COMMITTEE REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES READING BOROUGH COUNCIL ITEM NO. 19 PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE: 20th July 2016 Ward: Thames Application No.: 152277 Address: "The Arthur Clark Home", 1 Albert Road, Caversham, Reading, RG4 7AN Proposal: Erection of a 1-4 storey building comprising 43 extra care apartments (Class C2) with altered landscaping, 21 car parking spaces and associated works, following demolition of existing buildings. Applicant: A2Dominion Housing Options Ltd Date Valid: 22/01/2016 Application target decision date: 10/08/2016 (Planning Performance Agreement extension of time entered into) 26 week date: 21/07/2016 RECOMMENDATION Delegate to Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services to (i) GRANT full planning permission subject to completion of a unilateral undertaking legal agreement or (ii) to REFUSE permission should the legal agreement not be completed by the 10th August 2016 (unless the Head of Planning, Development and Regulatory Services agrees to a later date for completion of the legal agreement). The legal agreement to secure the following:

- Various elements in association with the proposed use, including:

a) 16 of the proposed units (16x1-bed) to be ‘affordable’ for rent and given over to Reading Borough Council in perpetuity, with full nomination rights

b) All units to be Class C2 in use c) Not to permit any of the accommodation to be sold / disposed of / occupied /

otherwise used as Class C3 dwellinghouses at any time d) The owner, or tenant, or operator (having control and management of the extra

care unit) of each of the 43 units shall be, or shall appoint, a care provider to provide care and support services within the development, including a minimum of 2 hours a week of personal care to each occupier. This care shall be included in the cost of a service charge.

e) Each occupier to adhere to the terms of a basic care package, including details of the pre-first occupation ‘care assessment’ and subsequent ‘care plan’ and for the assessment/plan to be reviewed annually.

f) To provide a copy of a written log of current occupiers and associated details within 10 working days of a written request from the Council.

g) Communal elements of the site to be made available for wider use by the local community and others, and a specified amount of communal floorspace being retained in perpetuity.

- An Employment Skills and Training Plan (construction phase and end use phase)

And the following conditions to include: 1. Time Limit – 3 years 2. Approved plans

3. Pre-commencement full details and physical samples of all external materials 4. Accesses constructed before occupation (in line with the approved drawings) 5. Existing access closure with reinstatement (immediately after the new access has

been brought into use) 6. Visibility splays provided before occupation 7. Pre-occupation provision of vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans 8. Pre-occupation provision of bicycle storage in accordance with approved plans 9. Pre-commencement Construction Management Statement (also including noise and

dust matters) 10. Hours of demolition / construction works 11. No materials or green waste from demolition / construction works shall be burnt on

site. 12. Bin storage provision in accordance with approved plans 13. Pre-occupation details of noise reducing measures to bins 14. (i) Pre-commencement details of measures to secure ‘Secured by Design (SBD)’

accreditation (ii) Pre-occupation confirmation of SBD accreditation. 15. Pre-commencement SuDS implementation, maintenance and management details 16. Pre-occupation completion of the SuDS measures in accordance with the approved

details 17. i) Pre-commencement final design stage BREEAM UK New Construction Pre-

Assessment (minimum ‘very good’ & 62.5% score); ii) Pre-occupation final BREEAM UK New Construction certification (minimum ‘very good’ & 62.5% score).

18. Energy measures in accordance with the approved document 19. Updated AMS to include 3rd stage of tree protection during installation of no-dig

elements and comprehensive schedule of arboricultural supervision, to be certified and photographed for submission to LPA after each visit.

20. Pre-commencement Hard/Soft landscaping proposals and details 21. Pre-occupation Hard/Soft landscaping implementation and maintenance details 22. Pre-commencement finished floor and roof ridge level details 23. Prior to first occupation of any unit all communal areas to be ready for use 24. The total number of units of extra care accommodation hereby approved shall not

at any time exceed the approved number of 43 units. 25. Obscure glazing in accordance with the approved plans 26. No externally located mechanical plant shall be installed until a noise assessment

of the proposed mechanical plant has been submitted and approved by the local planning authority. The assessment shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:2014 methodology and shall thereafter be maintained to the same standard. The predicted rating level, LAr,Tr (specific sound level plus any adjustment for the characteristic features of the sound) as measured at a point 1 metre external to sensitive facades shall be at least 10dB below the existing background sound level, LA90,T when all plant/equipment (or any part of it) is in operation. The plant shall thereafter only be installed in accordance with the assessment.

27. Pre-occupation lighting details 28. Restriction on Permitted Development Rights to change to other uses within Class

C2 (e.g. hospital, boarding school or training centre) and from Class C2 to other uses (e.g a State-funded school or nursery).

Informatives:

1. Positive and Proactive Statement 2. List of pre-commencement and pre-occupation conditions requiring details to be

submitted and approved 3. Building regulations 4. S278 agreements – outline consents 5. Damage to the highway

6. Works affecting highways 7. Unilateral Undertaking Legal Agreement 8. All birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by law 9. Construction and demolition nuisance law details 10. Possible requirement for advertisement consent (if proposed)

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The application site is approximately 0.47ha in size and forms a ‘corner plot’

bounded to the east by The Mount and Albert Road, with Dovedale Close to the south. To the north and west of the site are the residential rear gardens of properties fronting Albert Road, Dovedale Close and Blossom Road. The wider area is characterised by dwellings of varying ages and architectural styles, including 2 / roofspace 3-storey Edwardian / Victorian dwellings set in generous plots and 1960s 2-storey properties within the residential development at Dovedale Close. As such, the surrounding area is characterised solely by residential uses.

1.2 The existing buildings, located centrally within the site, were formerly utilised (until 2013) as the Albert Road Day Centre and Arthur Clark Care Home. The Day Centre building fronts onto Albert Road, dates from the early 1900s and is 3 storeys at its highest point. It is constructed of red brick with a pitched roof incorporating timber detailing within the gable features. The Day Centre room was located at ground floor level, with meeting / conference rooms on the upper floors.

1.3 Linked to the Day Centre, but accessed from Dovedale Close, is the 1960s built Care Home. This is primarily a 2-storey building, constructed in brick with a simple geometric design. When in use the Care Home contained 27 bedrooms with wash basins (no en-suite facilities) at part ground and first floor level. The ground floor also contained communal facilities, including lounges, a dining room and kitchen. There are also other single storey ancillary/storage buildings within the site, including an electrical substation close to the Albert Road / The Mount junction.

1.4 The site is also characterised by a garden area in the south-east of the site and a significant number of mature trees, which form a boundary screen around the site. On 19 April 2016 a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (Ref 9/16) was served on the application site, to include those trees considered to be important to the character of the area and prominent from a number of viewpoints locally. Moreover, the protection of the trees was considered necessary to ensure their retention in the future. This relates to 13 individual trees (5 Limes, 2 Horse Chestnuts, 2 Sycamores, 1 Cedar, 1 Pine, 1 Yew and 1 Copper Beach) spread across the west and south perimeter of the site (predominantly the western boundary) and one group (comprising a Sycamore and Monterey Cypress) fronting onto Albert Road. It is also relevant to note that five trees within the neighbouring No. 3 Albert Road, but on the boundary with the application site, are subject to TPOs (3 Yews, 1 Oak, 1 Lime). Furthermore, there are six TPO trees on the Albert Road boundary within the garden of 8 The Mount (3 Sycamore, 1 Pine, 1 Fir, 1 Horse Chestnut).

1.5 Existing vehicular access to the site was previously gained by ‘In and Out’ entrances onto Albert Road. A further access exists from Dovedale Close, leading to the Care Home building and car park. In terms of topography, the site is relatively flat, but there is a gradual fall of 1.5m from north-west to south-east.

1.6 None of the application site buildings are listed, nor is the site located within a conservation area. However, the boundary of the St Peters Conservation Area is

33m to the south of the site (encompassing the grounds of the Treetops residential dwellings). The western edge of the application site is within an air quality management area. The site is located within the Thames ward, although The Mount represents the ward boundary with Caversham ward.

1.7 In addition, the Albert Road Day Centre/Arthur Clarke Care Home & environs at 1 Albert Road is formally listed as an asset of community value (ACV), as per the Localism Act 2011 and The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012. In practice this means that if a landowner wants to sell a registered property, they must give notice. If a group wants to buy the asset, they can trigger a 6 month moratorium to give them a chance to raise the money but the landowner can still sell at the going market rate. This period gives community groups some time to develop a proposal and raise the required capital to bid for the property when it comes onto the open market at the end of the moratorium period. In this case, the site was listed on 17/09/13, with a notice from the owner to dispose of the site received on 11/07/14. At the end of the subsequent six month period no full moratorium was triggered. Nevertheless, the site remains listed as an ACV until 16/09/18.

1.8 Reading Borough Council owns the freehold of the site. The applicant, A2Dominion Housing Options Ltd, has entered into contracts with the Council on a subject to planning basis. Should the planning application be granted, it is anticipated that the site will be leased to A2Dominon Housing Options Ltd for a 125 year period. The planning application has been submitted by A2Dominion Housing Options Ltd, who has served the requisite notice to Reading Borough Council as landowner. The Local Planning Authority is duty bound to consider the planning application, as it does with every application, in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. For the avoidance of doubt, it is specified that applications for planning permission by Reading Borough Council or by another person relating to land owned by the Reading Borough Council are dealt with impartially, fairly and transparently, in the same way as any other application.

1.9 The application is being considered at Planning Applications Committee owing to it

being classified as a 'major' development. A site photograph is shown below, together with the location of the site in relation to the wider area and aerial view.

Site photograph from Clifton Park Road towards the Albert Road frontage

Site Location Plan (not to scale)

Aerial view looking north 2. PROPOSALS 2.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a part 1, part 2, part 3 and

part 4-storey building, roughly provided in an ‘H’ shape across the site. More

specifically, small areas adjacent to the boundary with the residential property at No. 3 Albert Road are single and 2-storey in height. The rest of the proposed building is predominantly 3-storey, although a significant area in the south-east, south and western boundaries of the building rise to 4-storey.

2.2 The proposed building will comprise 43 extra care apartments (Class C2). More

specifically, 15 of the units will include 2-bedrooms (2 at ground floor, 5 each at first and second floor, 3 at third floor) with the remaining 28 including a single bedroom (6 at ground floor, 11 at first floor, 9 at second floor and 2 at third floor level). 16 of the 1-bed units will be for rent, with Reading Borough Council having full nomination rights for these rented units. The remaining 27 units will be leasehold units, with future occupiers required to meet an eligibility criteria to reside at the building. The leasehold units will be ‘pepper-potted’ amongst the rented units. The east, south and west facing units will include modestly sized external balconies, but none are proposed on the north facing elevation.

2.3 The proposed building also includes a range of ancillary communal facilities,

including:

- A ground floor lounge, which can be subdivided into two, with kitchen facilities for refreshments and access to an outdoor space

- A ground floor dining area and associated kitchen - A ground floor activity room, with access to an outdoor space - A ground floor hair/therapy room - An internal buggy / cycle store, together with external cycle storage - An assisted bathroom - A ground floor convenience shop - A third floor guest room for occasional visitor use - External vegetable patch - External sensory courtyard garden - Woodland trail, including various benches with pergolas

2.4 The applicant has specified that a number of these facilities will be available for

use by local groups / the local & wider community, in addition to future residents. Furthermore, a range of ancillary spaces are detailed to enable the use to operate. These facilities, all at ground floor level, include a support office adjacent to the entrance/reception, staff rooms/facilities, internal plant room, internal bin store, care office and laundry.

2.5 A number of ancillary external structures are also proposed, such as a greenhouse,

potting shed, storage shed and chicken coop. A number of other works are also proposed externally, most notably

- Altered hard and soft landscaping, including landscaped gardens in all external

areas / felling and planting of various trees - External lighting within the parking areas and serving the woodland trail - Altered pedestrian and vehicular access on Albert Road, facilitating 13 car

parking spaces for future occupiers (including 2 disabled spaces adjacent to the entrance)

- Altered vehicular access from Dovedale Close, providing 8 on-site parking spaces. As such, there will be 21 on-site parking spaces in total.

- 1.8m high close board fence on the north and west boundaries of the site - Provision of PV arrays on the flat roof areas of the building

2.6 All of the above follows the total demolition of all existing buildings at the site, barring the existing sub-station which is maintained. The existing railings on the Dovedale Close / The Mount / Albert Road boundaries are also shown to be retained at the appropriate points.

2.7 In terms of floorspace, the former Day Centre was 380sqm, while the former Care

Home totalled 1068sqm. The proposed building comprises 4374sqm of floorspace, ranging from 1378sqm at ground floor level to 552sqm at third floor level. In total, the floorspace at the site would increase by 2926sqm (from 1448sqm to 4374sqm) in comparison with existing. The ground floor footprint of building would increase by 523sqm (from 855sqm to 1378sqm).

2.8 During the course of the application, revised plans and additional information was

submitted, summarised as follows:

- Reduction by 1.2m of the south-east corner roof ridge height - Reduction by 0.3m of the roof ridge height along the 2 & 3-storey parts of the

Albert Road elevation - Change in location of the kitchen and bin store doors on the Albert Road

elevation - Removal of PV panels from roofslopes and re-positioned to flat roof locations - Further information indicating views from Caversham Bridge - Further information specifying communal ground floor areas - Further information submitted regarding various matters including transport,

day/sunlight, overshadowing, landscaping/trees, lighting and drainage. 3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 150321 - RBC standard signage informing the proposed future use of the site.

Granted 22/04/15. 3.2 150322 - Erection of protected hoardings on boundary fence approx. 30 metres in

length by 2.4m high, with a painted grey finish. Granted 22/04/15. 3.3 The applicant also entered into pre-application discussions with the local planning

authority in advance of the submission of the application (Refs 140268 & 150385). 4. CONSULTATIONS i) RBC Transport 4.1 Transport Development Control section advises that the site previously

accommodated The Arthur Clark Care Home providing permanent living accommodation and care services for up to 25 frail elderly people. It also housed two beds for respite care along with extensive staff accommodation. Intensive nursing was required for this user group and resulted in a greater number of staff.

4.2 The wider community also visited the Albert Road Day Centre for events that were

specifically tailored with the specialist needs of the user group in mind. The majority of the 15-20 people, arriving by minibus for planned events, had dementia and/or high care needs. Activities were arranged 5 days a week by Reading Borough Council’s Neighbourhood Co-ordinator for Older People’s Services, Adult Social Care Team.

4.3 The site previously accommodated a total of 11 car parking spaces. The application

site is located outside the town centre area, but is within close proximity to bus route 22 which has a 30 minute frequency running to and from Reading Town Centre and Caversham shopping area. The site is therefore accessible to good public transport links and town centre services.

4.4 It is within the above context that the current application is considered from a

transport perspective. A Transport Statement has been submitted to accompany the application and RBC Transport comments are as follows:

4.5 Trip Generation - No trip generation analysis has been undertaken by the applicant

to accompany this development. Therefore RBC Transport has interrogated the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS). TRICS is the national standard system of trip generation and analysis in the UK and Ireland, and is used as an integral and essential part of the Transport Assessment process. It is a database system, which allows its users to establish potential levels of trip generation for a wide range of development and location scenarios, and is widely used as part of the planning application process by both developer consultants and local authorities. Furthermore, it is accepted by Inspectors as a valid way to ascertain likely trip generation.

4.6 This has identified that the proposed development will result in an increase of 64

vehicle movements throughout a typical day, with the peak hour for movements being 2pm to 3pm resulting in a total of 24 vehicle movements. Given that this is a high proportion of the daily increase in trips it is assumed that a significant proportion will be a result of staff shift patterns and not trips associated with residents or visitors. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in a significant increase in vehicular movement at the access point onto Albert Road. For clarity, this assessment is based on a total of 58 residents (therefore taking into account the two-bed units being proposed on the site).

4.7 In overall terms the proposal is not considered to result in a material increase in

vehicle trips on the network, and is within the daily fluctuations on the network. With regard to bullet point 3 of paragraph 32 of the NPPF, which states proposals should only be refused on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts are severe, it is considered that the refusal of this application on traffic generation grounds would not be sustainable in an appeal scenario.

4.8 Access - Vehicular access to the site was previously gained from two separate

points, one from Dovedale Close and the other from Albert Road. Furthermore, a separate exit onto Albert Road was also provided, forming an in and out arrangement. These vehicular accesses also provided a shared access with pedestrians and are not ideal, given the restrictive widths.

4.9 The proposed access arrangements are in the form of a single point of access on

Albert Road and Dovedale Close, with the existing vehicular entrance on Albert Road being abandoned and stopped up. The proposed vehicular entrance onto Albert Road is to be 5.4m in width, which is in excess of the required width to accommodate two-way vehicular movement and will be upgraded from a standard dropped crossing to include 2m radii on both sides of the access.

4.10 By removing the existing entrance to the site from Albert Road, and incorporating

this within a revised more formal and visible access located further north, it is considered that this will result in an improvement when compared against the existing situation.

4.11 Visibility splays of 2.4m by 45m have, following the submission of additional information submitted during the course of the application, been illustrated on the submitted plans. Given that the access is existing, and this visibility splay complies with the national standard set with Department for Transport document Manual for Streets, RBC Transport are content that the visibility provided complies with policy.

