OFFICER
REPORT
1.
SUMMARY
1.1 This full
application seeks the conversion of the existing hotel to
residential use and the erection of extensions to provide 11no. two
bed apartments together with the provision of 25 parking spaces,
bin store and cycle store. The site is within the settlement
area, within an Area of Special Housing Character and lies within
the Binfield and Popeswood Study Area (Area C, Popeswood South) as
defined within the Character Area Assessments Supplementary
Planning Document.
1.2 Trees on the
site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders 198 and 745. It is
considered that the proposed development would have an adverse
impact on trees that make an important contribution to the
landscape character and appearance of the area.
1.3 The proposal results in a net increase in new
dwellings within 400m - 5km of the SPA and therefore will need to
secure the identified SPA Mitigation through a S106 Legal
Agreement.
1.4 The development is
also CIL Liable.
|
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
The Assistant Director Planning be recommended
to refuse permission for reasons set out in Section 11 of this
report
|
2. REASON FOR REPORTING APPLICATION TO COMMITTEE
2.1 The application
has been reported to the Advisory Planning Committee at the request
of Cllr. Harrison.
3.
PLANNING STATUS AND SITE DESCRIPTION
|
PLANNING STATUS
|
|
Land within the settlement area.
|
3.1
Fines Bayliwick House is a guest house within an Area of Special Housing Character the subject of
Policy H4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan (BFBLP) and
lies within the Binfield and Popeswood Study Area (Area C,
Popeswood South) as defined within the Character Area Assessments
Supplementary Planning Document. Trees within the site are
protected by Tree Preservation Orders TPO 198 and 745.
3.2 The site is located off the north side of
London Road on the corner with Nevelle Close. London Road is a
classified road and Nevelle Close is a private cul de sac. The
pedestrian and vehicular access is off Nevelle Close. The area is
primarily residential, with residential units in all four
directions, including common boundaries with 6 Nevelle Close and
the apartments at Glenask Court. The property at the site was also
originally a family dwelling house which received planning
permission for conversion to a guest house. There is also a
Veterinary Practice on the opposite side of London Road.
3.3
Planning permission was allowed on appeal in 2019 for
the erection of a residential care home at the site of Holly
Cottage on the south of London Road opposite the junction
with Nevelle
Close.
3.4 There is a belt of thick, high hedging
on the northern boundary of the site which screens it from the
newer residential dwellings beyond in Nevelle Close.
3.5 The site is located within an Area of Special
Housing Character (BFBLP Policy H4).
4. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
App. Ref.
613005
Change of use from
private dwelling to an 8 bed guest house.
Approved, 1988
App. Ref. 615626
Two storey side
extension owners flat in roof relaxation of cond. 2 of 613005,
enlarge
car park.
Approved, 1989
App. Ref. 617097
Erection of
conservatory for use as a breakfast room for guests.
Approved, 1991
App. Ref.
08/00919/FUL
Section 73
application to vary condition 2 of planning permission 613005 (this
states that the premises shall be used only as a guest house. Any
ancillary facilities provided shall ensure only for the benefit of
the resident guests and shall not be used for any public function
or entertainment). Formation of five additional parking spaces.
Refused, 2008
Appeal Dismissed
App. Ref.
10/00360/FUL
Section 73
application to vary condition 2 of planning permission 613005 (this
states that premises shall be used only as a guest house. Any
ancillary facilities provided shall ensure only for the benefit of
the resident guests and shall not be used for any public function
or entertainment) to enable the hotel restaurant to be used by
members of the general public and the formation of additional
parking spaces.
Refused, 2010
Appeal dismissed
5. THE PROPOSAL
5.1 This full
application proposes the conversion, extension and alteration of
the existing hotel to provide 11no. 2 bed apartments. The
application proposes a two and a half storey side extension and
extensions to the roof. No increase to the roof height is proposed.
The existing car park will be extended to provide a total of 25 car
parking spaces.
6. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED
Representations
6.1 Four letters of objection have been
received raising the following planning considerations:
- concerns that
overspill parking would take place in Nevelle Close, a private road
with covenants preventing obstruction of driveways and footways in
Nevelle Close.
