AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT
Meeting: Uxbridge Planning Committee
th Date: Tuesday 18 March 2003 Time: 7.30pm
Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge
Committee Administrator: Nadia Williams Tel: 01895 277655 Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534
Councillors on the Committee
Conservative Labour Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Mo Khursheed David Routledge (Vice-Chairman) Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill
Substitute Councillors
Bruce Baker David Horne Henry Higgins Roshan Ghei Ann Banks Paul Harmsworth Margaret Grant Phoday Jarjussey George Cooper Peter Curling Mary O’Connor Rod Marshall
Advisory Members
Dr Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel Mr Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Ms Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel Mr Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Mr Doug Adams/Mr Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel vacancy West Drayton Green Conservation Panel
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 1
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.
David Brough Head of Committee Services
Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance in High Street, opposite Discotheque Royale.
DESPATCH DATE: Friday 7th March 2003
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 2
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 18TH MARCH 2003
AGENDA
Apologies for absence and to report the attendance of any substitute members. To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 4th February 2003, to follow. Disclosure of ‘any other business’ to be considered in public and private. Confirmation that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private. Report of the Head of Planning Services, copy attached.
PART 1 – PUBLIC
1. Amendments to The Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief – Proposed Page 1 Adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance.
ICKENHAM WARD
2. 183 Hoylake Crescent Erection of a single storey rear extension with Page 65 Ickenham 2 roof-lights and a front porch.
Recommendation: Approval 3. 44 The Grove Erection of a single storage shed in rear garden Page 68 Ickenham (retrospective application).
Recommendation: Refusal 4. 80 Halford Road Erection of an attached garage. Page 77 Ickenham Recommendation: Approval
YIEWSLEY WARD
5. 120 Apple Tree Avenue Erection of a single storey side and part rear Page 83 Yiewsley extension.
Recommendation: Approval 6. Former Bridge Works Site Erection of a five storey building comprising 38 page 86 Bentinck Road units with basement car parking (involving West Drayton demolition of the existing warehouse)
Recommendation: S106 Agreement
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 1
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
ALL WARDS
7. New Appeals and Appeals Decision received between: Page 103 1January 2003 and 28 February 2003
8. Decisions taken by officers under Delegated Powers between: Page 108 1 January and 31 January 2003
9. List of Background Documents to all reports. Page 122
Any other business and urgent items in Part 1
PART 2 – PRIVATE
7. Any items transferred from Part 1 8. Any other business and urgent items in Part 2
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 2
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 MARCH 2003 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
1. AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM PLANNING BRIEF AND ITS PROPOSED ADOPTION AS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
SUMMARY
A Draft Planning Brief for Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge was approved for consultation purposes by Uxbridge Planning Committee on 24 September 2002. Consultations on the Draft Planning Brief were carried out from 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002. This report details the comments received and the officer response in respect of them. Members approval is sought on adopting the proposed revised Planning Brief as supplementary planning guidance for any future development proposals.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the comments received during the consultation period be noted. 2. That the amendments to the Draft Planning Brief as set out in Appendix 3 be agreed. 3. That subject to the above amendments, the Planning Brief be adopted as supplementary planning guidance for the purposes of development control.
INFORMATION
1. The Uxbridge Planning Committee agreed on 24 September 2002 to approve the Draft Planning Brief for Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge for consultation with the public and other interested parties and that the results of the consultation be reported to a future meeting of the Committee. Consultations were carried out from 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002. Some 2500 copies of the consultation leaflet, including a ‘Freepost’ response form, were delivered to homes in the Hillingdon House Farm area (extending to Woodstock Drive to the north, the River Pinn to the east, Lancaster/York Road and Harefield Road to the west and Saint Andrews Road to the south). In addition copies of the leaflets and the full Draft Planning Brief were also placed at all borough libraries, the Hayes One Stop Shop and the Civic Centre (Environmental Services reception). Interested parties were sent copies of the documents including 36 residents’ associations, 28 local schools, 17 local councillors, 23 local groups and 83 other organisations and agencies. A press release was issued to the ‘Gazette’ newspaper by the Council on 16 October 2002 (this resulted in front page publicity at the beginning of the consultation period).
2. 517 completed response forms have been received. This includes 218 forms from the Frays Centre. In addition 26 letters have also been received, including a response from Uxbridge College detailing its masterplan proposals. The main issues raised are listed below together with officer comments. Details of all comments received, including the main issues raised and the officer response in respect of them are included in Appendix 1. A brief summary of the analysis of these responses is set out in Appendix 2. The majority of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 1
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
responses are generally supportive and helpful. The proposed amendments to the Draft Planning Brief referred to in the officer comments are shown in bold in the revised Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief set out in Appendix 3. In addition a total of 4 response forms were received in mid December. Whilst these have been received too late to be included in the analysis, they all indicated general agreement with Council’s proposals.
CONCLUSION
3. The majority of responses received during the public consultation on the Draft Planning Brief are generally supportive and helpful. However in light of issues raised, officers propose amendments to the Draft Planning Brief. It is recommended that subject to these amendments, the Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief be adopted as supplementary planning guidance for the purposes of development control.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
4. To be reported.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
5. Members should note that the purpose of a Planning Brief is to provide detailed advice to potential applicants for planning permission as to matters to consider when considering or submitting a planning application in respect of a particular site. The Brief will not replace the existing legislation on planning matters or the Council's policies contained within its UDP and supplementary guidance. The Brief will merely assist an applicant in formulating their application.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
6. The background documents used in the preparation of this report are: Report to Uxbridge Planning Committee on 24 September 2002. Responses received during the Hillingdon House Farm Draft Planning Brief public consultation, 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002 (including responses received after this date).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 2
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES AND OFFICER COMMENTS Appendix 1
RESPONSES OFFICER COMMENTS
Level of agreement with the Council’s proposed uses General support for the Of the 517 responses received, 346 (67%) expressed general brief as it stands. agreement with the Council’s proposals for the site. In comparison, 44 respondents (9%) were indifferent and 127 (24%) were not in general agreement with the Council’s proposals.
Excluding the 218 Frays Centre responses, there were 299 responses received, of which 243 (81%) expressed general agreement with the Council’s proposals for the site. In comparison, 45 respondents (15%) were indifferent and 11 (4%) were not in general agreement with the Council’s proposals.
Views on specific proposals within the Draft Brief
1) ALL PROPOSALS 81 (16%) respondents specifically stated that they were in agreement Noted. with all of the Council’s proposals. In comparison 14 (3%) respondents stated that they agreed with none of the proposals. The remainder of respondents made no comment on all of the Council’s proposals.
2) SITE A: NEW LEISURE CENTRE 183 (35%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of Indicates general support the proposals for the new leisure centre on site A. for the new leisure centre. 22 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for the new leisure centre on site A; the main reasons being: • too small for all proposed activities The demand for an indoor • needs to be bigger pool in Uxbridge has been • one pool is enough identified during previous • pool plans are too large public consultations. • should retain the outdoor sunbathing area • unwanted traffic and parking
3) SITE B: OUTDOOR POOL RESTORED FOR SEASONAL USE 109 (21%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of Significantly more in the proposals for the outdoor pool on site B. favour of restoring the 56 (11%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour outdoor pool compared of the proposals for the outdoor pool on site B; the main reasons with those against the being: proposal. • waste of money – weather makes for limited season The statutory ‘listing’ of • insufficient demand the building means that
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 3
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• convert to indoor pool key features of the pool • needs removable roof must be retained and • reduce in size restored to preserve its special architectural and historic character.
4) SITE C: ATHLETICS TRACK IMPROVED WITH NEW Significantly more in SPECTATOR STAND favour of the proposals for 97 (19%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the athletics track the proposals for the athletics track improvements with a new improvements with a new spectator stand on site C. spectator stand compared 16 (3%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of with those against the the proposals for the athletics track improvements with a new proposals. spectator stand on site C; the main reasons being: The need for improved • insufficient demand athletics facilities in this • no need for redevelopment area has been identified • already other tracks in the Borough by Education, Youth and • should be 8 lanes Leisure as a priority.
5) SITE D: NEW ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE Mixed response to the 88 (17%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of proposals for the new the proposals for the new adult education centre on site D. adult education centre from Frays Centre 74 (14%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour students. Amend paras of the proposals for the new adult education centre on site; the main 5.1 and 6.33 to enable reasons being: consideration of siting of Centre elsewhere within • poor access to the proposed site for pedestrians, cars and public the Hillingdon House transport Farm site. Parking is • parking area insufficient size or too far from classrooms addressed in para. 6.43. • disabled access difficult at Uxbridge College Other issues raised would • better environment at Frays be considered in the • concerns about mixing with Uxbridge College students (security, determination of any intimidation, noisy, unfriendly) planning application.
It should be noted that of the 74 submissions objecting to Site D, 57 submissions (77%) originated from Frays Centre students. A relatively small 6) SITE E: HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL LEISURE/COMMUNITY proportion of respondents USES specifically stated that 49 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the they were not in favour of proposals for housing and additional leisure/community uses on site proposals for housing and E. additional leisure/ 72 (14%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour community uses on site of the proposals for housing and additional leisure/community uses on E. site E; the main reasons being: The site is not within • site is green belt Green Belt. • no need for more housing A significant demand for • effect on amenity, resources and quality of life new housing has been
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 4
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• increased traffic identified in all London • risk of flooding Boroughs. • need more information about the proposals Other issues raised would • additional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) be considered in the determination of any planning application. 7) SITE F: HOUSING AND/OR COMMUNITY USES 45 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the A relatively small proposals for housing and/or community uses on site F. proportion of respondents 67 (13%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of specifically stated that the proposals for housing and/or community uses on site F; the main they were not in favour of reasons being: proposals for housing • site is green belt and/or community uses • area is overcrowded on site F. • no need for housing The site is not within Green Belt. • increased traffic A significant demand for • effect on amenity, resources and quality of life new housing has been • should be for community uses only identified in all London • need more information about the proposals Boroughs. • additional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) Other issues raised would be considered in the determination of any planning application.
8) SITE G: CAR PARKING Indicates general support 86 (17%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of for the proposals for car the proposals for car parking on site G. parking. 20 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for car parking on site G; the main reasons being: Measures to control car • site too small parking will be • site too big -will encourage car use implemented as required. • should combine all car parks (leisure centre, cricket club and College) • will result in cars parking in local area A relatively small 9) SITE H: HOUSING AND/OR COMMUNITY USES proportion of respondents 48 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the specifically stated that proposals for housing and/or community uses on site H. they were not in favour of 31 (6%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for housing the proposals for housing and/or community uses on site H; the main and/or community uses reasons being: on site H. • area is overcrowded The site is not within • no need for housing Green Belt. • site is green belt The site is no longer • should retain as a home for the elderly being used as a home for • increased traffic the elderly. • effect on amenity, resources and quality of life A significant demand for new housing has been
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 5
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• should be for community uses only identified in all London • need more information about the proposals Boroughs. • additional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) Other issues raised would be considered in the determination of any planning application.
A relatively small 10) NEW ACCESS ROAD OFF BELMONT ROAD proportion of respondents 17 (3%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the specifically stated that proposals for a new access road off Belmont Road. they were not in favour of 22 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for a new the proposals for a new access road off Belmont Road; the main access road. reasons being: Issues concerning wildlife • it is not needed as housing should not be built and traffic will be taken • access should be from North Way into account in the • access should be from Honeycroft Hill determination of any • road will endanger Great Crested Newts planning application. • impact on traffic and parking as already congested
Other uses that the Council has not identified Ski slope: In terms of other uses that the Council has not identified, the following Note the mixed response were identified by more than 10 respondents: to ski slope proposals. • Ski slope re-instatement (17 respondents) • Children’s playground (15 respondents) Children’s playground: • Bowling alley (13 respondents) Included in para 6.23. • Removal of ski slope (12 respondents) • Youth centre/activities (11 respondents) Bowling alley: Unable to accommodate this within the leisure centre.
Youth centre/activities: The proposals seek to provide a wide range of facilities for as large a cross-section of the public as possible. Management of facilities including use by specific groups of users is not a planning issue; however it will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 6
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
In addition, the following uses were identified by more than 5 Cycle paths and the respondents: retention of the Green • Indoor lawn bowls/bowling green (9 respondents) Belt area are already • Skateboard park (8 respondents) addressed in paras 4.1, • Community centre/hall (8 respondents) 2.1, 4.1, 6.7, 6.13, 6.23, • Parkland/lakes (8 respondents) 6.24, 6.25 and 6.27, 6.28 • Cycle paths (7 respondents) and 6.30. • Retention of Green Belt (7 respondents) • All weather pitches (6 respondents) A relatively small proportion of respondents • Specific carpark for Adult Education Centre (6 respondents) identified these uses. • Indoor tennis courts (5 respondents) The Director of Education, • Signposted nature walks (5 respondents) Youth and Leisure • Additional carparking (5 respondents) Services will however • Ice rink (5 respondents) give consideration to the provision of the other uses, particularly the all weather pitches, indoor tennis courts and signposted nature walks.
Unable to accommodate an ice rink within the site.
Features to be retained on the site Footpaths/walkways: Respondents were invited to specify any important features that Already included in paras should be retained on the site. The following were identified by more 4.1, 6.7 and 6.11 and than 10 respondents: support is welcomed. • Footpaths/walkways (125 respondents) • Green areas/open space (40 respondents) Green areas/open space: • Cyclepaths (14 respondents) Already included in paras 2.1, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 4.1, 6.14, 6.23, 6.25 and 6.27 and support is welcomed.
Cyclepaths: Already included in paras 4.1 and 6.7 and support is welcomed.
In addition, the following features were identified by more than 5 respondents: Woodland/trees Already included in paras • Woodland/trees (10 respondents) 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 6.14, • Areas for dog walking (6 respondents) 6.15, 6.16, 6.23 and • Natural environment (6 respondents) support is welcomed. • Hedgerows (5 respondents) Areas for dog walking • Open air pool (5 respondents) It is not considered
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 7
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• Public rights of way (5 respondents) appropriate to have • All features (5 respondents) separate areas for dog walking.
Natural environment Already included in paras 2.1, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.23, and support is welcomed.
Hedgerows Already included in paras 2.5 and 6.16.
Open air pool Already included in paras 2.3, 4.1, 5.1, 6.24 and 6.25, and support is welcomed.
Public rights of way Already included in para 6.7.
All features The proposals aim to safeguard all key features on the site.
Uxbridge College Most disappointed with the content of the Brief which does not reflect Amendments as set out the extensive discussions with Council officers. below to take account of • The future development of this area is beneficial to the Borough as the views of Uxbridge a whole and dependent upon a partnership between the Borough College. and the College. That partnership would provide the Borough with access to, and partial funding for the sports hall. The full funding could be achieved by the support of the College for the Borough’s sports lottery bid. The new sports facilities would assist the College to pursue its planned extension of courses for sports and leisure management and this would be in association with the use of the all-weather pitch, grass football pitches, water-based sports etc. • In association with providing new vehicular access for the sports hall, access can also be provided for the enabling development at site E. • The new road would also give a better access to the residential development sites of Brookfield and the College car park.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 8
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
In 1999 the College’s Governing Body gave its commitment to the development of a partnership with the Council in relation to the replacement of adult education and also the sports facility. The Council should take account of the enormous educational asset which the College represents to the Borough. Its continuing success in providing training and education to Hillingdon residents can only be realised in line with national and regional policy priorities if there is a strong commitment and support from the Borough. The College’s aspirations extend far beyond the development of a sports complex and it would wish Hillingdon House Farm to demonstrate the commitment which both parties have to each other and act as an exemplar for future activity. Financial considerations The College has worked with the Borough to create a beneficial are not valid planning environment at Hayes Community Campus and it would wish the matters. same outcomes to be realised in Uxbridge. If the partnership does not go ahead because the College is unable to secure appropriate capital receipts for the disposal of its land and car park, then the borough’s aspirations for the development may be limited as follows: • No access to the enabling development • No adult education provision • No financial or site contribution from the College for the sports complex • Undermining of support and commitment to the Lottery Bid.
As the College is required to pursue educational aims in line with the requirements of the Learning and Skills Council, it will nevertheless, wish to pursue development for the College in terms of its educational aspirations. This may include the sale of land for capital receipt in order to meet the growing requirement on the Uxbridge Campus for educational and training facilities (planning options arising from College’s Property Strategy discussion have been submitted).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 9
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Malcolm Judd and Partners (on behalf of Uxbridge College) The Brief does not encompass discussions with the Council’s Leisure Support is welcomed. Services and therefore whilst the college remains enthusiastic about the proposals discussed and would wish to make positive comments on the draft Brief, it is necessary to correct and criticise certain aspects.
Purpose of the Brief • 1.1: supports site definition which includes all of the Uxbridge The Brief is entirely in campus of the College. accordance with the • 1.4: the draft Brief fails to take account of the adopted UDP. It adopted UDP. should be correct as it will form SPG.
Site characteristics • 2.8: The college campus covers 4.56 ha. The base map for Map 3 Amend site area in para is substantially out of date in its physical context. 2.8 to 4.56ha. The base map is the most recent available from Ordnance Survey.
Relevant planning policies • 3.3: UDP Policy PR24 and paragraph 15.45 supports discussions The Brief is consistent between both parties. The Policy indicates that development is with the adopted UDP. dependent on the principal vehicular access being from Park Road Principal vehicular access and that replacement or enhancement of car parking for Uxbridge to the sports and leisure College should take place if the existing College car park is complex is to be from developed as part of the sports and leisure complex. These Park Road. PR24 (iv) aspects are part of discussions held with the Borough. seeks to ensure replacement or enhanced car parking for Uxbridge College if the existing College car park is developed as part of the sports and leisure complex. It is not intended that the sports and leisure complex extends onto the existing Development objectives College car park. • 4.1: These should mention Uxbridge College as follows: ‘Maintain Amend para 4.1 to and enhance the built facilities provided by Uxbridge College for include ref. to Uxbridge the benefit of the community’. This would be a sustainable College. objective and therefore fit appropriately.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 10
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Proposed developments • 5.1: This section fails to recognise the importance of the College in Amend Map 3 to identify providing land for access, housing and associated infrastructure in the existing College car partnership with the Borough. park as a separate parcel • The existing College car park should be identified as a separate of land (site J). parcel of land (site J) on Map 3 with accompanying text as follows: Include requirements for ‘Replacement of the College car park with housing as part of the site J in new paras 6.37 enabling development for the sports hall and the College capital and 6.38. investment programme (site J). Amend para 5.1 to include refs to residential development on part or all of site J and retention and enhancement of Uxbridge College campus (including provision of replacement parking from site J as appropriate).
• There should be a notation on Map 3 of the College campus Amend Map 3 to include excluding sites D, F and J. The suggested appropriate wording in Uxbridge College campus section 5 is as follows: ‘Uxbridge College campus to be (excluding sites F and J) maintained and enhanced with improved and new educational as site K. buildings and relocation of appropriate car parking spaces from Include requirements for the existing College car park. site J in new paras 6.39 and 6.40.
• It is understood that the existing Guide/Brownie Hut was to be Amend Map 3 to include relocated further north and the site made available for housing site of Guide/Brownie Hut development. This should be considered to avoid the Hut being as site L. Amend para sandwiched between the housing in areas H and J. 5.1 to include refs to site L. Include requirements for site L in new paras 6.41 and 6.42. Development considerations • 6.2: The new access road off Belmont Road roundabout will serve Amend para 6.2 to a number of parcels of land, not just sites E and F. It will serve include all sites to be sites H, D, A, E, F and the newly included sites J and K. served by the proposed new access road off the Belmont Road roundabout.
• 6.4: The area under North Way Tunnel sometimes floods to a Noted. There is no considerable depth and would be unsuitable at certain times of the change proposed to the year. North Way Tunnel.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 11
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• 6.6: It is suggested that the majority of parking could be shared Amend para 6.6 to between separate leisure facilities and that this would be taken include ref. to possible into consideration when assessing the overall level of parking parking within the College provided. The College acknowledge that for regional or national campus. events it may be possible to provide parking within the College campus to accommodate extra vehicles.
• 6.9: It is not acceptable for the Borough to insist that any planning Amend para 6.9 to refer application should be a full application as this would conflict with to submission of a full the normal allowance for outline applications to be entered. planning application for any other significant proposals.
• 6.10: with regard to building heights, a four storey character has Para 6.10 already states been established within Uxbridge College. However paragraph that the height of 6.30 refers to a maximum of three storeys. There should be buildings should have acknowledgement given to the characteristics of Uxbridge College. regard to the character of the area. It is not considered appropriate to specifically include the characteristics of the College and all other developments in the area. Para 6.30 relates to site E; it is considered appropriate that building heights on this site should take account of the listed buildings, the Green Belt and long views from the surrounding area. • 6.17: The College is a long-established use and its extension, Amend para 6.17 to refurbishment and redevelopment in part for educational purposes delete ref. to land will continue. Whilst the College recognise that tree planting is modelling. appropriate it cannot support the suggestion of land modelling as this could take up substantial amounts of land, otherwise usable by the College to provide facilities for the long-term educational benefits of the community. Any reference to land modelling should be removed. • 6.23: The College give notice that it may not be appropriate for it As stated in para 6.23, to enter into a Planning Obligation if it has a secured contract with the nature of any planning the Borough concerning the building of the sports hall and any obligations will depend on associated enabling development. the nature and scale of any proposed developments and the nature of planning submissions.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 12
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• 6.23: With regard to the affordable housing requirements, the Brief The Brief reflects the should reflect only the adopted UDP and not the London Plan, adopted UDP and has which may be revised in light of the Inquiry. regard to the Draft London Plan, acknowledging that it has limited status. • 6.23: With regard to highways works, reference should be made to Amend para 6.23 to the greater number of sites that are to be served by the new include additional sites to access road. be served. • 6.28: The land east of Uxbridge College (site E) covers 2.37 ha. Amend site area in para 6.28 to 2.37ha. • 6.29: The sports hall cannot be provided out of public funds. The Amend Map 3 to identify College will pay a proportion of the land value, construction costs, the existing College car fees and VAT incurred in constructing the sports hall in proportion park as a separate parcel to the hours agreed for exclusive use of the facility as a ratio of the of land (site J). total hours available for use during a calendar year. In order to Include requirements for provide the funding the College require enabling development on site J in new paras 6.37 site J (existing car park) and the linked relocation of car parking and 6.38. within site K. Further the College will be offered a licence for use Amend para 5.1 to of the grass football pitches and an all-weather Astroturf pitch. include refs to residential • 6.29: The development proposals in the brief are not practical in development on part or all land ownership terms nor financially viable without the inclusion of of site J and retention and land owned in freehold by the College. Therefore it is essential enhancement of Uxbridge that the above changes are firmly adopted. College campus (including provision of replacement parking from site J as appropriate). • 6.31: Site F covers 0.53 ha. It is already developed by way of a Amend para 6.31 to sports hall, a temporary refectory building and building D1 and include revised site area associated smaller buildings. and existing sports hall on site F to 0.49ha. All other buildings on site F are temporary/unauthorised. • 6.32: Whilst there may be some surplus land on site F for housing, Amend para 6.32 to the College would not support isolated housing development ensure that any unless properly related to site E. The principal purpose of site F is residential development to provide further surplus land for disposal to raise capital for on site F is properly investment within the campus and therefore reference to housing related to residential development should be subsidiary within this context. development on site E. It is not considered • 6.33: Whilst there is potential for an adult education centre for appropriate to include all community use to be built on College land, this depends on the potential dependencies new road, enabling development and the provision of the sports within the Brief. hall. This dependency should be mentioned. Amend Map 3 to include • Map 3: Alterations to the Map should be undertaken in accordance sites J, K and L. with the above comments. The College would be happy to assist
in the updating of the Map.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 13
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Greater London Authority/Transport for London The draft planning brief requires amendment to properly recognise the Amend para 2.1 to potential strategic importance of the site (based particularly on its size include ref to the potential and Green Belt location) and the positive contribution that it can make strategic importance of to the West London sub-region and to London in general. the site. The brief needs to set out explicitly what kind of leisure development Include new para 5.2 to is inappropriate therefore saving time and resources for prospective specify inappropriate developers and operators. leisure uses. The amount of affordable housing provision needs to be significantly The proportion of increased to recognise the fact that the site is in public ownership and affordable housing set out to accord with the Mayor’s draft London Plan. in para 6.23 exceeds the requirement in the adopted UDP and takes some account of the draft London Plan, given its limited status. Leisure development should be sports led and be focused principally Include ref to sports led on the outdoor swimming pool. leisure development in new para 5.2. Leisure proposals in para 5.1 are already focussed principally on the outdoor pool. The preferred land use for the land east of Uxbridge College should See comment on be housing with a minimum of 35% affordable housing with the proportion of affordable expectation of a higher level dependant upon viability which housing above. In the recognises the public ownership and windfall nature of the site. interests of sustainable development, it is considered appropriate that there should be provision for local community/leisure uses where required in association with residential development on land to the east of the College. The proposed net housing density of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare Welcome this accords with the draft London Plan standards for such a suburban endorsement. location.