4.12 It is also noted that the new access onto Albert Road has been designed to allow for

a refuse vehicle to enter and exit the site in forward gear, the vehicle illustrated is smaller than that of a Reading Borough Council refuse vehicle but an analysis of the design has indicated that this manoeuvre could be undertaken. Given that a refuse vehicle can enter and exit the site this area could also accommodate mini buses picking up and dropping of residents and deliveries to the building.

4.13 RBC Transport has undertaken a review of the accident data for a period of 10

years. This has identified that there has been one recorded accident in the immediate vicinity of the site. This was not as a result of vehicles accessing or egressing the existing access points of the site. The accident was a result of individual error and not the design of the Highway Network.

4.14 As noted by a number of re-consultation responses, officers are aware that a fatal

accident recently occurred at the crossroads junction of Albert Road and Highmoor Road. However, RBC Transport is unable to comment on this accident at present, given the cause of the incident is yet to be confirmed.

4.15 Officers also point out that the assessment of the proposed access can only be

made against current policies and design standards, and not the demographic of users that would utilise it. In overall terms it is considered that the proposed scheme provides an improvement from the current situation. It would also generate a minimal change in vehicle movements. Therefore the proposed access arrangements comply with policy.

4.16 Dedicated pedestrian access is also proposed to separate pedestrians and vehicles.

This is therefore another improvement from the existing arrangement. The access is located along the Albert Road frontage, providing direct access to the bus stops on either side of the carriageway, which is welcomed.

4.17 The access to Dovedale Close is to remain in its current location, but is to be

widened to 4.5m in width. Again this is in excess of the minimum requirement for two-way vehicular flow. However, given the parking arrangement this wider access is necessary and required to ensure suitable access and egress to each of the parking spaces. As such, the Dovedale Close access is also considered to be acceptable.

4.18 Parking - The site is currently provided with a car parking provision of 11 spaces for

a site that accommodated 27 residents as well as an extensive level of staff. This level of parking is to be increased to 21 spaces, which is acknowledged to be marginally below the Council’s maximum adopted car parking standards. This requires 1 space per 1 FTE member of staff (13 FTE staff) and 1 space per 4 residents (58 residents), equating to 28 spaces.

4.19 The reduction from this maximum standard has been proposed based on survey data

of a similar facility, which is considered to be a suitable way of assessing a parking provision. This survey information, as submitted during the course of the application, was for a similar facility at Charles Clore Court (139 Appleford Road, Reading, RG30 3NT). This has identified that a maximum of 13 spaces were

occupied out of 20 during the survey dates and therefore RBC Transport are satisfied that the proposed car parking provision of 21 spaces complies with both Local and National Policy.

4.20 It is acknowledged that objections have been raised with regards to existing levels

of parking that surround the application site. However, as the proposed parking is considered to have been sufficiently demonstrated to comply with policy, it is considered evident the development would result in very limited impact on this existing situation. As a result it would not be the responsibility of the developer to mitigate the impacts of the existing parking situation. In addition, it is confirmed that the illustrated car parking layout complies with policy.

4.21 A provision of 4 cycle spaces have been proposed in the form of 2 Sheffield type

stands and is deemed acceptable. The drawing submitted during the course of the application confirms these are to be covered and this provision is to be secured via condition. In terms of the construction process, the applicant has submitted a draft CMS. This is considered to be a useful starting point in the applicant demonstrating the practicalities of how the proposed development would be implemented. However, similar to RBC Environmental Protection comments below, the information submitted is not considered sufficient to remove the need for a pre-commencement condition in this regard. As such, the standard pre-commencement condition will be secured, whereby more comprehensive information will be provided to satisfy officers that the proposal can be built without causing harm to the highway network or the amenity of nearby occupiers.

4.22 In respect of SuDS, the proposals are considered to align with the relevant

paragraphs of the NPPF and policies CS1 and DM1. The provision of soakaways and attenuation tanks, as proposed, is considered to be sufficient for the purposes of the application. Conditions are recommended which will ensure that the SuDS scheme is completed prior to the first occupation of any unit. Furthermore, it is also considered necessary to secure an implementation, maintenance and management plan of the sustainable drainage scheme.

4.23 Therefore in overall terms from a transport perspective, the proposals are

considered to be acceptable, subject to the aforementioned SuDS conditions and these additional specific transport based conditions:

- Accesses constructed before occupation (in line with the approved drawings) - Existing access closure with reinstatement - Visibility splays provided before occupation - Pre-occupation provision of vehicle parking in accordance with approved plans - Pre-occupation provision of bicycle storage in accordance with approved plans - Pre-commencement Construction Method Statement (CMS)

ii) RBC Natural Environment – Trees and Landscaping 4.24 RBC Natural Environment officers raise no objection to the general overall layout of

the proposed landscaping scheme. A full tree survey has been undertaken, which recommends the removal of 3 category U (unsuitable for retention) trees, 15 category C (low quality or with a stem diameter <150mm) trees / tree groups, 1 tree between categories B and C and 2 category B (moderate quality). The category B trees proposed to be removed comprise a 7m mature holly towards the south west corner of the site, and a 17m early mature western red cedar towards the centre of the site. In short, RBC Natural Environment are satisfied with the level and nature of information submitted in order to justify the proposed works. More

specifically, the vast majority of these trees are not specimens worthy of long-term retention or a TPO. It is also relevant to note that none of the trees served with a TPO, after the submission of the application (see introduction section above), are proposed to be removed.

4.25 In addition, following the submission of additional information during the course of

the application, officers are content that the construction of the proposed development would not cause significant harm to existing trees. Extensive tree protection details have been submitted, which have been carefully considered by officers. In particular, a number of concerns were originally raised about the potential long-term harm caused to the mature Horse Chestnut (T42 of the tree survey, T12 of the TPO), located between the staff parking area and the southern elevation of the building. During the course of the application the foul sewer and soakaway have been removed from the Horse Chestnut’s root protection area, which will greatly lessen damage to the tree’s roots. The applicant also confirmed that piled foundations are proposed, which will again lessen the detrimental impact upon the tree. It is however shown that there will still be incursions to the tree’s RPA, meaning that the likelihood that damage will occur on site remains high.

4.26 Nevertheless, on balance, it is considered that providing the Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) is strictly adhered to then it is possible to safely retain the tree. Moreover, it would not be considered reasonable to refuse the application on the basis of concerns over this tree, especially within the context of the current pest and pathogen related threats facing this species. Furthermore, it is now subject to Tree Preservation Order 9/16 and should the tree go into decline or die as a result of the works, then a suitable replacement tree will be required.

4.27 RBC Natural Environment also confirms that the AMS is acceptable in relation to the

proposed methods for installing the external lighting, piling, metal railings and boundary treatments. Furthermore, the proposed tree protection plan and landscape plan indicate that as well as the removal of a number of trees, new and replacement trees are also proposed. These and the other soft landscaping proposals are welcomed in principle, with the specific details being secured via condition.

4.28 Therefore, in overall terms, the proposals are considered to be appropriate subject to the following pre-commencement details being secured via condition:

- Updated AMS to include 3rd stage of tree protection during installation of no-dig

elements and comprehensive schedule of arboricultural supervision, to be certified and photographed for submission to LPA after each visit.

- Hard/Soft landscaping proposals. - Details of implementation of soft landscaping - Maintenance details for 5 years following implementation.

iii) RBC Ecology 4.29 The Ecological Survey by AA Environmental Limited (including information on the

presence of badgers, bats, amphibians and reptiles) has been duly assessed and there are no objections to the application on ecology grounds. No evidence of protected species was found at the site. RBC Ecology also considers that a condition is necessary to ensure the detailed hard and soft landscaping scheme is secured. This is within the context of the outline scheme submitted at this stage being considered acceptable in principle. This will include details referenced by RBC Natural Environment (see above), while also from a specific ecology perspective

comprise biodiversity enhancements (e.g. integral bird nesting and bat roosting opportunities) and specifications for fencing demonstrating how hedgehogs and other wildlife will be able to continue to travel across the site (e.g. fences slightly raised above ground level). An informative is also recommended to remind the applicant that all birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law. As such, demolition/clearance works should ideally take place outside the bird nesting season (March – August), but if this is not practicable, checks by an appropriately qualified person should take place prior to the relevant site clearance.

iv) RBC Environmental Health – Environmental Protection 4.30 The air quality statement shows that the applicant has considered air quality,

recognising that only part of the site (an element where no building is proposed) is within the air quality management area. RBC Environmental Protection does not consider that a development of this size and in this location will have a significant effect on air quality in the area. Accordingly, no further details are required in this regard.

4.31 The background noise assessment shows that noise levels in the area are fairly low.

Standard double glazing units will be sufficient to ensure good internal noise levels for future occupants.

4.32 In respect of dust and noise during the construction phase, these issues are not considered to be adequately covered in the CMS submitted by the applicant. As such, it is considered necessary for the CMS to incorporate provisions as to how these matters will be controlled during the demolition and construction phases. Given the works involves substantial demolition and construction works, it is also considered necessary to include a condition precluding the burning of materials or green waste on site. This is in the interests of air quality, the amenity of neighbours and to promote more sustainable approaches to waste management. The standard hours of working condition is also recommended. All such conditions are ultimately seeking to avoid possible adverse impacts on nearby residents during the demolition and construction phases of development.

v) RBC Housing Development Team 4.33 The proposal is a key element in the delivery of RBC's Extra Care Housing (ECH)

programme. The Council has a commitment that it will deliver 240 ECH units at suitable locations around the borough.

4.34 The application site is one of those key locations for ECH. The Council has had an

opportunity to work in partnership with A2 Dominion to develop this scheme and provide the Council with a welcomed contribution of 16 (1 Bed) rented units, with Reading Borough Council having nomination rights to all 16 units.

4.35 The Council continues to have a strategic housing need for various kinds of

affordable housing, including family houses as evidenced in Housing Strategic Market Assessment and the draft Homelessness Strategy. However, in addition, the Council has particular demands in relation to older people/supported living accommodation. It is recognised that Extra Care Housing can provide suitable housing accommodation to improve the quality of services for older people and help achieve value for money.

vi) Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention & Design Advisor

4.36 The Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention & Design Advisor considers that there are opportunities to design out crime and/or the fear of crime and to promote physical security.

4.37 It is noted that the applicant has liaised with a Crime Prevention Design Advisor of

the Met Police. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) also includes a section entitled ‘Secured by Design’ (SPB) which refers to 1. removal of recessed areas; 2. Canopies above doorways/entrances being kept to the minimum and non-climbable; 3. There must be dusk to dawn photosensitive lighting above communal entrances and exits; 4. LUX plan to be provided post-planning. The applicant outlines that once the proposal secures planning they will look to ensure the Stage 2 SBD criteria are met with regards to the specification of appropriate elements (for example windows and doors).

4.38 Although it is accepted that such principles are welcomed and considered to be

necessary, more information is needed to actually demonstrate that the development will ensure the SBD criteria is met and not represent a missed opportunity. Therefore a pre-commencement condition is recommended for the applicant to provide full details of the measures to be incorporated to secure SBD accreditation. A pre-occupation element is also included in the condition to confirm SBD accreditation is achieved.

vii) Reading UK CIC 4.39 Reading UK CIC has no concerns with the proposed development and welcomes the

provision of much needed residential facilities for local people with extra needs. 4.40 Reading UK CIC notes that the size and scale of the redevelopment will require an

Employment and Skills Plan (as per the Employment, Skills and Training Supplementary Planning Document April 2013) at both the construction phase and the end use phase. This is to be secured via the legal agreement.

viii) Historic England 4.41 Specialist Historic England staff have considered the information received and do

not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Historic England therefore recommend for the applications to be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the conservation advice of the local planning authority.

ix) Public consultation

Original consultation (January-March 2016) 4.42 Notification letters were sent to 51 nearby occupiers on 25/01/2016, with the last

day for statutory comments being 15/02/2016 (occupiers of Albert Road, Dovedale Close, The Mount, Clifton Park Road and Blossom Road). A series of site notices were erected on Albert Road, The Mount, Clifton Park Road and Dovedale Close on 30/01/2016, with an extended expiry date of 29/02/2016 specified (to align with the timing of the press notice). A press notice was published on 04/02/2016, expiring on 25/02/2016. In addition, 74 individuals who copied planning officers into comments sent to the applicant at pre-application stage were personally notified of the application via email on 26/01/2016. This specified that comments received up to and including 29/02/2016 would be able to be taken into account.

Councillor responses 4.43 Councillor McDonald (Caversham ward) supports the residents and objects to the

plans for this building. Although Cllr McDonald stresses that none of the residents are against the principle, concerns are raised regarding:

- The scale of the property is completely disproportionate. - Significant amount of windows, in particular on the ground floor, will impact

massively on the privacy for neighbouring properties. - The proximity of the building is too close to the neighbouring property. - The kitchen, plant, commercial bins and main entrance are too close to the

neighbouring property. - The third floor shows a limited number of double and guest rooms that could be

accommodated by lower floors, thus reducing the number of double bed apartments.

- There being only one way in and out of the parking area could potentially cause issues for road users.

- Limited amount of parking bays - only 13 for the entire building. - The above will impact negatively on the day to day lifestyles of residents and may

also have an adverse effect on the value of their homes.

Local group responses 4.44 Caversham and District Residents Association (CADRA) objects, summarised as:

- 4 storeys on this prominent corner site is too high and the bulk of the building too great.

- The prominent gable treatment to the small second bedroom on the eastern elevation emphasises the height of the building, the high roof profile is inappropriate. This area of the building is bulky, poorly proportioned and overbearing.

- 4 storeys constitutes an unsatisfactory planning precedent for other sites in Caversham Heights, eroding the character of the area.

- 3 storeys should be the maximum, bearing in mind the 2013 feasibility study was this height.

- Overlooking and loss of privacy to buildings / gardens of 3, 5, 5A, 7 Albert Rd and 1 Copperfields.

- Overshadowing and loss of sunlight to 3 Albert Road. Report submitted is incomplete.

- Kitchen, bin and plant room locations & likely noise/smells. No reason why the position should not be adjusted.

- Inconsistency on the information submitted as to the proposals for the Monterey Cypresses. The loss or severe cut back of these trees would expose this part of the building to full and unsatisfactory street view.

- Inconsistency on the information submitted as to the proposals for the Lawsons Cypress. Insufficient to determine whether the removal of this tree may be acceptable. Otherwise it should be retained

- Loss of trees will increase overlooking to 8 The Mount - Loss of amenity from the removal of walnut trees on the Dovedale Close frontage - Justification for loss of trees made on an arboricultural basis and does not give

sufficient weight to aesthetic, streetscape and amenity value. - Loss of trees / the proposed building will affect the skyline (e.g. views from

Caversham Bridge) and adversely affect the setting of the Thames and St Peter’s Conservation Area.

- Elevational detail concerns (balconies projecting beyond tile hung gables & vice versa). Awkward change of material junction on the south elevation where render changes to brick in the same plane. PV panels visible; instead should be integrated/designed into the roof slope.

- Cautious estimate of the number of parking spaces is 13 for staff plus 15 for residents, which equals a total of 28 spaces required. A2Dominion have allowed for only 21 spaces which is a shortfall of 7 spaces.

- Poor public transport provision is likely to cause most staff members, especially those working unsocial hours, and visitors to use cars.

- The overflow of at least seven cars, in busy times, parking in Albert Road and The Mount will require approximately 42 metres (132ft) of kerbside space (where space is already at a premium).

- A modern ‘entry treatment’ design should be used to ensure that there would be a step free, level surface for pedestrians walking along Albert Road (rather than stepping down to the carriageway and up again to footway level as shown).

- CADRA suggests a number of revisions to the scheme based on the above concerns. 4.45 Pegasus Group on behalf of Sympathetic Planning to Enhance Albert Road (SPEAR) is

supportive of the redevelopment/reuse of a presently vacant site to provide extra care accommodation in the Borough. However, SPEAR objects for the following reasons:

- Not in compliance with design elements of the NPPF (paragraphs 56 and 64) or LDF

(policy CS7). In contrast to the pleasing built environment and discernible townscape of the area, the proposed building would be unduly high (far greater bulk and mass), appearing out of keeping with the character of the area.

- Proposed materials and fenestration would exacerbate the vertical emphasis of the building, whilst the extensive flat roof and use of hipped roofs is alien to the locality and a clear indicator of overdevelopment. These matters should be given increased weight in the context of being within the setting of St Peter’s Conservation Area.

- Albert Road as an access point for deliveries and refuse collections is difficult owing to: high levels of traffic movement; proximity to a 4 way junction, bus stops and high levels of on-street parking (in comparison with Dovedale Close). Suggestion that vehicular access is switched to Dovedale Close.

- 13 parking spaces for 43 apartments is not sufficient / wholly inappropriate and a clear indication of overdevelopment. There is limited on street parking available.

- 8 parking spaces for staff is not justified; nor is a parking strategy for staff shift change handovers. Suggestion that the location of staff parking is switched to Albert Road.