-vehicular access
could be secured from London Road to allow Nevelle Close to enforce
its own parking restrictions on the private road.
-flat 4 would
overlook 1 Nevelle Close. Existing trees between the site and
1 Nevelle Close should remain to maintain privacy.
-the development
would increase light pollution in the area.
7. SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Tree
officer
7.1. Objects to the
proposed development on the grounds that the parking layout, bin
and cycle storage and relationship to the existing trees along
London Road and Nevelle Close will result in unjustified further
encroachment into already heavily pressured rooting areas and will
adversely affect the future health of protected trees.
The proposed layout
will not retain sufficient sustainable planting space for the
replacement TPO Beech, which is a statutory requirement on this
site.
Highways
officer
7.2 Advises that two of the parking spaces
are very close to a balcony and to the proposed bin store. No
objection on the grounds of access or traffic impact have been
made.
Biodiversity
Officer
7.3 No objection subject to conditions.
8. MAIN POLICIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DECISION
8.1 The primary
strategic planning considerations applying to the site and the
associated policies are:
|
|
Development Plan
|
NPPF
|
Weight to be attributed, with
reference to para.
213 of NPPF
|
|
Sustainable development
principles
|
SALP Policy CP1
CSDPD Policy CS1
|
Para. 11(d) refers to
‘policies which are most important for
determining the application are out-of- date’. CP1 wording
differs to this.
Furthermore, the PPG states
that there is no need for a policy to directly replicate para.
11.
Consistent (Paras. 7, 8,
11, 12, & 117 -
119)
|
Limited (policy not used in
planning application decision-making)
Full
|
|
Housing
|
BFBLP “Saved” Policy H4 Areas of
Special Housing Character
|
|
Full
|
|
Design
&
Character
|
CSDPD Policy CS7
BFBLP ‘Saved’
Policy EN20
|
Consistent (Chapter 12)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Trees
&
Landscape
|
CSDPD Policies CS1 & CS7
BFBLP
‘Saved’ Policies EN1, EN2 &
EN20
|
Consistent (paras. 127
& 170) “
|
Full
Full
|
|
Residential Amenity
|
‘Saved’ Policies
EN20 & EN25 of BFBLP
|
Consistent (paras. 127,
170 & 180)
|
Full
|
|
Transport
|
CSDPD
Policies C23
BFBLP ‘Saved’
Policy M9
|
Consistent (Chapter 9)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Biodiversity
|
CSDPD Policies CS1 & CS7
BFBLP
‘Saved’ Policies EN1, EN2 &
EN20
|
Consistent (paras.
170
& 175)
“
|
Full
Full
|
|
Sustainability of build (Renewable Energy and
Water Use)
|
CSDPD Policies CS10 & 12
|
Consistent (para. 149)
|
Full
|
|
Supplementary Planning
Documents (SPD):
|
|
|
Parking Standards SPD
(2016)
|
|
|
Other publications:
|
|
|
National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) (2019) National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
(2019)
|
|
9. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
9. 1 The key issues
for consideration are:
i Impact on the
character and appearance of the area
ii Tree Issues
iii Highways
Issues
iv Biodiversity
Issues
v CIL
vi Thames Basin
Heath SPA
i.
Impact on the character and appearance of the area.
9.2 The site is
within a settlement area where the principle of redevelopment for
residential use is acceptable. Any building should maintain the
character of the Popeswood Triangle Area by replicating a large
dwelling in extensive grounds. Policy H4 of the BFBLP also states
that residential development will only be permitted where it will
not result in a material loss of trees, other vegetation, natural
features and wildlife habitats. Any increase in the footprint of
building on the site should not result in the loss of trees
protected by TPOs.
9.3 The Character
Areas Assessment SPD Binfield Popeswood Study Area includes the
site within Area C Popeswood South. This area is characterised by
important roadside trees along London Rd and Nevelle Close and
streets tend to have a fairly consistent building line and
set-backs. Properties are sited in good sized front gardens. It
will be important to retain trees along the boundaries with London
Road and Nevelle Close which make an important contribution to the
character of the area and to maintain reasonable building setbacks
along these boundaries to allow for good sized garden areas.
