From: Angela Miles <angela@rmpl.co.uk>

Sent: 19 September 2016 17:02

To: Chakadya, Ralph

Subject: RE: 161346/NMA - Kennet Island, Blocks B & D, Phase 3C

Attachments: B08043 44-47C Block B and D Planting Proposals.pdf

This is an EXTERNAL EMAIL. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN attachments.

Ralph

Further to the comments raised by Sarah Hanson, we have asked our landscape consultants, the Landscape Partnership, to respond to the issues raised in respect of the NMA for Blocks B and D. To address the issues raised we have made some amendments to the landscaping schemes and attach revised plans which we hope will now be acceptable.

B08043 44A (compared to D2131 L.304)

The amenity space adjacent to D06 previously included 2 trees. Whilst landscaping is still included here, no trees are shown – unless there is a good reason, trees should be incorporated.

1. Within the previous proposals the rear garden space was much larger and there was no binstore, therefore we could accommodate the two trees without having a potential impact on the building foundations. In the revised layout which has been approved, the space has been reduced in size which has limited our options. We propose as a replacement for these two trees, one small, low water demand tree/large shrub Corylus avellana ‘Contorta’ (Corkscrew Hazel) whilst retaining the shrub bed and other specimen shrubs as indicated.

The northern boundary r/o D07 & D08 previously included a row of trees. It appears that there is still a landscape strip, but no trees have been omitted – is there a reason for this?

2. These trees were omitted from the revised plans due to the limited space available between the site boundary and the footway and potential future conflicts. We propose to add two native trees, Acer campestre (Field maple) to the eastern extent of the planting strip where the bed is slightly wider and could accommodate the trees.

The frontage of D07 & D08 previously included Pear (Pyrus C) trees, which have now been omitted – what is the reason for this?

3. The trees were omitted from the revised plans due to the limited soft space available.

We proposed to add trees, Betula pendula (Silver Birch), to the two larger areas of soft planting.

The tree planting on the amenity space south of D09 has changed from 4 Acer platanoides Emerald Queen to 3 Pyrus Chanticleer and 3 Amelanchier. There appears to be no need to use fasitigate trees in this location so why are Pyrus C proposed? Any space that has room for larger canopy trees should be utilised.

4. The trees to the frontage of Block D09 were substituted for Pyrus and reduced in number due to the close proximity to foundations and building frontages.

We propose to add two Acer platanoides ‘Emerald Queen’ (Norway Maple Emerald Queen) trees either side to the Block entrance footpath and retain one Pyrus tree shown to the east of the service unit.

I note that the previous line of trees shown east of the parking spaces for D09 are now omitted – what is the reason for this? These have been replaced with one Betula Jacquemontii between the parking spaces – if only one tree can be provided for, it would seem reasonable for this to be a native species in keeping with the theme of the east boundary.

5. The trees were omitted from the revised plans due to the limited soft space available between the parking areas and site boundary.

We shall substitute the one Betula Jacquemontii for a native species, Betula pendula, as suggested.

Along the north and east perimeter the number of Oaks has dropped from 12 to 4 – further large, longer lived trees would be beneficial.

6. The number of oaks has been reduced due to the high water demand of the tree and the potential impact onto proposed foundations of the development and also the existing buildings and roads on the adjacent site.

Other native species of tree, including Silver Birch, Field Maple and Grey Alder, have been proposed to the boundary that will have a potentially higher successful establishment rate than oak whilst still providing a diverse native tree belt.

B08043 45A (compared to D2131 L.303 - partly)

The previously approved row of trees east of the parking spaces for D04 & D05 are now omitted – what is the reason for this?

7. As per point 2, these trees were omitted due to the limited space available. The space is considered too narrow for trees.

B08043 46A (compared to D2131 L.303 – partly & D2131 L.302 – partly)

The trees previously included on the perimeter south-east of D02 are now omitted – what is the reason for this?

The Sorbus previously included between D02 & D03 is now omitted – what is the reason for this?

(Point 8/9) The trees to the south of D03 and D02 were omitted as these are within private rear gardens. Although boundary screening is beneficial at this location a proposed tree would also be too close to the building

The tree planting on the rectangular amenity space between D01 & D02 previously consisted of one Oak in the centre with a Maple (Acer platanoides Emerald Queen) on each corner. The planting now proposes a Birch (Betula utilis Jacquemontii/Doorenbos) in the centre with Pyrus Chanticleer (fasitigate Pear) on each corner. Why have the species been changed? The Oak was a feature, ultimately large tree in the centre, utilising the space available and has now been substituted with a considerably smaller (ultimately) ornamental tree. I have no strong objections to the change from Acer to Pyrus but it would be useful to know the reason for the change – are fastigiate trees required here?

10. The central oak tree was substituted as the eventual canopy spread of an oak would be in conflict with the building facades. The canopy spread would also create a very shaded, dark environment. Providing a large, feature birch tree, creates a lighter canopy, providing the open space with increased light levels whilst providing visual interest through the trees bark and a dappled shade. The four corner trees were also substituted for fastigate trees due to their proximity to building facades.

Trees previously included east of D01 have now been omitted – why?

11. The trees east of D01 were omitted due to their proximity to the building and potential impacts on foundations.

Cherries (Prunus Sunset Boulevard) previously included at the front of B10 have now been omitted – why?

12. The cherries south of B10 were omitted due to the conflict with the proposed retaining walls.

As per comments given above, it would seem reasonable for the trees between the parking spaces for D08-D11 to be native to be consistent with the native planting adjacent to the parking – Betula pubescens could be considered.

13. As per previous comments the non-native birch trees as currently proposed within parking areas shall be substituted with a native Betula pendula (Silver Birch).

Two Cherries (Prunus Plena) previously included south of B08 have now been omitted – why?

14. The two cherries south of B08 have been omitted due to their proximity to building and potential impact on foundations and also the building façade.

B08043 47A (compared to D2131 L.302 partly & D2131 L.301)

I note the change to the parking layout on the east boundary of B05 & B06 which has result in a change of tree species between the parking spaces from 4 Aspen to 4 Birch ( 2 x Betula Jacquemontii and 2 x Betula pendula). Same comment given for Betula Jacquemontii previously applies.

15. As per previous comments the non-native birch trees as currently proposed within parking areas shall be substituted with a native Birch.

I note the change to the parking layout east of B04 and north of B04. This is a significant change resulting in the change of parking spaces to open space, which is positive. However, I note that trees previously included north of the parking spaces for B01 (HA) and B02 (HA) are not omitted – what is the reason for this?

16. The trees north of the B01 an B02(HA) have been omitted due to the existing ditch adjacent to the site boundary.

I trust that the above is now acceptable.

Regards

Angela J Miles

RMPL

Roger Miles Planning Limited, Three Corner Park, Calstock, Cornwall PL18 9RG

Tel: 01822 834561

Fax: 01822 834566

****************************************************************************************************

The information in this e-mail is confidential and is intended solely for the use of the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, this e-mail should not be copied, forwarded or printed for any purpose, or the contents disclosed to any other person.

Although RMPL operates anti-virus programmes, it does not accept any responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by viruses being passed.

From: Chakadya, Ralph [mailto:Ralph.Chakadya@reading.gov.uk]
Sent: 05 September 2016 14:51
To: 'angela@rmpl.co.uk'
Subject: FW: 161346/NMA - Kennet Island, Blocks B & D, Phase 3C

Angela

Please find below comments from the Council’s Natural Environment officer regarding the above NMA application. Please clarify the issues raised. Thanks.

Ralph Chakadya

Senior Planning Officer

Reading Borough Council

Planning, Development and Regulatory Services

Bridge Street

Reading RG1 2LU

Telephone: 0118 937 2993

Mobile: 07855126057

Mobex: 86057

Fax: 0118 939 0435

Email: Ralph.chakadya@reading.gov.uk

This Council implemented its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on 1^st April 2015. Planning applications which are decided on or after 1^st April 2015 may be liable to pay the levy. For more information please visit our website at http://beta.reading.gov.uk/readingldf

Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

cid:image003.jpg@01D04B85.75046420

From: Hanson, Sarah
Sent: 05 September 2016 14:45
To: Chakadya, Ralph
Subject: 161346/NMA - Kennet Island, Blocks B & D, Phase 3C

Ralph,

In order to assess this NMA, I have compared approved Planting plans D2131 L.301, L.302. L.303 & L.304 (approved under 131633 – REM for 12/00481/OUT) with the following plans submitted with this NMA: B08043 44A, 45A, 46A & 47A. I note that the ‘additional planning application information’ document lists the four new Soft landscape plans to be F328-EXWORKS.01, 02, 03 & 04, however I can’t find any plans with these references.

I understand that some changes to the building layouts were approved under 160323 last year, therefore any resulting loss of landscaping from these changes will have to be accepted.

B08043 44A (compared to D2131 L.304)

The amenity space adjacent to D06 previously included 2 trees. Whilst landscaping is still included here, no trees are shown – unless there is a good reason, trees should be incorporated.

The northern boundary r/o D07 & D08 previously included a row of trees. It appears that there is still a landscape strip, but no trees have been omitted – is there a reason for this?

The frontage of D07 & D08 previously included Pear (Pyrus C) trees, which have now been omitted – what is the reason for this?

Along the north and east perimeter the number of Oaks has dropped from 12 to 4 – further large, longer lived trees would be beneficial.

B08043 45A (compared to D2131 L.303 - partly)

The previously approved row of trees east of the parking spaces for D04 & D05 are now omitted – what is the reason for this?

B08043 46A (compared to D2131 L.303 – partly & D2131 L.302 – partly)

The trees previously included on the perimeter south-east of D02 are now omitted – what is the reason for this?

The Sorbus previously included between D02 & D03 is now omitted – what is the reason for this?

Trees previously included east of D01 have now been omitted – why?

Cherries (Prunus Sunset Boulevard) previously included at the front of B10 have now been omitted – why?

Two Cherries (Prunus Plena) previously included south of B08 have now been omitted – why?

B08043 47A (compared to D2131 L.302 partly & D2131 L.301)

I await a response to the above.

Regards,

Sarah Hanson BSc, Dip Arb L4 (ABC), MArborA

Natural Environment Officer

Planning & Building Control

Environment & Neighbourhood Services

Reading Borough Council

Level 1, North

Civic Centre

Bridge Street

Reading

RG1 2LU

0118 937 2440

Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

The information in this e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient to whom it has been addressed and may be covered by legal professional privilege and protected by law. Reading Borough Council does not accept responsibility for any unauthorised amendment made to the contents of this e-mail following its dispatch.

If received in error, you must not retain the message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please contact the sender of the email or mailto: customer.services@reading.gov.uk, quoting the name of the sender and the addressee and then delete the e-mail.

Reading Borough Council has scanned for viruses. However, it is your responsibility to scan the e-mail and attachments (if any) for viruses.

Reading Borough Council also operates to the Protective Document Marking Standard as defined for the Public Sector. Recipients should ensure protectively marked emails and documents are handled in accordance with this standard (Re: Cabinet Office – Government Security Classifications).

Click here to report this email as spam.