- Proposals will lead to a significant adverse effect on the residential amenities of 3 Albert Road regarding: noise and disturbance from vehicles, staff using bins/kitchen, kitchen extraction units; visual impact of kitchen flues/extraction / future plant/bins located externally; odours / gas fumes from kitchens and bins (due to proximity). In this regard to air quality report is very brief and doesn’t include air quality monitoring. Suggestion that bins/kitchens are relocated to the east or south of the site.

- Loss of light to No. 3 Albert Road habitable rooms at ground and first floor level. Significant adverse effect on shadowing of the private rear garden at No. 3 (located directly north of the application site). Specific objections to the sunlight analysis within the submitted report (inaccurate and incomplete information).

- Significant adverse overlooking effect on the private residential gardens of No’s 3, 5, 7 Albert Road & 8 The Mount. To the north, there are currently 2 windows at first floor level; proposal increases this to 19. Although there is a set back and some obscure glazing, this doesn’t diminish the perception of overlooking, nor the

actual overlooking from second floor windows (15m from the boundary not sufficient). The private gardens are well used, with children residing at the properties. Planting would not mitigate the concern. To the east, 27 windows will face the private rear garden of 8 The Mount. The height of the building and the number of windows results in an adverse overlooking effect.

- Overbearing and oppressive effect of the proposed building (in comparison with existing) for No. 3. Overall impression is a large overall block of exceptional height, bulk, mass and depth that is wholly disproportionate.

- Precedent set for other large blocks of development, leading to cumulative harm to the character of the area, erosion of traditional features / scale.

- Construction – hours of construction, deliveries and construction management plan conditions all necessary for highway network / residential amenity reasons.

- There is a restrictive covenant concerning the quantum and type of development on the land. Although not a material planning consideration, this point is relevant to the applicant and requires investigation.

4.46 The Warren and District Residents Association objects, as follows:

- Totally out of scale with its neighbourhood - Four storeys will tower over adjacent properties on all sides, particularly Dovedale

Close. - Exterior is stark and unsympathetic to the style of the adjacent St Peter’s

Conservation area. - Approval would set a precedent for the proliferation of similar oversize

developments across Caversham Heights. - It will dominate the skyline above The Warren Scarp being clearly visible from

across the river. - With up to 58 residents, plus staff, carers and visitors, a meagre 21 parking spaces

would inevitably cause considerable overspill onto The Mount, Dovedale Close and Albert Road where roadspace is already congested

4.47 Caversham Globe objects, summarised as:

- The proposals contravenes the NPPF and policy CS7, as the scale, height and bulk of the proposed building would be out of keeping with the character of the area (including the nearby conservation area). Its size and footprint are much larger than the properties that it replaces and of any other structure in the area.

- The increased noise and smell from kitchen extraction fans and air conditioning units will be experienced by several properties on the North side of the development, especially on summer weekends and evenings.

- The plans call for some of the tallest trees on the site to be felled, which will permanently degrade the view of the Caversham Heights skyline from other parts of Reading.

- Caversham Globe makes a number of suggestions to overcome the concerns above. - Concerned about the proposed removal of trees, which we believe is unnecessary

and could in some cases be contrary to the adopted Tree Strategy. We note that the overall number of replacement trees being proposed is significantly fewer than the number earmarked for removal. Tree loss would impact particularly badly on the view from The Mount and the corner of Dovedale Close and from the nearby conservation area where no replacements are proposed. This could easily be rectified with replacement planting or by retaining some of the trees as suggested. On the Albert Rd frontage there appears to be no good reason for removing the existing central mature evergreen Lawson Cypress or for reducing the two Monterey Cypresses.

4.48 Treetops Management Committee (represent c.30 Treetops occupants (12 flats) plus Hill House, the Church Commissioners owned residence of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet) objects, summarised as:

- The TREETOPS Management committee is against the scale of development. - The proposed new design exceeds the footprint of the previous home and is of a

height exceeding that permitted for Treetops 5 years ago. - There are Parking, conservation and preservation issues we wish to contest as an

immediate vicinity occupancy. Public consultation responses 4.49 2 supports for the proposals; One from a Priest Hill address and the other from an

unspecified address. The issues raised were as follows:

- I received a flyer through my door from SPEAR. I thank them for drawing my attention to the proposed development of the former care home. I am fully in support of A2Dominion's proposal for flats. It seems sensible to me.

- I wish to support this planning application because we currently have a housing crisis comparable with that of 1945 and because construction work provides a much needed stimulus to the economy.

4.50 It is also relevant to note that a significant number of objections caveat their

objection by stating that they are supportive of the redevelopment of the site into a facility for extra care housing in principle, but raise objection to specific elements of the proposals.

4.51 A total of 287 objections (from occupiers of 217 different addresses, 9 unspecified

numbered/named addresses along specified roads and 29 unspecified addresses. i.e. multiple responses from separate occupiers at the same address were received in 32 instances) were received from the following addresses:

- 39 from Kidmore Road addresses (from occupiers of 32 different addresses and 2

unspecified Kidmore Road addresses) - 33 from Albert Road (from occupiers of 28 different addresses and 1 unspecified

Albert Road address) - 19 from The Mount (from occupiers of 16 different addresses) - 13 from Clifton Park Road (from occupiers of 11 different addresses and 1

unspecified Clifton Park Road address) - 8 each from addresses at: Copperfields (from occupiers of 6 different addresses and

1 unspecified address); Harrogate Road (from occupiers of 6 different addresses); Upper Warren Avenue.

- 7 from Conisboro Avenue (from occupiers of 5 different addresses and 1 unspecified address)

- 6 each from addresses at: Blenheim Road (from occupiers of 4 different addresses); Oakley Road (from occupiers of 5 different addresses)

- 5 each from addresses at: Orwell Close; Ridge Hall Close (from occupiers of 4 different addresses); St Peter’s Avenue; Shepherds Lane (from occupiers of 4 different addresses)

- 4 each from addresses at: Buxton Avenue; Chazey Road (from occupiers of 2 different addresses); Dovedale Close; Matlock Road; Priest Hill (from occupiers of 3 different addresses and 1 unspecified address); Richmond Road (from occupiers of 2 different addresses and 1 unspecified address); Silverthorne Drive (from occupiers of 3 different addresses); St Anne’s Road (from occupiers of 3 different addresses); Woodcote Road

- 3 each from addresses at: Dellwood Park (from occupiers of 2 different addresses); Darell Road; Fernbrook Road (from occupiers of 2 different addresses); Highmoor Road; Hemdean Road; Morecombe Avenue; St David’s Close (from occupiers of 2 different addresses)

- 2 each from addresses at: Auburn Court, Church Road; Beckfords, Upper Basildon (from occupiers of 1 address); Queensborough Drive (including 1 from an unspecified address); St Peter’s Hill; Tokers Green Lane, Kidmore End; Treetops; Woburn Close; Woodford Close.

- 1 each from addresses at: Balmore Park; Chelford Way; Fobney Street; Haldane Road; Heather Close, Sonning Common; Hemdean Hill; Hewett Avenue; Kelvedon Way; Kidmore End Road; Lower Henley Road; Pinewood Drive; St Andrew’s Road; Sandcroft Road; Symeon Place; Tyler Close; Waingels Rd, Twyford; Winterberry Way; Woodberry Close.

- 29 from unspecified addresses

4.52 A summary of the main issues raised is provided below: 4.53 Design (Policies CS7, CS31 and core objectives of the Core Strategy all referenced

at various points in objections received)

Scale, massing, height, footprint and density

- Size, scale, density, height and proportions and design are completely out of keeping with the existing properties in the local area and are wholly disproportionate to other properties in the area, leading to overwhelming visual dominance and overbearing.

- Overdevelopment of the site through over density - footprint and overall size of the structure is c. 1.5 times larger than existing. Previously 25 residents; potentially 58) – scale and massing is cramming people onto the site (others in Albert Road are spaciously set).

- Proposal is a whole storey higher than the existing structure and two storeys higher than most other properties in the area. Another states the proposal is at least twice the height of most local houses and will dwarf other properties in the area.

- Proposal is a storey higher than a Council feasibility study of October 2013, advised as being rejected for being too big.

- A 4 storey building will dominate the skyline and ruin the look of the area for a huge amount of local residents and will impact on the area when it is viewed from afar. Another states there are no other four storey structures close by, and the building will dominate the skyline.

- Building will dominate this very attractive area, including the views from Clifton Park Road, Albert Road, The Mount, and the path from Church Road and the east of Reading.

- Existing Flat and Apartment developments are limited to 3 storeys, itself more than the norm for this residential area.

- Nearby Treetops included height restrictions. Since the property will be Council owned, the same strict regulations might be waived. Such behaviour would be grossly unfair.

- The proposed building would give an impression of having been ‘crammed in’, whereas existing properties at that end of Albert Road are more generously spaced and should remain so.

- Accurate verified views are required [both in summer and winter when the leaves have fallen] in order to assess the true impact of the proposal from Albert Road. This location is a particularly important urban design node defined by mature trees screening buildings and dwellings set in large mature plots. The site provides the terminal view at the junction of the Mount before entering Albert Road where it is

necessary that the appropriate scale and sufficient soft landscaping is provided in order to maintain and enhance the unique character of the Road in this particular location.

4.54 Suggested alternative scale, massing and height

- The design should not be more than 2 storeys high, but it appears the developers want to cram in as many flats as possible because this will make them the most money.

- Others detail they would be much more comfortable with a three-storey development where the third storey was in the roof space and the pitch of the roof was such that no part of the ridge was higher than the ridge of any other property in the immediate vicinity

- Another simply states that the present building size should not be exceeded 4.55 Character / appearance and detailed design

- Alters the distinctive style and appearance of The Mount and Albert Road - No attempt to remain in keeping with the neighbourhood and its style (period

properties), but appears industrial and imposing. Permission would permanently alter the look of the neighbourhood and set a precedent for future buildings equally as unsightly and large.

- The design of the proposed building shows little reference to the character of the surrounding properties. This means that the building is not in keeping with the Victorian/Edwardian houses which characterise this part of Caversham, resulting in a negative impact on the area.

- No flats in this area, just detached and some semi-detached residential houses. “Terrace of houses” design looks stark, industrial and functional – completely out of keeping with the character and properties in the neighbourhoods. Other descriptions include: utilitarian, gaunt granny-barracks, too modern; Blot on our landscape; 'off the shelf' design; vulgar, cheap looking, stark and industrial, a monstrosity, an insult to the beauty of the local area; poor quality pastiche; looks like a budget hotel; bland featureless Lego architecture. It is about the worst design I have seen proposed for Caversham in the most sensitive and visible site.

- The building will undermine the characterful nature of this compact area of cul-de-sacs and chalk pit which abuts an environment preservation area.

- The neighbouring buildings are especially attractive and beautifully detailed and I see no evidence that what is proposed will be in character

- The build-up of the design to a tower effect at the southern end would make it like a sore thumb sticking out in an area of generally equal roof heights which are part of the attraction of the street scene

- The proposed 70s style windows are particularly offensive. - The use of materials, doors and window locations will make the building look even

higher and seem more overbearing and bulky and which is totally inconsistent with other buildings in the area.

- Likely to be plant, equipment and infrastructure (drainage, air conditioning, heating & air & odour extraction items which would also adversely impact on the area.

- The proposed architecture and the materials are all wrong, being too repetitive in terms of fenestration and other features; there is as much white stucco as brick in the area, with contrasting brass metalwork, bold chimneys, and terracotta tiles on the neighbouring houses. Another states the building materials proposed incorporate few if any of the features so prominent in surrounding period properties, such as slate roof tiles, sash/bow windows, decorative timber detailing etc. etc.

4.56 Impact on St Peter's Conservation Area

- Design is not sympathetic to the St Peter’s Conservation Area. This development will tower over Treetops and will be seen from the conservation area and into Reading. The conservation area would be damaged by any further loss of older buildings nearby.

- The site is virtually contiguous with the protected zone surrounding St Peter's Church and there are a range of objections which would arise from that relationship were consent to be granted.

- The current building is one of the older properties in the neighbourhood, it has attractive architecture and is part of the history of the area. The new design is in no way sympathetic to the historical designs of this and other properties in the area and would set a terrible precedent for other properties of this large, modern, unimaginative, mass-produced, bland style being built in this area. People enjoy living in Caversham Heights exactly because of the interesting and older properties here, it is what Caversham Heights is known for.

- This area should be a conservation area. 4.57 Loss of the existing building / replicate the style/character of the existing

- Extremely perturbed that the existing building should be demolished, since it is a fine house which contributes significantly to the general character of the surrounding area, the original development of which took place between 1890 to 1914, a period when English domestic architecture was of particularly high quality and enjoyed an international reputation. This type of house, and the enclave of which it is part, is a crucial part of the history of Caversham, and of Reading, and the effects of its loss would deprive us all forever of a central aspect of our local heritage.

- Demolition of no 1 Albert Road would detract from the environment of 2 Albert Road (1899, designed by Morris & Sons) house.

- No 1 Albert Road could perfectly well be converted for current use, preserving its character. Another asks why not keep and refurbish the present lovely building? A further response outlines the destruction of the existing period house is of concern.

4.58 Transport (Policy DM12 is referenced at various points in objections received) Car Parking provision

- 21 car parking spaces for an occupancy of 58 (plus staff) is inadequate and likely to result in on-road parking, and resulting congestion. 21 places only is a wholly inadequate provision for the 58+ residents, all of whom may be drivers and own cars, and their related staff, visitors, carers and deliveries. Parking standards for Class C2 uses suggest 28 parking spaces are required. Given the age stipulation of 55 and over, many residents are likely to own and drive a car and continue to do so for many years. There are 8 staff parking places. I assume that this is for permanent daytime staff. Where do visiting professionals such as doctors, nurses, social workers or chiropodist’s park?

- If the proposal were classified as Class C3 development, there would be a much higher number of required spaces (44).

- Already a considerable number of cars parked on Dovedale Close, Albert Road, Copperfields, Clifton Park Road, The Mount and Darell Road (all roads stated in various responses received), any additional parking from this site, would result in major disruption to local residents. Several explain that in the absence of any North

Reading Park and Ride scheme, cars already park at this end of Albert Road to use the bus service into the Town Centre / walk into Caversham centre.

- Disingenuous to argue that the majority of residents will not own cars. Residents who must only be 55 years old to qualify for residency are very likely to own and drive a car for many years to come. If you seriously believe the residents do not need cars, then please make non ownership of cars a condition of their tenancy.

- The former care home had 25 elderly residents, none of whom to my knowledge possessed or drove cars, instead they were ´Bussed´ into and out of the site by small coaches.

- The volume of traffic in Caversham is so great now that at times it resembles that of a large city like London. As residents we object to any development that will increase traffic flow in our area because it is already too high. and traffic jams are a daily occurrence.

- The provision for parking is derisory. The McCarthy Stone 55+ flats near Waitrose have more provision but it is just jam packed.

- Another A2 Dominion property in Reading has a much larger car park, this is usually full. Plus the fact mini buses and coaches have to park to transport residence, no provision has been made for this.

- A resident of Darell Road specifies half of that road is currently the overflow parking for the recent developments of Symeon Heights, Durham House and Blossom Road (which met the minimum requirement for parking provision under their planning permission, yet there very clearly is not enough parking). Before their development the road experienced occasional car parking. Since the developments the additional cars parked on Darell Road has rapidly grown, there has been an increase in accidents at the junction and we have had to call for yellow lines to make the bend safer.

- Caversham Heights is a prime residential area, the residents of which pay a high Council tax for the privilege of living there. With some homeowners having sold off some of their land, developers have moved in and added developments such as Copperfields, Dellwood Park and Charlotte Close, which has caused further congestion.

4.59 Suggested alternative parking provision

- In other areas where parking space is at a premium developers are required to incorporate underground parking. The developer should not be allowed to pass the burden of this parking problem onto the local community in order to save costs and increase their own profit! A number of other responses ask why an underground car park not mandatory for such a large development?

- There is less profit in providing parking but a responsible development should provide off-road parking for each flat and a few for visitors.

- As a flat owner and member of the flats management committee where parking was always an issue, I would suggest that there needs to be at least one space for each flat, maybe two for the two-bedroom flats, together with adequate space for parking for all staff and a significant number of visitors, as well as for delivery vans/dustbin lorries, and a reserved easy access space for an ambulance or doctors' car.

- It would seem reasonable to provide permanent parking for at least 80% of the apartments, not the present 30%. Are the 13 residential parking spaces allocated to individual apartments or is it a daily “first-come” “free-for-all”? Will there be conditions applied to the deeds of those apartments without an allocation which veto on street parking?

4.60 Highway safety

- Concerns about Albert Road being proposed as the entrance/exit for safety reasons. Reasons given: busy nature of Albert Road; poor visibility from the Albert Road entrance; proximity to the blind corner of The Mount and bus route / bus stops on Albert Road. Suggestion The Mount or Dovedale Close are better locations. More specifically:

- Under-provision of on-site parking will force drivers to park on the already congested The Mount, Albert Road and Dovedale Close. Additional parking pressure will reduce the flow of traffic along a busy bus route, exacerbate the blind corner onto Albert Road and compromise the safety of motorists, pedestrians, school children and cyclists.