9.4 The conversion
of the existing hotel to residential use is considered to be
acceptable and in keeping with the character of the area. The
site is within a predominantly residential area, where the use of
the building as apartments will be appropriate and reflect the
original use of the building as a dwelling.
9.5 The existing
building is predominantly two and a half storeys in height with a
two storey element and two attached single storey
conservatories. The proposed extensions would result in a two
and a half story building to accommodate 11 apartments. The
resulting building will maintain the set back from London Road
shared with other properties on the northern side of London Road
and will have the appearance of a large residential property set
within a good sized front garden. Trees along the boundary
with London Road are shown to be retained.
9.6 The proposed
extensions would provide gable features to the building and dormers
will be more consistent in design than the current building which
gives the impression of having been extended over time in a more
piecemeal fashion.
9.7 The extension to
the eastern side of the building will bring the building within
1.5-2.6m of the boundary with Glenask Court, an apartment
building. Glenask Court is sited a similar distance from this
boundary and has one first floor window along the boundary.
The proposed plans show that windows will be provided along this
boundary, however this is not considered to raise issues of privacy
as the Glenask Court boundary is predominantly a blank wall with
one small window.
9.8 Concerns have
been expressed that the proposed flat 4 would overlook 1 Nevelle
Close. However, there is a distance of approximately 24m
between the properties, with an intervening road and it is
considered that the relationship between the two properties is
relatively unchanged over the current position.
9.9 In terms of the
effect of the proposal on the character of the area, the proposals
are considered to be acceptable. The conversion of the
building into apartments is acceptable in this residential area and
the extension will give a more cohesive design to the
property. The building will not extend further forward
towards London Road than nearby properties and the trees along the
boundary are shown to be retained.
ii.
Tree Issues
9.10 Trees on this
site are protected by confirmed Tree Preservation Orders 198 and
745. Tree Service records indicate that a Copper Beech Ref T1 - TPO
745 collapsed in the earlier part of 2020. This was formerly a
major constraint in relation to all previous development proposals
on this site, specifically applications in 2008 and 2010. Both of
these applications were refused at appeal partly for arboricultural
reasons due to their impact on this and other trees. The previous
appeals included proposals to extend car parking into the area in
front of the property.
9.11 The collapse of
the Beech was dealt with under the Tree Preservation Order
legislation. Under this process, the site owners have a statutory
duty to replace the tree. The replacement tree is automatically
protected under the legislation and all original restrictions
apply.
9.12 Statutory
replacement planting for the Beech T1 is particularly relevant in
relation to any proposed development on this site. Sufficient space
must be retained to allow the planting of this tree and sustain its
long-term growth and ultimate average size (which will be in excess
of 20-25m in height with a crown spread in excess of 10-11m). As
such, whilst the original tree no longer exists, the replacement
must be factored in as a material arboricultural constraint based
on its future average size.
9.13 The site was
the subject of dismissed planning appeals 08/00935/FUL &
10/00360/FUL that included extensive alterations to and loss of the
green space in front of the property to accommodate additional
parking. This area forms a substantial part of the minimum Root
Protection Areas (RPAs) of the existing trees. Impact on these was
part of the reason for their dismissal at appeal.
9.14 At the time of
the most recent appeal in 2010, photographs submitted to the
inspectorate indicated that the area in front of the property was
lawned. The extension of car parking into this lawned area
was dismissed by both inspectors and the car parking currently
taking place in this area does not appear to have the benefit of
planning permission. The inspector considering the appeal for
planning application 10/00360/FUL stated that:
“11. The
Council and the appellant have produced differing assessments of
the likely impact of the proposed car parking and manoeuvring
arrangements on the health of these trees. In many cases the
health of the trees is already compromised to a degree by the
proximity of their rooting areas to the hard surfaced roads and
pavements or to buildings. It is important therefore that
their rooting areas should not be further compromised. I
appreciate that the appellant intends to use a porous surface for
the car parking and manoeuvring areas and that most of the new
parking bays would be outside of the rooting areas where oil and
fuel spillages would have less effect. However, I am
concerned that the increase in the areas over which vehicles would
be parked and would drive and the increase in number of traffic
movements could cause root compaction which could be harmful to the
trees’ health.”