Ideas of what constitutes community uses/development would be of It is not considered assistance in the brief. appropriate to define community uses in the brief.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 14
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature Amend paras 2.4, 6.28 conservation should be developed so as to protect bio-diversity. and 6.30 to draw particular attention to the nature conservation site within site E.
The highest quality of urban design, architecture and sustainable Refs to high quality development will be required as part of the comprehensive package development are already of any subsequent planning application. included in paras 4.1, 6.8, 6.25, 6.30, 6.32, 6.34 and 6.36. Any future planning applications for strategic related development that Noted. may become referable to the Mayor should take into account the above comments.
Also detailed comments on transport and parking as follows:
Site accessibility Amend para 6.23 to The area is served by 3 bus routes. include ref. to all bus routes in the area.
Welcome ref. in para 6.23 to discussions with TfL/GLA regarding Welcome the support. opportunities for improved accessibility by public transport. Bus standing space Agree with the ref. In para 6.23 that it may be appropriate to provide Welcome the support. bus standing facilities on the site if additional bus links are provided. Pedestrian/cycle links Agree with the ref. in para 6.7 that pedestrian and cycle links be Welcome the support. retained and enhanced. New and existing access routes will need to be compliant with the Amend para 6.7 to Disability Discrimination Act. include ref. to the Disability Discrimination Act. Parking Welcome the support. TfL would expect to see a restraint based approach to car parking as Amend para 6.3 to stated in para 6.5 of the Brief. include ref. to Controlled There may be a need to consider parking restrictions on surrounding Parking Zones. roads to ensure that there is no overspill parking around the site. Amend para 6.6 to Cycle parking should be designed to meet or exceed standards in the include ref. to the London London Cycle Network Design Manual. Cycle Network Design Manual.
Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Welcome the Endorse para 6.3. In addition any highway improvements associated endorsement. with the development should be designed to give priority to Amend para 6.3 to pedestrians, cyclists and buses. Modelling and a safety audit will also include refs. for priority to need to be carried out on any alterations to the principal access points pedestrians, cyclists and to assess their impact on the network and to avoid conflict between buses and the need for a
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 15
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general vehicle improvements. modelling and a safety audit.
A comprehensive Travel Plan will need to be developed to support Amend para 6.23 to development applications for the site. It should include a include further details comprehensive and funded package of transport improvements to regarding the Green encourage sustainable access to the site and address issues of Travel Plan. parking management, which should be designed to minimise car use for journeys to the site.
Proximity to the Underground Any proposals for site E should take account of the proximity to the Noted. underground tracks and will be subject to the standard London Underground requirements for line-side development projects.
Impact on the strategic road network The amount of traffic generated by the development proposals is not Noted. expected to have an impact on the operation of the strategic road network.
English Heritage – Historic Buildings and Areas Inspector Welcome the general principles put forward in the Brief and offer Welcome the support. detailed comments: • 2.3: there should be explicit mention that the ‘listing’ of the pool Amend para 2.3 to includes 5 separate list entries (swimming pool, entrance building, include details of listing north fountain, south fountain, and the Grandstand) each listed and Register of Buildings Grade II. Mention should also be made of the inclusion of the five at Risk. listed structures to English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk, denoting its concern at the uncertainty over the pool’s future and the decline in its condition. An important characteristic of the overall site, particularly the open land to the east, is that it provides much of the immediate setting for the listed buildings. • 4.1: a prime aim should be to ‘have special regard to the Amend para 4.1 to desirability of preserving the buildings and their setting or any include ref. to statutory features of special architectural or historic interest which they listed building possess’ in the promotion of proposals for the site. Linked should requirements. be the objective to bring the listed building back into beneficial use, which in the context of this site is inexorably linked to the wider proposals for a sports and leisure complex. • Proposed developments: support the overall principal of the Reference to the proposals subject to a clear proviso that a clear and compelling justification for enabling case is made for the need for enabling development as part of the development is already overall scheme. If such enabling development is advanced as included in para 6.29. being required to support the repair, restoration and reuse of the Amend para 6.29 to listed buildings, reference should be made to ‘Enabling include ref. to the English Development and the Conservation of Heritage Assets’ as a Heritage policy statement. material consideration in the assessment of such proposals. Amend para 6.9 to
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 16
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• 6.9: an application for listed building consent will be required include details regarding parallel to the necessary application for planning permission for an application for listed proposals affecting the listed buildings. If such an application is building consent. made by the local authority, it would need to be referred to the First Secretary of State for determination. Alternatively, should it Funding is not a planning be made by other parties, but involve land owned by the local issue; however this will be authority, any proposed grant of consent will require the drawn to the attention of authorisation of English Heritage. the Director of Education, • An early approach should be made to the Heritage Lottery Fund to Youth and Leisure establish the potential for grant aid. Services. • Look forward to supporting the Council in advancing a scheme for Welcome the support. this site that will secure the repair, restoration and re-use of the outdoor pool.
English Heritage – Archaeology Advisor The site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area in the UDP Insert a new para (after but archaeological activity has been noted in the area and there is para 6.18) to include likelihood of archaeological remains to be present, which may be archaeological issues. affected by the present development proposals. It is recommended that archaeology be included in any revised Brief and that an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment be conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. This report should allow for an informed decision regarding any archaeological mitigation required, which may include archaeological excavation.
Environment Agency
1) Development Control The adopted Scoping Part of the site is within the indicative floodplain of the River Pinn and Opinion includes a liable to flood. The Agency will object in principle, to any of the requirement for a following; flood risk assessment and development within the area liable to flood consideration of any proposal to infill the land liable to flood necessary mitigation proposed development ion close proximity to the River Pinn main river measures. proposal to culvert a watercourse Any Environmental Statement or planning application should address the following: a Flood Risk Assessment in line with PPG 25, including a topographic survey and considering a 20% increase in the 1 to 100 year flood event flows due to unknown effects of climatic change a vegetated buffer strip, 10 metres wide adjacent to the River Pinn main river sustainable drainage systems in line with PPG 25.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 17
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
2) Environment Protection The Agency’s prior written consent is required for any discharge of Accept these detailed sewerage or trade effluent into controlled waters and may be required comments; the issues for such discharges from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or raised will be taken into into waters that are not controlled waters and also for any discharge account in determining of surface waters to controlled waters. any future planning The Agency also offers advice on various techniques for control of application on the site. surface water run-off and recommend that restrictions are imposed on the discharge of surface water from the site.
3) Biodiversity Accept these detailed The Agency is liable to object to proposals which result in comments; the issues development in close proximity to the River Pinn or the 2 ponds of raised will be taken into conservation interest or which cause them adverse harm. account in determining any future planning application on the site.
British Waterways Offer support to the Draft Brief. The proposals are entirely Welcome the support. appropriate and if implemented, should ensure that the site is used to the full advantage of the Uxbridge community. As an organisation that seeks to promote the use of outdoor recreation it offers support and assistance on the progress of the Brief, should the Council request it.
Disablement Association Hillingdon (DASH) Welcome the support and DASH approves of the development plans for the HHF site, although note the requirement for emphasises that amenities should be accessible to all. DASH would full involvement as the also like to be fully involved in all levels of consultation. proposals progress.
Metropolitan Police Fully endorse the principles laid out in paragraph 4b.10 that Welcome the support. development should take into account objectives of ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Designing out Crime’. The development also falls within the agreed objectives of the Hillingdon Community Safety Strategy 2002-2005 (Environmental Improvements and Reducing the Fear of Crime).
English Ski Council Noted that the ski slope does not form part of the draft brief, although Note the comments of the it would be sensible to consider as part of the development of all English Ski Council; sports facilities on site. The centre was strategically significant for however no general skiing in the London area, with 2.8 million people within a 30 minute support for bringing the drive, and hence should be redeveloped. Since the closure, there has ski slope back into use.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 18
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS only been one other centre serving Greater London despite demand for such a facility.
Groundwork Trust 1) Buildings Note these detailed The buildings should be designed to high environmental standards – comments; they are not preferably a BRE BREAAM standard and BSRIA Environmental Code appropriate for inclusion of Practice. This should creatively include materials, services and in the Brief. other technology especially water management. Also renewable energy sources should be explored. Disabled access should not be just considered from the Part M and DDA bare minimum but is convincingly built in – including landscaping.
2) Transport Amend para 6.23 to That Green Travel Plan is considered as a matter of course and include further details properly communicated to users in the long run. regarding the Green Travel Plan. That cycle routes and walking routes should be well lit and designed Amend para 6.11 to from the cycling and pedestrians view. include ref. to cyclists.
Concern about the volume of traffic – Park Road is already congested Traffic issues are at peak times. addressed in paras 4.1, 6.2 to 6.7 and 6.23.
3) S106 Planning obligations will Should be used in consultation and participation with locals who will be sought in accordance have most disruption. with current planning policy and government guidance to mitigate against any adverse impacts arising from development proposals.
London Wildlife Trust No major points to add but emphasise importance of the following: Amend para 2.4 to • pleased that the Brief highlights the Borough Grade 1 Sites of include ref. to Great Importance for Nature Conservation. There should be specific Crested Newts. mention that the ponds support breeding populations of Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species. • Greatest concern is from the proposed enabling housing Amend para 6.30 to development. The Great Crested Newts do not confine their include ref. to the activities to the ponds and spend much of their lives out of the importance of the nature water. They require low vegetation cover in which to shelter, conservation site and forage and feed. This may extend some distance from the protection of biodiversity. breeding ponds and is also subject to legal protection. Plans for area E should take this into account; the south-west extremity of the Borough Grade 2 site as shown on Map 2 is important. This
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 19
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
the Borough Grade 2 site as shown on Map 2 is important. This should be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Amend para 6.36 to • the redevelopment of ‘Brookfield’ and the proposed new access include ref. to protection from Belmont Road roundabout have the potential for a significant of habitats. impact on the Brearley Close Pond, which has already been affected by the widening of Park Road. It will be important to protect the habitat, including water quality, from the effects of new development including during construction. It is regrettable that the new access road will increase the separation of the two nature reserve pond and this should be addressed in an ecological assessment. Welcome the support. • Welcome requirement for a detailed landscape scheme to cover the wider open space and the importance attached to ongoing management and habitat creation. Amend para 6.16 to • The disused ski slope is becoming an interesting feature in its own reflect the value of the right, particularly as vegetation develops. It should be retained as disused ski slope as an far as possible to provide height and slopes and in time could interesting feature. develop considerably increased ecological value.
Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust Satisfied that the draft brief has acknowledged the important areas of Welcome the support. nature conservation, and that these will be excluded from the development area. Also pleased to see that an ecological assessment will be required to accompany any application. As any proposed Amend para 6.13 to floodlighting has the potential to affect the nocturnal activity of wildlife, include ref. to lighting on the need for appropriate lighting should be mentioned in the revised areas of ecological value. brief.
Brunel University The university is very supportive of the overall development, in Welcome the support. particular the proposal for a 50 metre pool which will provide access for university students to high performance facilities. Access is a key issue, and the university would support a local bus service to the facility which reduces car dependence.
Uxbridge Pool Action Group Groups primary interest is the retention of the outdoor pool. Details regarding the Concerned about the following points in particular. length of the outdoor • Would like to see full open air season from April to September, swimming season are not morning to evening, with the possibility of reactivating the planning issues; however swimming club. they will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services. • Fears the leisure centre/pool site will be cramped, compromising The Brief already
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 20
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
the design and dimensions of the outdoor pool and creating safeguards the outdoor summer overcrowding. pool (paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.8 and 6.25). • The large building will overshadow the outdoor pool, spoil the view Para 6.25 already of the café whilst obscuring the side and rear elevations and the includes refs. to ensure a view to Harrow. high quality building that respects its setting within the Green Belt and the listed pool; and to retain key views to and from the site. • Favours a smaller, community facility with a 25-30 metre indoor There is general local pool rather than a regional facility. Feels that Sport England is support for a 50m pool in dictating the terms and are not interested in community pools. the Borough. • The scale of the facility will attract a wide catchment, and as such Issues regarding traffic will create traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. congestion, noise and air pollution are already addressed in paras 4.1, 6.1 to 6.8, 6.18, 6.19 and 6.23. • Cannot see how the facility can provide enough car parking Issues regarding car without using Green Belt land. parking are already addressed in paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.5, 6.6, 6.23, 6.25 and 6.27. • Provision should be made for joggers to use the newly refurbished Management of facilities athletics track, in addition to athletics clubs. for shared use between clubs and the public is not a planning issue; however this will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services.
Faulkner Browns Two key issues that should be revised: Amend para 6.25 to 1) The statement that ‘Any new buildings should not exceed the provide some flexibility height of the existing outdoor pool Grandstand’ (6.25) will preclude about the height of the the new building gaining beneficial use of the Grandstand balcony new building. internally to the building. A more flexible statement is suggested ‘The height of the buildings should have regard to the character of the area and in particular the context of the Green Belt and Listed Building’. 2) The boundary line on Map 3 between sites A and B could Amend boundary potentially be used to preclude an integrated new development from between sites A and B as using the lido pool surrounds. Suggest that the line is modified to dotted line on Map 3 to incorporate the proposed pavilions shown in the feasibility report as enable integrated
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 21
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
well as the new ‘west wing’ accommodation, or dotted to illustrate the development. overall site A plus B is available for the new development.
Other comments: • 3.3 PR24 and 6.25: refer to the most important views across the The impact of any site being retained and enhanced. Who is to define these key proposals on views to and views? from the site will be taken • 4.1: requires ‘retention of key views across and within the site… to into account in maintain the openness of the Green Belt’. Definition required of determining any future the key views. planning application on the site. • 3.3 PR24: Replacement/enhancement of the College car park if It is not appropriate to their car park site is incorporated into the overall proposals. Who designate responsibility is responsible for this? for undertaking specific proposals to individuals or agencies within the Brief. • Green Belt policies OL1 to OL5: Are these relevant? Policies OL1 to OL5 are relevant as significant areas of the site are designated as Green Belt. • 3.6: ‘ no undue…buildings…adjacent to the Green Belt that Any proposals within or collectively may injure the visual amenity of the countryside’. Does adjacent to the Green Belt this contradict the proposed development? will need to be justified. • Policy OL26: ‘seeks to protect trees and woodland..’ lends weight to retaining the hedgerow to the south site boundary. Noted. • 4.1 and 6.22: Access for all statements support the proposal to Noted; however there raise the new building entrance to the Grandstand terrace level. may be alternative ways of securing access for all without increasing the overall height of the new building.
Noted. • 6.25: ‘the entrance should be a key feature particularly as viewed
from Gatting Way’. Proposals to retain the site entrance through
the Lido arch will enhance the prominence of the historic structures but its visibility along Gatting Way may be limited.
The Association of The Residents of the Drive • Impact on similar alternative facilities in the Borough e.g. Esporta, There is general support Highgrove, one in Uxbridge High Street and one in Northwood and demand for the type Hills – three of these are private and may go bust, resulting in loss of leisure facilities of their taxes and the new facility will receive less revenue and proposed. thus require greater subsidisation. • Adequate budgetary provisions and priorities should be made for The level of Council problems such as dumped cars, graffiti, litter, holes in the road and involvement in capital dumping of rubbish, before embarking on this new facility. Also projects is not a planning want an assurance that there is adequate funding for the area to issue; however the
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 22
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
be kept clean, free from the effects of vandalism, robbery, Council intends to act as unsociable behaviour, and that roads will be well kept before an ‘enabler’ to secure expenditure is proposed for the new facilities. The Council should good quality facilities on only engage in capital projects which it has a duty to provide, the site and to work in where demand is likely to exceed existing capacity and which partnership with the cannot be provided by the private sector. private sector and other agencies.
• Is the project of value to the community when the average age is The facilities will be open growing and the bulk of taxes are from an age group unlikely to to use by all age groups. benefit from this expenditure?
• Is the project totally self-financing in perpetuity and if so, how? Long term finance arrangements for the facilities is not a planning issue; however this will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services. • There are already more than adequate facilities for adult education in the Borough. There is an increasing need for improvements to adult education facilities.
North Uxbridge Residents’ Association Purpose of the Brief: • popular support for the new leisure/sports facilities Welcome the support. • insufficient consideration given to the environmental capacity of Refs. to environmental the area capacity of the area are included throughout the Brief and will be taken into account in determining any future planning application on the site • the site is unsuitable for a regional leisure complex which would It is not possible to draw motorists from a wide area. There should be a statement exclude those people who that they are primarily for the use of persons living and working in do not live or work in the the Borough Borough from using the facilities. • each of the proposed facilities can be assessed against the above Environmental and traffic criteria and how their management policies can keep any issues are already degradation in environmental and traffic conditions to an addressed in the Brief. acceptable level
Green Belt and heritage issues • concern about the likely size of the new buildings and their impact Green Belt and heritage on the Green Belt issues are already
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 23
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
on the Green Belt addressed in paras 4.1, • likely that the extent of informal landscape moulding and planting 5.1, 6.1, 6.8 to 6.10, 6.13, to visually screen the development mass would need to be as 6.14, 6.23, 6.25, 6.27, substantial as the new building itself 6.29, 6.30 and 6.32. It is not proposed that new buildings would be fully screened. Para. 6.1 includes details • the Brief should include markers about requirements of the about the requirements Environmental Impact Assessment to achieve a level of public for an EIA. confidence in the worth of the Brief It is appropriate to include • 5.1: question validity of using the footprint of the storage building the footprint of existing to justify building in the Green Belt (covered Grandstand) buildings which are proposed to be demolished in justifying new buildings in the Green Belt.
Transport and parking Amend paras 6.3 and • 4.1: little in the Brief to maximise the use of public transport. The 6.23 to include further site is too far to walk from the underground stations and barely far details regarding public enough for a bus ride from either. No mention of extending cycle transport. Amend para 6.7 routes on Park Road (south) and perhaps Belmont Road, which to include opportunities to are wide enough to consider reducing vehicle lane width and extend cycle network. installing cycle tracks.
• existing public car park should remain the principal car parking This is already recognised area. Its capacity may need to be reduced for bus stands and in the Brief in paras 5.1 turning points. and 6.6.
• likely catchment population is of several millions and this will lead Parking is addressed in to car parking on the college car park and nearby roads. Public paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.3, transport is unlikely to be plausible for mass transit to events and 6.5, 6.6, 6.25, 6.27 and there will be pressure to use Green Belt land for car parking. 6.34. Amens paras 6.3, 6.6 and 6.23 to include further details regarding parking. • car parking demand is not clearly quantified. Car parking demand and provision will be carefully • the Brief should address the gap between the realistic view of car assessed in determining usage and the likely parking demand any future planning
application on the site.
Enabling development and housing Para 6.29 already states • the enabling land was included in the 1989 Brief for commercial that there will need to be reasons to provide part funding for the leisure facilities a justification for any • circumstances have changed; there is access to monies from the ‘enabling’ development as lottery and sale of other sites such as Frays College, justifying the part of any development reappraisal of the planning view
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 24
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
reappraisal of the planning view. package for the site. • the enabling land is not identified as housing land in the UDP and Regional Planning given the MOD review sites, there is likely to be a surfeit of Guidance and the Draft potential housing land London Plan support appropriate additional sites for housing development. Flooding is already • water run off from the enabling development may cause flooding in addressed in paras 6.1 North Way, particularly with an increase in hard surfacing. and 6.20. Para 6.29 already states • given the need for defensible Green Belt boundaries, there is a that there will need to be sound planning argument for abandoning the enabling a justification for any development and including the site as Green Belt ‘enabling’ development as part of any development package for the site.
• notwithstanding this, the Brief includes in paragraph 3.12, the Residential development need for development to respect the surrounding area. It also of up to 50 dwellings per includes in paragraph 4.1 the need to secure affordable housing. hectare is considered The development of the enabling land must respect the Green Belt appropriate considering boundary and include high standards of landscaping to minimise its location and the the appearance of housing. The site should specify the need for character of the area. low to medium density housing (as in the 1989 Brief). There are special circumstances to justify a departure from the 30-50 units per hectare to a density of 20 units per hectare overall with appropriate landscaping.
Community Centre • with the exception of Church halls, there is a dearth of meeting It is unlikely that a rooms for community use. Management of such facilities may be community meeting room easier if they were within the new leisure centre. Consideration could be accommodated should be given to modifying 5.1 to ensure that a meeting room on site A in light of the suitable for community use by special interest groups and clubs is facilities proposed. provided.
Guide and Brownie Hut, Brearley Close Amend para 5.1 and Map • No mention of this in the Brief. This site may be at risk of losing 3 and include new paras land for the construction of the new access road from the Belmont 6.41 and 6.42 to refer to Road roundabout. Need to ensure that the interests of the Guide residential development and Brownie movement is accommodated either within the on the site the Guide and existing site or as part of the new community facilities Brownie hut, provided that satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided locally. Former ski slope • The view from the top of the ski slope should be regarded as a Amend paras 5.1 and benefit to the area and its users. It should be referred to as a 6.17 to reflect the value of topographical feature of merit to be retained rather than as the disused ski slopes as
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 25
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
topographical feature of merit to be retained, rather than as a feature worthy of merit ‘intrusive’. It provides key views across the site, a surveillance and for informal point by park wardens and probably some protection against traffic recreation. noise from the A40 • The ski slope would become a pleasant feature for walks if it were grassed over, with some additional planting, and if a good footpath to the top were provided from the Park Road entrance and down the slope to the grassland below. The Council should arrange for this work and any measures to prevent spread of contaminants without delay; this work should not be linked to the other proposals in the Brief.
Hedges Para 6.16 already refers • 6.16 and 6.17: 6.16 should be amended to delete reference to the to introducing other removal of hedges. Hedges form a useful reminder of the site’s species to hedges and to history and also provide wildlife with food, shelter and enhance their value. passageways across the site. There appears to be no justification Removal of hedges is for removing hedges. Instead their value should be enhanced by only suggested in certain planting a more diverse range of plant species. Management of cases within the central hedges may need to be reviewed with wildlife interests in mind. area of the site to maximise the open aspect. Paras 6.14 and 6.15 already refer to landscaping improvements to strengthen ecology in the area.
Miscellaneous Amend para 2.3 to reflect • 2.3: The second sentence is misleading. It implies that the the use of the pool since Uxbridge open air pool has been closed since 1986. The pool was 1986. open during the summers of 1993 – 1998. Amend para 2.5 to reflect • 2.5: The second sentence should be modified to clarify that the use as informal recreation ‘playing field’ land is used for informal recreation and has not been area. used as formal sports pitches for many years. Para 6.3 refers to any • 6.2: improved facilities for pedestrians to cross Belmont Road at necessary highways the Belmont Road roundabout may be required. measures which will be required following a full transport impact assessment.
