From:                                          Donna Palmer <donna.palmer@turley.co.uk>

Sent:                                           20 January 2016 12:00

To:                                               Markwell, Jonathan

Cc:                                               Cheryl Clarke; Tim Burden; David Wetherill

Subject:                                      RE: 5 Weighbridge Row, Reading (152292)

Attachments:                             PL-03 Proposed Ground floor plan.pdf; PL-04 Proposed First floor plan.pdf; PL-05 Existing Ground floor plan.pdf; PL-06 Existing First floor plan.pdf

 

Dear Jonathan

 

Further to your recent email please find attached the requested material below and attached.

 

I trust this is now sufficient to allow the validation of the application. Should you require any further information please let me know.

 

Kind regards

 

Donna

 

 

Donna Palmer Senior Planner

The Pinnacle 20 Tudor Road Reading RG1 1NH T 0118 900 1504 M 07795 396 679

turley.co.uk

 

 

Think of the environment, please do not print unnecessarily This e-mail is intended for the above named only, is strictly confidential and may also be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead, please notify the sender and then immediately and permanently delete it. Turley is a trading name of Turley Associates Ltd, registered in England and Wales Registered No 2235387 Registered Office 1 New York Street, Manchester, M1 4HD. Terms and Conditions

 

 

Dear Ms Palmer,

 

I am the case officer assigned to your recent application submission to the Council at the above address. I have considered the submission for the purposes of validating the application and found it to be invalid. The following information is required prior to the application being valid and thereafter registered:

 

-        Please provide existing (lawful) & proposed floor plans – this is required as it is evident from the information provided that the unit covers more than a single floor and the footprint of both is different. Furthermore, I would anticipate annotations to be included on the proposed floor plans to depict the areas proposed for a place of worship and which spaces are the specified community meeting rooms? It is also noted that existing/proposed floor plans were submitted at the time of application 101686 at the site. Please find attached the requested plans.

 

-        The extent of the red line of the application site, as shown on SLP ref PL-01 dated 22/12/15, is sought to be confirmed as correct and fully accurate? In particular, the SLP includes the Weighbridge Row highway/further parking spaces on the east side of Weighbridge Row. If this is correct, then the 22 parking spaces along the east side of Weighbridge Row need to be shown on the SLP (as the 8 adjacent to the building already are) and section 10 of the application form needs to be updated accordingly. If the SLP is in-fact not correct / fully accurate at present, please amend it accordingly (and section 21 of the application form). Any areas outside of the extent of the application site, but within the ownership of the applicant, should be shown with a blue (rather than red) line. It is important that the extent of the red line of the application site is confirmed prior to registration, to ensure that the local planning authority undertakes sufficient public consultation on the application. It is noted that the Weighbridge Row highway was not included in the SLP for application 101686 at the site. Given that Weighbridge Row is a private road, the red line has been extended to reach to an adopted highway. Appropriate notice has been served. Only the 8 spaces shown on the plan are for the use of the occupiers of no. 5 Weighbridge Row and as such the details provided on the application form are accurate.

 

-        Please confirm that section 19 of the application form is accurate (that there are 0 employees at the site)? I think you may have mistakenly specified 0 rather than ‘not known’? If the current details are incorrect, please amend accordingly. In any event, it would be helpful if the number of employees could be obtained and stated. There are no employees directly employed at the site although there are a number of volunteers who assist with the functions of Christ Embassy.

 

The following are not matters which have led to the application being made invalid, but are raised at this juncture for your information (and action):

 

-        Please clarify whether the proposed time period for the further 3 year temporary permission is proposed to be effective from: a) when 101686 expired i.e. 02 August 2013 to 02 August 2016; b) from the date of the application submission i.e. 22 December 2015 – 22 December 2018; c) the determination date of any future permission? It is not clear from your submission which is sought, and it will be helpful for this to be clarified as soon as possible.  We would request that a further 3 year temporary period be granted from the determination date of any planning permission. 