9.15 Any
impact on these areas is therefore relevant and previous appeal
decisions are a material planning consideration when determining
this current planning application. Since these appeal
decisions, some of this previously lawned area has been surfaced
for use as an extended parking area consisting of shallow plastic
matting infilled with a gravel finish. This covers a significant
proportion of the accurate RPAs of existing trees including those
protected on site.
9.16 The current treatment of the area described
above is considered to be an informal, inappropriate shallow
surfacing over an existing soft landscaping area. This is likely to
be causing damage in terms of ground compaction in RPAs and should
not be viewed as a permanent formal parking area that justifies the
construction of new widespread permanent parking over the majority
of this area as proposed in this application. This structure
can be easily removed to reinstate the original soft landscaping
underneath to ensure trees are properly safeguarded and RPAs fully
respected. Its presence also does not justify construction of a
formal extensive parking area on arboricultural grounds at the
expense of causing pressure to and safeguarding RPAs or preventing
sustainable replacement tree planting. Works to provide this
parking area appear to have been carried out subsequent to the two
appeal decisions that considered and dismissed proposals to provide
additional car parking within this area.
Submitted Method Statement
9.17 The submitted Method Statement does not
contain any comprehensive impact assessment in accordance with BS
5837 guidance. Conclusions regarding development impact are also
based on inaccurately represented RPAs and an incomplete survey.
Consequently, it is not considered to take adequate account of the
existing pressures already being placed on the rooting environment
of the protected trees in particular and is considered unrealistic
and inconsistent with good arboricutural practice.
9.18 The suggested use of a No Dig structure is
not supported by any compelling evidence including a site-specific
design. Recommendations consist of generic guidance based on a
concept. This does not reliably demonstrate certainty of
outcome.
9.19 The Method Statement makes only brief
references to the removal of hard standing. This is not considered
to constitute a comprehensive method statement and is not specific
to the ground conditions in all areas of the site where works would
be required so they are considered to constitute generic guidance
notes and do not support the specific proposals on this
site.
9.20 The proposed Cellular Confinement System
(CCS), a no dig installation, is not based on any site-specific
engineered design and the Method Statement does not address how
ground level differences on site and level changes between
structures would be addressed. It constitutes generic guidance and
implies that it can be used in any situation to construct within
the RPA of trees regardless of the circumstances or the extent of
encroachment. If this is being implied, this is not the case.
Industry standards (i.e. BS 5837) do not advocate its use in any
situation and advises that the default position should be that
structures are located outside the RPAs of trees to be
retained. However, where there is an overriding
justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions
might be available that prevent damage to the trees.
“7.4.1 General
Where permanent hard surfacing within the RPA is
considered unavoidable, site-specific and specialist arboricultural
and construction design advice should be sought to determine
whether it is achievable without significant adverse impact on
trees to be retained. NOTE Specialist arboricultural advice
includes, for example, advice on the tolerance of a tree species to
the installation of a permanent hard surface within the RPA or
tolerance of salt damage (see 7.4.2.4)”.
9.21 It is considered that there is no overriding
justification and hard surfacing within the RPA is avoidable.
Parking to meet parking standards is dictated by the scale of the
proposed extension which could reasonably be reduced in size to
reduce the parking requirement and therefore the need to
accommodate parking spaces within RPAs. The proposed CCS only
helps to mitigate impact compared to standard construction methods.
It does not avoid it altogether. It should therefore only be used
where encroachment has been fully justified.
9.22 The Method Statement also specifies the use
of herbicide treatment prior to laying the CCS which is considered
to be unnecessary and potentially damaging to rooting area of
trees.
Root Protection Areas
9.23 The minimum RPA distributions shown on the
submitted Tree Protection Plan are not considered an accurate
representation. These do not take sufficient account of existing
structures and the effect these are likely to have on natural root
growth in certain areas. These are shown as simplistic circles.
This implies they are surrounded by entirely natural ground
conditions where there are no structures that might influence
normal growth. This is not considered to be the case.