Renumber paragraph • 6.17: two paragraphs are numbered 6.17. nos. Amend para 6.23 to • 6.23 and 6.25: the U1 service is not the only bus service using include ref to all bus Park Road. U1 and U2 both come from Uxbridge routes in the area. Bus/Underground Station up Belmont Road into Park Road. The U10 bus follows the same route as the U1 along Belmont Road and Park Road but operates for a very limited period Noted.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 26
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
and Park Road but operates for a very limited period. • If bus and coach access is provided to site G, suitable arrangements will need to be made to prohibit traveller encampments.
Oak Farm Residents Association Whilst in agreement with most of its contents and aims, have the Welcome the general following concerns: support. • Concerned about the size of the enabling development. The The extent of the site for provision of affordable housing raises financial implications; the the enabling development desire to supply affordable housing does not equate to the desire is identical to that in the to maximise receipts from the site. The Association prefers that adopted UDP. The the site be used for community purposes. Concern that the policies in the adopted development of the site could aggravate any problems at the UDP and the Draft junction of North Road and Honeycroft Hill, such as flooding. London Plan require an element of affordable housing on the site. The justification for the enabling development is included in para 6.29 of the Brief. Flooding is already addressed in paras 6.1 and 6.20. • The Friends of Hillingdon House Farm previously objected to the Amend para 6.7 to state Council about bridleways, which were withdrawn from the maps of that there are no the area. Why are these now included in the draft Plan? If it bridleways in the area. proposed to fence off these bridleways, then suggest adequate legislation in place to prevent horses and riders from straying from fenced routes. • Gatting Way residents have always resisted any additional traffic Amend para 6.3 to use of the road and the Association has always supported their include reference to traffic view. The additional traffic to the proposed car park is a factor of impacts on residents in concern and should not infringe the residential area of Gatting Gatting Way. Way, especially if this is allowed at unsocial hours. • Welcome attempts to conserve and maintain the green belt; Para 6.27 already express concerns about the development of grandstands and includes references to associated changing facilities, which must be of appropriate size to green belt policies. negate any major infringements of the green belt policies. • The U2 bus route also passes along this road, although only for a Amend para 6.23 to short distance (para. 6.27), from the Hercies Road, Honeycroft Hill include reference to all junction up to the Belmont Road roundabout. It serves both bus routes in the area. Uxbridge and Hillingdon Underground Stations running to Para 6.23 already refers Hillingdon Hospital where it connects to services to the south of to improvements in the Borough. The U2 route has a high passenger use and the frequency and capacity of Association suggest some improvement to its capacity and bus services. frequency, when the development at HHF is completed. Allocation of time for use • Concern that the time allowed for general public use of the pool of facilities between the bli d i ti
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 27
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
facilities will be restricted by excessive use for training, particularly public and organisations by Uxbridge College and Brunel University. is not a planning issue; this will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services.
Ickenham Residents Association Pleased that the outdoor pool is to be retained. Overall broadly in Welcome the general favour of what the Brief is trying to achieve – however some concerns support. remain: • welcome decent leisure facilities but serious reservations about The Brief addresses scale, car parking, access, infringement onto and inappropriate these issues as far as it is development of the Green Belt. possible; they will be taken into account in determining any future planning application on the site. • emphasis on Green Belt endorsed but this is irreconcilable and The policies in the inconsistent with ‘housing mix’ policies. Enabling development adopted UDP and the may be necessary to provide part funding for the leisure facilities Draft London Plan require but such development should be ‘wholly acceptable in relation to an element of affordable its immediate proximity to the Green Belt and extremely sensitively housing on the site; it is carried out’. not considered inconsistent to provide this on a site that adjoins the Green Belt. • any new housing development adjoining the Green Belt should be Para 6.30 states that any ‘appropriate’. Three storey blocks of flats would not be building located towards appropriate. the Green Belt boundary should be a maximum of two storeys in height. • the car parking provision is inadequate. The LPA’s current parking Car parking provision will standards, let alone the new proposals have already failed be in accordance with the Uxbridge in that several new office blocks have not been let due to Council’s parking lack of car parking. standards. • current major events at Hillingdon House Farm use Green Belt land for car parking and when car parking charges are levied, the Noted. local roads well into Ickenham will become overflow car parks. This must not be allowed to occur on a regular basis. • an indoor bowls facility would be well used and profitable, given There has not been a the growing numbers of older people with greater proportion of significant number of disposable income. respondents in support of an indoor bowls facility. • welcome comments on the separate treatment of pedestrian, cycle Welcome the support. and bridleways. Para 6.27 states that • 6.27: overspill car parking is not an appropriate use of Green Belt provision for overspill land Pressure for car parking should be controlled by a condition
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 28
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
land. Pressure for car parking should be controlled by a condition parking will need to be allowing only one major event at Hillingdon House Farm at any justified, limited to one time. occasional use only and designed, sited and landscaped to ensure minimal impact on the Green Belt. Cost of use of facilities is • Cost should not prejudice access to any of the facilities for the not a planning issue; this ‘ordinary’ borough resident. will be drawn to the attention of the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure Services.
Local resident (SB) Feels that the proposed scheme is generally very good and will be of Welcome the general benefit to the local community, whilst the positioning, size and access support. of the enabling development is a good compromise. However, would like to raise the following concerns. • The use of Gatting Way will increase notably and although it could Paras 6.2 and 6.3 cope with the extra traffic, it will need greatly improved lighting. address access, traffic • People currently park on yellow lines in Gatting Road, creating traffic and parking issues. flow and safety problems. This must be addressed. These will be given • Current problems turning into and from Gatting Way will increase, detailed consideration in resulting in safety and aesthetic concerns. This could possibly be determining any future addressed by a roundabout at the junction of Park Road and Gatting planning application. Way. • Brearley Close was not designed to access site H and will result in Amend paras 6.2 and further safety concerns. As a result, access to Site H from Brearley 6.36 to include access to Close should be closed, and access to the site should not be Site H from the new obtained from the roundabout, but from the new access road itself. access road off the Park Road roundabout.
Local resident (KD) The Brief aims to achieve Offers support to the proposals only if there are is a more imaginative a balance between solution to the traffic and access issue. If not, then opposes all the maximising the use of proposals. public transport and other Objects to any proposal that will encourage even more traffic onto sustainable means of Park Road and other local roads in North Uxbridge, and strongly travel, and providing safe objects to any additional access road off Belmont Road roundabout. vehicle access to and from the site.
Local resident (PC) Already concerned about the increasing levels of traffic near The proposed access residential properties, road widening and use of Brookfield House for arrangements are housing homeless people. Strong objection to proposal to build a considered to be the most
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 29
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
road next to residential boundary. appropriate and have general support.
Local resident (RG) • The HHF site should not be developed in a way which will create There is general support more traffic, and hence, increase air pollution in the borough. for the proposals in the Brief. • The HHF site should be preserved as open space, possibly with There are no valid paths and landscaping to make it an attractive walking area. planning reasons against • Strongly objects to the proposal to demolish Brookfield, which is the principle of residential debt free, serves as a useful community facility and is not a development of particularly old building. Brookfield. • Housing development at site E may be welcomed if an access A new access road road can be built alongside the railway line into Park Road, or alongside the railway line perhaps the road can be raised or lowered over the railway at is likely to be Northway. unacceptable due to adverse impacts on the nature conservation sites. • The need for further Adult Education centres is questioned as the There is strong demand existing facility seems under-subscribed. for new and improved adult education facilities within the Borough.
Local resident (GW) Pleased to read of the future development at Hillingdon House Farm, Welcome the support. in particular the plans for the new leisure centre. Was disappointed to read that plans did not include any attempt to There is no general redevelop the ski slope and incorporate it into the proposed sports support for bringing the complex. The main problem is related to parking, which could be ski slope back into use. overcome by either putting a case for the release of more land or “adjusting” the existing land. The ski slope is a valuable facility, that suffered from mismanagement. A properly run ski slope, running as part of the new complex would be a success.
Local resident (WC) Approves of the majority of the plan, although would like to make the Welcome the support. following points: • The athletics track was built for athletics and field events, not Noted. rugby. • There is currently demand for track and field facilities in the area, Noted. including a throwing circle for shot-put and discus, long jump runway and pit, and high jump and javelin areas. This information will be • Football and rugby pitches should be part of the site and made drawn to the attention of more affordable, although should have their own dedicated space. the Director of Education, Youth and Leisure
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 30
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Services.
• Will there be housing provided for a groundsman or caretaker? The proposals do not include housing for a groundsman or caretaker.
• Sport England have £41 million to help special cases, so could These are not planning possibly fund 2 high profile sports people from the local area to issues; however they will promote the facility. be drawn to the attention • The local half marathon could be started from HHF instead of of the Director of Uxbridge High Street, whilst the athletics track could also be used Education, Youth and for jogging. Leisure Services.
Local councillor The A40 bridge was A bridleway crossing currently exists over the M40. However due to constructed to restrictions brought in by Hillingdon, riders and horses would need to accommodate horses, be ‘teleported’ to the start of the bridge in order to cross over and get walkers and cyclists over to HHF. the A40.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 31
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
ANALYSIS OF COMPLETED RESPONSE FORMS Appendix 2
Total number of responses: 517 100%
How many generally agree with the Council’s proposals 346 67%
How many generally disagree with the Council’s proposals 127 24%
How many are indifferent to the Council’s proposals 44 9%
Proposal Number of respondents in agreement with each specific proposal Generally Generally Not Stated Total % agree disagree Site A: New leisure centre 183 22 312 517 100 Site B: Outdoor pool restored for 109 56 352 517 100 seasonal use Site C: Athletics track improved 97 16 404 517 100 with new spectator stand Site D: New adult education 88 74 355 517 100 centre Site E: Housing and additional 49 72 396 517 100 leisure/community uses Site F: Housing and/or 45 67 405 517 100 community uses Site G: Car parking 86 20 411 517 100 Site H: Housing and/or 48 31 438 517 100 community uses New access road off Belmont 17 22 478 517 100 Road
Replies from: Generally Generally Indifferent Total % agree disagree Resident 230 44 11 285 55.1 Residents’ 3 0 0 3 0.6 Assoc. Other Group 9 1 0 10 1.9 Councillors 1 0 0 1 0.2 Frays Centre 103 82 33 218 42.2 TOTAL 346 127 44 517 100.0
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 32
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Age * Generally Generally Indifferent Total agree disagree 0-16 13 2 0 15 16-24 11 4 3 18 25-35 46 12 7 65 35-44 71 16 7 94 45-59 85 26 7 118 60+ 133 56 14 203 Not Stated 30 17 9 56 TOTAL 389 133 47 569
* This information was not provided by all respondents. In addition, some respondents circled multiple age groups; these have each been recorded individually.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 33
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM, UXBRIDGE: Appendix 3 DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF
1. Purpose of the Brief
1.1 This brief aims to provide a planning guidance for the future development of Hillingdon House Farm, which for the purposes of this brief is defined as the area bounded by Park Road, the A40 (Western Avenue) and the Metropolitan railway line (see Map 1). The site includes an extensive area of open land owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon, which is available to the public for various open air recreational and leisure pursuits. It also includes the disused Uxbridge open-air pool. In addition the site encompasses Uxbridge College and some residential areas, mainly off Brearley Close.
1.2 The adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan states that the Borough’s main recreational deficiency is in major sports facilities and there is a need for a major sports/leisure complex to be located in a centre with good accessibility to serve the whole of the Borough. It identifies land at Hillingdon House Farm as the most suitable site for such a sports/leisure complex and a detailed planning brief was adopted in March 1989, following public consultation, specifying the area outside the Green Belt for built development, related highway improvements, and environmental improvements.
1.3 More recently in October 1999, Hillingdon House Farm was identified in the Council’s Asset Management Review by Education, Youth and Leisure Services for a range of community leisure facilities. Following extensive public consultation it was clear that there was general support for a new community leisure facility at Hillingdon House Farm, including a 50 metre indoor pool, with a separate leisure pool, a health and fitness suite, sports hall and café, but that the new facility should retain key features of the listed outdoor pool and some outdoor seasonal swimming provision. Indeed 72% of Uxbridge respondents supported the proposals.
1.4 Since the existing planning brief for the site was adopted in 1989 there have been changes to both planning policies at national, regional and local levels. This revised brief provides up-to-date planning guidance for the site, including an indication of the extent and form of development that may be considered acceptable. It has been prepared within the context of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) adopted in September 1998 and other agreed Council standards, and in light of regional and national guidance. It forms supplementary planning guidance and is held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 34
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
2. Site Characteristics
2.1 Hillingdon House Farm is a triangular parcel of predominantly open land of some 186.4 acres. It forms a wedge of mainly Green Belt land (see Map 2) between Uxbridge to the south west, Ickenham to the north and Hillingdon to the south. The topography of the site is outstanding, in part occupying a ridge affording expansive views of the open parkland bordered by deciduous woodland. The visual prominence of the site is evident not only from locations in the immediate vicinity but also from distant higher parts of Harrow and Ealing. The site is considered to have potential strategic importance (based particularly on its size and mainly Green Belt designation) and can make a positive contribution to West London and London in general.
2.2 The dominant characteristic is the pronounced slope running east-west and occupying the western half of the area, with gradients up to 1:10. The area is broadly defined by the broad-leaved woodland belt to the north, the copse bordering the River Pinn in the east, the railway embankment woods to the south and the crest-line of the slope to the west.
2.3 An important feature of the Hillingdon House Farm site is the disused Uxbridge outdoor pool. The pool was first opened in 1935 but due to financial circumstances it was closed to the public in 1986, although open for limited periods thereafter. Its principal five components (i.e. the pool, north fountain, south fountain, cascades, grandstand and entrance buildings) were each included as separate list entries in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at Grade II in 1998. It is recognised as being built in a Moderne style and is the only example of a 12-sided “star” swimming pool in the country. The five listed structures are included in English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk, denoting the concern of English Heritage over the future and condition of the pool.
2.4 Significant areas of the Hillingdon House Farm site are of nature conservation value as shown on Map 2. It includes sites of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation i.e. the Uxbridge Ponds. These include the Uxbridge College Pond which is within the Uxbridge College area and Park Road Pond which is off Brearley Close. These ponds are also designated as nature reserves. The ponds support breeding populations of Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species. Extensive areas of the open land are also of nature conservation value. These include the following sites of Borough Grade II importance for nature conservation: • Uxbridge Common Meadows, which lie along the valley of the River Pinn and stretch along the Metropolitan railway line and along a major part of the A40; and • Common Plantation, which is an area of woodland to the south and north of the A40.
2.5 The majority of open land at Hillingdon House Farm consists of grass that is regularly mown with only low clipped hedges breaking up the space at a local level. The central and flatter part of the site is largely uninterrupted open land and used as an informal playing fields area. During the summer this central area accommodates the Middlesex Show. The eastern section, delineated by the River Pinn, is triangular in shape and represents a great contrast in that the land is parcelled into small fields enclosed by
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 35
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
informal hedgerows and small tree belts of oak, elm, birch and other broadleaved species.
2.6 The built development is in the south-west of the site and lies principally near the crest of the slope. Whilst the housing is low enough to be hidden from the open space below, the buildings of Uxbridge College are clearly visible from the open spaces in the area. The derelict Uxbridge open air pool lies immediately to the north-east of Uxbridge College. Uxbridge Cricket Club with its extensive club and social facilities is situated to the north of Gatting Way and to the east lies the athletics track and Rugby Club with changing and ancillary accommodation. The other main intrusive element is the former ski-slope, which is visible from a long distance all around. The area to the north of the ski slope is used as school playing fields.
2.7 Coupled with the attractive physical nature of the site are the exceptional locational advantages. Hillingdon House Farm is bounded on the north by the A40, to the west by Park Road from which the principal access is gained, and in the south east by the Metropolitan Line and Piccadilly Line between Hillingdon and Uxbridge stations. It has a central location within the Borough and is easily accessible from both east and west along the A40 (Western Avenue), from both north and south along Park Road (B483), and also from Hillingdon and Uxbridge stations.
2.8 The land was all originally farmed but this activity ceased in the 1930’s. At its acquisition by the County Council in 1931 for open space purposes, the only building on the site was Coaxden, later redeveloped for sheltered housing. Development began with the Uxbridge open air swimming pool, opened in 1936, but it was only in the 1960’s that substantial development took place which coincided with the transfer of the estate to the Borough Council. The major built development has been Uxbridge College occupying some 7.2 ha (18 acres) 4.56ha (1.3 acres) in the south-western part of the site. Residential elements include ‘Brookfield’ a former residential home for the elderly; sheltered housing (formerly Coaxden) and privately owned housing in Brearley Close which consists of detached and semi-detached properties. Despite these developments, a key function performed by the site is that for which it was originally purchased, that is open space and the overall impression remains one of open parkland.
2.9 Surrounding the site, the roads dominate to the north and west, and the railway to the southeast. Beyond these lie suburban residential areas, although there is an area of Metropolitan Open Land (Uxbridge Common) to the west off Park Road and further areas of Green Belt between the railway line and Sweetcroft Lane and to the north of the A40 including Park Wood, Common Plantation, the Clump and Vyners Secondary School. Direct pedestrian links exist from each of these residential areas into Hillingdon House Farm which although separate, provides an oasis of publicly available open land. To the extreme east lies Hillingdon Station and Hillingdon Circus, including the local shopping centre on Long Lane and the Master Brewer Hotel.
2.10 Park Road provides the principal access to Hillingdon House Farm via Gatting Way. Park Road connects the A40 Western Avenue to the north with the A4020 Hillingdon Road to the south. It carries substantial traffic flows generated by Uxbridge town centre, and is of a dual carriageway standards with a central reservation and a 30mph
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 36
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
speed restriction. There is a dedicated right hand turn lane from the northbound carriageway of Park Road to Gatting Way; the right hand movement from Gatting Way is banned by means of signs and road markings. Uxbridge College is served by a separate access off Park Road.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 37
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
3. Relevant Planning Policies
3.1 This brief has been formulated within the strategic and local policy framework provided by the Hillingdon Development Plan (UDP) adopted in September 1998 and relevant regional and national planning policy guidance. The key policies of relevance to the site are referred to below. However this Brief should be read in conjunction with the wider policies and proposals of the UDP.
3.2 The key relevant guidance and planning policies governing any redevelopment of this site are contained in: • PPG1 ‘General Policy and Principles’ (February 1997) • PPG2 ‘Green Belts’ (January 1995) • PPG3 ‘Housing’ (March 2000) • PPG9 ‘Nature Conservation’ (September 2002) • PPG13 ‘Transport’ (March 2001) • PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994) • PPG17 ‘Sport and Recreation’ (July 2002) • Draft PPG17 ‘Sport, Open Space and Recreation’ Consultation Paper – March 2001, • Draft RPG9 ‘Regional Planning Guidance for the South East’ (March 2000), and in local policies contained in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council’s Proposed Alterations to the UDP Parking Policies and Standards. The Draft London Plan was published by the Mayor of London for the Greater London Authority (GLA) in June 2002. This Draft Planning Brief does not take full account of the Draft London Plan because it is subject to consultation and scrutiny at an Examination in Public and currently has limited status.
3.3 In the adopted UDP Hillingdon House Farm is subject to a site specific policy PR24 with proceeding text as follows:
15.45 The Borough’s main recreational deficiency is in major sports facilities and there is a need for a major sports/leisure complex to be located in a centre with good accessibility to serve the whole of the Borough. Land at Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge has been identified as the most suitable site for such a sports/leisure complex and a detailed planning brief was adopted in March 1989 following public consultation, specifying the area outside the Green Belt for built development, related highway improvements, and environmental improvements to the open land bounded by Park Road, the A40 and railway line. This Council is seeking, in co-operation with the private sector, a development including a sports/leisure complex, and enabling development if appropriate. Any development should take into account the criteria set out in the Planning Brief, the key elements of which are reflected in the following proposal.
PR24 AN INDOOR SPORTS AND LEISURE COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING WILL BE REGARDED IN PRINCIPLE AS ACCEPTABLE ON OR ADJOINING THE SWIMMING POOL SITE AT HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM SUBJECT TO:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 38
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
i) COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON GREEN BELT LAND TO THE EAST, PROVISION OF FOOTPATHS AND CYCLE WAYS, BRIDLEWAYS IF APPROPRIATE, AND FACILITIES FOR OUTDOOR SPORT AND INFORMAL RECREATION; ii) NEW DEVELOPMENT BEING INTENSIVELY LANDSCAPED SO THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT VIEWS ACROSS THE SITE ARE RETAINED AND ENHANCED. iii) DEVELOPMENT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE PRINCIPAL VEHICULAR ACCESS BEING FROM PARK ROAD, UXBRIDGE. IF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY DEVELOPMENT SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS PRESENT LEVELS, IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROPOSALS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARK ROAD. iv) REPLACEMENT OR ENHANCEMENT OF CAR PARKING FOR UXBRIDGE COLLEGE IF THE EXISTING COLLEGE CAR PARK IS DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE ABOVE SPORTS AND LEISURE COMPLEX.
3.4 As the majority of the Hillingdon House Farm site falls within the Green Belt, any new developments should comply with Green Belt policies in the adopted UDP, in particular policies OL1 to OL5. Policy OL1 specifies those predominantly open land uses that will be acceptable in the Green Belt, including open air recreational facilities. It states that planning permission for new buildings or for changes of use of existing buildings will not normally be granted except for purposes that are essential to and associated with an acceptable Green Belt use.
3.5 Policy OL2 states that where development proposals are acceptable in principle within the Green Belt, there should be comprehensive landscaping improvements to achieve enhanced visual amenity and other open land objectives. Policy OL3 extends the principle of enhancing visual amenity of the countryside to proposals that adjoin the Green Belt by stating that there should be retention and improvements to existing landscape where development proposals affect land adjoining the Green Belt.
3.6 Policies OL4 and OL5 seek to ensure that there is no undue intensification or enlargement of buildings within or adjacent to the Green Belt that collectively may injure the visual amenities of the countryside. They therefore refer to the need for attention to design and landscaping of proposals in or conspicuous from the Green Belt.
3.7 Policy BE38 aims to retain and utilise topographical and landscape features of merit and provide new planting and landscaping wherever appropriate, and requires planning applications to provide an accurate tree survey where proposals would affect any existing trees. Policy OL26 seeks to protect trees and woodland and encourage the preservation, proper management and where appropriate the extension of woodlands. It also requires development proposals in more rural areas to be accompanied by proposals for landscaping and tree planting wherever practicable.
3.8 Policy R4 seeks to safeguard existing recreational facilities and in particular specifies that planning permission will not normally be granted for proposals that involve the loss
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 39
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
of land used (or where the last authorised use was) for recreational open space, particularly if there is (or would be) a local deficiency in accessible open space.
3.9 As the Uxbridge outdoor pool contains four Grade II Listed Structures, policies BE8 to BE10 apply. These policies refer to applications for planning permission and Listed Building consent and aim to protect the historic structures of Listed Buildings and their setting.
3.10 As the Hillingdon House Farm site includes sites of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (Uxbridge Ponds, including Uxbridge College Pond and Park Road Pond, which are also nature reserves) and extensive areas of Borough Grade II importance for nature conservation (Uxbridge Common Meadows and Common Plantation) policies EC1 to EC5 apply. These relate to the protection and enhancement of existing sites of nature conservation value and the creation of new habitats where appropriate.
3.11 The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, policy H11 states that for proposed developments of 25 or more dwellings, or for sites of one or more hectares, the Council will seek to obtain the highest acceptable proportion of affordable housing.
