmental Protection Team recommends conditions in relation to the construction, noise/disturbance and contaminated land (also a concern of the Environment Agency) and these are included in the Recommendation box above, to comply with Policy CS34.
Active frontages and retail use
6.74 The submitted Development specification and Framework is a useful supporting document and sets on the important factual aspects of the development, which is used as a basis for the other documents submitted as part of the planning application submission. This document is generally helpful and satisfactory. However, it contains a design rule which differs from the standard set in the extant outline permission. Parameter Plan 6 refers to the ground floor uses and identifies ‘active frontages’ (zones for shopfronts and office and residential lobbies). The DSF for the current application advises that 70% of the defined frontage need be made up of active frontages within this zone. The extant outline permission required 100% of the frontage to be active. Officers have been concerned for the potential ability of large sections of the public realm to be ‘inactive’, however, the 100% requirement may be unduly onerous. It is notable that the Policy RC1 development area has a diagonal RC10 Active Frontages line from north-east to south-west running through the Station Hill area. This reflects the aspiration at that time for a desire-line of earlier iterations of the Station Hill redevelopment to have active frontages extending towards the MRT stop. Clearly, the inclusion of Friars Walk will be the main active pedestrian thoroughfare from the Central Square to Friar Street and an inactive frontage is not suitable. Between now and your meeting, the applicant has been asked to explain the rationale behind the reduction in the active frontage figure and discussion will be provided in the Update Report. Relatedly, Parameter Plan 6 (‘ground floor uses’) may need to be
revised, as this inaccurately refers to the ground floor being in ‘predominantly retail use’. The applicant has been asked to review this plan. Sustainable design and energy
6.75 Principle 8 of the planning brief is entitled, ‘Incorporating high standards of
sustainable design’. Tall buildings and major applications should also include innovative approaches to design, construction, running and heat and energy conservation and thought into long-term management and maintenance. Policies CS1, DM2, DM3 and the Council’s revised Sustainable Design and Construction SPD are also relevant.
6.76 The applicant has submitted a sustainability statement and an energy
statement with the application, which will indicate a sustainability strategy which will be linked to the wider scheme, for instance, the CHP unit in SH3 Plot F. These documents are currently being reviewed by the Council’s Sustainability Team and a discussion of their suitability will be provided in the Update Report. Archaeology
6.77 A further Written Scheme of Investigation should be provided, as advised by Berkshire Archaeology, in order to satisfy Policy CS33. Accessibility
6.78 Accessibility to the new residential units will be controlled via a suitable proportion of Lifetime Homes and as with the extant outline permission, a scheme shall be submitted via condition. The new courtyard raises accessibility issues due to the long staircases to the north and south, but the main entrance off Friars Walk and the courtyard itself will be level, which will enable a large new, flat area of clear public space to be accessed. Opportunities for providing disabled access to the north and south should be investigated at the detailed design stage, however, and a condition is recommended. Overall, a suitable level of access will be achieved in accordance with Policy CS5. Equality Implications
6.77 In determining this application, the Committee is required to have regard to
its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation. Otherwise, there is no indication or evidence (including from consultation on the application) that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to the particular planning application. In terms of the key equalities protected characteristics it is considered there would be no significant adverse impacts as a result of the development. Positive and proactive requirement
6.78 Officers have worked positively and proactively in considering this application, by: providing pre-application advice on the form, content and suitability of the proposal(s); providing legal input into the alterations required to the extant permission and s106 agreement; advising of alterations required to make the outline application supportable; and to report the application within a suitable timescale.
7. CONCLUSION 7.1 In conclusion:
On balance, the effect on townscape, skyline and heritage assets due to the increased bulk and massing, is now considered to be suitable.
Officers are satisfied that a perimeter block approach will be a suitable form of development.
A new courtyard space which is a public area by day and a private residents area by night is considered to offer a welcome addition to the public realm offer in the central area and to the Station Hill redevelopment as a whole. Additional design –related conditions are required to secure the quality of this space, however.
The proposed course of action of submitting a s73 application and applying separately for a new outline permission is acceptable, providing that the necessary conditions are (re-)applied and clauses put in place to link the new outline permission with the extant outline permission; and
Officers are confident that Heads of Terms for a suitable s106 package will be agreed with the applicant and these will be produced for your meeting.
Case Officer: Richard Eatough
Plans: 698_E_PP_07_001 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 1: Planning Application Boundary 698_E-PP_07_002 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 2: Demolition and Retained Buildings 698_E_PP_07_003 Rev. P4 Plot E Parameter Plan 3: Building Plot Parameters (including heights) 698_E_PP_07_004 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 4: Public Realm 698_E_PP_07_005 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 5: Vehicle and Pedestrian Access Routes (including car parking) 698_E_PP_07_006 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 6: Ground Floor Uses 698_E_PP_07_007 Rev. P2 Plot E Parameter Plan 7: Upper Floor Uses
Indicative ground floor layout showing the perimeter block and courtyard
Parameter plan showing maximum and minimum heights