9.24 The protected Limes around
the boundaries are situated next to boundary walls with the areas
beyond being predominantly covered by the adopted footpaths and
roads. The footings of the walls will already be limiting natural
root growth beyond the site to a certain degree. The adopted roads
and footpaths are highly compacted, impermeable structures that are
constructed to a significant depth below typical rooting depth to
meet adoptable standards. The public footpath along London Rd was
widened relatively recently. This included reducing the width of
the already narrow grass verge between the path and boundary wall
to just 1.6m. Lighting was also placed with underground ducting
along the edge of the widened path within the grass verge. These
works will have removed significant root growth in this
area.
9.25 Combined with other issues including the
anaerobic conditions within and below these structures and the
significant heat variations they can generate (which also limits
root growth), they represent a significant constraint to the
natural rooting environment of the Limes. Root growth beyond the
walls and within and underneath them is therefore likely to be
substantially reduced or in the case of the road almost
non-existent compared to the surrounding more natural rooting
environments and shallower structures that exist within the
application site. Consequently, these areas cannot reasonably be
factored in as a primary rooting area sufficient to sustain normal
long-term vitality and vigour. They would also not be sufficient to
offset the damage and pressures that will occur by the extension of
parking into the undisturbed RPA that remain within the site. The
RPAs shown in these areas should be represented as polygons and
predominantly offset within the? application site where growing
conditions are likely to be more conducive. This will extend the
RPA further within the application site than shown. The importance
of a realistic assessment of the RPA distribution, including
allowance for existing constraints is supported by advice in
sections 4.6.2 & 4.6.3a of BS 5837 which advises as
follows.
“The RPA for each tree should initially be
plotted as a circle centred on the base of the stem.
Where pre-existing site conditions or other
factors indicate that rooting has occurred asymmetrically, a
polygon of equivalent area should be produced. Modifications to the
shape of the RPA should reflect a soundly based arboricultural
assessment of likely root distribution.
Any deviation in the RPA from the original
circular plot should take account of the following factors whilst
still providing adequate protection for the root system:
a. the morphology and disposition of the roots,
when influenced by past or existing site conditions (e.g. the
presence of roads, structures and underground
apparatus);
b. topography and
drainage;
c. the soil type and
structure;
d. the likely tolerance of the tree to root
disturbance or damage, based on factors such as species, age,
condition and past management.”
9.26 Advice in BS 5837 sets clear boundaries that
should not be crossed without clear justification. It also heavily
influences the tolerance of trees to any further loss of natural
rooting environment caused by unjustified construction encroachment
into undisturbed areas or areas which are likely to still contain
significant root growth even where informal shallow structures may
exist. Any impact assessment based on inaccurately represented RPAs
is therefore considered unreliable and misleading as they are a
fundamental consideration in relation to any
development.
Layout Concerns
9.27 The proposed layout does not acceptably
address key issues. No consideration is made of
the need for maintenance of adequate undeveloped green space to
accommodate and sustain the replacement protected Beech in its
required location. The layout does not allow for the sustainable
planting of the replacement TPO Beech. The proposed planting of the
tree in close proximity to the proposed structure and within the
competing zones of the adjacent un-surveyed Holly and Lime is
impractical and unsustainable given the tree’s future growth
and ultimate scale.
9.28 Beech will attain an average
ultimate height and radial spread of 22-23m + and 10-11m
respectively. The trunk will attain an average diameter of between
900mm and potentially in excess of 1m. This requires significant
construction free green space around it to sustain it in the long
term and mitigate the risk of direct physical conflict with any
adjacent structures. This is not provided by the current parking
layout. This would require substantially scaling back to achieve
and can only realistically be achieved by reducing the scale of the
building extension.