3.12 The UDP makes it clear in policy BE13 that, in terms of built environment, the design of new buildings should complement or improve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and should incorporate design elements which stimulate and sustain visual interest. At the same time, it should not cause detriment to the amenities of the surrounding area by reason of siting or appearance or as a result of traffic generation, and congestion as laid in policy OE1. In addition, policy BE19 states that new development within residential areas should complement or improve the amenity and character of the area.
3.13 The UDP policies relating to environmental considerations apply, particularly policies OE1 to OE6 and OE12 which relate to environmental assessments, noise, air pollution and energy conservation. Policy OE1 specifies that an assessment of environmental impacts will be required where appropriate, for any proposed development which would have a significant environmental impact, before the relevant planning application can be considered.
3.14 Against the background of high car ownership and traffic congestion in the borough, encouraging sustainable forms of travel and efficient management of traffic are considered essential as guiding principles. In this respect policy AM1 seeks development which would draw upon more than a walking based catchment area if (i) it can be made accessible by public transport from areas from which it is likely to draw the majority of its customers/visitors and (ii) the existing public transport system has sufficient capacity to absorb additional journeys. Policy AM7 goes on to state that permission is unlikely to be granted for developments whose traffic generation is likely to (i) unacceptably increase demand along roads or through junctions which are used to capacity, (ii) prejudice the free flow of traffic or general highway or pedestrian safety,
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 40
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
(iii) diminish materially the environmental benefits brought about by new and improved roads, or (iv) infiltrate streets classed as local roads.
3.15 It is adopted policy that new developments accord with the Council’s car parking standards and that conveniently located spaces should be reserved for disabled persons in accordance with policies AM14 and AM15. In addition adequate provision should be made for bicycle parking in line with policy AM9.
3.16 In addition to the adopted UDP, the Council has adopted supplementary planning guidance (SPG) in relation to the following: • Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development (1998) • Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (1999) • Changes to Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation • Air Quality (2002) • Noise (2000) Each of the above SPGs contain more detailed guidance to supplement the development plan policies and are held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 41
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
4. Development Objectives
4.1 The objectives of this brief are to seek sustainable development that will:
• safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and retain and enhance its character;
• retain the character and key features of the listed outdoor pool in its reuse; have special regard to the desirability of preserving the outdoor pool, its buildings and their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, linked with bringing the listed pool back into beneficial use.
• protect and enhance areas of importance for nature conservation;
• secure a comprehensive package of environmental improvements; in particular to enhance the visual amenity of the site and reduce the impact of any development through comprehensive landscaping proposals;
• retain key views across and within the site, and in particular to maintain the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of the listed outdoor pool;
• ensure the retention of public open space for open air recreational uses within the Green Belt area, including the provision of playing pitches for a range of outdoor sports;
• provide complementary sports/leisure/community uses on the site balanced between formal and informal so as to provide a wide range of facilities for as large a cross-section of the public as possible;
• maintain and enhance the built facilities provided by Uxbridge College for the benefit of the community;
• achieve a high quality development that respects its setting, in the context of the Green Belt, listed outdoor pool, the areas of nature conservation value and the existing built up areas. In particular to ensure that the built facilities are located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt;
• maintain the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities;
• improve access for informal recreation, including footpaths and cycleways and bridleways if appropriate;
• maintain access to the site for the Middlesex Show
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 42
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• ensure that the site and the proposed developments are fully accessible for pedestrians and people with disabilities and that they meet the needs of the community;
• provide a safe and secure environment;
• provide safe vehicle access to and from the site, including road improvements in the vicinity;
• maximise the use of public transport and other sustainable means of travel, including the promotion of cycling and pedestrian movement;
• provide sufficient car parking provision for the development in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, including provision for disabled parking;
• provide safe and secure cycle parking facilities on site in line with the Council’s cycle parking standards and to meet the needs of users of the community facilities;
• to secure provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing within residential developments in line with the Council’s planning policies as set out in the Council’s adopted UDP.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 43
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
5. Proposed Developments
5.1 Those developments that are considered acceptable in principle on the Hillingdon House Farm site are listed below and indicated on Map 3:
• Leisure and recreational facilities which could include provision of a leisure centre with a 50 metre competition indoor pool of up to 50 metres, including a separate leisure pool with flumes/slides, a health and fitness suite, a dual use sports hall, wet and dry changing areas, a café and spectator areas (site A).
• Retention and restoration of the key features and character of the listed outdoor pool, linked to associated leisure and recreational facilities in order to ensure their long term protection and to provide some outdoor seasonal swimming facilities (site B).
• Refurbishment of the existing athletics track, retaining the rugby pitch in its centre and to provide enhanced facilities including a grandstand and associated changing facilities (site C).
• A comprehensive package environmental improvements; including proposals to reduce enhance the impact of the former ski slope.
• Provision of an adult education centre for community use within the Uxbridge College site (site D) or in any other appropriate location within the Hillingdon House Farm site.
• Enabling development on land to the east of Uxbridge College (site E); acceptable uses may include residential development, provision of community facilities or leisure uses.
• Residential development or other appropriate community uses on land to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings (site F).
• Car parking for proposed leisure uses on land immediately to the north of the outdoor pool (site G).
• Residential development or other appropriate community uses on the site of the former residential home of “Brookfield” (site H).
• Residential development on part or all of the Uxbridge College car park (site J).
• Retention and enhancement of Uxbridge College campus including provision of replacement car parking from site J as appropriate.
• Residential development on the site of the Guide/Brownie Hut (site L) provided that satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided locally for the Guides/Brownies.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 44
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
5.2 It should be noted that the following leisure and/or associated uses would generally be considered inappropriate at Hillingdon House Farm: • Cinema • Amusement games • Food and drink establishments unless ancillary only • Other leisure uses which are not sports led, or which are inconsistent with open air recreational uses.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 45
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
6. Development Considerations
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: a) Environmental Impact Assessment 6.1 Given the scale and location of development, the Council has adopted a screening opinion, in accordance with the criteria set out in EIA regulations 1999, requiring any proposals for a leisure centre, including a new swimming pool and athletics stadium, along with residential development, to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA would be expected to assess issues relating to transport, air quality, water discharge, flood risk, noise, architectural heritage, archaeology, visual impact/urbanization and the residential development of approximately 100 residential units, as well as proposing mitigation measures for any identified environmental impacts. The Council subsequently also adopted a Scoping Opinion in July November 2002 setting out the requirements for an EIA in more detail. A full Environmental Statement, to cover the EIA requirements of the Scoping Opinion, will be expected to accompany any planning application relating to the leisure centre or residential developments. Any subsequent development at Hillingdon House Farm, including a residential scheme on the enabling land at Site E, will need to be subject to a separate screening opinion to establish whether it would be considered as EIA development; the Council would then, if it were considered to be EIA development, draw up and adopt a Scoping Opinion to cover the cumulative environmental impact of this additional development.
b) Access and Car Parking 6.2 Gatting Way should be the principal access road to any proposed athletics stadium and leisure centre. It is of single carriageway width and will require improvement for adoption by the Council. Scope exists for widening the road within the curtilage of the highway boundary without substantial damage to the avenue of trees, on either side of the road, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TP0312). A new access road will be required off the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout to serve the proposed developments on sites E, and F, H, J and L on Map 3. The new access road should be as perpendicular to the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout as possible, and improvements to the roundabout will be required.
6.3 Any development proposals must demonstrate that access arrangements are adequate and that the traffic generated from the development can be accommodated on the surrounding road network without any significant adverse effects, and accompanied by a full transport impact assessment (dealing with both traffic generation and sustainable transport) as necessary. Any necessary measures such as highway works, traffic management schemes, local Controlled Parking Zones, public transport improvements and a Green Travel Plan will be imposed by means of planning conditions and legal agreements as appropriate. Any highway improvements associated with the development should be designed to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and buses as appropriate. Modelling and a safety audit will also need to be carried out on any alterations to the principal access points to assess their impact on the network and to avoid conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general vehicle movements. Any development proposals should include appropriate measures to ensure that the residential amenities of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 46
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
residents in Gatting Way are not adversely affected by significant additional traffic, particularly at unsocial hours.
6.4 The other minor vehicular access point to the estate is on its southern boundary at North Way Tunnel. This is mainly used for service and maintenance vehicles. It is intended that this access be closed to all vehicles except during the Middlesex Show, and used on a permanent basis only by pedestrians and cyclists.
6.5 The Council is in the process of revising its car parking standards and policies as an alteration to its adopted UDP. The Council has responded to the Inspector’s recommendations following the Public Local Inquiry into the proposed alterations, which was held in March/April 2002. The revised Council’s parking policies and standards have been approved for development control purposes. The Council is therefore applying the new standards to all new planning applications. The standards may be subject to further change prior to being adopted and clarification should be sought at the time of any application, before assessing the level of provision at Hillingdon House Farm.
6.6 With regard to any proposed leisure developments, the existing public car park at the end of Gatting Way should remain the principal car parking area and should be re- surfaced and landscaped. The following standards will apply to any swimming pool proposal: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 50 square metres of swimming pool complex and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 5 square metres of pool and poolside area. With regard to other leisure proposals (including sports facilities with or without a licensed club house and health club), the following standards will apply: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 50 square metres and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 15 square metres of floorspace and 1 space per 10 spectator seats. With regard to any proposed stadium, the standards in PPG13 would apply, which specifies 1 space per 15 seats for stadia of 1,500 or more seats. Notwithstanding this, the specific level of car parking for any proposed athletics stadium would be considered on its merits and would in part, be dependant on the manner and frequency of use of the stadium and its relationship with any other proposed leisure facilities. If it can be shown that the majority of parking could be shared between separate leisure facilities, this would be taken into consideration when assessing the overall level of parking provided. In addition, with regard to any proposed leisure developments, provision should be made for separate bus/coach parking areas, turning areas and drop-off points. Uxbridge College has acknowledged that for regional or national events, it may be possible to provide parking within the College campus to accommodate extra vehicles. With regard to any residential developments, the following standards will apply: a maximum of 2 car parking spaces per dwelling where there is curtilage parking and a maximum of 1.5 car parking spaces where flats and houses are without individual curtilages and have communal parking areas. In addition residential developments will require a minimum of 1 cycle parking space for every 1-2 bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces for dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms. With regard to any proposed adult education centre, the following standards will apply: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 150 square metres of floorspace and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 25 square metres. For all development proposals it will be necessary for 10% of all car parking spaces to be provided to the mobility standard of 3.6m x 4.8m. All cycle
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 47
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
parking should comply with or exceed the standards in the London Cycle Network Design Manual.
6.7 Particular attention should be paid to the pedestrian and cycle routes and bridleways through Hillingdon House Farm. Existing routes should be retained and enhanced unless alternative routes are considered more appropriate. In particular, a good north south link through the site should be provided in order to improve cycle access from Uxbridge to Eastcote. In addition, this would simplify cycle access to the site from North Hillingdon, by allowing a link from Honeycroft Hill. Some additional footpaths providing better access through the site may be desirable. Attention will also need to be paid to preventing motorbikes using footpaths and cyclepaths whilst allowing wheelchairs, prams, buggies and cycles where appropriate. Surface treatment of the paths should reflect appropriately the permitted users and the degree of formality of that part of the site. All new and existing access routes should be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. There are no bridleways in the area; however the A40 bridge was constructed to accommodate horses, walkers and cyclists over the A40. Any proposed new bridleways should be surfaced appropriately for the purpose and fenced to prevent horses entering the main part of the site.
c) Design Approach 6.8 Design of proposed developments will be important given the location of the site in the context of the Green Belt, Listed Building and nature conservation sites. A high standard of building and landscaping will be required, especially since the site will serve the whole Borough. A scheme that was purely functional in character and which would not relate to and integrate with its immediate surroundings would be rejected.
6.9 The developer will be required to submit a full planning application for any leisure development, including a detailed landscaping scheme for the wider Hillingdon House Farm site. A full planning application should also be submitted for any other significant proposals. Designs should enhance views into, within and out of the site. Planning applications should be supported by a landscape analysis and assessment including long views from and to the site with regard to the immediate and wider area. Any application for listed building consent will be required parallel to the necessary application for planning permission for proposals affecting the listed buildings. If such an application is made by the local authority, it would need to be referred to the First Secretary of State for determination. Alternatively, should it be made by other parties, but involve land owned by the local authority, any proposed grant of consent will require the authorisation of English Heritage.
6.10 Elevations should be designed to add interest and assist in informal surveillance of open air facilities and spaces. The main entrances to buildings and facilities should be carefully designed and sited to relate well to pedestrian routes and adjoining residential areas. The height of buildings should have regard to the character of the area and in particular the context of the Green Belt and Listed Building.
6.11 The safety and well being of pedestrians and cyclists should be incorporated into the design layout, which should be convenient and direct, with clear sight lines, lighting and security. Options to extend Borough initiatives such as CCTV to Hillingdon House Farm
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 48
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
should be considered to promote safety of users and facilities. Footpaths should also be smooth and non-slip so as to be suitable for people with ambulant difficulties, wheelchairs and pushchairs/prams. Contrasts in surface textures would benefit partially sighted and blind people and will be required. Landscaping proposals should carefully examine the use of materials and planting to break up car parking areas, which should be located in a safe and subservient manner.
6.12 The proposed developments should acknowledge the proximity of residential properties in Brearley Close and should be designed to minimise noise, visual impact, overlooking, loss of light and obtrusiveness by siting buildings and structures as far as possible from private amenity spaces.
6.13 The proposed buildings and lighting associated with car parking areas and any outdoor activities have the potential to produce a substantial amount of light. In order not to impinge on the amenities of adjoining residential properties or on areas of ecological value or on and the character of the Green Belt, the sources of such light must be limited both in hours of use and height and angled/shielded so that light spillage is contained within appropriate areas.
d) Landscaping and Landform 6.14 Environmental improvement to Hillingdon House Farm to increase public usage and enjoyment of the area has been a longstanding aim of the Council since the publication of the 1973 Hillingdon House Farm Study. The character and appearance of the open space derive from (i) the landform, (ii) the management of woodland and grassland and (iii) control over intrusive built form both within and adjacent to the area. As mentioned in paragraph 6.9 above, any proposals for leisure purposes will require a detailed landscaping scheme for the wider Hillingdon House Farm site including an implementation and management programme. This should be supported by a full landscape analysis and assessment, taking account of landscape character, natural features, vegetation including tree survey, drainage, ecology, historic and archaeological features, views into and out of the site, existing rights of way, and existing and proposed land uses.
6.15 Landscape treatment reflects the use to which the land is put. In order to maintain a balance between active sports provision and informal recreation, the intrinsic informal landscape characterising the eastern part of Hillingdon House Farm needs to be retained and strengthened. If possible some of this informality should be extended westwards around the margins of the site and opportunities for the creation of natural habitat should be exploited wherever possible throughout the area. This will require reviewing the landscape management strategy and the creation of new woodland/copse areas, as well as new wetland habitats associated with the River Pinn.
6.16 In the central area the single species, straight and mechanically clipped hedges create a formality inappropriate to the use of the area. Other appropriate species should be introduced, some tree planting to reduce monotony and, in some places, where there is no strong justification for a hedge, they should be removed to maximise the open aspect.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 49
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
6.17 The built structures, particularly of Uxbridge College and to a somewhat smaller degree the cricket club pavilion, represent an intrusion into are prominent within the skyline and the wider vistas of the park. Means of reducing their impact should be sought especially in relation to views from footpaths and other viewpoints (such as the main car park), by tree planting and land modelling other means as appropriate. Likewise The hummock of the former ski slopes is also prominent but is becoming an interesting feature in its own right. It provides key views across the site and a surveillance point. Provision of satisfactory footpaths and appropriate planting is likely to be sought. As vegetation develops the slopes could in time have considerable ecological value. should be reduced in height and its impact on the surrounding area lessened by screening and grassing. On the Park Road frontage there may be some scope for tree planting to vary the monotony of the boundary hedge.
(Note: renumber paras 6.18 to end)
e) Ecology 6.18 In view of the significant areas of ecological value, the Council will require an ecological survey and an ecological assessment to accompany any planning application demonstrating that the proposed development will not have any adverse ecological effects.
f) Archaeology 6.19 The site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined in the adopted Hillingdon UDP, although archaeological activity has been noted in the area. The site is within an area where archaeological remains are likely to be present and therefore an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment should be included as part of any Environmental Impact Assessment. The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment should be conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. This report should allow for an informed decision regarding any archaeological mitigation required, which may include archaeological excavation.
f) Air Quality 6.18 Any proposed development will be required to comply with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on air quality and policy OE6 of the UDP. The site is within an Air Quality Management Area and developers will be required to provide an air quality assessment of the impact that the proposal may have on the locality. An example would be the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development. Planning conditions are likely to be attached to any planning permission to control any adverse impacts with respect to air quality.
g) Noise 6.19 Any proposed development will be required to comply with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on noise and policy OE3 of the UDP. Developers will be required to provide an acoustic assessment for proposed noise sensitive buildings likely to be affected by road traffic and rail noise. The acoustic assessment should also include the impact that any proposal may have on the locality. Planning conditions are likely to be attached to any planning permission to control any adverse impacts with respect to noise.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 50
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
h) Flooding 6.20 The River Pinn corridor is an area at risk from flooding. Given the topography of the area and the introduction of a range of new and possibly impervious surfaces, any proposal for a leisure centre, athletics stadium or housing will require a flood risk assessment to consider surface water and drainage across Hillingdon House Farm. Any appropriate mitigation measures will be required.
i) Contaminated Land 6.21 The Council currently do not have any record regarding materials used for the former ski slopes. It is possible that there may be some contamination and any proposals relating to the mound of the former ski slopes will require a contaminated land assessment prior to commencement of work and appropriate ameliorative measures must be taken.
i) Access for all 6.22 Both in terms of access to and within the site and access to individual buildings, universal design principals will be upheld. Provision must be made for people with disabilities in any development taking account of the responsibilities under the relevant legislation.
j) Planning Obligations (s106/s278 requirements) 6.23 The nature of any obligations will depend on the nature and scale of any proposed developments and the nature of planning submissions, i.e. whether the related benefits are on-site which could be covered by condition or off-site which require a legal agreement. They are likely to include:
• Linkages between phasing and implementation of various elements of proposals in order to achieve comprehensive rather than piecemeal development of sites, facilities and associated improvements. This is to guarantee that enabling development is phased and implemented in an acceptable manner to ensure achievement of other proposals, improvements and community benefits including access and highways works, restoration of Uxbridge Pool and Green Belt improvements.
• Contributions towards expanding school places. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) “Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development” specifically identifies pressure on primary school places in the Hillingdon area. The level of contribution will depend on the number and type of units and whether, since adoption of the SPG in 2000, there has been any significant change in the levels of pressure on both primary and secondary school places in the Central/South-West Education Planning area which includes Uxbridge and Hillingdon.
• Provision of affordable housing. Any enabling or other residential development (Sites E, F, H, J and/or H L) will be considered comprehensively in assessing the likely levels of provision. The adopted UDP requires that proposals which involve 25 units or more or sites in excess of one hectare provide 25% in the form of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 51
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
affordable housing. This will be normally on the individual site in question but the related and phased development of two, three or even four adjacent sites provides an opportunity to consider provision in an alternative manner that still meets Council policy requirements.
The Draft London Plan was published by the Mayor of London for the Greater London Authority (GLA) in June 2002. The Draft Plan includes new affordable housing requirements, which state that for the London Borough of Hillingdon 35% of housing should be affordable. The definition of affordable housing comprises social housing, intermediate (includes low-cost home ownership schemes and key worker housing) and in some cases low cost market housing. The Draft London Plan requires that the proportion of affordable housing should be 70% social rented and 30% intermediate housing. The Draft Plan does not set site thresholds as it seeks an affordable housing requirement on all sites wherever reasonable.
However, the Draft Plan is subject to consultation and scrutiny at an Examination in Public and currently has limited status. It is, therefore, proposed that the affordable housing requirement in the Planning Brief would be set between the adopted UDP requirement of 25% and the GLA proposed requirement of 35%. It is suggested that the proportion of affordable housing on the site should be 30% of which at least one-third should be key worker housing, and reviewed according to the status and content of the UDP and London Plan at the time of any proposal. Given the close proximity of Uxbridge College and the relatively easy accessibility to Brunel University and Hillingdon Hospital, it is considered appropriate to seek such a level of key worker housing in this particular location. The proportion of affordable housing will apply to the adopted UDP threshold until such time that the London Plan is finalised.
• Landscaping, Green Belt improvements and Ecological Impacts. Depending on a landscape analysis (likely to be included as part of an Environmental Statement) and the nature of development, a variety of off-site measures may be required to mitigate against the physical and visual impact of new development. These benefits could range from new planting to soften and screen new buildings in both short and long views to replacement tree planting where existing trees may be affected and associated Green Belt improvements as outlined in the Brief. A landscape management and maintenance strategy is also likely to be required. Any analysis should include a study of existing public access and routes to and through the area and seek to maintain and establish new and improved linkages to and from surrounding residential areas to new leisure facilities and recreational open space. The impact and mitigation measures associated with development on any areas of acknowledged nature conservation and ecological interest will have to be covered by an Environmental Statement and any identified measures, if off-site, will have to be subject of a legal agreement.
• Highways works. As well as looking at improvements to the existing Park Road/Gatting Way junction, redevelopment and use of sites D, E, F, and H, J, K and L requires the provision of a new access to the south at the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout. Additional works will be required to ensure limited access is controlled at North Way. The potential for sensitively designed and
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 52
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
located CCTV to monitor vehicular and pedestrian routes and car parks as well as the area generally should be considered as an integral part of the design approach. Other traffic management and road safety measures may be required depending on the findings of the required traffic impact assessment.
• Public Transport. Improved accessibility by public transport should be provided and the opportunities must be discussed with GLA/TfL. The U1 is currently the only regular route that passes along Park Road. The area is served by three bus routes (the U1 along Park Road; the U2 – the nearest stop is a short walk from the southwest corner of the site and the U10 – with one bus per hour during shopping hours only). The options to improve frequencies or even extend alternative routes by providing a dedicated bus stand within a new leisure facility and to relieve pressure from Uxbridge Bus Station should be fully explored.
• Green Travel Plan. Dependent on the findings of the transport impact assessment for the redevelopment of the site, and use of sites A, B and C, a Green Travel Plan may be required to ensure best use of the leisure facilities, without causing traffic congestion and parking problems. It should put forward a comprehensive and funded package of transport improvements to encourage sustainable access to the site, and also address issues of parking management, which should be designed to minimise car use for journeys to the site.
• Local play facilities. Even though not within the Green Belt the development of land for housing that was previously open in character may require some compensatory replacement of formal/informal recreational space either within a development or off-site particularly if the area is deficient in certain types of facility. It may be a requirement to provide a small scale play facility for children or communal garden in the case of a significant housing development on Site E. Alternatively this facility might be dedicated from adjacent wider open space or provided off-site in the local area. A new facility would generate maintenance requirements and a short-term management agreement or dedicated funding would be sought.
SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS: a) Listed outdoor pool and proposed leisure centre
6.24 The site of the disused Uxbridge outdoor pool, the proposed leisure centre and associated car parking (sites A, B and G on Map 3) adjoin the Green Belt to the east and north. The principal components of the disused outdoor pool (i.e. the pool, cascades, grandstand and entrance buildings) were included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at Grade II in 1998.
6.25 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Key features of the listed outdoor pool must be retained and restored as part of any leisure centre proposal in order to ensure their long term protection and to provide some outdoor seasonal swimming facilities.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 53
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• Any new building should be of a high quality that respects its setting in the context of the Green Belt and the listed outdoor pool. In particular it must be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. The slope of the land should be fully exploited, and rooflines, form, height and materials should be sympathetic to the landscape setting.
• Key views from and to the site should be retained.
• The height of any new building should have regard to not exceed the height of the existing outdoor pool Grandstand and the context of the listed pool and the Green Belt.
• The entrance to any new building should be a key feature of its design, particularly as viewed from Gatting Way.
• Vehicular access to the site should be provided from Gatting Way and any necessary highway improvements to Park Road and Gatting Way will be required.
• There should be adequate parking provision for people with disabilities in close proximity to the entrances to leisure facilities.
• Car parking areas should be appropriately designed and landscaped.
• Provision should be made for bus, coach and taxi access including a stopping facility and turnaround area.
• Provision should be made for safe and secure cycle parking facilities.
b) Athletics track and proposed grandstand
6.26 Site C on Map 3 currently consists of a disused athletics track, with a rugby pitch located within its perimeter, changing facilities and storage buildings. The changing facilities have a footprint of 230 square metres and the storage buildings have a footprint of 240 square metres.
6.27 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Only open-air recreational facilities as appropriate within the Green Belt will be acceptable.
• Planning permission will not normally be granted for new buildings or for changes of use of existing buildings except for purposes that are essential to and associated with open-air recreational facilities, as appropriate within the Green Belt.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 54
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• The rooflines, form, height, detailed design and materials of any new building or structure should make full use of the existing contours of the site in order to minimise its impact on the character of the surrounding area.
• Given the existing footprint of built development of 470 square metres, any significant increase in footprint will need to be justified in terms of the new facilities being essential for the operation of the open air recreational use.
• Where provision of ‘overspill parking’ can be justified, for example to enable good use of the proposed leisure facilities on an occasional basis such as a major borough sports event, this will be considered acceptable provided that the ‘overspill parking’ area is satisfactorily designed, sited, landscaped and gated with regard to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. Planning conditions and a legal agreement are likely to be required to limit the numbers and types of events when the ‘overspill car park’ can be used.
c) Land east of Uxbridge College
6.28 The land east of Uxbridge College (site E on Map 3) is currently open land that is used for informal recreation. It is part of the developed area and immediately adjoins Green Belt land. The site covers approximately 2.11ha 2.37 hectares. The triangular shaped area of land adjacent to the railway, forming the most southern part of site E is designated as a nature conservation site of Grade II importance (Uxbridge Common Meadows).
6.29 National and local planning policies attach great importance to the retention of recreational and amenity open space in urban areas. The redevelopment of this part of Hillingdon House Farm is considered to be justified on the basis that the site adjoins the extensive areas of open space and will enable the provision of major sports and recreational facilities that will serve the whole of the Borough as set out in paragraph 1.3 and the first three bullet points in paragraph 5.1 of this Brief. It is unlikely in the present and foreseeable financial climate that the sports and leisure facilities sought for Hillingdon House Farm could be provided out of the public purse. If such facilities are to be provided, an acceptable joint scheme will need to be developed by the public and private sectors together. In considering a development package due regard will be given to the justification for any ‘enabling development’ proposed. There is no justification for development on Site E other than the facilities required by the Council as referred to above, except as part of a supporting package. In this context uses which may be considered acceptable subject to the Council’s normal requirements for such a site, are residential and additional leisure facilities and/or community uses. If the enabling development is clearly required to support the repair, restoration and re-use of the listed buildings, then the policy statement ‘Enabling development and the conservation of heritage assets’ is a material consideration for English Heritage in its assessment of such proposals.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 55
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
6.30 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Enabling development consisting of residential uses, leisure facilities and/or community uses will be considered acceptable in principle.
• Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare (equating to between 63 and 105 dwellings on the site).
• The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, the guidance in bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.23 applies.
• The Environmental Impact Assessment should fully cover biodiversity issues. No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature conservation should be developed so as to protect biodiversity.
• Significant high quality landscaping will be required at the northern edge of this part of the site.
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the Green Belt and the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. The slope of the land should be fully exploited, and rooflines, form, height and materials should be sympathetic to the landscape setting.
• Buildings located towards the Green Belt boundary should be a maximum of two storeys in height.
• Buildings near Uxbridge College and the railway line should be a maximum of three storeys in height.
• Appropriate measures must be taken address the likely adverse impact of noise from the railway line on the proposed development.
• Vehicular access to the site should be from a new road to be built off the Belmont Road roundabout in Park Road. Highways improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly in the vicinity of the Belmont Road roundabout.
• Access from North Way to the Hillingdon House Farm site should be retained for pedestrians and cyclists only, with the exception of vehicular access for emergency and service purposes and during the Middlesex Show.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 56
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
d) Land immediately to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings
6.31 The land to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings (site F) is part of the developed area. It adjoins the listed outdoor pool to the north. It is already partly developed by way of a sports hall. The site covers approximately 0.46 hectares 0.49 hectares.
6.32 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Residential uses, leisure facilities and community uses will be considered acceptable in principle.
• Any residential development should be properly related to residential development on site E. Isolated residential development on site F will not be considered acceptable.
• Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool. Particular regard should be given to rooflines, form, height and materials so that the development is sympathetic to the listed outdoor pool.
• Vehicular access to the site should be from a new road to be built off the Belmont Road roundabout in Park Road. Highways improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly in the vicinity of the Belmont Road roundabout.
• Car parking areas should be appropriately landscaped.
e) An adult education centre within the Uxbridge College site
6.33 The need has been identified for an adult education centre for community use within the Hillingdon House Farm site; the Uxbridge College site (site D on Map 3) being the preferred location.
6.34 The proposed adult education centre will need to meet the following requirements:
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality and sympathetic to the form, height, rooflines and materials of surrounding buildings.
• There should be adequate parking provision in close proximity to the entrance to the proposed building for people with disabilities.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 57
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
f) The site of the former residential home of “Brookfield”
6.35 The former residential home of “Brookfield” (site H on Map 3) is being used as temporary housing to accommodate the homeless. Vehicular access is off Brearley Close, although there is pedestrian access Access to “Brookfield” is off Park Road, near the Belmont Road roundabout. The site covers approximately 0.38 hectares.
6.36 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Part of the site will be required for an access road off the Park Road roundabout to serve the proposed developments on sites E, and F, J and L on Map 3.
• Residential development or community facilities will be considered acceptable in principle on the remainder of the site.
• Vehicular access to the proposed development on the site should be from Brearley Close only. a new access road off the Park Road roundabout.
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the site of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (the Park Road Pond which is also designated as a Nature Reserve), and in particular should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance its ecological value. Proposals should include measures to protect wildlife habitats, including water quality, from the effects of new development and during construction works.
• Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.
g) The site of the existing Uxbridge College car park
6.37 The existing Uxbridge College car park (site J on Map 3) has 327 car parking spaces. Access is primarily off Gatting Way although 130 spaces, which are reserved for the disabled and staff only, are served via the College campus which is accessed from Park Road. The site covers approximately 0.82 hectares.
6.38 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Residential development on part or all of the Uxbridge College car park is considered acceptable in principle provided that adequate car parking is provided in a convenient and safe location elsewhere to meet the requirements of Uxbridge College.
• Vehicular access to the proposed residential development on the site should be from a new access road off the Park Road roundabout. There shall be no vehicular access for residential development off Gatting Way. Highways
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 58
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly to the Belmont Road roundabout.
• Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.
• The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, the guidance in bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.23 applies.
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool.
• Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.
h) The Uxbridge College campus (excluding sites F and J)
6.39 The Uxbridge College campus (site K on Map 3) comprises 4 main teaching blocks, numerous ancillary buildings, two main car parking areas and access roads. It also encompasses open spaces, including a site of Borough Grade 1 importance for nature conservation. This includes the Uxbridge College Pond which is designated as a nature reserve. Vehicular access to the site is off Park Road. The site covers approximately 3.25 hectares.
6.40 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Retention and enhancement of the educational facilities of Uxbridge College for the benefit of the community will be considered acceptable in principle.
• Development will be considered acceptable provided that adequate car parking is provided in a convenient and safe location to meet the requirements of the College campus, including provision of replacement car parking from site J as appropriate.
• The main vehicular access to the site should be provided from Park Road and any necessary highway improvements to Park Road will be required.
• There should be adequate parking provision for people with disabilities in close proximity to the entrances to educational facilities.
• Car parking areas should be appropriately designed and landscaped.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 59
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• Provision should be made for bus/coach access including a stopping facility and turnaround area as appropriate.
• Provision should be made for safe and secure cycle parking facilities.
• No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature conservation should be developed so as to protect biodiversity. Any development proposals in the vicinity of the site of Borough importance for nature conservation should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment that fully covers biodiversity issues.
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the site of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (including the Uxbridge College Pond which is also designated as a Nature Reserve), and in particular should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance its ecological value. Proposals should include measures to protect wildlife habitats, including water quality, from the effects of new development and during construction works.
• Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.
i) The site of the Guide/Brownie hut
6.41 The Guide/Brownie hut is a temporary building on land adjoining the site of the former residential home of ‘Brookfield’ (site L on Map 3). Access to the site is from Brearley Close. The site covers approximately 0.14 hectares, of which the hut occupies 0.02ha.
6.42 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:
• Residential development will be considered acceptable in principle on the site provided that satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided locally for the Guides/Brownies.
• Vehicular access to the proposed development on the site should be from a new access road off the Park Road roundabout.
• Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.
• The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, the guidance in bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.23 applies.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 60
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
• Any new buildings should be of a high quality and sympathetic to the form, height, rooflines and materials of surrounding buildings.
• Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 61
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 62
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 63
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 64
PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Category B Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 2 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: CHRIS WOODTelephone Number: 01895 250788
Address: 183 HOYLAKE CRESCENT, ICKENHAM
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION WITH 2 ROOFLIGHTS AND A FRONT PORCH
LBH Ref Nos: 30281/APP/2002/2334
Drawing Nos: AFA/1012/02 '1', AFA/1012/02 '2' received 21/02/03
Date of receipt: 30/09/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 21/02/03
CONSULTATIONS:
One letter of objection from neighbouring occupier raising the following comments:
Loss of light to dining room and effect on amenity at No.185 (the other half of the semi-detached pair) through size, height and proximity, with height made worse by use of Victorian rooflights. Expressed concerns over the possible encroachment.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
UDP Designation: Developed Area
183 Hoylake Crescent is a semi-detached house. The proposed single storey rear extension would be 7.5m wide and 3.25m deep. It would have a 3.0m high flat roof with 2 "Victorian" feature rooflights, each 0.7m high. The proposed porch would be 2.2m wide and be 0.5m deep. It would have a 2.8m high flat roof. The rear extension would be set behind existing side extensions and would not be visible from the road. The proposed design (including feature rooflights) is considered acceptable and complies with policies BE13, BE 15 and BE19. No side-facing windows are proposed, so there would be no overlooking to neighbouring houses. The proposed 3.25m deep rear extension complies with the Council's design guidelines. The rooflights would be set in 1.5m from the joint boundary with No.185. The proposal is not considered to result in undue loss of light or have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties through size, height or proximity. The proposed porch is considered to be a minor addition. It would not project forward of the existing front bay. The design is considered acceptable and would not detract from the visual amenities of the nearby area. The proposed plans do not show any encroachment. An informative referring to this issue is proposed. The comments raised in the letter of objection have been addressed above.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 1 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Observations of Borough Solicitor and Borough Treasurer
'When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. (B1) Time Limit Full Application 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D1) No Additional Windows or 3. (D1) Standard Doors (‘ 181 or 185 Hoylake Crescent)’ 4. (D4) Prevention of Balconies 4. (D4) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25A) The Party Wall etc. Act If any part of the development hereby permitted encroaches by either its roof, walls, eaves, gutters or foundations then a new planning application will have to be submitted. This planning permission is not valid for a development that results in any form of encroachment.
Reference Documents:
(a) UDP 1 letter of objection Design Guide "Residential Extensions"
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 2 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 3 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 3 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: LUNGILE MNGADI Telephone Number:01895 277948
Address: 44 THE GROVE, ICKENHAM
DEVELOPMENT: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY STORAGE SHED IN REAR GARDEN (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)
LBH Ref Nos: 14254/APP/2003/183
Drawing Nos: 3288/01, 3288/02, 3288/03
Date of receipt: 22/01/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A
(1) SUMMARY
This retrospective application proposes the retention of a single-storey storage shed in the rear garden of 44 The Grove. Due to of its size, bulk, and location, it is considered that the development results in the loss of residential amenity to adjoining properties, particularly No. 1 Grove Close. The single storey storage shed does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and, as such, is recommended for refusal. It is considered expedient to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the structure.
(2) RECOMMENDATION (A) - REFUSAL, for the following reasons:
1. The development by reason of its scale, size and siting does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and is thereby contrary to policy BE4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
2. The development by reason of its overall size, height and siting constitutes an overdominant / visually obtrusive form of development in relation to the street scene and to neighbouring properties, resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The development is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE19, and BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The development by reason of its overall size, siting, bulk and height represents an obtrusive form of development that is out of keeping with the general scale of other detached buildings in the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The development is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13 and BE19 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION (B)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 4 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 1. The Committee should consider the expediency of enforcement action including the service of an enforcement notice under Section 172 Town and Country Act 1990.
2. That the Head of Planning and Transportation be recommended to instruct the Borough Solicitor to take the appropriate enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control in accordance with officer delegated authority, in respect of erection of a single storey storage shed in rear garden at 44 The Grove, Ickenham.
3. That the notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control:
Demolish the single storey storage shed in the rear garden. Remove from the land the foundations. Remove from the land all bricks, roof tiles, materials, rubble and debris used in the construction of the single storey storage shed. Restore the land to its former condition.
5. That the reasons stated for the issue of the notice be as follows (see recommendation A):
6. That the period of 4 months be given for compliance with the terms of the enforcement notice.
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
No. 44 is a two-storey semi-detached property with a long rear garden located on the south side of The Grove. The rear garden backs onto the rear garden of 1 Grove Close. The application site falls within the Ickenham Village Conservation area. The surrounding area is characterised by detached houses within substantial rear gardens.
(3)(b) Scheme
Planning permission is sought (retrospective) for the retention of a single storey storage shed located in the rear garden. The storage shed has a floor area of 35.83m², with a tiled-pitched roof 4m high at its ridge. The storage shed has two large windows and a door on the elevation facing the main house. The storage shed is set in 0.3m from the side boundary with 42 The Grove, 0.6m from 46 The Grove and 0.5m from the rear boundary with 1 Grove Close.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 5 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (3)(c) Planning History
Planning permission (14254/APP/2001/374) for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension was granted in May 2001. This permission has not been implemented.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Developed Area
The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered relevant:
PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.8 To preserve and enhance those features of Conservation Areas which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Part 2 Policies:
BE4 Requires new development within or on the fringes of Conservation Areas to preserve or enhance those features, which contribute to the special architectural and visual qualities of the area.
BE13 Requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE19 Requires new development to improve or complement the character of the area.
BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity.
Design Guide: Residential extensions
Design Principles
A1 & A2 Building Lines A3 Impact of mass, bulk, overlooking A4 Visual impact of a development.
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
Consulted: 3 No. of Response: 70
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 6 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Comments:
Does not enhance the Ickenham Village Conservation area and therefore should not be allowed. It appears householder intends in time to use this building as a dwelling in contravention to planning law. There is already planning consent at this property for a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension which has not been implemented yet but is still valid, this would result in an over- development of the site. The close proximity of the new building to 1 Grove Close, visible from all windows at rear of house. Cuts out light to 1 Grove Close (garden and windows.) Contrary to several policies contained in the Borough’s adopted UDP. Restricts reflected light from surrounding houses. An eyesore Would create precedence Building looks rather large and obtrusive for a Conservation Area and can be seen when entering Grove Close. Dominant intrusive structure. Out of character with the surrounding dwellings Has been built without planning permission Conservation Area. LBH should refuse this application, the building should be demolished, since it was erected without permission, if not residents will follow suit and flaunt all the planning rules. Dominates view from rear of surrounding properties, particularly those on Grove Close, including the outlook from 46 The Grove and 1 Grove Close. The visual impact on adjoining properties unacceptable. Monstrous structure cannot be considered to be a garden shed for storage, more like a commercial storage building or a small bungalow, since it was built with thermal blocks, good quality tiled roof, and has two very large picture windows and a door. 18. Reduction in value and ready sale of 1 Grove Close.
Ickenham Residents’ Association 1. The large structure (115m³), brick built with tiled, ridged roof, can hardly be described as a garden shed. 2. The two-storey side and single storey rear extension must be taken into account in assessing the visual impact and effects on the amenity of neighbouring properties and on the Conservation Area. 3. Proximity to 1 Grove Close detrimental to residential amenity. 4. Contrary to several planning policies contained in the UDP [BE4, BE15, BE19, BE21]. Design Guide: Residential Extensions (Page A1/3, Point A1) Contrary to principal theme section Pt1.8 that states it is the intention to preserve and enhance those features of Conservation Areas, which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 7 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Ickenham Conservation Panel Strongly object. Scale and appearance make it more akin to a bungalow. Too close to 1 Grove Close. Creates a precedent in the Conservation Area. Entirely unwelcome. Infills much of the available amenity space and is too near to adjacent properties. Constitutes over- development to the site. Until an enforcement notice is served to remove the building promptly, suggestion that the use is carefully monitored to ensure it is not used or occupied independently of the main house.
Internal Consultees
Urban Design/Conservation The shed is too big and is detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. Recommendation for Enforcement Action to remove the structure in its entirety.
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The planning issues are considered to be:
(i) The impact of the development on the Ickenham Village Conservation Area (ii) The impact of the development on residential amenity
(i) The impact of the development on the Ickenham Village Conservation Area
At present, the rear gardens in this area provide a visual separation between the residential properties. The rear of the properties are open, green and have not been built over. This feature is considered to be an important aspect of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
The development, by reason of its size and scale, is considered to harm this important feature in that it reduces the open aspect of the area. The introduction of the large building is out of character with the visual appearance of the area, thereby detracting from the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
(ii) The impact of the development on residential amenity
The development is clearly visible from Grove Close (the road) and from No.’s 1, 3, 5 and 7 Grove Close and is also visible from No’s 40, 42 and 46 The Grove.
The development is considered to impact adversely on the street scene, and is considered to harm the visual amenities of these properties, resulting in an unneighbourly form of
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 8 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS development. Therefore the development is contrary to policies BE13, BE19 and BE21 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The expediency of issuing an enforcement notice
According to Para 2.2, Annex 2 of Circular 10/97, “A notice requires remedial steps to be taken within a specified time limit. It should only be used where the LPA are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control and it is expedient to issue a notice having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.
According to PPG18 “Enforcing Planning Control”, “in considering any enforcement action, the derisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest”.
It is considered expedient to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the structure since the development is contrary to the policies in the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. The other reasons why it is considered expedient to take enforcement action are as follows:
The development by reason of its scale, size and siting does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and is thereby contrary to policy BE4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan.
The development by reason of its overall size, height and siting constitutes an overdominant / visually obtrusive form of development in relation to the street scene and to neighbouring properties, resulting in a material loss of residential amenity. The development is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE19, and BE21 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The development by reason of its overall size, siting, bulk and height represents an obtrusive form of development that is out of keeping with the general scale of other detached buildings in the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. The development is therefore contrary to policies
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 9 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
70 letters of objection were received.
It is not known that the applicant will use the development as a dwelling, and therefore the comment 2 cannot be addressed in this report. With regard to comment 3, it is considered that the cumulative effect of planning approval 14254/APP/2001/374 (erection of a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension) if and when implemented would result in an excessive ground coverage, reducing the open character of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. It is considered that the development will not cut out light to adjoining properties as indicated in comment 5, however there will be an aspect of overshadowing as indicated in the overshadowing diagram. Comment 18 on the reduction in value and ready sale of 1 Grove Close is not a planning matter, and therefore will not be addressed in this report. The remaining points have been addressed in the main report.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation.
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
The development is out of keeping with the character and visual amenities of the Ickenham Village Conservation. It is considered to be contrary to policies in the Borough’s Unitary Development Plan, it is therefore recommended for refusal. It is considered expedient to take enforcement action to secure the removal of the structure.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 10 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Reference Documents:
47 70 letters of objection Circular 10/97 PPG18 Enforcing Planning Control (Dec 1991)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 11 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 12 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 13 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM CONTACT OFFICER: MATT BROWN EXTENSION: 3956
Application No. Location Proposal
4. 57402/APP/2002/2483 80 HALFORD ROAD ERECTION OF AN ICKENHAM ATTACHED GARAGE (Date of receipt: 22/10/02 ) Unnumbered drawings received (Last amended drawing received: 11/11/02) 11/11/02
Unitary Development Plan: Developed Area
This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 4th February 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for a single storey attached side garage. The proposal does not meet the internal 3m width required for new garage developments. However, it would accommodate a small car. The proposed garage is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Nor is the proposal considered to have an unreasonable impact on the neighbouring property in terms of loss of daylight or sunlight. As such the application is recommended for approval.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (B14A) Screen Fencing 3. (B14A) Standard 4. (D1) Notwithstanding the 4. (D1) Standard. provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted Development) Order 1995, no additional windows or doors shall be constructed in the walls of the development hereby approved facing 80b Halford Road.
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 14 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (3) INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 575m²
CAR PARKING: Lost: 0 Provided: 2 Required: 2
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 8 No. of replies: 2 from 1 neighbour
Comments:
The proposal will create a precedent for garage development. Loss of essential light to neighbouring property. The neighbour has a medical condition that affects his sight. Concern over the height of the proposed garage.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS: COMMENTS:
Traffic Engineer Although the garage is 2.5m wide, which is below the recommended 3.0m width, it can accommodate a small car with ease.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The site is an irregular shaped plot accommodating a detached bungalow on the southern side of Halford Road, Ickenham. The area is residential in character, comprising primarily of detached and semi detached bungalows.
The site is not located within the Green Belt nor is it located within a Conservation Area.
The Proposal
The application proposes the erection of an attached garage extending 2.6m wide abutting the eastern boundary with 80b Halford Road. The proposed garage will have a flat roof height of 3m and will extend 4.9m along the side passage between 80 and 80b Halford Road. The area where the garage will be constructed was formally used as an access to a detached garage in the rear, which is shown to be removed.
Relevant Planning History
Planning permission was refused for the erection of an attached garage on the 28th August 2002 (ref: 57402/APP/2002/1412) for the following reason:
“The proposal by virtue of its 4.2m dummy pitch height will be visually discordant, intrusive and detrimental to the street scene and character of the area. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy BE13 of the Unitary Development Plan.”
Planning Standards and Policies
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 15 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
Part One Policies:
Pt1.10 – development should not adversely affect the amenity and character of the borough’s residential area.
Part 2 Policies:
BE13 requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE15 Requires extension to harmonise with the scale form and architectural composition of the original building.
BE19 Requires new development to improve or compliment the character of the area.
BE20 Requires that new development ensures adequate sunlight and daylight can penetrate between buildings.
BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity.
BE 24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours
RESIDENTIAL EXTENSIONS DESIGN GUIDE
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
A1 and A2 Building Lines / impact in the street scene A3 Impact of mass bulk and overlooking. A4 visual impact of a development. A5 Design of extensions / materials B3 Single storey and two storey rear extensions
Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
The impact of the proposal on the street scene (ii) The impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties
The impact of the proposal on the street scene
The applicant has reduced the height of the garage from 4.2m to 3m. The revised proposal is not considered to harm the appearance of the existing bungalow and relates satisfactorily with the street scene. It is not considered to set a precedent. The proposal is considered to comply with policy BE13 of the Unitary Development Plan and the residential design guide. The proposal is considered to satisfy the previous reason for refusal.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 16 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties
The proposed extension will abut the boundary with the neighbouring property, 80b Halford Road. Concern has been raised regarding the proximity of the proposed garage to the kitchen window of 80b Halford Road. The proposed garage wall would be 1m from the kitchen window but due to its south facing orientation it is not considered that an unreasonable amount of direct sunlight or daylight would be lost from this window.
The proposed garage is 2.5m wide. The space to the side of the dwelling is small to accommodate a garage with a width to meet the recommended standard of 3m. However, the Traffic Engineer has advised that a width of 2.5m can accommodate a small car. Therefore, the proposal is acceptable.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
To be reported.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
Public Consultation
Two letters from the same property has been received. The matters raised are addressed in the report.
Conclusion
It is considered that this proposal will not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of neighbouring properties, nor on the character of the building. The issues of design relating to the previous refusal have been addressed and the proposal is now considered acceptable. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 17 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are those numbered below from the comprehensive list included at the end of the agenda:-
Unitary Development Plan 2 letters of objection (The contents of which are summarised in the report)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 18 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 19 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Category B Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 5 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: EMILY LOWTelephone Number: 01895 277852
Address: 120 APPLE TREE AVENUE, HILLINGDON
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND PART REAR EXTENSION
LBH Ref Nos: 50899/APP/2002/2160
Drawing Nos: 120 AP - received: 11/09/02 120 AP revision A - Received: 26/11/02 120 APS - received: 18/02/03
Date of receipt: 11/09/02Date(s) of Amendment(s): 26/11/02 18/02/03
CONSULTATIONS:
Two letters of objection were received from the same property on the grounds of loss of light to their kitchen.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
UDP Designation: Developed Area
The side extension, located to the north of the dwelling house, is set back 0.5 metres from the existing front elevation and extends beyond the existing rear elevation by 3.2 metres. It measures 2.8 metres wide, 0.8 metres deep and 2.7 metres high, with a flat roof.
No windows are proposed on the side elevation. Therefore it will not result in overlooking or loss of privacy to No. 122.
The extension projects 1 metre above the existing 1.8 metre high fence. The neighbouring building is set back from the boundary by approximately 2.0 metres. There would be some over shadowing of the rear of No. 122, however, it is considered that it will not cause an unacceptable impact to the neighbour to justify a refusal.
The proposed side extension would relate satisfactorily to the existing house and would not detract from the visual amenities of the street scene in line, with policy BE13.
The comment raised has been addressed in the report.
Observations of Borough Solicitor
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 20 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of Borough Treasurer
To be reported
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match Existing Buildings 2. (M2) Standard 3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or Doors 3. (RPD1) Standard (facing north)
INFORMATIVE
1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light
Reference Documents:
UDP Design Guide: Residential Extensions (b) Two letters of objection from No. 122 Apple Tree Avenue dated 26/02/03 and 10/02/03
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 21 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 22 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 23 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
MAJOR APPLICATIONS TEAM CONTACT OFFICER: ZOE LAYCOCK EXTENSION: 7683
Application No. Location Proposal
6. 20610/APP/2002/2407 FORMER BRIDGE ERECTION OF A FIVE WORKS SITE STOREY BUILDING BENTINCK ROAD COMPRISING 38 UNITS WITH WEST DRAYTON BASEMENT CAR PARKING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING WAREHOUSE) (Date of receipt: 08/10/02) Drawing Nos. 02921 001 (Last amended plans received: 15/01/03) (received 26/7/02), 02921 002B (received 06/1/03), 02921 003C (received 15/1/03), 02921 004C & 02921 005B & 02921 006B & 02921 007B & 02921 008A & 02921 009A & 02921 010A (received 06/1/03), 02921 012B (received 15/1/03), 02921 015A and 02921 017 (received 06/1/03).
Unitary Development Plan: Yiewsley Town Centre
This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 4th February 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.
(1) SUMMARY
This application proposes the demolition of the existing Former Bridge Works warehouse building, which is situated between Bentinck Road and the Grand Union Canal and the construction of a five storey residential development comprising 38 units of affordable housing with a basement car parking area.
Two objections have been made to the application. The main issues raised relate to the scale of the development, traffic and parking impacts on Bentinck Road. Other issues include impacts on the character and appearance of the area and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and over dominance.
On balance, the proposal is considered suitable for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 24 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (2) RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that:
that at least 25% of the residential units constructed on the lands shall be reserved for the provision of affordable housing by or on behalf of a registered social landlord; the applicants provide a financial contribution of £161,898 towards the provision of secondary school places in the West Drayton/ Yiewsley area;
2. That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree detailed terms of the proposed agreement.
3. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for the determination of the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers, with the applicant.
4. That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.
5. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B2) Trees Retained 2. (B2) Standard 3. (B3) Fencing to protect root areas 3. (B3) Standard 4. (B4) Landscaping maintenance 4. (B4) Standard 5. (B5) Landscaping Scheme 5. (B5) Standard 6. (B14) Fencing 6. (B14) Standard 7. (B16) Details of materials 7. (B16) Standard 8. (B31) People with Disabilities 8. (B31) Standard 9. Before any part of this development 9. To ensure that the occupants of the is commenced a site survey to assess development are not subjected to the land contamination levels shall any risks from land contamination. be carried out to the satisfaction of the Council and a remediation scheme for removing or rendering innocuous all contaminates from the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall include an assessment of the extent of site contamination and provide in detail the remedial measures to be taken to avoid risk to the occupiers when the site is developed. All works which form
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 25 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS part of this remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).
Any imported material i.e. soil shall be tested for contamination levels therein to the satisfaction of the Council. 10. No development shall commence 10. In order top safeguard the air until a scheme that will control and quality of the surrounding area. minimise emissions of pollutants from and attributable to the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall set out the secure measures, which can and will be put in places designed to ensure that emissions of pollutants are minimised and, wherever practicable, reduced. 11. The Bin Stores as shown on drawing 11. (OM5) Standard no. 02901/003C shall be carried out and completed on or before occupation of the development hereby approved and so maintained for no other purpose. 12. (B6) New Planting 12. (B6) Standard 13. (B9) Parking / Sightlines 13. (B9) Standard 14. (A37) Refuse Collection Area 14. (A37) Standard 15. Surface water source control 15. To prevent the increased risk of measures shall be carried out in flooding and to improve water accordance with details which shall quality. have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. 16. A buffer zone 5 metre wide alongside 16. To maintain the character of the the Grand Union Canal shall be watercourse and provide established in accordance with undisturbed refuges for wildlife details which shall be submitted to using the river corridor. and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. 17. The construction of the surface and 17. To prevent pollution of the water foul water drainage system shall be environment. carried out in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 26 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Authority before the development commences. 18. During construction no solid matter 18. To prevent solid materials from shall be stored within 10 metres of entering the Grand Union Canal and the banks of the Grand Union Canal causing pollution. and thereafter no storage of materials shall be permitted in this area. 19. No soakways shall be constructed in 19. To prevent pollution of contaminated ground. groundwater. 20. Before the development is 20. To prevent pollution of the water commenced a detailed site environment. investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of contamination present, and to determine its potential for the pollution of the water environment. The method and extent of this site investigation shall be agreed with the Planning Authority prior to commencement of the work. Details of appropriate measures to prevent pollution of groundwater and surface water, including provisions for monitoring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved. 21. Provisions shall be made within the 21. To ensure that the development site to ensure that all vehicles does not cause danger and associated with the construction of inconvenience to users of the the development hereby approved adjoining pavement and highway. are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway.
22. Details of a designated area for the 22. To provide a designated area in storage of waste recycling addition to the bin store where receptacles adjacent to the bin store residents can store and handle shall be submitted to and approved recycled waste before it is removed to the Local Planning Authority. from the site. This recycling area shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. 23. Development shall not begin until a 23. To safeguard the amenity of future
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 27 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS scheme for protecting the proposed occupants. development from noise emitted from the adjacent industrial use, has been submitted to and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. The noise protection scheme shall meet acceptable noise design criteria both indoors and outdoors. The scheme shall include such combination of control measures and other measures as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The said scheme shall include such secure provision as will ensure that the said scheme and all of it endures for so long as the development is available for use and that any and all constituent parts are repaired and maintained and replaced in whole or in part so often as occasion may require.
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (14) Environmental control on construction sites 4. (10) Disabled Persons 5. The applicant is advised that any works immediately adjacent to the waterway must comply with the British Waterways Code of Works. For all details the applicant is advised to contact British Waterways at the Toll House, Delamere Terrace, Little Venice, London, W2 6ND. Telephone: 0207 286 6101. 6 Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation of development to a surface watercourse. Contact James Adams on 01494 431331 for further details. 7 Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact the Consents Department on 01707 632300 for further details.
INFORMATION
SITE AREA: 0.17 Hectares
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 28 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 4,104m²
CAR PARKING: Provided: 27 (inc. 3 disabled Required: 57 (max) spaces spaces)
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 40 No. of replies: 2
Comments:
Two letters of objection raise the following issues:
The height of the proposed development would have a substantial effect on daylight to the adjacent property to the northwest of the site. The proposed development would extend right across the full width of the site. Insufficient number of parking spaces provided. The principle of whether a residential development is suitable adjacent to an industrial unit.
OTHER CONSULTATIONS:
Education Youth and Leisure A S.106 Contribution towards secondary school places should be sought for this development.
The scheme is for 38 affordable units and therefore the required contribution would amount to £161,898 towards the provisions of school places in the area.
Traffic Engineer Preliminary assessment indicates that the scheme is acceptable.
Environmental Protection Unit The location of the site is in an area where road noise traffic, is in an area where road traffic noise, mainly from High Street, Yiewsley, is a significant issue in relation to this proposed residential development. A noise impact assessment report is requested.
Furthermore in view of the level of parking proposed on the site and that the site is located within an Air Quality Management Area, a condition should be imposed to require a scheme that will control and minimise air emissions.
Environment Agency Has no objections in principle subject to the imposition of conditions.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 29 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
British Waterways British Waterways has no objections to the principle of the development but have a number of issues with regard to the proposal and raise an objection to the scheme as a whole.
The demolition of the existing premises is a missed opportunity and the existing warehouse is worthy of retention.
The development of the site would be a high density solution. The new building would be of a greater height than the surrounding development. In terms of the elevation to the canal British Waterways have no objection to the scale of the scheme but this will depend on the finish. The plans do not provide any great details with regard to the fenestration and this will have a bearing on the final appearance. The massing of the scheme is also very solid in relation to the canal and would benefit from deeper recesses and further relief in the roofline.
British Waterways will also require further detailing of planting and boundary treatment adjacent to the canal frontage.
Most significantly, British Waterways consider that the area in front of the site is appropriate for moorings. The provision of moorings provides a number of benefits – it provides visual interest to the Canal and enhances security of both the towpath and the development by increasing surveillance. To secure the future provision of moorings, British Waterways need to secure an access to Bentinck Road to the canal frontage along the side of the building. The provision of a landscaped footway would slightly reduce the long façade of the building onto the canal and provide a vista from the road to the water.
Inland Waterways Association Have no objections to the scheme.
Projects & Environmental Planning In assessing whether the principle of development is considered acceptable on the site, regard should be had to the criteria set out in Policy LE4. The applicants have indicated
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 30 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS that the site has been vacant and derelict for 12 months and that attempts to market the building for commercial purposes have had no success. On this basis, given the relatively buoyant nature of the local economy, 12 months is a reasonable period of time and the proposals are likely to meet the requirements of Policy LE4.
Given that the site is not located in a town centre, benefits from a good level of public transport accessibility and – notwithstanding its location adjacent to the canal - is not constrained by any land use designations, it is likely that a high density of development could be accommodated on the site.
Similarly, whilst the site is located within a town centre and a parking standard of less than one space per dwelling is capable of according with the emerging parking standards (which set a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling), advice should be taken from Highways as to whether the locality is capable of accommodating the vehicular traffic likely to be generated.
The scheme proposes 100% affordable housing, any final planning permission should include safeguards to limit any future transfer of housing stock into the private sector. Any legal agreement should seek to safeguard 25% of the units in perpetuity.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The site is located between Bentinck Road, and the Grand Union Canal. Immediately to the north of the site is an industrial unit occupied by Hillingdon Flooring and to the south is a building known as Harrier House which is a three-storey office building. The surrounding area to the north and northwest of the site is predominantly residential in character. Immediately to the west and opposite the site is Globe House, which is a 4-storey office building.
The application site as existing comprises a 1950s industrial building. It has been unused for over twelve months, and was used as a wine warehouse. The main bulk of the building is two-storeys rising to 4 storeys at its northern end to form a tower-like block. The existing access to the site is via Bentinck Road, at the site’s northwest corner.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 31 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
The site forms part of the Yiewsley Town Centre, and lies immediately to the south of the Primary Shopping Area.
The Proposal
It is proposed to demolish the existing building in its entirety, and to erect a five storey residential building with basement car parking. The proposal would provide 38 residential units of affordable housing, with a total floorspace of 4,104m².
The 38 units consist of 2 one-bedroom flats, 34 two-bedroom flats and 2 three-bedroom flats.
Vehicular access to the site is proposed off Bentinck Road leading to a secure car park that provides a total of 27 parking spaces beneath the proposed building. Three spaces are proposed for disabled persons.
Relevant Planning History
There is no relevant planning history.
Planning Standards and Policies
The following Central Government advice is considered relevant:
PPG 3
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
BE13 Development is generally to be in harmony and in keeping with the character of the area.
BE14 Safeguard the satisfactory redevelopment of adjoining sites which have development potential
BE18 Security and safety in design
BE19 New development to complement or improved the amenity and character of an area.
BE20 Adequate sunlight
BE21 Loss of residential amenity
BE22 Side setbacks for residential buildings of two or more storeys
BE23 Provision and maintenance of external amenity space
BE24 Protection of privacy of occupiers and neighbours
BE31 Provision of facilities for the recreational use of the canal
BE32 Development adjacent to or having a visual effect on the Grand Union Canal
BE38 Trees and Landscaping
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 32 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
H4 Mix of Housing
H6 Density of Development
H9 Provision of Housing for special needs
AM2 Traffic generation and congestion
AM14 Provision of Car parking
AM15 Provision of disabled parking spaces
LE4 Loss of existing industrial floorspace
OE1 Seeks to safeguard the character and amenities of surrounding properties from the environmental impact of proposed development.
R17 Planning Obligations
Council’s Design Guidelines
Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are: -
The principle of change of use from industrial to residential Scale and density of development The design and impact on the adjoining area, particularly on the setting of the Grand Union Canal Amenity of future occupiers The impact of the proposal on nearby and neighbouring properties Access / Parking arrangements Planning benefits
(i) The principle of change of use from industrial to residential
One of the key issues raised by British Waterways in objection to the application was to the very principle of the change of use. British Waterways make the following comments:
‘It is our initial view that the demolition of the existing premises is a 'missed opportunity' and that the warehouse is worthy of retention. Clearly, I appreciate that the building is not listed but it is an attractive building that could lend itself to conversion.’
The application site comprises a warehouse that has been vacant for over one year despite efforts to market it for reuse. It is considered that the prospects of reuse of this site for a modern employment use is impeded by the limited vehicular access along Bentinck Road, together with the restrictive access to the site, for large vehicles.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 33 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The existing building is in a poor state of repair and has a significant detrimental impact on the visual amenities and character of this area. The site falls outside of the primary and secondary shopping areas, and this residential redevelopment would help support the vitality of the Yiewsley Town Centre. It is considered that the proposed loss of existing industrial floorspace is acceptable and accords with policy LE4.
(ii) Scale and density of development
Section 7.13 of the UDP indicates that the Borough contains housing built at a variety of densities, from approximately 50 HRH in Northwood to over 250 HRH in town centres. As a guide to developers, new housing is generally expected to be in the range of 100-200 HRH. However Policy H6 states:
‘The appropriate density of development depends on a balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and the following important considerations; the quality of housing, layout and design, its compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding development, the proposed dwelling mix, and the location, configuration and characteristics of the site.’
The application proposes a development with a density of approximately 417 habitable rooms per hectare (HRH). Such a density is clearly well in excess of the guidance of 150 habitable rooms per hectare of Policy H6 of the UDP.
PPG 3 ‘Housing’, March 2002 states that a flexible approach towards parking and other development plan standards can be appropriate in certain circumstances. Such an approach should be taken with a view to providing much needed residential accommodation within existing built up areas and reducing the demand for the development of green field sites. The UDP supports mixed uses within town centres and Policy H4 supports the provision of residential accommodation within town centres, particularly units of one and two bedrooms.
It is considered that the application site is suitable for high density residential development in this town centre location, close to services, amenities and good transport links. The design of the proposed development is considered to be of a high standard and it incorporates a suitable dwelling mix for a town centre location. The application site is located on the fringe of a predominantly residential area that lies to the north-west of this site, and areas to the south, east and west that comprise a mix of commercial town centre uses.
(iii)The design and impact on the adjoining area, particularly on the setting of the Grand Union Canal
The main issues pertain to the scale and design of the building in relation to its location, neighbouring properties and the setting of the Grand Union Canal.
Policy BE32 seeks to ensure that buildings adjacent to the canal “are of a design which compliments the visual qualities of the canal in terms of scale, bulk, layout and materials”.
The proposed building would be five storeys in height and would relate in size and scale to the adjacent buildings grouped to the southeast of the site (around Colham bridge). Immediately to the southeast of the site is a three-storey office building and, beyond that, on the opposite side of Colham Bridge, is a five- storey, canal-side residential development.
The design of the building is contemporary, with distinct changes in roofline, materials and articulation, which break up the massing of the building. The full height glazed circulation spaces, running from the
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 34 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Bentinck Road front elevation through to the canal side, provide view corridors, to a limited extent. The separate blocks of the building are further expressed through the use of various external materials. The design of the development is considered to be of a high standard that relates well to its setting and would achieve a significant enhancement to this area.
The building is set back from the canal frontage and from the existing building line to allow for the provision of a landscaped wildlife area along the canal side. The canal side facade is broken up by the full height glazed view corridors and would read as three distinct visual blocks. The balconies are a key visual feature that are lightweight and would provide views of the canal, from the development, for the occupants of these units. It is considered that the building design would contribute positively to townscape and that would compliment the visual quality and setting of the canal.
The wider impact of the building on the town centre and its skyline has been carefully considered by assessing its visual impact from a number of key viewpoints. It is considered that the proposed building will fit in with the scale of existing buildings that front the canal to the south of the site and that it will not obstruct views to any key focal points.
British Waterways object to the lack of pedestrian access along the north side of the application site, to provide access to the canal side from Bentinck Road and the opportunity for moorings. Specifically, they state:
‘The provision of moorings provides a number of benefits – it provides visual interest to the Canal and enhances the security of both the towpath and the development by increasing surveillance. The provision of a landscaped footway would slightly reduce the long façade of the building onto the canal and provide a vista from the road to the water.’
Policy BE 32 aims to encourage developers to:
‘Create new public access to the waterside and towpath linked to the footpath network in the surrounding area.’
The issue was discussed with the applicants and whilst it would have been preferable to enable the opportunity for leisure moorings, there is no existing towpath or public access on this side of the canal. Neighbouring buildings abut the canal side allowing no opportunity for the acquisition of land to establish a footpath network in the form of a towpath. Allowing public access to this limited section of the canal would compromise the security of the flats. In terms of the considerations of Policy BE 32, the proposed development does not result in the loss of any leisure moorings.
On this basis, whilst British Waterways may oppose the proposed redevelopment of the site on these grounds, overall, it is considered that the application proposes a building whose design would make a positive contribution to the area and which respects the scale of the surrounding development. For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies BE13, BE19 and BE32.
(iv) Amenity of future occupiers
The Council’s residential design guidelines do not specify amenity space standards for flats but simply seek an adequate amount of conveniently located space.
The scheme provides private balcony/terrace areas for all flats which is considered adequate for this type of development. Those balconies along the canal frontage would provide scenic views and a waterfront setting
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 35 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS which is considered to be of substantial benefit to the occupants of this scheme. Units 1 and 20 have private courtyard access. Furthermore, the occupants of this development would have access to the Grand Union Canal towpath area and Yiewsley Recreation Ground which is less than 10 minutes walking distance.
With respect to the objection raised by the occupants of Hillingdon Flooring, on the grounds of suitability of residential development adjacent to an industrial unit, a condition requiring an acoustic assessment and any noise protection measures deemed necessary has been attached. EPU have commented more generally on other possible sources of noise and conclude that no noise impact assessment is necessary for more general sources such as road, rail or air traffic.
(v) The impact of the proposal on nearby and neighbouring properties
The proposed building would span the full width of the site. It represents a significant development of the site in terms of size and scale. It relates satisfactorily to the existing three-storey office building to southeast and there will be no significant loss of visual amenity caused to the occupants of this building.
To the northwest, the proposal represents a significant addition on the boundary in relation to the adjacent single storey industrial unit. This property is occupied by Hillingdon Flooring, who raise objection to this scheme on the grounds of loss of daylight.
The flank elevations of the proposed building incorporate variations in height and form, which significantly reduces the bulk of the building on this boundary. The single storey industrial unit has no habitable room windows and no significant roof windows. The design of this building is as an industrial shed, the building has few windows and is lit predominantly by artificial light. It runs the full length of the site between Bentinck Road and the canal and the main windows are on the east and west elevations.
Currently, the existing building on the application site comprises a single storey block at the north west corner, which steps back and rises to form a four-storey tower. Though the relationship of the proposed residential development to the one storey industrial unit is not ideal the revised flank elevational design has achieved a satisfactory reduction in the bulk and massing of the proposal along this boundary.
It is considered that the height and bulk of the proposed building will not result in any significant loss of daylight received by the adjacent single storey industrial unit on its southern elevation and will not affect the light received to its east of west elevations at all. Moreover, the proposed development will contribute positively to the general amenity of this area, and there will be no detrimental impact on the nearby residential area to the north and northwest of the site.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 36 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (vi) Access / Parking arrangements
Vehicular access to the site is proposed off Bentinck Road to an undercroft car park for 27 vehicles, including three spaces for wheelchair or disabled persons and the storage of 13 bicycles.
Under the Council’s Revised Parking Standards a maximum of 1.5 spaces per flat is permitted. On this basis, a maximum of 57 parking spaces would be permitted. The access arrangements, level of parking and cycle provision is considered satisfactory given the site’s location within the town centre and the proximity to public transport. The Council’s Traffic Engineer reported that “preliminary assessment indicates that the scheme is acceptable”.
Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with policies AM2 and AM14 of the UDP.
(vii) Planning Benefits
Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan states that: ‘The local planning authority will, where appropriate, seek to supplement the provision of recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals.’
Under the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development, the proposed development requires the payment of a contribution of £161,898 towards secondary school places.
Given that the applicant has agreed in writing to the payment of this financial contribution by way of the Section 106 agreement, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
To be reported.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
Public Consultation
2 letters of objection have been received from neighbouring properties. It is considered that the issues raised are addressed in the report.
It is considered that in the context of the existing building extending full width across the site, with a 4- storey tower at its northern end. It is considered that the proposed development would not result in significant loss of daylight received by the single storey industrial works that would be sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission.
Conclusion
The application proposes the demolition of the existing warehouse building and its replacement with a high- density residential development. It is acknowledged that the proposed scheme represents a significant
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 37 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS development of the site and relies on its town centre location and proximity to transport links, in terms of its acceptability. The scheme is considered to represent a high quality articulated design that distributes its bulk well.
