Subject:                                                   RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading (Extension of time)

 

 

 

Dear Brian,

 

Further to your email below, as requested, we write to confirm the reason Aviva has issued a “pre notification of appeal” in relation to the Reading Station Park outline planning application (Ref: 200328).  

 

The application was originally submitted on 26^th February 2020 with amendments submitted on 8^th October 2021.

 

The amendments are minor in nature and do not result in any significant new or different impacts, but positively respond to comments from RBC and consultees, in order to improve the scheme.  

 

 

As such, given the original submission date, and time RBC and consultees have had to consider the proposals, it was anticipated that following submission of the amendments, the application would be progressed to committee at the earliest opportunity. However, during our discussions on 1^st and 26^th November 2021 there was a lack of any clear confirmation regarding the timetable for determination or the likelihood of an officer’s recommendation of approval. Furthermore, it was suggested that officers intended to await the outcome of the Berkeley’s appeal in relation to 55 Vastern Road (Ref: 200188) before discussing Aviva’s application with Members.

 

On 29^th November 2021, we received a late request for payment of external consultant costs to review the application materials, despite the fact that the application was submitted in February 2020 and amendments made on 8^th October 2021. This request could have been made at any stage. Furthermore, we note that the wind microclimate assessment, which RBC now propose is subject to external review, remains unchanged from the version submitted in February 2020.

 

Aviva is not making the appeal as a bargaining tactic, but as the last resort in the absence of any meaningful confirmation of RBC’s position on the principle of the development as proposed and the continued delays. We have repeatedly emphasised the need for the application to be progressed to determination, as a result of lease expiry considerations. The urgency to clarify the future use of the site is only getting more important. It is in light of the lack of clarity and Aviva’s need to secure a permission to provide certainty in its future plans for the site, that an appeal is now being progressed.

 

We note that in your email of 1^st December 2021 you indicated that you would seek to get the application to the “earliest” planning committee in 2022, but as this is scheduled for 12^th January 2022 this is clearly impractical, given that the Council’s external consultants are yet to be appointed.  In reality there has been no clear indication that the application will be determined within a timescale acceptable to Aviva.

 

In light of the above, the decision to appeal for non-determination is entirely reasonable and the appeal will be submitted shortly.

 

Kind regards
Marie

 

 

 

Dear Marie,

 

Many thanks for clarifying the fact that your client does not agree to the extension of time request made on the 1^st December 2021 and that you intend to respond separately in relation to the independent financial viability appraisal and daylight/sunlight reviews.

 

In light of the above and the fact the Council are currently in the process of considering and consulting upon a significant amount of revised information submitted to the us on 8^th October 2021 at your request, we would be grateful if you are able to set out to us your client’s specific reasons for serving a Notice of appeal against non-determination.

 

It should be noted that on the 29^th April 2021 you requested the LPA extend the determination date of this application to July 31^st 2021 as a consequence of ongoing discussions in order to allow the submission of revised plans. The Council duly agreed on 30^th April 2021.

 

On the 9^th June 2021 (approx. 7½ weeks prior to the expiration of the above agreed EoT) you confirmed in writing that you were in the process of making revisions to planning application, including an addendum to the Environmental Statement (ES). A request was also made to the LPA to confirm the latest position in relation to cumulative schemes and advise whether there are any additional schemes we need consider in the revised ES. The LPA responded on the 15th June 2021, acknowledging the fact revision to the planning application were being made, and provided observations regarding additional schemes to consider in the revised ES.

 

On the 11^th June 2021, a revised Certificate of Ownership Certificate B was submitted to the LPA and attached on file in anticipation of re-consultation and re-publicity that would occur when revised information as submitted.

 

On the 16^th September 2021 (approx. 6½ weeks after the expiration of the agreed EoT), you confirmed that your team were finalising the last few reports that would accompany the revised submission. You confirmed that this has taken your team longer than anticipated due to workload and summer holidays etc. You also confirmed that the scheme revisions remained as per earlier discussions held. On the same day, the LPA responded and acknowledged this update, also taking the opportunity request a timescale for submission. The answer given was the end of September 2021.

 

Following the submission of revised material on the 8^th October 2021, the LPA proceeded to register, upload and reconsult the information submitted. On the 11^th October 2021 the LPA

acknowledged receipt and out of courtesy would notify you when all documents had been uploaded and relevant consultation actioned. A progress update occurred on the 14^th October 2021.

 

At the time this Notice of Appeal against non-determination was lodged (30 November 2021), your client was fully aware that LPA were working on this revised submission submitted only 7 ½ weeks earlier.

 

The Council considers this response wholly unreasonable. Firstly due to the fact that any delay was caused on the part of the applicant, and secondly the timescales involved in serving the notice are entirely unrealistic for an LPA to consider, let alone determine such a significant amount of information pertaining to a complex major planning application.

 

As you will be aware, a Notice of appeal for non-determination should be lodged when there is no prospect of the LPA determining the application.  In this instance, your client has instructed the submission of a large amount of revised information, which would imply the expectation that the LPA is permitted sufficiently reasonable time in order to process, consider and respond to this request as such. Furthermore, only last week were we provided with verbal confirmation that your client agrees to pay our appointed daylight sunlight/microclimate consultants and valuers to consider the FVA only now submitted with this revised information.

 

Whilst it is clear to us that the applicant has caused these delays, the LPA are happy to continue with the determination of this application and provide a target date for its determination on the proviso that no new information is submitted, and the application is determined solely on the basis of the revised information submitted in October 2021. It would then be LPA’s intention, should the consideration of this application proceed, to advise of a planning committee date at our earliest opportunity.

 

Kind regards,

 

Brian

 

 

 

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

Dear Brian,

 

In response to your email below, I write to advise that my client does not agree to the extension of time request.

 

The application was submitted in February 2020, and amended details submitted on 8^th October 2021 (c.8 weeks ago).

 

We will respond separately in relation to the independent financial viability appraisal and daylight/sunlight reviews.

 

Kind regards
Marie

 

 

 

Dear Marie,

 

RE: 200328 - Vastern Court, Caversham Road, Reading

 

Further to the Pre-Notification of Intention to Appeal received from CMS law, it is noted that the agreed determination date for this application expired on the 31st July 2021.

 

In light of the recently submitted changes to the application submitted to the Council in October 2021, the Council considers it reasonable to request an extension of time to the determination deadline in order to allow time to consider the impacts of these significant amendments. In particular this extension would allow the Council time to complete the independent testing of the Financial Viability Appraisal submitted with these amendments, obtain daylight/sunlight and microclimate reviews, and allow the application to be scheduled for determination at the earliest planning committee in the new year following the conclusion of the above.

 

The Council thereby request an extension of time in accordance with Section 34 (2)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 until 2^nd March 2022. I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing your agreement to this request.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Best regards,

 

Brian

 

Brian Conlon BA Hons MSC MRTPI

Principal Planner

Planning Section | Directorate of Environment and Neighbourhood Services

 

Reading Borough Council

Civic Offices,

Bridge Street,

Reading,

RG1 2LU

 

 

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 notify us immediately 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.

 

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 notify us immediately 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).