9.29 The proposed parking layout does not make
provision for the maintenance of minimum undisturbed rooting area
around the Limes along the front boundary factoring in accurate
minimum RPAs. The proposed parking layout (in particular parking
bays 23 and 24) shows parking located closer to the Lime trees on
the front and side boundaries than the existing structure. Although
informal hard standing may already exist here, this area is not a
designated parking area and does not justify the construction of
formal parking spaces from an arboricultural perspective. What
exists already has an adverse impact on the rooting environment of
T2, T3 and T4. Continued use and formal parking bays in close
proximity to these trees will exacerbate pressures to severely
prune or remove trees. T4 in particular has been the subject of
such applications in the past. The provision of parking spaces in
such proximity to protected trees would be contrary to best
practice and is unacceptable in principle. The current distance
between structures and protected trees on the front boundary of the
site has been measured on site as 8m from inside the boundary
wall. Given the constraints already imposed on the rooting
environments of the Limes along the front boundary, no construction
closer than 8m from the wall is considered acceptable regardless of
technical design as it would have a detrimental impact on the
health and long-term management of these important trees and be
contrary to good arboricultural practice and BS 5837 guidance. This
is supported by the following guidance in Section 5.3.2 of British
Standard 5837 (2012) ‘Trees in relation to design, demolition
and construction-Recommendations’.
“5.3.2 The cumulative effects of incursions
into the RPA, e.g. from excavation for utility apparatus, are
damaging and should be avoided. Where there is evidence that a tree
has been previously subjected to damage by construction activity,
this should be taken into account when considering the
acceptability of further activity within the RPA.”
9.30 The bin and cycle storage
would also be located unacceptably close to Limes T2 and T3. This
area of the site should be reverted back to soft
landscaping.
Conclusion
9.31 The parking layout bin and cycle storage and
relationship to the existing trees along London Road and Nevelle
Close will result in unjustified further encroachment into already
heavily pressured rooting areas. Regardless of technical design
this is considered to constitute overdevelopment that will
adversely affect their health.
9.32 The proposed layout will not retain
sufficient sustainable planting space for the replacement TPO
Beech, which is a statutory requirement on this site that must be
complied with irrespective of this planning application. The
application would be contrary to Policies EN1, EN20 &
CS7.
iii Highway Issues
Access
9.33 The site is currently a small scale hotel and
the access is located off B3408 London Road via a private road
known as Nevelle Close. The existing access appears to be reused
for this proposal which is acceptable in principle. The proposal
makes some slight alterations to the existing boundary wall near to
the junction with London Road to provide access to the proposed bin
store. Refuse bins can be wheeled along the footway to the rear of
the refuse vehicle. The cycle store provision is adequate and could
be controlled by conditions. The larger main store will also be
conditioned.
Parking
9.34 A total of 25 parking spaces have been
provided which meets adopted car parking standards and includes 3
visitor parking spaces and 2 disabled parking spaces close to the
main entrance to the building. Only 1 flat will need to have tandem
parking which is considered to be acceptable.
9.35 Conditions will be required to ensure that
parking spaces will be marked out and that spaces are signed where
necessary to ensure that all cars use the spaces as intended to
reduce the potential for overspill parking. The car park is
proposed to include gravel as part of the CCS so it will be
important to ensure that spaces are adequately marked out and
signed. Concerns have been raised in representations that parking
from this site will take place outside the site in Nevelle
Close. However, parking has been provided to meet parking
standards and includes visitor parking.
9.36 The applicant has suggested 20% active and
20% passive electric vehicle parking provision which is acceptable.
However due to the sensitive tree lined nature of the site and the
changes in the level of use of electric vehicles in the future it
will be necessary for details to demonstrate how the impact of
suitable infrastructure such as ducting can be provided for the
entire parking area to ensure future changes can be made without
detriment to the surrounding trees or the access road.
iv Biodiversity Issues
9.37 A Bat Survey Report has been submitted with
the application and concludes that there are no roosting bats
within the existing building though the trees and the vegetation
around the site is considered to be of “high”
suitability for commuting and foraging bats and should be retained
where possible.
9.38 The report does not address concerns about
other species which may be present on the site, particularly
badgers which are recorded in the area and anecdotally known to
cross London Road at this location. As a minimum, the boundary
treatments for this site should be made permeable by provide gaps
approx. 20cm square. This can be subject to a condition.
v Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
9.39 Bracknell
Forest Council introduced charging for its Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) on 6th April 2015. CIL is applied as a charge on
each square metre of new development. The amount payable varies
depending on the location of the development within the borough and
the type of development.