- The pedestrian access has been moved closer to the bend. How will less agile, elderly people, probably with mobility, sight and or hearing problems, be able to safely walk off the site and cross the road to the bus stop? A pedestrian access from The Mount (or north of the bus stop) would be safer, so a pedestrian can arrive at the junction at the optimal place to see the road in all directions.

- Elderly residents will be trying to manoeuvre out of the drive in their cars and mobility scooters into this oncoming traffic, as will all visitors, delivery people and refuse collectors. Dovedale Close would be far safer and less hazardous

- People would be forced to park on the streets, which are already overcrowded making it difficult for home owners to park at, and access, their own homes. Another states Clifton Park Road is an obvious parking location for those who cannot fit into these provided spaces. Our road will become even more dangerous than it already is. We are a steep hillside, people racing up the road, trying to park, it will be very dangerous. There are many families in our road with young children.

- Any obstruction of sight lines at the southern end of Albert Road (caused by more parked cars) could make the blind bend into The Mount a much more dangerous area for school children (owing to the increase in volume of traffic and parked cars) other pedestrians, cyclists (owing to more parked cars) and buses (turning into and out of the site will be impossible when there is a bus there – buses find negotiating the bend challenging/impossible at times).

- Accidents - The corner that the access way is proposed to be on is a very busy and 'dangerous' one. The area has a mixed population with a high proportion of families that all use the pavements, roads and the public bus service that surround the property. To introduce an access way, for the use of over 60 staff and residents, onto an already busy and blind 4 way junction seems absurd, or to put it another way, an accident waiting to happen.

- Recent gas replacement works caused parking along the road side, causing no end of congestion and a few near misses

- The building will need to come with a double yellow lines scheme in this area and a parking attendant as more cars in this bendy area will impact the bus ability to pass through.

- Inadequate turning space for a bin lorry in the vicinity of the bin store. - The transport statement, section 2.7 state that the narrowness of the access results

in poor visibility increasing danger to pedestrians and vehicles. The proposed development retains this access for staff parking and the access has not been improved to address the safety issues.

- The transport statement section 2.17 states that the younger age group will retain their vehicle and require a parking space and as this development is for 55+ independent living residents the providing of 0.3 parking spaces per apartment is incorrect for the development

4.61 Traffic Flow / Congestion

- Residents travelling through this area will be subject to further delays at peak. Such delays increase journey time, increase pollution levels and put increased pressure on those residents at the lower end of Kidmore Road leading to Caversham Bridge - which is already sufficiently congested.

- There is no chance whatever of the inevitable parking overflow being absorbed locally, it will quite unnecessarily create a congestion black spot and inevitably affect bus scheduling and safety.

- The additional parking pressure to the area due to the lack of provision on the site itself will reduce traffic flow, slow up and be dangerous for the bus and exacerbate the problems on the bend

- On the site, no specific place for delivery lorries to load/unload. This cannot be allowed on Albert Road and especially not on the pavement. Residents’ parking and commercial vehicle activity should be kept well apart.

- * See also the noise, safety, and disturbance during the construction phase section 4.62 Wider transport related points

- Parking restrictions will need to be considered along the bus route of the Mount and Albert Rd

- How will the council plan to monitor the impact of the scheme on kerbside parking around this junction and on its impact on local buses navigating the turn or safety for local residents? (would have expected to see an assessment on this)

- The adjoining roads are not up to standard for this proposal. - Important that RBC require the reinstatement of any parts of Albert Road that are

damaged during the construction period. - I have not seen any travel plan which shows how the residents will travel to the

local Caversham Centre which is at the bottom of a very steep hill and which would be difficult for the more elderly residents or those with any disabilities.

- The travel plan should also consider potential day users and how such travel would be managed/restricted.

- Request conditions that limit deliveries and refuse collections to off-peak hours, and prohibit any such deliveries and collections on Sundays, Bank Holidays or peak hours during the week.

- Suspect that the number of vehicles disobeying the ‘no entry’ signs at the top of Clifton Park Road would also increase as a result of the increased congestion.

- If the Council believes that many of the residents will no longer be able to drive, is there any intention to increase the frequency of the 22 'bus to allow for the extra passengers?

- The noise of the additional traffic up Clifton Park Road would be impactful on the residents given the steep incline of the road contributing to additional engine noise on what is used as a cut through.

- The council is already looking at on-street parking issues in lower Caversham and we noted that "fixing" the problem there simply moves the cars to other streets in the area. Any proposed parking solution coupled with this care home will almost certainly create congestion for larger vehicles such as buses.

- The proposal access from Albert Road may lead to legal claims upon the council for their breach of their duty of care which they owe to local residents, the elderly and children going to school.

4.63 Land use – questions over the extra care facility & associated points

- A significant proportion of responses received detail that they are very supportive of the intention to provide extra care housing on the site of the Albert Road Care Home.

- As the majority of apartments are private & self-contained, the age requirements are 55+ and varying needs of care, the development is much more akin to sheltered housing and so should be classed as Class C3.

- Occupiers will still be driving and very active and therefore there is the potential for each flat to come with two cars, numerous visitors and noise.

- It is clearly not for frail and elderly people as the original property was. - Concerns that too many flats - and all of the two-bedroomed flats - are to be sold

off to private individuals. Not the best use of council assets. The developers used the words “luxury flats” at their presentation in April 2015 so they will be out of many people's financial reach

- If this is intended to be housing for the elderly, why is the minimum age 55? Surely this should be 65 or above?

- Its concept of upmarket housing for affluent older people [bringing handsome returns for the developers] when what you should be providing is care accommodation for those who genuinely need it.

- Concerned about the ‘entry requirements’ of the C2 use and how this would be monitored.

- Understand from the developer that the only EXTRA CARE requirement that needs to be fulfilled to purchase a flat in the new block is that “they must have someone coming in to help them once a week.” This could (they confirmed) be a cleaner popping in once a week to do the dusting…. Hardly extra care?! RBC will have no influence or control whatsoever over who buys the flats that go onto the open market. Suggest that the proposal is altered so that the age of buyers is 75years and above - and so that the extra care requirement is clearly defined and can be strictly enforced, and cannot just be fulfilled by having a cleaner popping in once a week.

- How will it be ensured that the proportion of flats set aside for much needed extra care housing will be protected going forward? What provision has been made for revenue funding from this and how long can it be guaranteed/sustained for? Worry that without this the development will quickly become solely private apartments for the not very old (55 and over) and not the provision that the community has been promised by the council.

- Given Councillor Richard Davies’ recent communication to the local neighbourhood regarding the development and his subsequent communication with a neighbour, quote “the wide age range of residents is an important part of an extra-care facility as it has a beneficial effect on more elderly residents, promotes more active living.” Therefore the category is more a C3 than C2 and should have the necessary parking provision for such a development.

- It is understood A2 Dominion’s lease runs for 125 years with a requirement to provide Extra Care. There has been some suggestion that under the tenancy there is nothing to stop A2 Dominion to convert the communal spaces into further apartments in the coming years, thus taking away the intended benefits of Extra Care, the non-resident element and the 24 hour cover. It is understood it is possible to impose conditions on the planning consent to ensure these facilities continue to remain. I urge the Council to ensure conditions are imposed on the development to ensure the 24 hour care is to remain throughout the lease including the non-resident function, along with restaurant, shop and other amenities which provide the Extra Care element.

- Unnecessary to sweeten the deal for the developer to the extent of allowing them to profit from the sale of the majority of the flats to private buyers. The condition that these buyers will need to be over 55 and in need of support of some kind is too loose, unpoliceable and unaccountable. What degree of ‘support’ would qualify a buyer? How verified? This condition looks like a fig leaf to me, and if the plan goes ahead I intend to stimulate inquiry into this aspect.

- Do not see that this new build is addressing a need for the elderly in Caversham who need residential or nursing care?

4.64 Land Use - Day Centre

- Day care is urgently needed in the area, so the developer must be made to ensure this continues to be offered for the life of the facility.

- Having an understanding of the dynamics of an extra care facility, it is of paramount importance the non-resident function opens at the same time as new residents take occupation of the building, for residents and non-residents to start their journey together. Otherwise a territorial issue quickly arises and the non-resident function is in danger of being unable to continue. In order for functions such as the hairdresser, shop and restaurant to be viable the inclusion of non-residents is a necessary part of the success of them continuing.

- Urge the Council to impose a condition on the development for the non-resident function to commence at the time of, for example, the first 10 residents being in occupation.

4.65 Land use – quality of accommodation

- Surprise that the public rooms… the heart of the home… are currently facing North/East and also the main road. To draw the residents and any visiting daytime Clubs into the public rooms, light and sunshine give an essential "welcome". The public areas of many a successful holiday hotel face South for a very good reason. Therefore suggest that the ground floor layout be reconsidered before planning permission is granted. Surely the main entrance with its public rooms can be placed to face South/West onto Dovedale Close?

- Main entrance, parking and bin storage should be away from the busy Albert Road and instead be via Dovedale Close.

- Suggest that far fewer than 15 of the private 2-bed units be 2-bed. The space saved could mean all the difference to reducing the height of the 4 storey tower. On a visit to Cedar Court, it was heard that their 2 bedroomed flats were much more difficult to fill.

- Question the need for two bedroom properties. The prime requirement is surely for mostly single-bedded rooms with a few double-bedded.

- A day care centre will also create issues for the residents in winter conditions. The steep decline into Caversham will also cause them problems.

- The redevelopment of this site should be capped at 25 residents as that was the previous capacity of the original care home.

- For people living independently, this is not the correct location as it is not close enough to any amenities and is poorly served by public transport.

- To go from provisioning for 25 elderly residents to up to 58 is more than double the original use of the site and is unacceptable. There will also be a knock on impact in terms of the support staff for the resident and their visitors.

- The footprint of the building will create poor amenity space for the occupiers, pressure to remove trees and little space for new strategic planting.

- There are a number of single aspect north facing flats which will provide poor amenity for the residents occupying them.

- The poor aspect of the flats & the close proximity of the retained trees will make the internal spaces very dark, & outlook very poor for the occupants. This is contrary to the 'HAPPI' design principles for extra care accommodation. Therefore, residents will put pressure on management to remove more trees & planting/shrubbery causing further detrimental damage to the site.

4.66 Amenity (Policies DM4, DM7, DM1, DM11 and core objectives of the Core Strategy all referenced at various points in objections received)

Overlooking

- 22 north facing non-obscured windows, 13 at first and second floor level, which directly overlook the property and garden of No. 3 Albert Road. Significant reduction in privacy e.g. children playing in the garden. Reference also made to Articles 1 (peaceful enjoyment of possessions) and 8 (right to a private and family life) of the Human Rights Act.

- Neighbouring properties will be overlooked by a large number of individual flats (20 windows and balconies overlooking one property and garden) which previously the building served as a day centre with no residents. This appears completely unreasonable and must surely contravene planning laws.

- 27 windows (including balconies) facing the private garden of number 8 The Mount DIRECTLY opposite. Every bedroom on the first floor of no.8 The Mount will be overlooked. This will rob the family living there of their privacy.

- Young children live in several of these properties and therefore while in the garden would have no protection of who was watching them play - whether it be a resident or one of their visitors.

- Windows and balconies from the flats will be overlooking existing houses and gardens and all residents of surrounding houses will lose any privacy they may have had in the first place. This will have a significant impact on the quality of life of those home owners and their children.

- Planting trees and other shrubs will not significantly protect the privacy of those families affected - and such planting will take many years to establish.

- As well as actual overlooking, there will also be the perception of overlooking at the site.

4.67 Loss of light

- Loss of sun to garden of No. 3 Albert Road (which faces south-west). Reduction in the enjoyment of the garden as a result.

- The building will overshadow adjacent properties - Loss of light to property of No. 3 Albert Road - Dispute the conclusion of the

Daylight and Sunlight survey submitted, as being incomplete and misleading (does not consider front elevation windows / mis-calculation of results – sunlight & overshadowing of gardens / not using the correct guidance for the type of development proposed / shadow diagrams are incomplete)

4.68 Overbearing

- The un-neighbourly aspect of the proposed development. The overbearing height of the proposed dwelling would seriously impinge on the privacy of immediate and surrounding neighbours' properties.

- The boundary treatment on the left (as you look at the proposed application) is shockingly un-neighbourly with the 4 storey height abutting the boundary - this would give a prison like, shut-in aspect for the near neighbour.

4.69 Noise, smells and disturbance and air quality

- Position of plant, bins and kitchen adjacent (3 to 4m) to the boundary with No. 3 Albert Road will cause noise and smells to the detriment of these occupiers.

- Suggestion that such facilities should be relocated away from this boundary (e.g. south or west boundary)

- The quiet residential feel to the area will change due to the size of the building and increased noise/activity associated with a development of this nature.

- Increased noise, disturbance and smell to the area by the increase in large delivery vehicles, maintenance vehicles, refuse collection vehicles, reversing noises from each of these, as well as from the disturbance of staff emptying bins and using the kitchen.

- Odours from the kitchen and bins emanating into neighbouring properties and the street.

- Concerned about air quality issues in relation to the entirely of the development and its use.

- The air quality statement has not provided a baseline air quality survey and it has not provided any quantified assessment of the impact that the development will have, while in use, on air quality in the surrounding residential area. It is not possible to assess the impact that the development will have on air quality levels.

- There is no assessment of the impact that the development will have, while in use, on noise levels in the surrounding residential area. It is not possible to assess the impact that the development will have on noise levels.

4.70 Noise, safety, and disturbance during the construction phase

- Locals having to endure the terrible stress of the prospect of huge disruptive building works which will end with their privacy being seriously infringed.

- The construction impact of this huge development is not properly addressed and is underestimated. There will be circa 30 to 45 trades vans plus large delivery lorries most days for 72 weeks in a residential area with large child and elder person population. Also, the already heavily congested St Peter's Hill and The Mount will be gridlocked between 7.30 and 9.00am every week day!!! This is a serious accident waiting to happen.

- Site hours are stated as 8am to 6pm Mon to Fri and 8am to 1pm on Sat. This is far too much for adjacent family households to have to bear and must be strictly limited.

- Grave concerns about the passage of large lorries both removing demolition waste and delivering building materiel to the site through Clifton Park Road. The previous development of Treetops lasted two years, bringing noise from the lorries, damage to parked cars and the spillage of stones, sand and waste on the road.

4.71 Amenity – other factors cited

- Why is a chicken coop design included in documentation? This would cause problems for neighbours and some residents of development.

- Concerned about potential for excessive lighting of the building, which would mean nearby properties will suffer light pollution.

4.72 Impact on local services

- As the proposal will nearly double the number of residents on site, concern of the impact this will have on already stretched medical resources in the area.

- Local doctor's surgeries are already under huge amounts of pressure to provide care for the residents of Caversham and this will have a negative impact on health care for the local community.

- Are there proposals to increase local infrastructure (bus services, doctors surgeries etc ..) to cope with huge increase in population?

- Overdevelopment will over-burden the already over-burdened local infrastructure and economy.

- Suggestion it is the council's duty to insist that a medical facility is an integral part of these plans

4.73 Trees and landscape

- The removal of many of the trees will negatively impact the aesthetic appearance of the area and the privacy of surrounding properties.

- All trees on the site should be retained, as the site is home to many lovely trees. Many mature trees will be removed, clearly against the council's own policy! It will spoil the unique nature of the area for ever.

- The development will rise high above the existing tree line, encroach on the escarpment view and require the removal of large, healthy, mature trees.

- The picture of the building obscured by deciduous trees is an idyllic representation completely hiding the fact that for almost half of the year the trees will be bare and thus the whole building will be exposed in the street scene. It is not clear whether the tree screening will include new tree planting. If it does it will some years before the full summer screening takes effect.

- Mature trees, TPO or not, should be preserved. They contribute to removing CO2 from the air and take 50-100 years to replace. It would be criminal to cut them down.

4.74 Ecology

- Lack of Bat survey – there are Bats in the area and this property could well be hosting over wintering bats. No survey has been done or required.

4.75 Sustainability

- No statement on how the proposal meets any form of sustainable development criteria

4.76 Precedence

- Proposals would set an unacceptable precedent for further overdevelopment which is out of keeping for the area.

- No precedent or existing building in this area, of 4 stories in height - Development precedent – if this proposal is allowed it surely creates a dangerous

precedent for future high density developments out of keeping with the area which would place yet more pressure on already over loaded infrastructure e.g. schools, roads, traffic and parking, sewers.

- Reading Borough Council will find it very difficult to refuse subsequent applications of this nature. Many of the Edwardian properties which are of a similar size to the current house at no1 Albert Rd, will surely be targeted by property developers looking to purchase their house/plot…. Does this mean Caversham Heights will be forever changed into blocks of modern flats?

4.77 Covenants

- There are various restrictive covenants on the land (title number BK432352) and am concerned that these are likely to be breached.

- There is a covenant in place for 1 Albert Road. That covenant states for only Detached or Semi Detached dwellings on this site. A2Dominion have not replied to the concerns of the heir of that covenant, Baroness Ann von Maltzahn.

4.88 Other matters raised

- Particularly concerned that the Council will be under pressure not to properly

consider the requirements of the relevant planning policies and strategies when reviewing the application, but to grasp the opportunity to provide Extra Care housing on the site, at any cost. Others refer to RBC owning the site and this influencing the planning decision.

- As far as we can see the Labour Council of Reading is determined to go ahead with their plans regardless of what we the locals think or say. The Labour Council shows that their decision is based on political ideas because Caversham has a Conservative Councillor and MP.

- Planning approval should not be granted simply to honour a pledge by Reading Borough Council to replace the former Albert Road Care Home.

- RBC are elected to represent the wide interests of the community and have a responsibility to ensure any agreement is not simply the 'best available at a point in time' but is appropriate and sustainable over time and takes into account the long term requirements all stakeholders including the developer, RBC as a whole, the potential residents of the retirement home, the residents of existing surrounding properties and the wider community of people who travel through the area and face potential road chaos with the additional roadside parking caused by the lack of proper parking facility to accommodate the needs of the new building

- The planning application and need for extra care housing should be considered entirely separately and independently and it is a concern that some members of the planning approval committee are also the same councillors engaged in the commissioning of the extra care provision. This does not seem democratic or ethical.

- The plans appear simply attempt to maximise profits for greedy developers who have no connection or roots to the local area. Another states it is yet another prime example of developers seeking, by their self-serving attitude and utter contempt for local public opinion, to force through designs which would invariably denigrate if not totally destroy our local amenity.

- Found the developer unresponsive and unable to engage properly with the local community due to commercial pressures of trying to minimise cost for and maximise revenue from the development.

- Overall there is a major concern with the attitude and behaviour of the developer (A2 Dominion) who to date have ignored the views of local community in which they intend to operate. This should be as concerning for RBC as it is for the local residents as it suggests a high handed and remote approach and is symptomatic of the design of the property which feels like an identikit design with no sympathy to the community in which it being built.

- The neighbourhood properties could not be more devalued than by the existence of this overbearing construction. Another states all the nearby properties will suffer a decrease in their value.

- This application can only have been submitted in the hope that it would be turned down allowing an alternative scheme (that would not have been acceptable under current guide lines) to be approved at the next Planning Committee Meeting.

- The proposed development will be visible from the railway station, the River Thames and Caversham Bridge. It is not an attractive building. It will not help in any desires to attract visitors and businesses to the town.

- If you really think the location is the most suitable spot for a care home in Reading, then build it. Just don't build something that all the locals will hate, that ignores the character of the area and that has a negative impact of those of us who live in the area. If you build something that only brings the community together because of their shared objections then you've failed the citizen you serve.

- I urge the Council to either ensure the property does not permit children to be resident in an apartment through the necessary legal processes (after the proposals

have been deferred for amendment), or to ensure the school catchment is not Caversham Primary to take away the temptation of a loophole.

- The artist impression drawings are very misleading. They show the presence of certain trees, yet upon further investigation, some of those trees in the pictures will be removed when the development is built, changing the overall look. The drawings are also not to scale and are misleading as to the impact on the neighbouring homes and street scene.

- Urge all involved in making the decision on this application to view the pure planning considerations entirely separately from the policy decision to provide extra care housing and ensure that the final approved design integrates considerately into the community.

- Safe to assume that both the will & intention are there to mount a legal challenge against A2D's planning application, unless both they and Reading Borough Council start taking local concerns properly into account and revise their plans accordingly.

4.89 A more detailed summary of the responses received, together with full copies of

responses from local groups, was sent to the applicant in March 2016. Re-consultation (May - June 2016) 4.90 After the submission of revised and further information by the applicant in April /

May 2016, a period of re-consultation took place from 16th May to 6th June. The 51 nearby occupiers who were formally consulted previously were re-consulted via letter. Not all addresses who commented on the original consultation were formally re-consulted, as the re-consultation undertaken was considered to be proportionate to the level/nature of revised / additional information submitted. Moreover, representatives of SPEAR, CADRA, Caversham Globe and Thames/Caversham ward councillors were personally contacted to alert them to the re-consultation process.

Letter from Member of Parliament 4.91 Rob Wilson MP (Reading East) sought for the following points to be taken into

consideration, and for RBC to continue to work with SPEAR, A2Dominion and other local residents towards a reasonable and satisfactory outcome:

- Disappointing that the amendments make no attempt to remove the fourth storey

of the building, which means it remains far more substantial than neighbouring properties.

- Residents and campaigners have also raised concerns about its density, issues surrounding privacy and proximity to neighbours, and the sufficiency of current parking provision, in addition to the height/proportions.

- Knows residents are fully supportive of the plans to deliver extra care housing for the elderly at the site; however, they do not approve of the current proposals and feel that without further amendments the development will have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area, while setting a dangerous precedent for projects of similar design in the future.

Re-consultation responses from local groups

4.92 CADRA continues to object, stating to be disappointed by such a small quantity of minor amendments to the proposals, especially given the previous concerns raised by CADRA and many people locally. Indeed some of the proposed changes and additional information demonstrate negative change and make matters worse. Specific comments are summarised as:

- The four storey' tower' element (south eastern corner) remains, bulky, poorly

proportioned and overbearing despite a reduction in height. - Prominent gable treatment to the 3rd floor second bedroom facing Albert Rd

remains unsatisfactory, emphasizing the height and bulk of the building. - New addition of PV panels to the flat roof of the 4 storey 'tower' element are

concerning, since these will not be laid flat but angled towards the south and may be visible from a distance.

- The reduction in the height of the tower element does reduce the impact on the skyline from Caversham Bridge.

- Adding a previously omitted Monterey Cypress tree onto the landscape plan demonstrates the closeness of the tree canopy to proposed windows in the 4 storey tower element. A revised drainage layout appears to show a new foul drain being unacceptably dug through the root area of these trees.

- Require more details about the replacement tree works - Concerns about the positioning of the bin / kitchen stores remain; refuse strategy

raises more questions – e.g. police and maintaining. - External lighting now shown to include 4 x 5m lighting columns in the Albert Road

parking area. Bollard type lights should instead serve this area to avoid a non-residential/ service yard feel, to the detriment of Albert Road.

- No changes are proposed in respect of parking, provision remains well below RBC's own standard and inaccuracy about the frequency of bus services submitted in the documentation remain.

4.93 CADRA suggests that Planning Committee defer a decision on the application in order that A2 Dominion can make more substantive changes to improve the scheme to allay justified local concern.

4.94 Caversham Globe continues to object, stating regret that the more substantial amendments previously suggested have been largely ignored. While the provision of extra care accommodation is socially desirable it is suggested that the Planning Committee defers a decision on the application until A2 Dominion has made substantial changes to improve the scheme and to alleviate justified local concerns. Specific comments are summarised as:

- Scale, height and bulk are still far too large and are still not in keeping with the character of the surrounding district

- Small reduction in the height of the “tower” is welcome, but the four storey structure, though 0.3 metre lower, will still be out of character with the surrounding area

- Residents parking spaces (13) will still be inadequate (given the number/size of units is unchanged). Inevitable on-street parking on Albert Road, increasing congestion and therefore additional atmospheric pollution from buses and other vehicles while they queue to proceed.

- Likely to establish a precedent for further applications elsewhere in the area - Regret no change in footprint, meaning many fine trees will have to be felled.

Welcome some of the amendments, but continue to question the removal of others, including some of high amenity value.

- Would prefer bollard lighting to 4 x 5m high lighting columns on Albert Road, causing light overspill. Also request lighting uses modern energy-saving LED with warm white light, to avoid disturbance to residents or wildlife. Public re-consultation responses

4.95 1 support from an occupier on Conisboro Avenue, stating:

- This development will provide a much needed and valuable amenity for the elderly

of the area should they require extra care. The area will be enhanced by such an addition rather than be diminished by it. The scare tactics used by the ‘nimbys’ living in the immediate vicinity should not be given undue weight over the needs of the wider community.

4.96 1 observation from a Kidmore Road address stating that the Transport Statement was not available to view via the website (Officer comment: The transport statement was available to view via the website throughout the application process)

4.97 A total of 288 objections (from occupiers of 239 different addresses, 5 unspecified numbered/named addresses along specified roads and 8 unspecified addresses. i.e. multiple responses from separate occupiers at the same address were received in 36 instances) were received from the following addresses:

- 42 from Albert Road addresses (from occupiers of 31 different addresses and 1 unspecified Albert Road address)

- 26 from Kidmore Road addresses (from occupiers of 24 different addresses and 1 unspecified Kidmore Road addresses)

- 25 from Clifton Park Road addresses (from occupiers of 19 different addresses) - 21 from The Mount addresses (from occupiers of 16 different addresses) - 14 from Conisboro Avenue addresses (from occupiers of 11 different addresses) - 11 from Highmoor Road (from occupiers of 9 different addresses and 1 unspecified

address) - 10 from Matlock Road (from occupiers of 9 different addresses) - 9 each from Blenheim Road; St Peters Avenue. - 8 each from Copperfields; Harrogate Road (from occupiers of 6 different addresses) - 7 each from Buxton Avenue (from occupiers of 4 different addresses and 2

unspecified addresses); Hewett Avenue (from occupiers of 5 different addresses); Oakley Road (from occupiers of 6 different addresses)

- 6 from Darrell Road (from occupiers of 5 different addresses) - 5 from Dovedale Close - 4 each from Orwell Close and St Annes Road (from occupiers of 3 different

addresses) - 3 each from Chazey Road (from occupiers of 2 different addresses) and Richmond

Road - 2 each from Hemdean Hill (from occupiers of 1 address); Morecambe Avenue; Priest

Hill; Priory Avenue; Rotherfield Road; St Andrews Road; Tyler Close - 1 each from Blocksett Close; Briants Piece, Thatcham; Brooklyn Drive; Charlotte

Close; Chelford Way; Church Road; George Street; Gosbrook Road; Haldene Road; Heather Close, Sonning Common; Henley Road; Kenley Road, Twickenham; Kidmore End Road; Mapledene; Newfield Road, Sonning Common; Newlands Avenue; Queen Street; Queensborough Drive; Ridge Hall Close; River Road; Rosebery Road, Tokers Green; Sandcroft Road; Silverthorne Drive; Stuart Close; Surley Row; Tanners Lane, Chalkhouse Green; Tokers Green Lane, Tokers Green; Tymawr; Uplands Road; Upper Woodcote Road; Washington Road; Wincroft Road; Woodberry Close; Woodcote Road; Wrenfield Drive; Yarnton Close; Zinzan Street.

- 8 from unspecified addresses 4.98 The General consensus is that the revisions to the proposals in no way address the

concerns raised during the original consultation period. The changes are summarised as minimal, cosmetic, derisory and tokenism. The majority of objectors refer back to previous concerns raised, which still stand. A number of responses

continue to be fully supportive of the intention to provide extra care housing on the site, but have significant concerns with the proposed scheme. A summary of the issues raised in these responses received are:

4.99 Design Scale, massing, height, footprint and density

- The proposed design is virtually unchanged and therefore the development remains in direct contravention to policies CS7 and CS31. Changes in scale and massing in no way addresses original objections made

- The roof ridge height has been reduced on the Albert Road elevation by 1.2m and elsewhere by a mere 30cm. This is still so much out of proportion to the buildings in the immediate vicinity.

- The proposed plans are a gross over-development of the plot. Another states the proposal not in keeping with the area regarding scale and size. Put another way, the size, width and height are totally out of keeping with the surrounding buildings within the neighbourhood and will dominate the southern end of Albert Road.

- 4 storeys does not blend in well with the surrounding area - Size and massing: still four storeys – for which there is no neighbouring president

(sic) - Apart from St. Andrews Church there are no other buildings of similar scale

anywhere near this location. - The density of occupation is excessive.

4.100 Character / appearance and detailed design

- The design remains the same and is not consistent with the neighbourhood and is

totally out of keeping with the area in which the development is situated. Another states the design to be industrial and utilitarian and not in-keeping with the neighbourhood. Put another way, the design proposed is brutally ugly, and clearly designed with a view to being as cheap as possible.

- PV panels have been added to the flat roof of the 4 storey 'tower' element, which are likely to be visible from a distance.

- The required lighting levels in this area should be dealt with by bollard type lights as elsewhere on the scheme if a non residential/ commercial feel is to be avoided on Albert Rd.

- The building materials proposed incorporate few if any of the features so prominent in surrounding period properties, such as slate roof tiles, sash/bow windows, decorative timber detailing. Another response states the proposed building is an ugly building which has apologetic nods to the original style of the area, and the original building.

- The taller tier, from a visual stance, is less appealing with so much brick, whereas the others are broken up with cladding and other features

- The developer continues in an attempt to disguise the height of the building with mature trees. This will not mask the blatant over development of this site and the building would be like a Victorian warehouse

- The comparative elevation drawings compare the locus of the high points of the existing building with that of the proposed new one. These do not take account of the fact that the new development highest points are solid blocks of roof whereas the existing highest points are the tips of chimneys and other much narrower roof sections. The latter are more easily disguised by the vegetation. The huge blocks of the new building will be very visible.

4.101 Impact on St Peter’s Conservation Area

- Visible from the conservation area and into Reading. Given its proximity the

proposed development should be particularly sympathetic to the conservation area in its design.

- Loss of the existing building / replicate the style/character of the existing. - The area around the application site should be designated a conservation area.

4.102 Transport

Car Parking provision

- The number of spaces and location of the Albert Street entrance remain completely unchanged, in contravention of Policy DM12.

- Number of flats have not been reduced nor have the number of car spaces been increased. Until convinced otherwise, this will undoubtedly lead to considerable car parking in Albert Road, leading to safety issues and congestion on this busy corner.

- The car parking spaces provided for 13 spaces remains wholly inadequate. The cars of the occupiers, families and care workers will certainly clog up the surrounding roads

- Although a report has been submitted supporting the number of spaces, this ignores the number of potential visitors/deliveries and assumes none of the 28x1-bed and only 2/3 of the 2-bed residents will drive. The conclusions of the report are therefore misleading.

- Large numbers of parked cars will inevitably spill onto the Albert Road, The Mount, Clifton Park Road and Dovedale Close: roads already heavily parked.

- Suggestion to restrict the age of the occupants to say 70/75yrs and above, at which point the likelihood of so many residents having cars is substantially reduced

- Request to investigate the existing “park and ride” on The Mount and Albert Road and how this will affect residents’ parking and Reading Buses’ route, if the proposed development goes ahead with the inadequate parking provision currently planned

- Comparison of the use of parking at Charles Clore Court is not relevant to the consideration of parking at Arthur Clark Home, given bus services are less frequent along Albert Road

- A rough calculation shows that more than the length of two football pitches of additional on-street parking space will be required (220m).

4.103 Highway safety

- An investigation of the road traffic safety on the proposed delivery route to the site is required following the very recent and serious road traffic accidents that have occurred.

- There are already issues with traffic safety on Albert Road and the increase in traffic volume will only exacerbate the problem and potential for further injury or fatality.

- Main vehicular entrance remains on the Albert Road frontage, in the same position, proximate to a busy and potentially dangerous junction.

- The tragic death of a pedestrian shows Albert Road not suitable for further on road parking.

- The road is utterly inappropriate for the level of traffic that will be generated by number of residents and staff. The corner of the development site is tight and dangerous already. Buses have to swing wide and many cars cut the corner.

- Access to Copperfields will be heavily restricted or even prevented to emergency vehicles such as ambulances and fire services.

- The street access to the dustbins and residents' buggy park and car parking bays is far too near the blind corner created by the busy Albert Road/The Mount/ Clifton Park Road junction. This is not safe especially considering the frailty of a lot of the drivers and the varied combination of vehicles

- Worry that the planned development in conjunction with The Heights School will make their daily journeys considerably more dangerous

- The road surface on The Mount and Albert Road has been habitually neglected by the Council, with potholes and drainage problems going unaddressed for years at a time. Additional traffic will only make for more rapid deterioration of the road; swerving to avoid potholes adds to the hazards of driving in the road.

- Traffic flow / congestion - Most mornings the area is currently heavily congested; Traffic is usually backed-up

from Caversham Bridge right back along Priest Hill and into Kidmore Road beyond its junction with Oakley Road; The Mount as far back and into Albert Road. Any further congestion will effectively imprison residents in this area. Caversham town itself is already frequently close to gridlock at these times.

4.104 Highway Safety during construction

- Following several accidents on Albert Road and the very sad recent fatality, it is imperative in the interests of safety that the road traffic status for this plan is reviewed again as a matter of urgent priority. The developers are planning all heavy lorry traffic to approach the site via the exact location of the recent accident. This junction is blackspot hazard for drivers and pedestrians alike, permitting this development will put residents and their children at unacceptable risk for a period of months whilst this development is in progress. This is completely unacceptable.

- Lack of consideration taken over the impact to the local area during construction, with a huge increase in vehicle movements over heavy plant and deliveries on roads that were never designed to take such traffic.

- Clifton Park Road should not be continuously used by heavy lorries

4.105 Affordable housing

- Preferable to see some proper affordable housing for the elderly who need it.

4.106 Land use – questions over the extra care facility & associated points

- Continue to consider that the units are more akin to Class C3 use than Class C2. Greater transparency to be provided by Reading BC regarding the classification of C2 Extra-Care. There may well be grounds for the 27 privately owned apartments to be re-classified as C3 Residential (e.g., who will be eligible to lease these? What are the terms of the leases, particularly regarding onward sale?). If C3 Residential is a more accurate classification, then the 27 private apartments (not the 16 Affordable apartments for rent) should be awarded minimum of 37 and maximum of 44 car park spaces.

- It would be reckless for the Council to allow the development to proceed without imposing appropriate contractual controls over the process of the building work and the ultimate use of the building

4.107 Land use – quality of accommodation

- Why is a home for elderly people being constructed on four floors? Surely under emergency conditions it will be impossible to evacuate the building safely

- Only providing 8 staffing parking spaces will not doubt have a knock on effect on the level of care provided, as staff will no doubt become increasing frustrated with the lack of parking.

4.108 Amenity Overlooking

- No change in number of windows/balconies (22 north facing windows) which will invade privacy, all facing towards the garden (where children play) and property of No. 3 Albert Road.

- Concerns that residents or their visitors have an ability to openly watch children play in nearby gardens

4.109 Loss of light

- Note the additional information provided, but given there is no change in the height or density, dispute that the development will not have a significant impact on No. 3 Albert Road.

4.110 Light pollution

- 5m street light will cause light pollution 4.111 Noise, smells, disturbance, air quality and drainage

- Plant, bins and kitchen positions are unchanged – very disappointed that specific/repeated requests have been ignored. Continue to consider a better location would be on one of the other three boundaries, away from the nearest existing residential property. Noise, waste. Smells and antisocial effects will reduce the enjoyment of the neighbouring residential property.

- Bar a small change, the plant, kitchen, bins etc remains an eyesore, damaging the street scene and potentially causing exhaust and noise nuisance

- The local residents in Dovedale Close, Copperfields and Albert Road will be massively affected, with deliveries, and staff coming and going at unsocial hours.

- The extra people put a strain on other local resources / create extra pollution - Can the existing sewers in Albert Road carry the additional foul effluent from the

increased occupancy of the site? What precautions are included to ensure unsuitable material (hygiene products) does not leave the site via the foul drains? Has the existing on-site portion of the foul drain that it is proposed to retain been examined for integrity? Are there any tree roots that are likely to interfere with the drains?

4.112 Impact on local services

- Doubts that nursing support and ambulances will be properly resourced / appropriately staffed to cover the extra demand

4.113 Trees and landscape

- Concern about the possible loss of established trees in The Mount and Albert Road. This is a loss of amenity to the area and will also remove the barrier between the development and the adjoining properties and those immediately opposite the development.

- The drainage layout shows a new foul drain through the root area of trees, which would appear problematic and is likely to damage trees

- The felling of large established trees at Clifton Park Road side will remove significant greenery from the area

- The proposed development will remove established trees and foliage which are central to the beauty of the area and to maintain privacy and reduce noise;

- Object to the removal of existing trees notably red cedar, walnut trees, Sycamore trees; these are important for the environment and wild life.

4.114 Ecology

- Lack of a bat survey, as the site could well be hosting wintering bats.

4.115 Precedence

- If this development is allowed in its present form it could become a precedent for further flat developments in this area and completely change the character of the place where we live.

4.116 Other matters

- This smacks of money/profit over providing a suitable development. It’s clear that the developers have not taken into serious considerations the concerns voiced by the local community and that this is more of a self-serving commercial scheme as opposed to the needs of the community. Another response states that there is a strong sense in the local community that concerns are being completely ignored.

- Only a small number of units allocated for council tenants does not reflect the statement made by the council when the centre was closed. Another states that when the care home closed - amid much protests from local residents - RBC promised to replace it with a similar facility. This does not offer such a facility to the elderly and shows how little respect RBC have for the local residents of Caversham and the elderly within this community.

- Policies are not being applied in the same rigorous manner owing to the land being owned by the Council.

- Concern that there is considerable pressure on the planning department, from other parts of the Council, to accept the proposals.

- Whether fair or not, RBC will be held to account for permitting this ugly, dangerous stain of a building to be imposed on the lives of an otherwise happy community.

- Re-consultation was undemocratic as only the immediate neighbours were consulted

- Original feasibility study not being taken in account (waste of tax payer money) - Safe to assume that both the will & intention are there to mount a legal challenge

against A2D's planning application, unless both they and Reading Borough Council start taking local concerns properly into account and revise their plans accordingly.

- Will local people be compensated for the impact it will have on their property value?

- Do not consider that the proposals align with stated purpose of the Planning System: "The central concerns of the planning system are to determine what kind of development is appropriate, how much is desirable, where it should best be located and what it looks like."

5. LEGAL AND PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT 5.1 Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special interest which it possesses.

5.2 Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

requires the local planning authority in the exercise of its functions to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

5.3 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'.

5.4 The application has been assessed against the following policies and guidance: 5.5 National

National Planning Policy Framework National Planning Policy Guidance

5.6 Reading Borough Local Development Framework – Adopted Core Strategy (2008)

(Altered 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 CS9 Infrastructure, Services, Resources and Amenities CS14 Provision of housing CS20 Implementation of the Reading Transport Strategy CS22 Transport Assessments CS23 Sustainable Travel and Travel Plans CS24 Car / Cycle Parking CS31 Additional and Existing Community Facilities CS32 Impacts on Community Facilities CS33 Protection and Enhancement of the Historic Environment CS34 Pollution and Water Resources CS35 Flooding CS36 Biodiversity and Geology CS38 Trees, Hedges and Woodlands

5.8 Sites and Detailed Policies Document (2012) (Altered 2015) SD1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM1 Adaptation to Climate Change DM2 Decentralised Energy DM3 Infrastructure Planning DM4 Safeguarding Amenity DM7 Accommodation for Vulnerable People DM12 Access, Traffic and Highway Related Matters DM18 Tree Planting DM19 Air Quality

5.9 Reading Borough Council Supplementary Planning Documents

Employment, Skills and Training SPD (2013) Revised Parking Standards and Design SPD (2011) Revised SPD on Planning Obligations under Section 106 (2015) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)

5.10 Other relevant documentation

Reading Tree Strategy 2010 St Peters Conservation Area Appraisal 2009 Localism Act 2011 The Assets of Community Value (England) Regulations 2012 Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government Manual for streets (2007) Waste Management Guidelines for Property Developers, Architects, Planners and Contractors Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to food practice by Paul J Littlefair (BRE guidance) Second Edition 2011

6. APPRAISAL 6.1 The main issues are considered to be:

i) Principle of development and related land use matters ii) Scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets iii) Transport iv) Trees, landscaping and ecology v) Quality of accommodation for future occupiers vi) Amenity for nearby occupiers vii) Sustainability, energy and SuDS viii) Other matters

i) Principle of development and related land use matters

6.2 The proposed development seeks the demolition of the existing buildings and

ancillary structures at the site, barring the sub-station in the south-east corner of the site. As such, the starting point for the consideration of the proposals is whether the demolition of the existing buildings and ancillary structures is acceptable in principle. In terms of the 1960s built Care Home and all ancillary structures, none are considered to be of any particular special historic, architectural or wider merit to warrant their retention in their own right.

6.3 In terms of the Day Centre, some objections have been received regarding its loss.

It is acknowledged that the building dates from the early 1900s, is of some architectural merit (albeit nothing of particular significance) and aligns with the character of others in the area. However, it is not a designated heritage asset and the applicant has provided information detailing the need for repair and other constraints (such as parts of the building containing asbestos) demonstrating that retaining the existing building is not viable. As such, in overall terms and taking into consideration CS33 and relevant parts of the NPPF, the building is considered to have a low significance in terms of being a heritage asset and its loss is not objectionable in principle. Nor is the proposed demolition of this building considered to cause harm to any other nearby heritage asset (designated or non-designated). However, the demolition of the existing buildings is only considered to be appropriate subject to the replacement building being suitable in design and related terms. This will be detailed in later sections of the appraisal.

6.4 Moving on to consider principle land use matters, it is first acknowledged that the

site is a designated ACV (see paragraph 1.7 above), as the community wish to preserve the use of the site for continued use by older people. The proposal for extra care accommodation (Class C2) is considered to satisfactorily align with the ACV listing.

6.5 In addition, policies CS31 (Additional and Existing Community Facilities) and DM7

(Accommodation for Vulnerable People) are also of relevance. Policy CS31 states that proposals for new, extended or improved community facilities will be acceptable, particularly where this will involve the co-location of facilities on a single site. Proposals involving the redevelopment of existing community facilities for non-community uses will not be permitted, unless it is demonstrated that there is no longer a need to retain the facility. In this regard it is considered that the proposed use will fully align with the principles of this policy, as discussed in more detail below.

6.6 Policy DM7 allows development providing specialist accommodation for vulnerable

people to address identified needs, including accommodation that enables occupants to live as independently as possible, particularly older people and people with physical disabilities. There is a specified need for new residential care space for frail elderly people. Policy DM7 also sets out the criteria for specialist accommodation that seeks that developments incorporate relevant community facilities, which as outlined in more detail below the proposal will.

6.7 In terms of principle land use matters, it is noted that public consultation

responses have questioned whether the proposal falls within a Class C2 (Residential Institution) or Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) use, with numerous objections specifying that the proposed accommodation is more akin to Class C3 than C2. This is a pertinent issue given that a Class C3 use class designation would result in more stringent on-site parking requirements, as well as making the proposals liable to the provision of affordable housing and CIL payments, to name three significant implications.

6.8 Given the fundamental knock on implications of the proposed use class, prior to

the application being submitted the applicant and the local planning authority jointly instructed Counsel to provide an opinion on the matter, based on the exact nature of these specific proposals at this site.

6.9 In short, the Counsel opinion considered that the proposal clearly falls within Class

C2 (Residential institution – use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care – other than a use within Class C3 dwellinghouses). More specifically, it was stated that the distinguishing feature of the Class C2 description is that the development must provide both accommodation and also care to those in need of care (where “care”, bears an extended meaning). By contrast, Class C3 bears a narrower meaning of “care” and does not expressly require a “need” for care, but, rather, merely its provision. Furthermore, although it was noted that Class C2 and C3 accommodation are both residential in nature, there are however differences. For example, Class C2 concerns “institutions” and C3 does not. Therefore, the presence of institutional features (such as shared facilities and common areas) is a relevant consideration. It follows that, the presence of discrete access doors in some accommodation, cannot prevent the accommodation satisfying Class C2 (nor be determinative of that quality). As such, the proposal has been submitted on the basis of it providing Class C2 accommodation.

6.10 Based on the Counsel opinion, and the scheme / policy context not significantly

altering since receipt of the opinion, officers are satisfied that the proposal falls within the Class C2 use class. However, to ensure that this is secured in practice, a legal agreement will secure a range of matters associated with the proposed use. These are summarised below, with the subsequent paragraphs providing more commentary as to the rationale for each element being secured:

a) 16 of the proposed units (16x1-bed) to be ‘affordable’ for rent and given over to

Reading Borough Council in perpetuity, with full nomination rights b) All units to be Class C2 in use c) Not to permit any of the accommodation to be sold / disposed of / occupied /

otherwise used as Class C3 dwellinghouses at any time d) The owner, or tenant, or operator (having control and management of the extra

care unit) of each of the 43 units shall be, or shall appoint, a care provider to provide care and support services within the development, including a minimum of 2 hours a week of personal care to each occupier. This care shall be included in the cost of a service charge.

e) Each occupier to adhere to the terms of a basic care package, including details of the pre-first occupation ‘care assessment’ and subsequent ‘care plan’ and for the assessment/plan to be reviewed annually.

f) To provide a copy of a written log of current occupiers and associated details within 10 working days of a written request from the Council.

g) Communal elements of the site to be made available for wider use by the local community and others, and a specified amount of communal floorspace being retained in perpetuity.

6.11 In terms of a), this is considered to be a key tangible benefit of the proposed

scheme. The proposal is a key element in the delivery of RBC's Extra Care Housing (ECH) programme. Moreover, owing to the ACV status of the site and the former use of a care home at the site, it is considered to be necessary to secure this element of the proposals within the legal agreement. It is acknowledged that given the scheme is considered to fall within Class C2, there is no statutory requirement for affordable housing at the site in planning terms. However, the ACV status and former use at the site means in this instance it can justifiably be secured. It is also noted that this matter will also be secured via the applicant’s separate contract with Reading Borough Council and will also be a condition of the lease entered into on the transfer of the land to A2Dominon. Notwithstanding this, it is also considered necessary to secure this via legal agreement in this specific instance.

6.12 With regard to b) and c), this is considered to be necessary given the subtle

differences between the two uses and the differing requirements a Class C3 use would have required at the time of this application.

6.13 With regard to d), this is considered to be necessary to ensure that ‘extra care’

accommodation, as proposed, is provided in practice. In terms of e), the pre-occupation eligibility criteria and details ensures residents meet the eligibility criteria and are in need of some form of care, thereby assisting in ensuring the accommodation is a Class C2 use. In addition, the applicant has provided details of the basic core cover that each resident will receive:

- Scheme Manager and Support Staff who ensure the needs and welfare of the

residents is met

- Waking night on-site staff for 10 hours every night, seven days a week. The number of staff on site overnight will depend on the level of demand at the development.

- Staff liaison with doctors and family members - Emergency support from in-house staff (including provision of first aid) - Out of hours emergency response service - The facility to provide a subsidised two course meal every day - Daily calls to check on individual’s well being - Organised and structured daily activities - Signposting – providing an access point for further care and services - Escorting to and from the restaurant as needed - Organisation/liaison with external agencies to arrange collection and visits - Operating and monitoring costs of the emergency call system in each apartment.

6.14 In terms of f), this is considered to be necessary for monitoring and investigating

any enforcement matters resulting in the future. Finally, in terms of g), this is necessary in line with policies CS31 and DM7, as well as the ACV status at the site. Instead of specifying specific facilities, a marked area will instead be retained for communal and wider use by the local community and others. This allows the applicant flexibility and to take account of changing demands over time. At this point in time the applicant is agreeable to a range of facilities being made available to the local community / community groups, typically by prior appointment with the applicant, including: Activity Room and associated patio; Restaurant; Communal Lounge 1 ; Shop; Hair/Treatment room; Greenhouse; Potting Shed; Chicken coop; Gardens; Scooter room. This is welcomed in order to seek to ensure that the building has a wider use than just for future occupiers.

6.15 With the above elements secured via legal agreement, it is considered that the

nature of the use will be suitably managed. It is noted that there is no prescribed requirement relating to the age of future occupiers. Officers consider that there is no overriding planning policy requirement to restrict the age occupiers in this instance. More specifically, the February 2016 Strategic Housing Market Assessment demonstrates that housing need exists for specialist accommodation across all age groups. Moreover, it is also considered that officers are applying due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 by not restricting the age of occupiers in this instance.

ii) Scale, appearance, design and effect on heritage assets 6.16 The preceding section has already established that the loss of the existing

buildings at the site is considered acceptable, subject to the proposed replacement building being suitable in design and related terms.

6.17 The public consultation responses have raised various concerns with the overall

height and bulk of the proposed development. In this regard it is acknowledged that the proposed building is of a height, scale and mass and footprint which is greater than that which exists in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, given a combination of factors, it is considered that the site can suitably accommodate the proposed development, both in itself and in terms of the relationship with the wider area. First, the size of the plot is considerably larger than others in the area, which means that with careful siting and design a larger building could acceptably be accommodated within it. Moreover, the proposal is for an extra care accommodation, so is not a traditional residential development either in terms of its use or in physical terms. Accordingly, the proposal has a basis for justifiably not demonstrating the domestic scale of existing buildings in the

area. Furthermore, it is also relevant to note that the site is well screened with existing/proposed landscaping around the site, including a number of mature trees which during the course of the application are now protected by TPOs. At the same time, the existence/retention of mature vegetation at the site has constrained the footprint of the proposed development.

6.18 The proposed scheme is considered to be predominantly 3-storey in height, with

the scale decreasing to 2-storey and single storey towards the north of the site and increasing to 4-storey at the south end of the site (and a single centrally located element on the west elevation). It is considered that the stepping up in height away from the nearest adjacent residential properties along the Albert Road frontage provides a suitable transition in scale at this point. The predominant 3-storey scale is not considered to be detrimentally out of scale with the prevailing character of the immediate/wider area. The greatest height is contained at the southern end of the site, where the significant distance to the site boundary (between 20-30m in the south east corner towards Dovedale Close and 12.6m to the Albert Road / The Mount junction) creates sufficient relief to mitigate the greater height. Furthermore, it is considered that the south-east corner junction of the site offers the greatest scope for height at the site.

6.19 In general terms, although it is acknowledged that the proposal is larger than the

previous building on the site by virtue of its footprint and mass, it is considered that the specific site characteristics and context, together with the siting and design approach proposed, contribute to a conclusion that, on balance, the overall footprint and bulk/mass is satisfactory from a design perspective.

6.20 More specifically, the applicant has provided information comparing the existing

height of the buildings with that proposed and vice-versa. This illustrates that on the Albert Road frontage the proposed height will increase by between 0.5 storeys and 1.5 storeys, with the largest increase being at the south end of the site. In terms of the Dovedale Close frontage, the central element is increasing by 3 storeys (given the existing is single storey), with the two ends increasing by a storey. Although this again demonstrates that there will be an increase in height across the site, the proposed siting and other factors means this can be satisfactorily incorporated in design terms. The aforementioned 12.6m set back of the building to the Albert Road site boundary assists in mitigating any impact of the proposed height at this point. To Dovedale Close, the separation distance is between 11.3-20.6m, increasing to 29.9m at the Dovedale Close / The Mount junction. These distances, together with the existing/proposed tree cover and the existing context, all demonstrate that in overall terms the proposed height is suitable and justifiable in this instance.