 

-        It would be helpful if you could please confirm the proposed hours of opening (stated as not known at section 20 of the application form)? It is noted that condition 2 of 101686 imposed operating hours. In addition, hours are also referenced at paragraph 4.13 of the planning statement and (in more detail) at paragraph 1.4 of the transport statement. As such, it is unclear why this has been specified as ‘not known’ on the application form itself? The proposed hours of opening would remain as per the condition on the previous consent, namely 7pm-10.30pm on a Wednesday and 9am-7pm on Sundays. Please let me know if you require the submission of an updated section of the application form with this information.

-         

 

I would welcome your comments on the merits of the proposals when considered within the context of Planning Practice Guidance (within the Use of Planning Conditions section - Paragraph 014 Reference ID: 21a-014-20140306) and in particular that ‘It will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission – further permissions should normally be granted permanently or refused if there is clear justification for doing so’. Whilst we recognise the guidance provided in the PPG recommends that it will rarely be justifiable to grant a second temporary permission, we consider that the proposals represent one such circumstance when a clear justification does exist for a further temporary permission. As you are aware the site falls within a defined Core Employment Area where the Council’s policies seek to prevent the loss of employment floorspace. Whilst the market has picked up since the original consent, there are still vacant units in the area. Therefore there are other opportunities available within the Core Employment Area and this proposal would not preclude businesses from finding employment floorspace. Should circumstances, and the local employment market, change then the granting of a temporary rather than permanent consent allows for the building to revert to an employment use after the three year period when demand for such a unit may exist. The submitted Planning Statement covers this matter as well.

 

I also seek your agreement to the description of development being changed from that detailed at section 3 of the application form:

 

Temporary (3 year) change of use of B1 unit to D1 place of worship and community meeting rooms (Resubmission of 10/00985/FUL).

 

To:

 

Temporary change of use from office (Class B1) to place of worship and community meeting rooms (Class D1) for 3 years (retrospective).

 

I think this is a little clearer / more concise (where necessary) / more specific (where necessary) than that which you detailed. For example, given that 10/00985/FUL (101686) expired in 2013 means it isn’t necessary for it to be explicitly referenced in the description of development. Please confirm your acceptance to this change in description, or provide any comments / suggestions? Please note, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am NOT seeking for the supporting documents already submitted with your application to be amended to reflect the suggested altered description of development. I can confirm our agreement to the proposed revised description of development.  

 

In order to enable the application to hopefully be validated and registered in due course, the above additional information must be submitted (via email direct to me is sufficient – with documents ideally in a pdf format) within 28 days of this email. As such, I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible and no later than Monday 8th February. If you are unable or unwilling to provide further information within 28 days then your submission may be returned to you. The statutory timeframe for the Council to determine the application will only begin once all information to enable validation has been received. As such, the sooner the additional information requested has been received, the sooner the application will be able to be registered with view to being determined thereafter.

 

I hope that this information is of assistance to you. If you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Jonathan Markwell

Principal Planning Officer

Planning Section|Directorate of Environment and Neighbourhood Services

 

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

 

 

Reading Borough Council

Civic Offices,

Bridge Street,

Reading,

RG1 2LU

 

0118 937 2458 (72458 internal extension)

Mobile: 07855 126484 (Mobex: 86484)

 

Email: jonathan.markwell@reading.gov.uk

 

Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

 

 

 

The information in this e-mail (and its attachments) may contain data which constitutes ‘personal data’ or ‘sensitive personal data’ and it is provided to you on the understanding that you are (a) entitled to receive such data (b) that you will store and safeguard this data and (c) that you will take all reasonable care not to distribute this data to other parties not entitled to receive it – either deliberately or inadvertently.  Furthermore, the information is provided on the understanding that it will only be used for the purposes that it was disclosed to (or requested by) you and you will safely & securely destroy / delete this data once it has been used for that purpose/s or otherwise store it in accordance with the guidance set down by the Council from time to time.  Failure to adhere to these requirements may lead to a breach of the Data Protection Act, data storage requirements set down by the Council and could result in significant fines and / or adverse publicity. In addition, please note that the advice contained within this email (and attachments – if applicable) is that of an officer of the Borough Council and is provided without prejudice to the decision of the Borough Council.

 

 

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.