9.40 CIL applies to
any new build (except outline applications and some reserved
matters applications that leave some reserved matters still to be
submitted), including extensions of 100 square metres of gross
internal floor space, or more, or new build that involves the
creation of additional dwellings.
9.41 CSDPD Policy
CS6 states that development is expected to contribute to the
delivery of:-
(a) infrastructure
needed to support growth and;
(b) infrastructure
needed to mitigate impacts upon communities, transport and the
environment.
9.42 Guidance in the
Planning Obligations SPD, is relevant. Bracknell Forest Council
Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is applied as a charge on each square
metre of new development. The amount payable varies depending on
the location of the development within the Borough and the type of
development.
vi Thames Basin Heath SPA
9.43 The Council, in
consultation with Natural England, has formed the view that any net
increase in residential development between 400m - 5km
straight-line distance from the Thames Basin Heath Special
Protection Area (SPA) is likely to have a significant effect on the
integrity of the SPA, either alone or in-combination with other
plans or projects. An Appropriate Assessment has therefore been
carried out including mitigation requirements.
9.44 This site
is located within 5km of the boundary of the SPA and therefore is
likely to result in an adverse effect on the SPA, unless it is
carried out together with appropriate avoidance and mitigation
measures.
9.45 The total SPA
related financial contribution for this proposal is
£64,438. A S106 agreement will be required to secure
this contribution. This has not yet been secured.
10. CONCLUSIONS
10.1 This full
application proposes the change of use of the existing building
from hotel to residential use and the erection of a two and a half
storey extension to provide 11no two bed apartments.
10.2 The
change of use of the building from hotel to residential is
considered to be acceptable in this predominantly residential
area. The proposed extension and external changes to the
building are also acceptable in terms of their impact on the
character of the area and amenities of adjacent properties. Parking
has been provided to meet parking standards and adequate bin store
and cycle store provision has been provided.
10.3
Trees on the site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders 198 and
745. Trees on site are shown in submitted plans to be
retained, however it is considered that the removal of the existing
temporary parking area and replacement with a larger parking area
will result in further encroachment into already heavily pressured
rooting areas. The area proposed for car parking in front of the
property has been considered and dismissed by two previous
inspectors and the current parking in this area does not appear to
have planning permission for such use..
10.4 The proposed No Dig method of providing the parking spaces
does not avoid construction impact on tree root protection areas
(RPAs) and advice in British Standard 5837 (2012) “Trees in
relation to design, demolition and
construction-Recommendations” is that any structures should
be located outside RPAs unless there is overriding justification
for such works. The proposed cycle store and bin store are also
proposed within close proximity to protected trees along the
boundaries of the site on London Road and Nevelle Close.
10.5 The proposed
layout does not make adequate provision for the replacement of a
Beech tree covered by TPO which was previously removed on site.
10.6 The proposed
development is considered to have an adverse impact on trees
protected by TPOs 198 and 745 which make an important contribution
to the landscape character and appearance of the area and would
therefore be contrary to Policies EN1 and EN20 of the BFBLP and
policy CS7 of the CSDPD.
10.7 The proposal
results in a net increase in new dwellings within 400m - 5km of the
SPA and therefore will need to secure the identified SPA Mitigation
through a S106 Legal Agreement. In the absence of the completion of
a satisfactory S106 the application is contrary to policy NRM6 of
the South East Plan, policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough
Local Plan, policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan
Document and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
11. RECOMMENDATION
That the Assistant Director: Planning be
recommended to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:
01. The
proposed development will have an adverse impact on trees which
make an important contribution to the landscape character and
appearance of the area and as such would be contrary to Policies
EN1 and EN20 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan &
Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.
02. In
the absence of a planning obligation to secure suitable avoidance
and mitigation measures and access management monitoring
arrangements, in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning
Authority, the proposal would be contrary to Regulation 63(5) of
the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as
amended), Policy NRM6 of the South East
Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan, Policy
CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and the Thames
Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Supplementary Planning
Document (2018).
Doc.
Ref:Uniform
7/DC/Agenda
The application
file to which this report relates can be viewed at the Council's
Time Square office during office hours
or online at
www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk
