From: Marie Jasper <marie.jasper@bartonwillmore.co.uk>

Sent: 10 December 2021 14:22

To: Conlon, Brian

Cc: Eatough, Richard

Subject: RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading

Hi Brian,

I just called you to discuss your email below, and have left a voicemail.

We would like to understand your concerns and establish if there is an alternative way we can format the ES to address your concerns and make it easier to review.

Notwithstanding this, the schedule of documents appended to the amended submission covering letter, makes clear which documents are superseded by the amended submission. The submitted documents are valid and the ES approach legible and clearly explained in the Ramboll compliance letter.

On the above basis there should be no reason to recommence the consultation period. However we are happy to discuss alternative formatting should this be necessary.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards
Marie

Marie Jasper

Planning Director

DDI: 0207 446 6839

M: 07771691694

W: www.bartonwillmore.co.uk

7 Soho Square, London, W1D 3QB

Consider the Environment, Do you really need to print this email?

The information contained in this e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It may be read, copied and used only by the addressee, Barton Willmore accepts no liability for any subsequent alterations or additions incorporated by the addressee or a third party to the body text of this e-mail or any attachments. Barton Willmore accepts no responsibility for staff non-compliance with our IT Acceptable Use Policy.

From: Conlon, Brian <Brian.Conlon@reading.gov.uk>
Sent: 08 December 2021 10:22
To: Marie Jasper <marie.jasper@bartonwillmore.co.uk>
Cc: Eatough, Richard <Richard.Eatough@reading.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading

Morning Marie.

Many thanks for the confirmation. Once received, we will be in touch with the daylight/sunlight and microclimate review quotes for agreement with your client.

In other matters, further to the submission of the revised documents associated with the ES, these documents consist of a number of PDFs which are difficult to read alongside the original ES. Furthermore, without page numbers, PDFs of 600+ pages become unwieldy and hard to navigate by consultees who require access to them.

The revised sections submitted in October consist of:

Revised Townscape and Visual Impact Chapters including Appendices 1.1a-1.6a (consisting if 3 documents Parts 1-3)
Revised Heritage Chapter 2A (1 document)
Appendix 2.1a Heritage Statement (consisting of 3 documents Parts 1-3)

Furthermore, the original ES PDF submitted contains Volume 2 in the wrong order, and without page number. For ease, we would much prefer the ES to be split into the following logical sections and ordered accordingly.

• Non-Technical Summary (NTS);

• Volume 1: Environmental Statement Main Report;

• Volume 2: Townscape, Visual and Built Heritage Assessment;

• Volume 3: Technical Appendices.

We therefore request submission of an updated ES, split into three consolidated volumes which contains the above revisions, fully page numbered, and with corresponding contents pages showing a logically ordered page numbered content.

That way the LPA and consultees will be able to quickly navigate to their relevant sections.

Many thanks,

Brian

Brian Conlon BA Hons MSC MRTPI

Principal Planner

Planning Section | Directorate for Economic Growth and Neighbourhood Services

Reading Borough Council

Civic Offices,

Bridge Street,

Reading,

RG1 2LU

01189 373 859 (Ext. 73859)

07855 125 787

Email: brian.conlon@reading.gov.uk

Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

Reading Together Email Signature #URL

From: Marie Jasper <marie.jasper@bartonwillmore.co.uk>
Sent: 07 December 2021 09:02
To: Conlon, Brian <Brian.Conlon@reading.gov.uk>
Cc: Eatough, Richard <Richard.Eatough@reading.gov.uk>; Markwell, Jonathan <Jonathan.Markwell@reading.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading

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

Dear Brian,

Further to your email below, we confirm agreement for the submitted FVA to be made publicly available.

We also confirm our clients agreement to pay up to a capped sum of £15,000 for the independent review of the FVA, on the understanding that the Council shares the outcome of the assessment on receipt, both the fee and terms are in accordance with the Affordable Housing SPD 2021.

With regard to the independent review of the daylight/sunlight and microclimate assessments, we confirm our client is willing to pay reasonable capped costs in relation to these reviews, provided that these are agreed in writing by our client in advance before work starts.

We look forward to hearing from you regarding the above.

Kind regards
Marie

Marie Jasper

Planning Director

DDI: 0207 446 6839

M: 07771691694

W: www.bartonwillmore.co.uk

7 Soho Square, London, W1D 3QB

Consider the Environment, Do you really need to print this email?

From: Conlon, Brian <Brian.Conlon@reading.gov.uk>
Sent: 29 November 2021 14:27
To: Marie Jasper <marie.jasper@bartonwillmore.co.uk>
Cc: Eatough, Richard <Richard.Eatough@reading.gov.uk>; Markwell, Jonathan <Jonathan.Markwell@reading.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading

Dear Marie,

With regard to the Financial Viability Appraisal submitted, one point of order is that the Council require clarification as to whether you agree to the information submitted being made publicly available.

The information submitted confirms that a copy of FVA report may be shared with the Council and its appointed viability advisor for review, although the contents of the report make clear the information is deemed commercially confidential and is not to be made publicly available.

This is queried in light of the clear advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance relating to how viability submissions should be publicly available. The relevant extract has been included below for ease. No reasoning of exceptional circumstances, nor any explicit executive summary (to be made publicly available) appears to have been provided. This would run contrary with the guidance contained within the PPG. Accordingly, I would like to offer you the opportunity to provide commentary and responses in respect of paragraph 021 of the PPG, to enable this matter to be further considered by the Local Planning Authority prior to the information being published on the public register.

Should a viability assessment be publicly available?

Any viability assessment should be prepared on the basis that it will be made publicly available other than in exceptional circumstances. Even in those circumstances an executive summary should be made publicly available. Information used in viability assessment is not usually specific to that developer and thereby need not contain commercially sensitive data. In circumstances where it is deemed that specific details of an assessment are commercially sensitive, the information should be aggregated in published viability assessments and executive summaries, and included as part of total costs figures. Where an exemption from publication is sought, the planning authority must be satisfied that the information to be excluded is commercially sensitive. This might include information relating to negotiations, such as ongoing negotiations over land purchase, and information relating to compensation that may be due to individuals, such as right to light compensation. The aggregated information should be clearly set out to the satisfaction of the decision maker. Any sensitive personal information should not be made public.

An executive summary prepared in accordance with the government’s data format published by government (draft available online) will present the data and findings of a viability assessment more clearly so that the process and findings are accessible to affected communities. As a minimum, the government recommends that the executive summary sets out the gross development value, benchmark land value including landowner premium, costs, as set out in this guidance where applicable, and return to developer. Where a viability assessment is submitted to accompany a planning application, the executive summary should refer back to the viability assessment that informed the plan and summarise what has changed since then. It should also set out the proposed developer contributions and how this compares with policy requirements.

See related policy: National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 57

Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 10-021-20190509

Revision date: 09 05 2019 See previous version

In other matters, whilst I am conscious this was discussed this at our earlier phone call on the 1^st November 2021, I would be grateful for written confirmation of your in-principle agreement to fund the FVA (which you will undoubtedly be contacted separately about) and the daylight/microclimate reviews that we required to instruct upon.

This also links to the general discussion over LPA AH position at our meeting last week. In light of this meeting, it would be useful to have written confirmation as to your clients specific concerns over the LPA’s response to the anticipated 0% offer (subject to independent verification). Once independent verification is received (hopefully by early new year) and an officer position established, it is then likely we will then be able to provide a greater degree of certainty as to the LPA route to determination and a greater degree of comfort to your client over such matters.

I look forward to hearing from you on these points and would be happy to discuss any of the above if required.

Kind regards,