6.21 With specific reference to the footprint of the proposed building, this includes a

resemblance to the existing, seeks to create strong frontages along Albert Road and The Mount/Dovedale Close, while also sufficiently respecting existing building lines in the local area.

6.22 In terms of the detailed design, appearance and choice of materials, the proposal

seeks to take cues from the surrounding area. The predominant use of red brick and slate grey tile at roof level is consistent with the local area, while the projecting bays are tile hung with bands of curved tiles which also aligns with others in the area. The use of render is minimised to the recessed elements on the upper floors of parts of the elevations. The proposed balustrades and handrails will be steel based with a timber appearance. The general materials approach is

considered to sufficiently maintain the character and appearance of the street scenes and wider area.

6.23 At the same time the design approach helps in part to break down the overall

massing of the development. The provision of tile hung projecting bays and changes in materials within the recessed elements at upper floor level are considered to satisfactorily assist in partly breaking up the massing, while also providing a degree of visual interest and rhythm to the street scene at this point. Additional details, such as soldier course brickwork and brickwork bands at various points between floors, adds a degree of richness to the design approach.

6.24 Although the applicant has provided some details of the proposed materials, it is

however still considered necessary to secure full (including manufacturer details and physical samples) details of all facing materials via condition. This is considered essential given that the final design quality of the proposal is particularly important in this instance.

6.25 Other pertinent points to reference from a design perspective include the

provision of photovoltaic panels. These were removed from the roofslopes of the proposed building during the course of the application and are now proposed solely on flat roof areas. In general these are sited away from the edge of the roofslopes (the vast majority are within the central element of the site) and are shown to project at a shallow angle. These factors combine to sufficiently mitigate any possible harm from public vantage points. The proposals also include a number of smaller ancillary buildings, such as a potting shed, greenhouse and chicken coop for example. These are all limited in footprint, single storey in height and are considered appropriate in design terms.

6.26 Concerns have also been raised in respect of the impact the proposals will have on

the setting of the nearby St Peters Conservation Area, with the closest boundary being 33m to the south of the site. In particular, it is noted that the conservation area appraisal identifies two significant views from Church Road (adjacent to the north boundary of the grounds of St Peters Church). It is considered that these views will continue to be dominated by the existing Treetops development, with the distance (134m from Church Road to the nearest part of the application site at this point), tree cover (many protected by TPOs) and topography all mitigating any possible negative impact the proposed development would have. In addition, the proposal is not considered to detract from the setting of the listed St Peters Church, Caversham Court, or indeed any other designated/non-designated heritage asset at any point within or outsider the conservation area.

6.27 In addition, further concerns are raised in terms of the impact on views on the

conservation area and the wider Caversham area from Caversham Bridge (which itself is located outside of the conservation area) and other wider areas. During the course of the application the applicant has provided views from Caversham Bridge, in response to visual information submitted by local groups. It is considered that although some parts of the tallest parts of the development will be visible through glimpsed views from this and other wider points, the impact is considered to be negligible given the distance involved. It is considered that the existing overall character of tree cover of different forms and heights, interlinked with built forms glimpsed through at various points, would remain. The proposed development is not considered to have a significant impact to views from further afield or to significantly detract from the existing context.

6.28 Significant concerns have also been raised via the public consultation process in relation to the proposal causing precedence for the future redevelopment of other sites in the area. This is not considered the case in this instance, as the particular context and characteristics of this site (as outlined above) are rare in this part of the borough. In short, it is not considered that this proposal would have any significant impact on the wider future development pressures in the area.

6.29 As per information supplied by the applicant in the application submission, it is

acknowledged that officers raised various concerns with the overall height, bulk, mass and detailed design approach during pre-application discussions. In this regard it is evident that the overall scale of the proposals have decreased since the outset of pre-application discussions. The detailed design approach also developed through the pre-application process. The overall design proposals subject to this application are considered to be far improved, when compared with the proposals at the outset of pre-application discussions. Moreover, in itself, the proposed scheme is considered to comply with the relevant national and local design based policies and guidance, subject to the aforementioned conditions.

iii) Transport 6.30 As detailed within the public consultation responses, and those from local groups,

there are significant levels of concern with the transport implications of the proposed development. This is from a range of transport based perspectives, including on-site parking provision, various highway safety matters, traffic/flow congestion and wider matters. Such concerns are raised both at the time of demolition/construction and subsequent to any approval being implemented. As demonstrated in detail by section 4i) above, RBC Transport has carefully considered the proposals in line with relevant adopted policies and guidance, together with consideration of the substantial and wide-ranging responses received as part of the public consultation process. This includes the request and submission of further information during the course of the application in order to enable a full assessment to be made by officers.

6.31 In short, the proposals are not considered to result in a material increase in

vehicle trips on the network. Consequently, there are not considered to be grounds to resist the proposals on trip generation grounds. In terms of the proposed accesses and related highway safety implications, the proposals represent an improvement on the previous arrangements. Furthermore, the information provided during the application demonstrates that the access arrangements comply with policy. In terms of parking, it is acknowledged that the level of parking (21 spaces) is below the maximum adopted car parking standard for the proposed use (28 spaces). However, the level of provision has been satisfactorily evidenced with the submission of further information during the course of the application. As such, the provision and layout of on-site parking is considered to comply with policy. With the above in mind, it is considered difficult to resist the proposals on potential highway safety grounds. In terms of the future construction stage, a construction method statement will be secured via pre-commencement condition which covers all requirements of the standard condition satisfactorily. A range of other pre-occupation conditions are also recommended from a transport perspective.

iv) Trees, landscaping and ecology 6.32 Given the local area is partly characterised by dense vegetation and mature trees,

such matters are particularly relevant in this instance. It is acknowledged, as set

out in detail in sections 4ii) and 4iii) above, that a number of existing trees will be felled to facilitate the proposed development. However, the applicant has sufficiently evidenced that the specimens are not worthy of long-term retention or a TPO. As such, the loss of these trees is accepted.

6.33 Moreover, in order to demonstrate the value officers place on trees at the site /

the wider character of the area, TPOs have been served (during the course of the application) on the site trees (and one group) which are prominent from a number of local viewpoints. None of the TPO trees are proposed to be felled or, following additional information submitted by the applicant, significantly harmed as a result of the development. The TPO designation will ensure their retention in the future, assisting in maintaining the character of the area in this regard. In addition, a number of new trees are shown to be proposed to be planted to help mitigate those lost. This is part of a comprehensive hard and soft landscaping scheme proposed for the site. In general this is welcomed, although final details will be secured via condition. With the recommended conditions, the proposals are considered appropriate from a trees and landscaping perspective.

6.34 In terms of ecology, the necessary background report has been compiled which

demonstrates the site is not host to any protected species. Subject to the conditions recommended by the Council’s Ecologist, including biodiversity improvements, the proposals are appropriate in this regard.

v) Quality of accommodation for future occupiers 6.35 For future occupiers of the proposed units, it is considered that a high quality of

accommodation will be provided. In general terms each of the units proposed are generously sized in overall terms, with individual rooms regularly sized and shaped. The plans also indicate that the units will include turning circles making each unit wheelchair accessible. All units provide good levels of outlook and scope for natural ventilation. Furthermore, the majority of units benefit from external balcony space. Moreover, there is shared amenity space within the woodland trail and associated gardens. The external space also shows provision for wider activities, with a potting shed, greenhouse and chicken coop included.

6.36 In addition, as has already been outlined elsewhere, a range of on-site communal

facilities will be provided for future occupiers, which will assist in the overall quality of accommodation provided. In addition to the space being secured via legal agreement, it is also considered necessary to include a condition detailing that the communal areas will be ready for use at the time of first occupation. This is to ensure that the actual facilities shown are provided, and provided at the outset of occupation for the benefit of future occupiers.

6.37 The applicant has provided details that, where relevant, the units created will

meet lifetime homes standards. Although the Council can no longer insist on lifetime homes standards to be met as part of the planning process (following the Planning Deregulation Bill 2015), such information is welcomed. The applicant has also provided information detailing that the proposal has been designed to incorporate the HAPPI (Housing our Aging Population: Panel for Innovation) recommendations and features where possible. This incorporates a number of the features already discussed above and expected by separate council policies. Nevertheless, the submission of this non-statutory information is welcomed in reaffirming the already made conclusion that a high quality of accommodation will be provided for future occupiers.

vi) Amenity for nearby occupiers 6.38 The amenity of nearby occupiers has been considered in relation to each of the

criteria in policy DM4. As such, each factor is considered in turn. Considering first privacy and overlooking, the supporting text to the policy outlines that the position of habitable rooms, windows and outdoor living spaces will be particularly important. A back-to-back distance of 20m between dwellings is usually appropriate, although the guidance caveats this by also outlining that individual site circumstances may enable dwellings to be closer without a detrimental effect on privacy.

6.39 With the above in mind, in terms of privacy and overlooking, the proposed

development is not considered to cause a significant detrimental impact to the living environment to any existing nearby occupier. More specifically, in the case of No. 3 Albert Road, it is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in a significant increase in number of windows facing north towards the site boundary of this property. This is in addition to east and west inward facing elevation windows also facing towards the neighbouring boundary at an angle.

6.40 However, on the nearest two-storey north elevation elements (set 4-6m away from

the boundary of No. 3), the six windows proposed (serving dual aspect living/dining/kitchens) at first floor level have been specified on the elevation and floorplans as being obscure glazed. This will be secured via condition, to avoid loss of privacy and overlooking at this point. Within the central element of the proposed building, further windows are shown on the set back north elevation at first and second floor level. These windows serve bedrooms and living/dining rooms of units and are set back 15m and 16.4m from the boundary of No. 3. The distance of these windows to the dwelling at No. 3 is a minimum of 21m, with this being at an angle (not a straight line, back-to-back distance). As such, given the distances involved, no significant overlooking or loss of privacy would occur. In terms of the inward facing elevations, there will be windows which at an acute angle would enable views to the boundary of No. 3 at a distance of 10m. However, in the case of the west facing window, this would be angled towards the rear most part of the neighbouring garden (not towards the house). In the case of the nearest internal east elevation window, this would be set back 24m from the rear building line of No. 3. Again, owing to the distances involved and the orientation of the windows, no significantly detrimental overlooking would occur. In addition, it is also relevant to note that within No. 3, on the boundary with the application site, there are a number of TPO trees (see paragraph 1.4 above for details), which currently (and in the future given their TPO status) provide a degree of screening to the amenity space and rear elevation of this property. Taking into account all relevant considerations, the loss of privacy and overlooking created by the proposal is not considered significant enough to warrant a sustainable reason for refusal of the application.

6.41 In terms of privacy and overlooking of other nearby properties, the distances of

the proposed building to the closest boundary of these properties means no significantly harmful overlooking would result. There is a minimum 24.8m distance to the boundary with 8 The Mount, 38m to 27 The Mount and 20.7m to 3-4 Dovedale Close. In terms of the north-west corner of the building to the rear boundary garden of 37 Blossom Road, the distance is 16m. In this regard it is also relevant to note that this garden is unusually shaped, with the primary garden area (adjacent to the rear of the house) being in excess of 20m away. Moreover, in all instances the distances between the two buildings would comfortably exceed

20m. It is therefore concluded that no harmful overlooking or loss of privacy would result to any existing nearby occupier.

6.42 Turning to consider daylight, sunlight and overshadowing implications, the

applicant submitted a report in these regards. Following the submission of some clarifications and further details during the course of the application, this is considered to satisfactorily demonstrate that there will be no significant detrimental impact on any nearby occupier. The report uses the appropriate BRE guidance and has considered the impact on all necessary nearby occupiers (3 Albert Road / 35-39 Blossom Road / 24-27 Dovedale Close – all other properties are a sufficient distance from the site to not warrant testing). It is shown in terms of daylight that all the tested windows pass the relevant Vertical Sky Component (VSC) test. Although in most cases the results acknowledge that there will be a reduction in daylight to neighbouring properties, the level of loss are all within the prescribed VSC levels. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that there will be no significant loss of daylight to neighbouring occupiers. In terms of sunlight, in line with the BRE guidance, only those windows which face within 90 degrees of due south are required to be tested. It is shown that the relevant windows tested all comfortably comply with the BRE sunlight test. The applicant has also considered the overshadowing impacts of the proposed development, with it being shown that there is a negligible impact when considered within the context of the BRE test (which requires 50% of each amenity space to receive at least 2 hours of sunlight on the spring equinox – 21 March). Therefore, in terms of day/sunlight and overshadowing, the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that any impact will be within acceptable levels.

6.43 With regard to visual dominance and the overbearing effects of a development, it

is fully acknowledged that the proposed development will be more visible in comparison with the existing situation. This is recognised through the increase in height and footprint of the proposed building, as already outlined elsewhere, in comparison with the existing context. However, although it is considered that there will be some detrimental impact for nearby residents, with No. 3 Albert Road being the closest, this impact is not considered to be so significant to warrant the refusal of the application on this basis, when all material considerations are taken into account. In addition, it is also noted that the proposed development has in part attempted to mitigate this impact adjacent to the boundary of the built form of No. 3, by incorporated a stepped increase in height away from this neighbouring property at this point. For example, the 3-storey element at this part of the building is set 13m away from the boundary with No.3. With regard to other nearby properties in this regard, the significant distances of the proposed buildings to the site boundaries of these properties (minimum 24.8m to 8 The Mount; minimum 38m to 27 The Mount; minimum 20.7m to 3-4 Dovedale Close) mitigates any significant impact.

6.44 In terms of noise and disturbance, firstly taking into account the effects of traffic

movements, it is considered that the transport comments in section 4i) above demonstrates that the proposal would not result in a material increase in vehicle trips on the network. Furthermore, the on-site parking provision is also considered to comply with policy. With these factors in mind it is therefore considered to be difficult to demonstrate that the proposed development would have significantly detrimental impacts on nearby occupiers in this regard.

6.45 In terms of noise and disturbance from mechanical plant, given a dedicated

internally located plant room is proposed it is not considered necessary or relevant for a full noise assessment to be undertaken for the purposes of this planning

application. Internally located plant does not in itself require planning permission and therefore could, theoretically, be positioned at any point of the building without any possible control. In this instance the applicant has indicated a plant room is to be located towards the north-east corner of the building at ground floor level. Objections have been received owing to this being the closest point to the nearest adjoining residential occupier. However, given the plant is solely located internal to the building, no significantly detrimental noise or disturbance can be anticipated. However, although no external plant is shown, it is nevertheless considered necessary to include the standard noise condition should any externally located plant subsequently be proposed. This would only require details to be submitted should external plant subsequently be proposed and is considered necessary given the possible proximity of such plant to existing and future occupiers.

6.46 The collection bin store is enclosed within the building envelope with adequate

ventilation, fire safety and solid fire door entrances, which would alleviate some possible noise and smell pollution. During the course of the application the external door has been located further away from the boundary with No. 3. The location of the store is adjacent to the main off-street parking area, enabling the easiest possible access for collection vehicles. Given that there is a not a specific standard for care home waste and recycling requirements, the purpose built flat standards have been applied. It is acknowledged that a care establishment could produce less waste, so applying the (likely more onerous) flat standards is considered appropriate. This generates a requirement for 4 x 1100 general waste and 4 x 1100 recycling bins. This provision is shown to have been met on the plan submitted, together with a clinical waste bin too.

6.47 The applicant has also provided a statement during the course of the application

outlining that residents will place waste in a residents bin store ( located at ground floor level adjacent to the lifts), with staff then transferring this to the collection bin store on a daily basis (as such, only staff will have access to the collection bin store). The applicant also confirms a willingness to use noise reduction measures (such as rubber tyres, sound reducing lining, roll top lids) to minimise noise. The provision and layout of the waste and recycling facilities are considered to comply with the relevant policies. Exact details of the design (e.g. incorporation of noise reducing measures) are to be secured via condition, in order to ensure no significant noise and disturbance is caused to nearby residents (including future occupiers).

6.48 The proposed plans indicate that the kitchen serving the proposed use will connect

to a largely internally located flue/extract system. This will link to an air handling unit within the adjacent plant room. A vertical riser from the kitchen will terminate kitchen extract out of a proposed chimney on the inward facing roofslope of the three storey Albert Road element of the proposal (13.6m from the boundary with No. 3). The extent of the flue/extract system is considered to be more modest (in terms of external physical appearance) to the former extraction system at the site. The former extract system runs along the roof of the single storey link between the care home and day centre. As such, the proposed external element of the system will be located further away and at a higher level than formerly for the adjoining occupier. Moreover, the extent of the proposed system, based on the information provided, is not considered substantial enough to warrant further controls being necessary and no substantial disturbance is anticipated in this regard.

6.49 The limited size of the proposed external balconies means that possible undue noise and disturbance from this source is not anticipated. It is also noted that the landscaping plan indicates a number of outdoor spaces (e.g. patio spaces and benches with pergolas) will be likely to be created. However, these are spread across the site in relatively modest settings, meaning limited opportunities for substantial groups meeting in the external areas proposed. As such, no significantly detrimental noise and disturbance is expected from the proposed external amenity areas. Therefore, in overall terms, no significantly detrimental noise and disturbance impacts would arise from the proposed development.

6.50 Turning to consider the impact of artificial lighting, the proposals include details

of an external lighting strategy to serve the proposed parking and external amenity spaces. This comprises a mix of 5m high column lights to the car parks, 0.5m high bollard lights predominantly to the external amenity spaces and two types of wall mounted (to the building) lights. These proposals and the details provided are considered acceptable, with the exception of the 5m column lights serving the proposed car parks. The external appearance and further details of the lights were provided during the course of the application, with the public re-consultation responses from CADRA and Caversham Globe raising a number of concerns with the need, visual impact, type of lighting and impact on wildlife. Officers consider that it may be preferable from a number of perspectives for bollard lights to be provided (if possible) rather than the currently proposed column lights. As such, these specific plans will be excluded from the list of approved plans and instead further details will be sought and secured via a pre-occupation condition. With this condition secured, it is considered that no significant artificial lighting concerns are raised with the proposals.

6.51 Taking into consideration vibration matters, there are no specific elements within

the proposals which would indicate significant vibrations would occur. For example, the incorporation of plant to an internal area downplays potential for vibrations from this source. The level/nature of parking at the Albert Road frontage is considered comparable with that possible at the site formerly, meaning no significant additional potential for vibrations at this point is envisaged. The bin noise reducing features, to be secured via condition, together with the internally based location, mitigates possible vibration harm from this element of the proposals. The ventilation / extract running up through the building (and not externally), terminating through a chimney at roof level, also reduces potential for ventilation disturbance for existing occupiers. Therefore, in overall terms, no significant detrimental impacts of vibrations are expected by the proposed development.

6.52 In terms of dust and fumes, during the demolition/construction phase, the CMS (as

recommended by Transport and Environmental Protection officers) means that subject to satisfactory operations, significant adverse impacts should not occur. Once the proposed development is operational, fumes could arise from the extract / ventilation associated with the proposed kitchen. However, this will terminate into the air through a proposed chimney above the second floor level of the building, which is set away 13.6m from the boundary with No. 3. The proposed level of termination and distance from the boundary is considered sufficient to mitigate any significantly harmful impact. The turning circles within the Albert Road parking area means vehicles (cars/servicing/emergency) can enter/exit in a forward gear, minimising the likelihood of vehicles spending time at the site (and therefore reducing scope for fumes in this manner). As Environmental Protection officers have confirmed (section 4iv), no significant effect on air quality in the area is envisaged.

6.53 Turning the consider crime and safety considerations, as outlined in section 4 vi)

above, the Thames Valley Police Crime Prevention & Design Advisor considers that the principles of ‘Secured by Design’ have been shown to have been incorporated, with a condition being sufficient to secure further details, including ultimately achieving SBD accreditation prior to first occupation. Therefore, no significant crime and safety impacts are envisaged from this perspective. In terms of road safety, as the Transport comments in section 4i) above detail, the proposals are considered appropriate in this regard.

6.54 In addition, without reference to any specific amenity element especially, it is

considered necessary to include a condition detailing that the total number of units of extra care accommodation hereby approved shall not at any time exceed the approved number of 43 units. This is to prevent over-occupancy of the premises (for example by altering the internal layout to decrease the number of 2-bed units and increasing the number of 1-bed units, in order to increase the overall total number of units at the site), which it is considered would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of occupiers of the premises and the neighbouring area. This condition is also considered necessary from a transport perspective too. For similar reasons, a separate condition is also recommended restricting rights under the Use Classes Order to change within Class C2 (for instance to a hospital, boarding school or residential training centre), or permitted development rights from Class C2 to another use (such as a state funded school or nursery).

6.55 Thus in overall terms, taking into account all of the above, it is considered on

balance that no significant detrimental impacts to the living environment of existing nearby residential occupiers would occur, subject to recommended conditions.

vii) Sustainability, energy and SuDS 6.56 Given the scale and nature of the proposals a BREEAM UK New Construction Pre-

Assessment Estimator has been submitted. The report follows an appropriate methodology, considering all the relevant considerations, and concludes that a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating is anticipated. An overall building score of 64.05% is estimated, which exceeds the minimum 62.5% score outlined within SPD guidance. As such, this is welcomed in principle. In accordance with the SPD, it is recommended that a two-stage condition is secured, ensuring that a ‘very good’ rating (minimum 62.5% score) is achieved through a final design stage review (to be confirmed prior to commencement) and a completion certification (confirmed prior to first occupation). This condition will ensure that the rating anticipated is achieved in practice.

6.57 The applicant has also submitted an Energy Assessment, which demonstrates that

the proposed scheme will result in carbon emissions reducing by 20% against the baseline (in line with the policy compliant level). More specifically, the submitted report follows the established energy hierarchy, for example by detailing the energy efficiency design features and consideration of all renewable technologies. With this in mind, although a number of technologies have been rejected as being either unfeasible or unsuitable at the site, significant carbon savings are anticipated with the provision of arrays of photovoltaic panels on flat roof areas of the proposed building. The submitted information is considered to align with the principles of policies CS1, SD1, DM1 and DM2 and is considered appropriate. To ensure that the elements referenced within the submitted Low and Zero Carbon

Technologies Options Appraisal are implemented, a condition is recommended which specifies that the development will be carried out in line with this document.

6.58 In terms of SuDS, the proposals include detailed information within the Flood Risk

Assessment (FRA). This has been assessed by the Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. It is confirmed, as detailed in section 4i) above, that the proposed soakaways and attenuation tanks mean that the proposals accord with the national guidance on SuDS. The report stipulates that further measures, such as permeable paving and swales could also be incorporated into the scheme, subject to detailed design. As such, conditions are recommended to provide full details of the proposed implementation, maintenance and management of SuDS, together with ensuring that the approved measures are completed prior to first occupation.

viii) Other matters

Flooding 6.59 The application site is located within Flood Zone 1. Given the site is under 1ha in

size, there was no statutory requirement for the applicant to submit a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) with the application (the FRA also covers SuDS matters; hence its submission). The FRA submitted demonstrates that the site is at low risk of flooding from all sources. Moreover, the proposed development would not cause increased risk of flooding to others. The level of information submitted in this regard is considered appropriate and no conditions are required in relation to flooding.

Utilities

6.60 With regard to electricity, telephone and gas connections, the applicant has

provided information demonstrating that the proposal will seek to connect to the existing established networks which already exist on the site. Given the increases in the footprint of the building when compared with existing, some alterations are likely. Based on discussions throughout the application in terms of the possible implications of services to the root protection areas of newly protected trees, the applicant is acutely aware of the sensitivities in this regard. Details of routes will be secured within the proposed landscaping condition. In terms of water, a new mains cold water service will be provided in the ground floor plant room. The other supplies will also utilise this dedicated internal space, with the existing electrical sub-station in the south-east corner of the site also used where relevant. As such, it is clear that the applicant has accounted for utilities within the application submission, which is welcomed.

Unilateral Undertaking Legal Agreement

6.61 Given the nature of the land ownership (as specified in the introduction section

above) a unilateral undertaking (rather than a Section 106) legal agreement will be drafted. This will include the various elements associated with the use and function of the building (as outlined in section 6i above) and a construction and end use phase Employment Skills and Training Plan (as per section 4vii above).

6.62 It is considered that the obligations referred to above would comply with the

National Planning Policy Framework and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in that it would be: i) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, ii) directly related to the development and iii) fairly and reasonably related

in scale and kind to the development. This Head of Terms have been agreed in principle with the applicant.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

6.63 The applicant duly completed a CIL liability form as part of the submission of this

application. Given the use class and nature of the proposed development (with various use related elements being secured via legal agreement), the CIL charge will be £0, in line with the current charging schedule.

Equality

6.64 In determining this application the Council is required to have regard to its

obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The key equalities protected characteristics include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sexual orientation. It is considered that there is no indication or evidence that the protected groups have or will have different needs, experiences, issues and priorities in relation to this particular application. This is particularly pertinent in this case in terms of age, with regard to transport and occupancy matters outlined above for example.

7. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposals are considered, on balance, to be acceptable within the context of

national and local planning policies, as detailed in the appraisal above. As such, full planning permission is recommended for approval, subject to the recommended conditions and completion of the Unilateral Undertaking Legal Agreement.

Drawings: FC420-0-04 rev S2 – Location Plan, as received 21/01/16 FC420-0-06 rev S1 – Existing Street Elevations, as received 22/12/15 FC420-0-07 rev S1 – Existing Floor Plans, as received 22/12/15 FC420-0-08 rev S1 – Existing Site Sections, as received 22/12/15 S913/0479/P/0001 rev 2 – Topographical Survey, as received 22/12/15 S715/0471/P/0011 rev 0 – Elevation 7, as received 22/12/15 S715/0471/P/0012 rev 0 – Elevation 8, as received 22/12/15 S715/0471/P/0013 rev 0 – Elevation 9, as received 22/12/15 S715/0471/P/0014 rev 0 – Elevation 10, as received 22/12/15 FC420-0-01 rev S3 – Proposed Site Block Plan, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-03 rev S3 – Proposed Landscape Plan, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-20 rev S1 – Storage / Potting Shed Plans and Elevations, as received 21/01/16 FC420-0-22 rev S1 – Greenhouse Plans and Elevations, as received 21/01/16 FC420-0-23 rev S1 – Chicken Coop Plans and Elevations, as received 21/01/16 FC420-0-24 rev S1 – Existing Electric Substation Plans & Elevations, as received 21/01/16 FC420-0-25 rev S1 - Cycle Storage Details, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-30 rev S1 - Existing Services Plan, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-31 rev S1 - Proposed Services Plan, as received 29/04/16 FC420-1-01 rev S3 - Ground Floor Plan as proposed, as received 29/04/16 FC420-1-02 rev S2 - First Floor Plan as proposed, as received 21/01/16 FC420-1-03 rev S3 - Second Floor Plan as proposed, as received 29/04/16 FC420-1-04 rev S3 - Third Floor Plan as proposed, as received 29/04/16 FC420-1-05 rev S4 - Roof Plan as proposed, as received 29/04/16 FC420-1-11 rev S2 - Part ground floor-Communal as proposed, as received 29/04/16

FC420-1-12 rev S1 - Part ground floor Apartments as proposed, as received 22/12/15 FC420-2-02 rev S4 - East and West Elevations, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-03 rev S4 - South and North Elevations, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-04 rev S3 East and West Internal Elevations, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-10 rev S4 - Proposed Albert Road Elevation, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-11 rev S4 - Proposed Dovedale Close Elevation, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-14 rev S1 Bay Detail Elevation, as received 29/04/16 FC420-3-06 rev S4 Proposed Site Sections, as received 29/04/16 66227-DWG-SBU-C-100 Rev P3 – Proposed Drainage Layout, as received 17/05/16 666227/120 Rev P2 – External & Cross-over works, as received 22/12/15 Other Information Submitted: Design and Access Statement dated August 2015, as received 22/12/15 Daylight and Sunlight Study by Right of Light Consulting, dated 31/07/15, as received 22/12/15 Planning Statement by A2 Dominion Housing Options Ltd, as received 22/12/15 Viability Statement by A2 Dominion Housing Options Ltd, as received 22/12/15 Affordable Housing Statement by A2 Dominion Housing Options Ltd, as received 22/12/15 BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 Pre-Assessment Estimator: Assessment Issue Scoring, dated 16/07/2015, as received 22/12/15 Low and Zero Carbon Technologies Options Appraisal by The Blewburton Partnership, dated July 2015, as received 22/12/15 Sustainability Statement by Archadia, as received 22/12/15 Flood Risk Assessment & Surface Water Drainage Strategy by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd, Ref SJC/616937/JRC Rev 2, dated 06/08/15, as received 22/12/15 Letter from AA Environmental Limited (Ecological Survey) Ref 153225/JDT dated 27/07/15, as received 22/12/15 Ground Investigation Report by Listers Geotechnical Consultants Ref 15.05.018 Issue 2, dated 31/07/15, as received 22/12/15 Air Quality Statement by Archadia, as received 22/12/15 Lifetime Homes Checklist – November 2010 version, as received 22/12/15 Asbestos Refurbishment Survey by City Environmental Services (UK) Ltd Ref CES 687001, dated 08/07/15, as received 22/12/15 Transport Statement by A2 Dominion Housing Options Ltd, as received 22/12/15 Construction Traffic Plan by Feltham Construction Ltd dated July 2015, as received 22/12/15 Construction Method Statement by Feltham Construction Ltd, as received 22/12/15 Noise Survey Report by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd, Ref 100963 Rev 0, dated July 2015, as received 22/12/15 Utility Statement, as received 22/12/15 Drainage Statement by MLM Consulting Engineers Ltd, Ref 666227-REP-SBU-DS Rev P2, dated 06/08/2015, as received 22/12/15 5069_Hunter_Dovedale_View1_B 03-2, as received 29/04/16 5069_Hunter_Dovedale_View2_00, as received 29/04/16 A2Dominion - Cleaning and Gardening Specification, dated 25/04/16, as received 29/04/16 AV4439 02 05 004 Transport Note by PRP, as received 29/04/16 13 External Lighting specification details, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-9 rev S1 - Overshadowing Existing, as received 22/12/15 FC420-0-10 rev S1 - Overshadowing Proposed, as received 22/12/15 FC420-0-11 rev S1 - Overshadowing Analysis, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-26 rev S1 - External Lighting Plans and Elevations - 2016-05-06, as received 09/05/16 1493-E-900 Rev P2 – Electrical Services - External Services Layout, as received 29/04/16 FC420-0-32 rev S1 - Site Plan with Vision Splays, as received 29/04/16

FC420-2-12 rev S3 - Comparative Street Elevations, as received 29/04/16 FC420-2-13 rev S2 Elevations from Street Level, as received 29/04/16 FC420-9-11 rev S1- Views from Caversham Bridge , as received 29/04/16 FC420-9-12 rev S1 S106 Communal Areas, as received 29/04/16 FC420-9-10 rev S1 CIL Area Calculations, as received 21/01/16 420-EXTFN1 Rev S1, as received 22/12/15 666227/101 Rev P1 – Proposed Drainage Schedule, as received 22/12/15 Letter and enclosures from Right of Light Consulting dated 07/04/16, as received 29/04/16 Letter from Right of Light Consulting dated 15/04/16, as received 29/04/16 Refuse Strategy Rev A by A2Dominion Housing Options Ltd, as received 17/05/16 Schedule and description of revised information, as received 09/05/16 Arboricultural Method Statement, Tree Survey & Tree Protection Plan by SJ Stephens Associates Ref 540, dated 10/05/16, as received 12/05/16 Case Officer: Jonathan Markwell

Proposed landscaping, on-site parking, ground floor layout and communal areas (shown in red and made available for wider public use).

Existing aerial view looking south

Existing aerial view looking east (above) and west (below)

Views from Albert Road looking south June 2015 (above) and January 2016 (below)

Views from The Mount looking west June 2015 (above) and January 2016 (below)

Views from the junction of The Mount and Dovedale Close looking north June 2015 (above) and January 2016 (below)

Views from Clifton Park Road looking north along Albert Road June 2015 (above) and January 2016 (below)

Longer views from Clifton Park Road looking north along Albert Road June 2015 (above) and January 2016 (below)

View from within the site of the former Day Centre fronting Albert Road

Existing context from within the site towards No’s 3 & 5 Albert Road

Existing view from first floor window of the Care Home towards No. 3 Albert Road

Another existing view from a first floor window of the Care Home towards the rear

garden of No. 3 Albert Road

An existing view from a first floor window of Care Home towards the rear garden of No.

3 Albert Road and the rear of Blossom Road properties

View from Albert Road towards No. 8 The Mount

View from the rear garden of 3 Albert Road towards the application site

View from the first floor rear window of No. 3 Albert Road towards the application site

Below: Further views from the rear garden of No.3 towards the application site

Proposed east (Albert Road) and west elevation plans

Proposed south (Dovedale Close) and north (towards the boundary with No. 3 Albert Road) elevation plans

Albert Road street scene without vegetation (left), with existing vegetation (middle) and with proposed vegetation (right)

Dovedale Close street scene without vegetation (left), with existing vegetation (middle) and with proposed vegetation (right)

CGI by the applicant from Albert Road looking south

CGI by the applicant from the Clifton Park Road / The Mount / Albert Road junction looking north along Albert Road

Street level elevation visuals – Albert Road

Street level elevation visuals – Dovedale Close

Left: Existing Albert Road elevation with proposed building dotted on (red line = application submission; blue line = pre-app stage) Right: Proposed Albert Road elevation with existing building dotted in red

Left: Existing Dovedale Close elevation with proposed building dotted on (red line = application submission; blue line = pre-app stage) Right: Proposed Dovedale Close elevation with existing building dotted in red

Proposed ground floor plan

Proposed first and second floor plans

Proposed third floor and roof level plans

Plan showing trees to be removed

Tree Preservation Order plan (April 2016)

Views from Caversham Bridge - visuals provided by the applicant.