It is considered that, on balance, the proposed development, together with a Section 106 agreement, is acceptable, subject to the suggested conditions. The application is accordingly recommended for approval.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are:-
Planning Policy Guidance No. 3 – Housing (March 2000) Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Policies and Standards (2001) Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan: Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development 2 letters from objectors.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 38 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 39 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 7. NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED
1 January to 28 February 2003 New Appeals
Appeal No: 4775 Start Date: 3 January 2003 Application Ref No: 35754/APP/2003/18 Location: 2 Denziloe Avenue, Hillingdon Development: Erection of a side dormer (appeal against enforcement notice; application for planning permission deemed to have been made pursuant to Section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) Procedure: Written Representations
***********************
Appeal No: 4779 Start Date: 27 January 2003 Application Ref No: 2107/APP/2002/2261 Location: 2 Norfolk Road, Uxbridge Development: Erection of a part two-storey, part three-storey apartment block comprising 10 two-bedroom flats with associated car parking (involving demolition of existing house) Procedure: Informal Hearing
***********************
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 40 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Appeal No: 4781 Start Date: 31 January 2003 Application Ref No: 39319/APP/2002/2259 Location: 66 Long Lane, Ickenham Development: Erection of 12 two-bedroom flats, 2 one-bedroom flats (in two blocks) with associated car parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing house) (Duplicate Application) Procedure: Local Inquiry
***********************
Appeal No: 4793 Start Date: 19 February 2003 Application Ref No: 57837/APP/2002/2586 Location: Land forming part of 35 Tavistock Road, West Drayton Development: Erection of a three-bedroom end of terrace dwelling with car parking access from Padcroft Road Procedure: Written Representations
***********************
Appeal No: 4794 Start Date: 19 February 2003 Application Ref No: 7005/APP/2002/1624 Location: 24 Woodstock Drive, Ickenham Development: Erection of 2 three-bedroom dwelllinghouses with integral garages (involving demolition of existing dwellinghouse) Procedure: Written Representations
***********************
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 41 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Appeal No: 4796 Start Date: 24 February 2003 Application Ref No: 3048/APP/2002/1738 Location: Connaught Works (Toolmaster), 947 Uxbridge Road, Hillingdon Development: Erection of a part two-storey, part three-storey and part four-storey block of 53 residential units and associated parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing building) Procedure: Local Inquiry
***********************
Appeal No: 4801 Start Date: 20 February 2003 Application Ref No: 3067/TRE/2002/115 Location: Charter Place, Vine Street, Uxbridge Development: To fell one London Plane tree (T7) on TPO 538 Procedure: Written Representations
***********************
Appeal Decisions
Appeal No: 4742 Decision Date: 3 January 2003 Application Ref No: 33488/ADV/2002/77 Location: Royal Mail Depot, Cowley Mill Road, Uxbridge Development: The proposal is for the display of a non-illuminated, free-standing 48-sheet poster panel Decision: Dismissed
***********************
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 42 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Appeal No: 4716 Decision Date: 6 January 2003 Application Ref No: 49381/APP/2001/2427 Location: 18 Montague Road, Uxbridge Development: First floor side extension to residential dwelling Decision: Allowed
*********************** Appeal No: 4723 Decision Date: 9 January 2003 Application Ref No: 56887/APP/2001/2637 Location: 98 The Larches, Hillingdon Development: Single storey porch with extended canopy across the front of the house Decision: Dismissed
***********************
Appeal No: 4686 Decision Date: 23 January 2003 Application Ref No: 20978/APP/2002/48 Location: Land at Blackmore Way, Uxbridge Development: Erection of a two-storey block of four flats with associated parking (involving demolition of 17 lock-up garages) Decision: Dismissed
*********************** Appeal No: 4725 Decision Date: 28 January 2003 Application Ref No: 33472/APP/2002/114 Location: 18 Cowley Road, Uxbridge Development: Change of use from Class A1 to Class A3 seated restaurant Decision: Dismissed
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 43 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
Appeal No: 4741 Decision Date: 27 February 2003 Application Ref No: 16079/APP/2002/661 Location: 206 Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham Development: Replacing and enlarging of existing dormer windows Decision: Dismissed
***********************
Appeal No: 4739 Decision Date: 28 February 2003 Application Ref No: 35610/APP/2002/545 Location: 31 Milton Court, Ickenham Development: First floor side extension over the existing ground floor Decision: Dismissed
***********************
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 44 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL CONTACT OFFICER: KELVIN WILLIAMS EXTENSION: 3556
8. OFFICER DELEGATED CASES - UXBRIDGE AREA
SUMMARY
Members expressed an interest in receiving a monthly update on the number and type of officer delegated decisions made each month.
A list of planning decisions determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated powers is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
That Members note the content of this report.
INFORMATION
Between 01/01/03 and 31/01/03 there were 60 cases determined under delegated authority.
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Nil.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18 March 2003 Page 45 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS
Title Date Publisher 1 Available Premises Register (6 monthly) LBH 2 Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest LBH (Being Updated) 3 Colne Valley Park: A Vision for the future and a Strategy 1995 Colne Valley Park 4 Conservation Area Study- Hillingdon Village 1981 LBH 5 Conservation Area Study- Old Uxbridge 1990 LBH 6 Conservation Area Study-Hayes Village 1981 LBH 7 Ecology Handbook 4- Woodland, Wasteland, the Tidal 1986 London Thames in two London Boroughs Ecology Unit 8 Ecology Handbook 7- Nature Conservation in Hillingdon 1988 London Ecology Unit 9 Ecology Handbook 8- London Meadows: Pastures 1988 London Ecology Unit 10 Funding for Training Initiatives Policy (Initial Draft) 1999 LBH 11 Gledwood Estate Replacement Roofs Policy 1992 LBH 12 Government Circulars (Various) DETR/HMSO 13 Hillingdon Census Atlas 1991 LBH 14 Hillingdon Census Employment Monitor 1991 LBH 15 Hillingdon Census Monitor 1991 LBH 16 Industrial Profile (Annual) LBH 17 LPAC: Strategic Planning Advice for London 1994 LPAC 18 LPAC: Supplementary Strategic Advice (Various) LPAC 19 Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (Various) DETR 20 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Industrial, Office & LBH Warehousing Developments (Quarterly). 21 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Residential LBH Developments & Hotels (Quarterly). 22 Parking Standards 1998 LBH 23 Parliamentary Acts (Various) HMSO 24 Parliamentary Statutory Instruments (Various) HMSO 25 Parliamentary White Papers (Various) HMSO 26 Planning Brief- 40- Western Avenue- Hillingdon Circus 1990 LBH 27 Planning Brief- Block 13, Uxbridge Town Centre 1990 LBH 28 Planning Brief- Blocks 6 & 7, Uxbridge Town Centre 1988 LBH 29 Planning Brief- Breakspear House, Harefield 1997 LBH
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 1 Title Date Publisher 30 Planning Brief- British Waterways Land at Packet Boat 1997 LBH Lane, Cowley Peachey 31 Planning Brief- Former Barn Hill School Site, Yeading 1998 LBH Lane, Hayes 32 Planning Brief- Hayes Station Site 1996 LBH 33 Planning Brief- Hillingdon House Farm, Park Road, 1988 LBH Uxbridge 34 Planning Brief- Minet Estate 1988 LBH 35 Planning Brief- Thorn Complex, Blyth Road, Hayes 1997 LBH 36 Planning Inspectorate/ Secretary of State for ETR- HMSO Inspectors Decisions on Planning Appeals 37 Planning Policy Guidance Notes DETR 38 Regional Planning Guidance Note3 (London) 1996 HMSO 39 Regional Planning Guidance Note9 (South East) 1994 HMSO 40 SERPLAN: Regional Strategy and Reviews (Various) SERPLAN 41 Standards for Canalside Development 1993 London Canals Committee 42 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Changes to 1995 LBH Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 43 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential 1999 LBH Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (Consultation Draft) 44 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance for 1998 LBH Seeking funding for School Places from Residential Development 45 The Canal Way: A Review 1990 LBH 46 Transport Policies and Programme 1999/2000 1998 LBH 47 Unitary Development Plan (Adopted) 1998 LBH
Planning Services: Friday, 05 March 1999
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 2
AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT Supplementary Agenda
Meeting: Uxbridge Planning Committee
th Date: Tuesday 18 March 2003 Time: 7.30pm
Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge
Committee Administrator: Nadia Williams Tel: 01895 277655 Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534
Councillors on the Committee
Conservative Labour
Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Mo Khursheed David Routledge (Vice-Chairman) Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill Substitute Councillors
Bruce Baker David Horne Henry Higgins Roshan Ghei Ann Banks Paul Harmsworth Margaret Grant Phoday Jarjussey George Cooper Peter Curling Mary O’Connor Rod Marshall Advisory Members
Dr Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel Mr Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel Mr Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Doug Adams & Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel Vacant West Drayton Green Conservation Panel
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 1 You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.
David Brough Head of Committee Services Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance in front of Civic Centre.
DESPATCH DATE: Monday 10th March 2003
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 2
UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 18TH MARCH 2003
SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA
To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 4th February 2003, copies attached Report of the Head of Planning Services, continued.
PART 1 – PUBLIC
BRUNEL WARD
10. 1 Collingwood Road Erection of a single storey side and rear Page 1 Hillingdon extension (involving demolition of existing singe storey rear extension)
Recommendation: Approved
HILLINGODN WEST WARD
11. The Moorcroft Complex Erection of a two-storey building for office Page 5 Harlington Road purposes and conversion of the Manor House, Hillingdon coach House and the Lawns buildings to form offices with associated parking and access (involving demolition of two storey wing and ancillary buildings).
Recommendation: Delegated Power
ICKENHAM WARD
12. 102 Hoylake Crescent Retention of car port (retrospective application). Page 24 Ickenham
Recommendation: A) Refusal B) Enforcement Action 13A 66 Long Lane Erection of 12 two-bedroom and two one- Page 28 Ickenham bedroom flats (in two blocks) with associated car parking and landscaping (involving the demolition of existing house).
Recommendation: Refusal
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 1 13B 66 Long Lane Demolition of dwelling-house (Application for Page 28 Ickenham Conservation Area Consent).
Recommendation: Refusal 14A. 14 High Road Erection of a single storey rear conservatory. Page 44 Ickenham Recommendation: Approval
14B. 14 High Road Application for Listed Building Consent. Ickenham Recommendation: Consent 15. 47-49 High Road Erection of a three-storey block of five, two Page 48 Ickenham bedroom flats.
Recommendation: S106 Agreement
UXBRIDGE NORTH WARD
16. St Raphael’s Convent Erection of a replacement two storey Convent Page 57 Court Drive block, two single storey garage and associated Hillingdon parking (involving demolition of existing home).
Recommendation: Approval
UXBRIDGE SOUTH WARD
17A. 4 New Windsor Street Change of use from ancillary retail storage to a Page 63 Uxbridge car hire business, comprising office use, car valet/wash facilities and ancillary storage and external alterations works and installation of vehicular crossover (works involve the partial demolition of a building).
Recommendation: Approval
17B. 4 New Windsor Street Installation of two internally illuminated Uxbridge advertisement signs.
Recommendation: Consent 18. Goodburn House Erection of a new workshop and offices fro the Page 73 (formerly plot V) repair, maintenance and servicing of motor Arundel Road vehicles (involving demolition of the existing Industrial Estate building). Uxbridge Recommendation: Approval
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 2 WEST DRAYTON WARD
19. 63 West Drayton Erection of part two-storey and part single storey Page 81 Park Avenue side extension, single-storey and first floor rear West Drayton extensions (involving demolition of existing garage).
Recommendation: Approval 20. 15 Frays Avenue The unauthorised change of use of the land Page 89 West Drayton from residential to a mixed residential/building contractors depot.
Recommendation: Enforcement Action 21. Franklin House Demolition of an existing Residential Care Home Page 95 The Green (Franklin House) – Application for Conservation West Drayton Area Consent.
Recommendation: Consent
Franklin House Redevelopment to provide a three-storey, 64 The Green bedroom Care Home with associated parking West Drayton and landscaping.
Recommendation: Approval
YIEWSLEY WARD
22. 31 Pear Tree Avenue Erection of a single storey side/part rear Page 109 Yiewsley extension.
Recommendation: Approval
23. Uxbridge Lock and Uxbridge Moor - Proposed Conservation Areas Page 115
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 3
UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting held at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge, on Tuesday 4th February 2003 at 7.30 p.m.
Councillor Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Councillor David Routledge (Vice-Chairman)
Councillors : Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill Mo Khursheed
Also Present: Councillor Keith Burrows (Standing Order 6 (2))
Advisory Members : * Doug Adams / Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel + Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel
+ denotes apologies for absence received * denotes other member absent
1. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 9th January 2003 were agreed as correct and signed by the Chairman.
2. BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC
The Committee confirmed that all its business would be considered in public.
3. APPLICATIONS APPROVED
RESOLVED
That the following applications are approved subject to the Conditions and Informatives listed in the officers report and amendment sheet and as indicated beneath the individual description below :-
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Hillingdon Court Park Erection of a single storey toilet 33146/APP/2002/1884 Bowling Club block. Hillingdon 117 Sweetcroft Lane Erection of a single storey-storey 57806/APP/2002/2468 Hillingdon side front and rear extension (involving demolition of existing garage).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 1
The Committee added the following additional condition:
Condition
Garage not to be used as habitable room and details of front driveway to be submitted.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 7 – 12 Horton Bridge Road Erection of a new portal frame 35902/APP/2002/2747 Yiewsley industrial building and construction of a new service road between Horton Bridge Road and Liddall Way (involving demolition of existing office blocks).
The Committee added the following additional condition and requested that details of the Green Travel Plan be reported back to Committee for determination.
Condition:
A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within six months of the occupation of the site and shall be retained for a minimum of 5 years. The Green Travel Plan shall outline the means and methods of reducing private transport use by employees and customers, and facilitate increased use of public transport and alternative modes of transport apart from the private car. The Green Travel Plan shall be reviewed annually and the results forwarded to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.
Reason: To minimise the reliance on private transport to and from work by employees and facilitate and increase use of public transport and alternative forms of transport apart from the private car.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Vyners School Erection of a single storey 4514/APP/2002/2410 Warren Road extension to provide additional Ickenham office/meeting room, classroom and the provision of a covered walkway. Vyners School Erection of a single storey 4514/APP/2002/2411 Warren Road storage building for the sports Ickenham hall. Union Business Park Erection of a two-storey building 43562/APP/2002/1607 Florence Way for office use (B1A) with ancillary Uxbridge parking and landscaping.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 2 The Committee added the following additional condition and requested that details of the Green Travel Plan be reported back to Committee for determination.
Condition:
A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within six months of the occupation of the site and shall be retained for a minimum of 5 years. The Green Travel Plan shall outline the means and methods of reducing private transport use by employees and customers, and facilitate increased use of public transport and alternative modes of transport apart from the private car. The Green Travel Plan shall be reviewed annually and the results forwarded to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.
Reason: To minimise the reliance on private transport to and from work by employees and facilitate and increase use of public transport and alternative forms of transport apart from the private car.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED
RESOLVED – That the following applications be refused for the reasons set out in the officers report and amendment sheet and as indicated beneath the individual description:-
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Toolmaster Erection of part two, part three 3048/APP/2002/1738 Connaught Works and part four storey blocks of 53 Uxbridge Road residential units and associated Hillingdon parking and landscaping (involving demolition of the existing building).
Members discussed the proposal and expressed their concerns about the detrimental effect that the development would have in terms of over-development of the site, which would result in inadequate living space, lack of amenity space and lack of privacy.
It was moved seconded and unanimously agreed that the application be refused.
RESOLVED
The Committee therefore refused the application for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, density and lack of amenity space, would result in an over-development of the site and unacceptable living conditions to the detriment of the established character of the area. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies H6, BE19 and BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its overall size, height, design and siting would be detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of 7-13 Russett Close.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 3 In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.
3. The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking for future occupiers of the site.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 75A – 76 and land at Erection of two terraces of three 53572/APP/2002/2280 rear of 68 – 75 and four dwelling houses and a Chiltern View Road two-storey block of six flats at the Uxbridge rear with associated parking and landscaping. (Involving demolition of existing houses and garages). 75A – 76 and land at rear of 68 – 75 Demolition of existing dwelling 53572/APP/2002/2848 Chiltern View Road house. (Application for Uxbridge Conservation Area Consent).
A representative of the petitioners objecting to the proposal addressed the meeting (Standing Order 12 (5)), and in accordance with Standing Order 6 (2), a ward Councillor spoke about the application.
Members expressed concerns about the detrimental effect that the proposal would have in the area in terms of over-development of the site, increase in the density of the area, lack of amenity space, infringement of privacy of neighbouring properties and inadequate parking provision in an already congested area.
It was moved, seconded and agreed unanimously that the application be refused.
RESOLVED
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, density, siting and lack of amenity space would result in an over-development of the site to the detriment of the established character of the area. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies H6, BE19 and BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its overall size, height, design and siting would be detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of the adjacent Chiltern View Road properties. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 4 3. The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking for future occupiers of the site.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 37 Woodstock Drive Erection of two-storey side 57628/APP/2002/2041 Ickenham extension incorporating front dormer, single-storey side and rear extensions, front porch and canopy. Erection of 1.8m high fence to side and rear of dwelling- house, 1m wall and railing to front and corner of property.
Members discussed the proposal and expressed concern that the appearance of the side extension and fencing was not in keeping with the street scene, and did not comply with the design guide on the return building line.
It was moved seconded and unanimously agreed that the application be refused.
RESOLVED
That the application be refused for the following reasons:
The proposal by reason of its projection forward of the recognised established return building line along Malcolm Road on this prominent corner site represents an unduly intrusive and incongruous form of development detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A1 and A2 from the Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.
Having regard to the open plan nature of the locality, the proposed front/side boundary treatment by reason of its design, overall length and height would constitute a visually intrusive feature alien to the character and appearance of the street scene / locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE13 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A1 and A2 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
The proposed elevational alterations, by reason of its design, represent a visually intrusive form of development detrimental to the appearance of the existing property and character and appearance of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A5 and B4 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
5. OTHER DECISIONS
Decisions on the following applications are indicated beneath each individual description :-
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 63 West Drayton Erection of part two-storey and 24174/APP/2002/1673
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 5 Park Avenue part single storey side extension, West Drayton single-storey and first floor rear extensions (involving demolition of existing garage).
This application was withdrawn from the agenda.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Franklin House (A) Redevelopment to provide a 621/APP/2002/2439 The Green three storey, 65 bedroom care West Drayton home with associated car parking and landscaping.
Franklin House (B) Demolition of an existing The Green residential care home (Franklin 8621/APP/2002/2498 West Drayton House) – Application for Conservation Area Consent.
These applications were withdrawn by the applicant.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Land at North East and Redevelopment to provide class 56862/APP/2001/2595 South of Riverside Way B1 (a), 9b) and (c), B2 and B8 Estate use with associated parking and Rockingham Road landscaping (Outline Application). Uxbridge
RESOLVED
To give delegated power to the Head of Planning and Transportation to grant planning permission subject to:-
1. The application being referred to the Government Office for London and the Greater London Authority and no direction of refusal being received
2. The completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Section 278 of the Highways Act and other appropriate powers to ensure:
(i) junction improvement based on scheme shown on drawing no. Figure 7 Rev. A received on 12/12/02 as part of the next area to be constructed on the application site,
(ii) A financial contribution of £86,580 towards a public transport improvement fund,
(iii) The sub-division of a building(s) to provide at least four units, each with a floor area of 235 M² or less. If after a six month active marketing period (three months of which could be pre-construction), no reasonable interest was shown in the units, the Local Planning Authority would allow the building to revert to its original size, and
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 6 (iv) carriageway and footpath improvements.
That should planning permission be granted, The conditions and informatives set out in the officers report be imposed.
Condition 15 be amended so that the Green travel Plan is reported back to Committee for determination, ie delete ‘Local planning Authority’ and replace with ‘Uxbridge Planning Committee’.
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Copthall Farm Change of use of farm building to 9271/APP/2002/1021 Breakspear Road South class B1 (a) (office), class B2 (car Ickenham repairs) and class B8 (storage) (Retrospective Application).
RESOLVED:
That the Head of Planning and Transportation be recommended to instruct the Borough Solicitor to take the appropriate enforcement action by amending the enforcement notice authorised on 5th November 2002 to add the following reason in accordance with officer delegation:
6. The engineering business, including offices, manufacture of metal frames and storage and distribution of glass, metal and metal frames use, by virtue of traffic generated, storage of vehicles, goods and equipment, noise and vibration, dust, smells and other pollutant emissions and associated general activity results in the loss of residential amenity to surrounding occupiers. It has the potential to cause noise annoyance both directly and through the generation of traffic and is therefore contrary to Policies BE19, OE1 and OE3 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
6. SITE VISITS
The following applications were deferred by the Committee to enable Members to visit the sites:
ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 80 Halford Road Erection of an attached garage. 57402/APP/2002/2483 Ickenham Former Bridge Erection of a five storey 20610/APP/2002/2407 Works Site, residential development Bentinck Road comprising 38 units of affordable West Drayton housing with basement car parking (involving demolition of the existing warehouse).
7. DECISIONS TAKEN BY OFFICERS UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY
RESOLVED
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 7 That the decisions taken by officers under delegated authority for the period 1 December and 31 December 2002 are noted.
The meeting closed at 8.55 p.m.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 8 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 18 MARCH 2003 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA
Category B Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 10 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No: 01895 250840
Address: 1 COLLINGWOOD ROAD, HILLINGDON
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION).
LBH Ref Nos: 57541/APP/2002/1805
Drawing Nos: 1/HRA/CW/100 HRA/1/CR/102 REV C HRA/1/CR/103 REV C HRA/1/CR/104 REV C
Date of receipt: 06/11/2002Date(s) of Amendment(s): 17/01/2003
CONSULTATIONS:
No objections to the proposal were received.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
UDP Designation: Developed Area
The proposal relates to a two storey dwelling house located at the junction of Collingwood and Haig Roads. It is proposed to erect a 3.05 metre deep rear, and 4 metre wide side single storey extension.
The Council Design Guide requires that side extensions on corner properties should not break the front or return building line. The proposal, whilst setback 2m from the front of the property, would project beyond the front building line of Collingwood Road. However, it is considered that given the layout of Collingwood and Haig Roads, the proposal would not materially harm the appearance of the area.
It is considered that the proposed single storey extension would be subordinate to the existing dwelling and would not unbalance the pair of semi’s as the other property, 74
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 1 Haig Road, has an existing two storey side extension built flush with the front elevation of the existing dwelling.
The depth of the rear extension complies with the Design Guide and is not considered to be an obtrusive form of development. The application site is to the north of 74 Haig Road and therefore the proposal will not result in a loss of sunlight to the adjoining property.
The other neighbouring property at 3 Collingwood Road does not have any flank windows facing the proposal. There would be one door in the flank wall of the proposal. It is considered that subject to adequate fencing and a condition that the glazed door should be fitted with obscured glazing there would be no loss of privacy or amenity to 3 Collingwood as a result of the proposal. The proposal is considered to comply with policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed car parking is considered acceptable.
Observations of the Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
RECOMMENDATION:
Planning permission subject to the following conditions:
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D4) Prevention of Balconies 3. (D4) Standard 4. (B14A) Screen Fencing 4. (B14A) Standard (‘3 Collingwood Road and 74 Haig Road’) 5. (D2) Obscured Glazing 5. (D2) Standard (‘The glazed lounge door facing north’). 6. (D1) No Additional Windows or Doors 6. (D1) Standard (‘3 Collingwood Road and 74 Haig Road’) 7. (B38) Single Dwellings Occupation 7. (B38) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary Development Plan
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 2 (b) Residential Extensions Design Guide (c) Design Guide: Residential layouts and House Design
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 3
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 4 Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 11 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: MICHAEL BAKERTelephone No: 01895 250 525
Address: THE MOORCROFT COMPLEX, HARLINGTON ROAD, HILLINGDON
Development: Erection of a two-storey building for use for office purposes and conversion of the Manor House, Coach House and The Lawns buildings to form offices with associated parking and access (involving demolition of two storey wing and ancillary buildings)
LBH Ref Nos: 3043/APP/2002/715
Drawing Nos: L1001 600 received 16/9/02 and 1001 200P Rev A, 201P Rev B, 202P Rev A, 203P Rev C, 204P Rev A, 205P, 206, 209, 210, 300, 302, 303, 400, 401, and 402 received 19/2/03.
Date of receipt: 11/4/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 19/2/03
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the conversion of the listed buildings known as the Moorcroft Complex, consisting of the Manor House, Coach House and The Lawns buildings, to offices and the erection of a separate two storey building for use for office purposes with associated parking and access. The applications also involve the demolition of two storey wing and ancillary buildings.
The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the need to secure the long-term future of the Moorcroft Complex is considered to constitute the special circumstances necessary to justify the departure from national and local policies. The proposed use is considered to be the “optimum viable use” for the site. As the conversion has a negative value, enabling development is necessary to secure the long-term future of the site. The numbers of offices proposed are considered to be the minimum necessary.
The scheme by reason of its design and location is not considered to harm the setting of the Listed Buildings. On this basis the proposal is considered acceptable and suitable for approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 5 (2) RECOMMENDATION
That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning and Transportation to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent subject to the following:- a) The consultation period expiring and no new material objections being received. b) That the application for planning permission be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan and Consultation)(Departures) Directions 1999. c) That should the Secretary of State not call in the application for planning permission, the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to secure:
A financial contribution of £32,760 towards public transport; A Management Plan to secure the long term maintenance of the Manor House, Coach House and The Lawns; Legal provisions to secure the appropriate phasing and completion to requisite standards; A landscape, restoration and management plan, including detailed proposals, long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas. The restoration is to be to the appropriate period based on research of their historic development; The applicant shall agree to the full and complete costs to undertake associated highway works, as identified by Transport for London and the Council’s Highway Department, including repositioning of the nearby bus stop on Harlington Road, with provision of a bus shelter, bus clearways and low floor accessibility; A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the building. The Green Travel Plan shall outline the means and methods of reducing private transport use by employees and customers and facilitate increased use of public transport. The Green Travel Plan shall include the provision of a mini-bus service and provide details of the operation of the mini-bus service. The Green Travel Plan shall be implemented for a minimum period of 5 years from completion and occupancy of the buildings hereby permitted.
d) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.
e) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreements.
f) That subject to the above, the applications be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.
g) That if the applications are approved, the following conditions be attached:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 6
A – LISTED BUILDING CONSENT
1. (CAC1) Time Limit 1. (CAC1) Standard 2. (CAC2) Demolition – requirement 2. (CAC2) Standard for development contract 3. (CAC3) Demolition 3. (CAC3) Standard (3043/APP/2002/715) 4. (CAC4) Making Good Damage (6 4. (CAC4) Standard months) 5. (CAC5) Works to buildings 5. (CAC5) Standard interior 6. (CAC10) Extent of Demolition 6. (CAC10) Standard 7. (CAC11) Measures to protect the 7. (CAC11) Standard building 8. (TL3) Protection of Trees 8. (TL3) Standard 9. The details of cornices, skirtings, 9. To ensure that rooms within the architraves, doors, and door and Manor House, Coach House and window frames to all rooms The Lawns retain their historic within the Manor House, Coach appearance and character. House and The Lawns shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the works. 10. Details of any repairs to 10. To retain the historic appearance structural timbers including the and character of the Listed dormers shall be submitted to Building. and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the works. 11. Details of repairs and 11. To preserve the character and replacements of any external appearance of the Listed doors, door and window frames Building shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of the works. 12. Details of all pipework, ducts, 12. To ensure that the character and and other services shall be appearance of the interior and submitted to and approved by exterior of the Listed Building is the Local Planning Authority preserved and enhanced. before the commencement of the works. 13. No part of the new development 13. To ensure that any enabling shall be occupied until the works works are related to the proper to the Manor House is completed repair and conversion of the to the satisfaction of the Local Listed Building and that the Planning Authority. historic asset is protected.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 7 INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (8) Listed Buildings – Requirement to notify Royal Commision before demolition 3. (11) Notification to Building Contractors 4. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Public Protection Services (18) Asbestos Removal (26) Notification of building demolition to building control
B – PLANNING PERMISSION
1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard Submitted 3. (M3) Boundary Treatment-details 3. (M3) Standard 4. (MCD10) Refuse facilities 4. (MCD10) Standard 5. Details of a designated area for 5. To provide a designated area in the storage of waste recycling addition to the bin store where receptacles adjacent to the bin recycled waste can be stored store shall be submitted to and before it is removed from the approved by the Local Planning site. Authority. This recycling area shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. 6. (H1) Traffic Arrangements – 6. (H1) Standard submission of details 7. (H10) Parking/Turning/Loading 7. (H10) Standard Arrangements – Commercial Developments 8. Development shall not begin 8. To ensure that the secure, until details of secure cycle attractive and adequate cycle storage area have been parking is provided in submitted to and approved by accordance with Policy AM9. the Local Planning Authority. 9. Prior to any development works 9. To ensure that adequate commencing on site, details measures are taken to design out shall be submitted to and crime in compliance with approved in writing by the Local Circular 5/94. Planning Authority of measures to design out crime on the development hereby permitted which should comply with the Metropolitan Police Services, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles. 10. (TL1) Existing trees – survey 10. (TL1) Standard 11. (TL2) Trees to be retained 11. (TL2) Standard 12. (TL3) Protection of trees and 12. (TL3) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 8 plants during development 13. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 13. (TL5) Standard 14. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme – 14. (TL6) Standard Implementation 15. (AR3) Sites of Archaeological 15. (AR3) Standard Interest – scheme of investigation 16. (DIS2)Access to buildings for 16. (DIS2) Standard People with Disabilities 17. A minimum of 10% of all parking 17. To ensure that people in shall be for wheelchair disabled wheelchairs are provided with people, provided to the mobility adequate car parking and parking space standard of 3.6m convenient access to building by 4.8m, and positioned as near entrances in accordance with as possible to the entrance of the policy AM13 of the Hillingdon building Unitary Development Plan. 18. (DIS3)Parking for Wheelchair 18. (DIS3) Standard Disabled People 19. (DIS4) Signposting for people 19. (DIS4) Standard with Disabilities 20. Provisions shall be made within 20. To ensure that the development the site to ensure that all does not cause danger and vehicles associated with the inconvenience to users of the construction of the development adjoining pavement and hereby approved are properly highway. washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 21. A sample panel of brickwork 21. To safeguard the special showing the brick, bond and architectural, historic interest pointing shall be erected on site and setting of the building and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works are undertaken above damp proof course level.
INFORMATIVES:
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (14) Compliance with legislation administered by Public Protection Services. 3. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, designed to protect European Protected Species. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. You are advised that as protected species have been identified on the site, a formal Habitat Regulations licence from DEFRA will be required. 4. You are advised that all recommendations for mitigation (contained within section: Assessment of Effects (5.5 onwards) p10 of the Ecological Survey), should be included within the formal mitigation strategy provided to DEFRA for licence purposes.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 9 5. (25) Building Regulations 6. (1) Reserved Matters 7. You are advised that the works proposed as part of condition 13 will also require Listed Building Consent.
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The Moorcroft Complex is located on the north west corner of the Harlington Road/West Drayton Road junction. The site has an area of approximately 1.45 hectares and has frontage to Harlington Road to the north-east and West Drayton Road to the south-east
The complex comprises the Moorcroft Mansion House and its associated buildings – “The Lawns” and “Coach House”, and two modern buildings, “Moorcroft Special Needs School” and the “Mencap Centre”.
The Moorcroft Mansion House, the wall to the south, The Lawns, Coach House and Vine Cottage (to the north) are all Grade II Listed for their group value. The whole site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The area to the north and west is open countryside, with the boundaries defined by mature trees/hedgerows. Many of the trees within the grounds are protected by Tree Preservation Order No.503 (1992).
The main building consists of the original three-storey, seven bay early 18th century house and a number of substantial three-storey and single storey extensions, which have significantly increased the size of the original building. The Lawns consist of an early-mid 19th century two storey stuccoed house and is detached from the main building. The Coach house is an early-mid 19th century brick building of two-storeys and is situated between the main building and the Lawns. The main building and the Coach house have been vacant for some time and are in a poor state of repair.
The Lawns and the Mansion house were in use as Council offices but were vacated when the Council sold the Complex in 2000. The Coach House is derelict.
Vehicular Access to the site is off Harlington Road to the north of Vine Cottage and between the adjacent school.
(3)(b) Scheme
In summary, the application proposes the partial demolition of the existing Manor House and the erection of a two-storey building to the north of the existing mansion house. The application also includes the use of the Manor House, Coach House and The Lawns buildings and the new buildings into 21 office units with parking for 44 vehicles, associated access and landscaping.
Proposal in Detail:
Part of the scheme involves the demolition of a large part of the existing Manor House on the site. Such works were illegally undertaken in May this year, prior to the determination of the application.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 10 The footprint of that part of the Manor House to be demolished is approximately 275.11m² and is part two and three storeys in height. The building has a total floor space of approximately 550m².
Works to The Manor House Partial demolition of existing building (largely undertaken) Extensive demolition of internal walls and petitions Third storey addition to western end of building Installation of internal spiral stairs, amenities and kitchenette per office unit Conversion and division into 17 offices, each over three levels (offices 1 to 17)
Works to the Coach House
Demolition of existing garage and ancillary structure with a total floor area of 24.5m². Insertion of windows and doors in all elevations Conversion for use as offices (Office 20)
Works to The Lawns
Demolition of internal petitioning Minor internal alterations involving blocking doorways and relocating doorways Reinsertion of first floor windows in western elevation Conversion for use as office (Office 21)
New Building
Adjacent to the northern boundary, between the Manor House and the Coach house, a new building is proposed. The building will be two storeys in height with a pitched roof. Windows and door openings are to be in proportion to the surrounding listed buildings.
The building is to contain two separate two-storey office spaces (Offices 18 and 19) each with a footprint of 124m² and a total floor area of approximate 218m². This amounts to a new building with a footprint of approximately 250m² and total floor space of 436m².
It would have a ridge height of approximately 8.4m and an eaves height of 6m.
(3)(c) Planning History
On 24 November 2000, Planning Application No.3043/APP/2000/2581 was lodged. The application proposed the change of use of the main house (Manor House) to form 13 houses and 6 flats, conversion of the Coach House to form 1 house, erection of 4 courtyard terraced houses and the formation of new access and car parking.
The four courtyard terraced houses were proposed to be two-storeys in height with pitched roofs and attics. The four dwellings had footprints of approximately 182m² and a total floor space of approximately 387m² inclusive of the attics.
The proposal included 48 parking spaces across the site.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 11 The application was reported to the Uxbridge Planning Committee of 15 November 2001. Committee resolved to approve the application subject to a Section 106 Agreement. The Section 106 Agreement required a financial contribution of £114,000 towards school places in the area.
With such a contribution, the applicants considered the scheme was no longer economically viable and consequently the agreement was never signed and the application was withdrawn.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Green Belt
Planning Policies
Part One Policies:
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9,1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.38, and 1.39.
Part Two Policies:
Green Belt OL1 Uses of Open land. OL2 Landscaping improvements and other open land objectives. OL3 Retention and improvement of existing landscape. OL4 Replacement or extension of buildings within the Green Belt. OL5 Visual amenities of the Green Belt. OL26 Preservation of trees and woodlands.
Historic Environment
BE3 Archaeological sites. BE4 Preservation and enhancement of the qualities of Conservation Areas. BE8, BE9 and BE10 Alterations and extensions to Listed Buildings.
Design/ Impact on Amenity
BE13, BE15 Design of new development. BE18 Designing out Crime BE19 Character of the area. BE38 Trees and Landscaping.
Environmental Impact
OE1 Character and amenities of surrounding properties. OE3 Seeks to prevent buildings or uses with the potential to cause noise annoyance unless this impact is acceptably mitigated by engineering, lay-out or administrative measures.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 12
The Local Economy
LE1 Consideration of broader impacts of industrial, warehousing and business uses LE7 Planning Benefits
Accessibility and Highways
AM7 Considers the impact of proposals in terms of traffic generation on local roads and includes the requirement that developments should not prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety. AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
Greater London Authority On balance, the proposal to regenerate the site and provide employment opportunities is considered acceptable in strategic planning terms.
The Mayor has reached this decision on the basis that the majority of the development comprises the adaptation and conversion of existing buildings; the scale of the new built development is less than the existing buildings to be demolished; and the replacement built development is to be located on an area of hard standing. The proposals will not therefore prejudice the openness of the Green Belt.
In addition, subject to further scrutiny by the Council, there may be an enabling development case to support the proposals, whereby the new development proposed represents the minimum necessary in viability terms to secure the long term future of the listed buildings on the site. Hence there are considered to be very special circumstances in this instance that would justify the inappropriate development as an exception to Green Belt policy.
However, if the local authority is minded to grant planning permission, it should seek a contribution from the developer towards bus service improvements.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 13 GLA – Biodiversity Unit The site is not identified as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. A bat roost survey has been undertaken which identifies that there are no bats within the existing buildings and, therefore, there are no further issues with the application.
Transport for London The car and cycle provision, at 44 and 86 spaces respectively, conforms to Draft London Plan standards and the London Cycle Network Design Manual. The proposed repositioning of a nearby bus stop on Harlington Road should be funded by the developer, and the new bus stop upgraded to include a shelter, bus clearways and low floor accessibility. Any changes should be agreed with TfL London Buses.
English Heritage No comments.
NHS – Primary Care Trust No objections.
Internal Consultees
Conservation/Urban Design Officer Extensive comments and advice have been provided to the applicants on the work to the listed buildings and in relation to the enabling development.
No objections subject to conditions (more detailed comments are incorporated in the main body of the report).
Trees/Landscape Officer The application has been amended and the car parking layout revised, so that there is no parking at the rear of the house, close to the Cedar, and less of the front garden area lost to hard standing.
The trees protected by TPO503 should not be affected. Therefore, there are no objections to the revised scheme, subject to conditions and a legal agreement to secure the restoration, to the appropriate period, and long term management of the landscaped gardens/grounds (based on research of their historic development).
Highways Engineer No objections.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 14
Section 106 Officer The proposed use of the Moorcroft Complex, in its out of town location could potentially generate 200 jobs. With the provision of only 45 parking spaces on site, the scheme could result in increased pressure on public transport or parking in nearby streets.
Based on the number of existing services and the potential number of people using such services a contribution of £32,760 should be required as part of a Section 106 Agreement.
Estates and Valuations Office No objection to the proposed use.
Part of the site is affected by a Right-of-Way for access to the swimming pool and the rear of the school.
Analysis of costs of development and the enabling component to be reported.
Social Services Directorate No comments
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
(i) The impact of the development on the Green Belt (ii) The financial appraisal of the “enabling development” to ensure it is the minimum necessary to secure the long term future of the Complex (iii) The principle use of the Complex as offices (iv) The potential impact on the listed buildings (v) The transport strategy for the site, particularly parking
(i) The impact of the development on the Green Belt
The Moorcroft Complex lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt where there is a strong presumption against inappropriate development as defined in the adopted Unitary Development Plan and in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belt.
Of particular relevance are policies OL1 and OL4. Policy OL1 states that agriculture, horticulture, nature conservation, open-air recreation, and cemeteries are the only open land uses which are acceptable. New buildings are only acceptable if they are essential for the open land use. Any development which is contrary to Policy OL1 is “inappropriate” development.
On inappropriate development PPG 2 states that “It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 15 unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
In addition to this, Policy OL4 states that the Local Planning Authority will only permit the replacement or extension of buildings within the Green Belt if: The development would not result in any disproportionate change in the bulk and character of the original building; The development would not significantly increase the built up appearance of the site; Having regard to the character of the surrounding area, the development would not injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt by reason of siting, materials, design , traffic or activities generated.
PPG2 also provides further guidance. It advises that re-use of buildings is not inappropriate development providing:
(a) it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it;
(b) strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it (e.g. because they involve extensive external storage, or extensive hardstanding, car parking, boundary walling or fencing);
(c) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and
(d) the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings. (Conversion proposals may be more acceptable if they respect local building styles and materials, though the use of equivalent natural materials that are not local should not be ruled out).
In terms of the conversion of the buildings to offices, the Manor House was formerly a Private Mental Institution before being used as offices by the London Borough of Hillingdon and, as such, was ‘inappropriate’ development in the Green Belt. Comparing the impact on the Green Belt of the previous office use, the proposed conversion of the main house involves a greater intensity of use with the building subdivided into 17 separate offices. The impact on the Green Belt in terms of activity is considered to be generally comparable with the previous office use before the buildings were vacated. Therefore, as the proposed use should not have a materially greater impact in terms of its use than the former use on the openness of the Green Belt, the proposed conversion is considered to be in accordance with policy OL14.
Enabling Development
The enabling development component of the proposal involves the construction of one new block of offices. This building, referred to as the ‘courtyard terrace’, is located to the north of the Main House in an area largely occupied by existing hard surfacing. This new building is ‘inappropriate’ development, contrary to policy OL1. On this basis, the application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan and will need to be referred to the Secretary of State prior to any grant of planning permission.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 16 Even though the application is contrary to OL1, the need for this development to secure the long- term future of the Listed Buildings is considered to constitute the very special circumstances to justify the inappropriate development. On this basis, approval is recommended.
In terms of the impact of the enabling development on the Green Belt, approximately 692m² of extensions to the rear of the Main House have been illegally demolished. The floor area of the enabling development, which represents the bulk of the new development on the site, will have a total floor area of 436m². In footprint terms, the new building area totals approximately 250m², whilst the footprint of the demolished buildings was approximately 275m².
The proposal results in a reduction of built development on the site. The new courtyard building is therefore considered to not significantly increase the built up appearance of the site. The building does not result in the loss of any ‘green’ space from the site and, when viewed from the Green Belt to the north of the site, this new building would be read against the background of the existing Main House and, therefore, would not injure the visual amenities of the Green Belt. Furthermore, this new building has been designed, sited and is proposed to be built in materials that are considered sympathetic to the existing Listed Buildings and is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policy OL4.
Overall, the re-use of existing buildings involves conversion and refurbishment, including demolition of part of the rear of the main house. Given that the buildings were previously used as offices and that the site contains a large parking area, the proposed change of use and repair of the existing buildings would not materially impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would have significant benefits in terms of continuing active use and the upgrading the historic listed buildings.
(ii) The financial appraisal of the “enabling development” to ensure it is the minimum necessary to secure the long term future of the Complex
As part of the assessment of this scheme the applicants have submitted a detailed cost appraisal. This appraisal includes the following:-
Total conversion costs for main building (including site acquisition): £8,362,200 Total refurbishment costs for the Lawns Building (including site acquisition): £732,000 £9,094,200
Anticipated Sales value for 16 self-contained office units in Main Building: £8,812,000 Anticipated Sales value for the Lawns: £625,000 £9,437,000
Surplus = £342,800
Total Build cost for Unit 20/Coach house and the courtyard units: £897,000 Anticipated sales value for these units: £1,620,000 Surplus = £723,000
Developers profit from entire development = £1,065,800 or 10.67% return on cost
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 17 A developer is normally entitled to obtain a fair and reasonable return on their investment to reflect the risk involved in the development project. The profit margin generated for this scheme, of around 10%, is considered reasonable given the risks associated with an investment of over £9 million. The removal of the ‘enabling development’ results in a profit of around £343,000 or 3.3%, a margin which is unlikely to attract a developer given the level of risk involved. The conversion of the existing buildings into office units is therefore marginal without a level of enabling development.
To assess the costs and values being proposed, advice has been sought from the Council’s Estates and Valuation Service. The advice of Council’s Estates and Valuation Service is to be reported.
It is worth noting that the other recent application for the site, involving residential development, was not economically viable without the inclusion of the two detached houses in the grounds of the site. The Mayor of London objected to these dwellings and they were consequently deleted. The deletion of those dwellings, together with the need to make a large financial contribution towards school places, coupled with the cost of conversion and restoration, resulted in the development proving economically unviable.
(iii) Principle of use of the Complex as offices
As identified in relation to the appropriateness of the development of the site in the Green Belt, it was noted that the proposed office use is inappropriate development in terms of Green Belt policy. Furthermore, given the out of town centre location of the site, general office use would not normally be considered appropriate. However, it is evident from the history of the site that office use may not necessarily be unacceptable in this location.
The site had a history of office use during its ownership by the London Borough of Hillingdon. It is evident that a residential scheme is not economically viable. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the benefits that the office use provides in terms of the retention and restoration of the Listed Buildings.
(iv) The potential impact on the Listed Buildings
Of particular relevance are policies BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11 and BE12. These seek to ensure that any development involving listed buildings or curtilage structures does not have any detrimental impact on the overall value of the structure or building.
Courtyard Development
The courtyard development consists of a two-storey pitched roof building, to be built to the north of the Main House on an existing hard standing area. The building is to be divided into two offices (numbers 18 and 19). The building is sited along the northern boundary and encloses the northern courtyard.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has indicated that the justification for the enabling works seems to be reasonable and the scheme is acceptable subject to conditions.
The Main House
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 18 The original Mansion was built in the early 1700’s but is much altered and was extensively changed and added to over the course of the 18th and 19th Centuries during which time it became a Private Mental Institution. It is Listed Grade II, and the DoE description is as follows:
“Large rambling mansion of different periods. The original house is a 3-storey, 7-bay early C 18 building of brick, now painted. Brick bands at 1st and 2nd floors. Stone frieze, cornice and blocking course. Upper floor may be later. Sash windows with glazing bars in box frames, those on 1st and 2nd floors under shallow segmental brick arches. Modern central door flanked by half columns but entablature missing. To west of this is a 3-store, 4-bay early-mid C19 wing of painted brick with hipped slate roof. Segmental brick arches and sash windows with glazing bars. Further similar large additions on west front which is of 5 sections in different planes, 12 windows in all. The 2nd and 4th sections have parapets and the 4th is of 2-storeys only. Doric porch in 2nd section. Similar wing to east of old block; and to south-east a 2 storey, stuccoed Victorian wing of 6 irregular bays with hipped slate roofs.
Moorcroft, the Wall to South, House to north-east, Stables and Coachhouse to North and Vine Cottage form a Group.”
Detailed discussions have taken place with the applicant’s architect and most of the problems identified have been overcome in the revised scheme. Conditions are required for materials and which state that no external pipework, vents or plant is permitted under the terms of this application. Elevations are acceptable subject to details of doors, windows, window frames, including mullion and transome sections, and porches and any other external timberwork, including repair of Conservatory and Loggia.
Coach House
This building has been in a state of disrepair for some considerable time. The applicants propose to bring it back into use, which can only be viewed as a benefit.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has no objections to the revised scheme subject to conditions relating to materials, details of windows and doors, external pipe and ductwork and remedial treatment to brickwork following unauthorised cleaning.
The Lawns
The Lawns building has more recently been used for office purposes. The works to this building are largely internal.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has no objections to the revised scheme subject to conditions relating to materials, details of windows and door openings, external pipe and ductwork.
(v) The transport strategy for the site, particularly parking
Under the Borough’s Revised Parking Standards, a maximum of 1 space per 100m² is permitted. Given that a total internal floor space of approximately 4,405m² is proposed, a maximum of 44 parking spaces are permitted. In view of this, the proposed 44 parking spaces comply with the Council’s current standards.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 19 It should also be noted that significantly more parking was initially proposed. A total of 85 parking spaces were proposed, but this level of parking was not only well in excess of the Council’s current Parking Standards, but intruded into the landscaped grounds around the Listed Buildings. It was therefore considered to be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings and likely to be detrimental to many of the trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order. Consequently, the plans were amended to provide 44 spaces.
In addition to such total parking requirements, 10% of all parking spaces should be suitable for wheelchair users and people with disabilities. No parking spaces have been identified for wheelchair users and people with disabilities, but this can be easily accommodated on site and is proposed to be resolved by way of a condition.
With regard to the provision of cycle parking on the site, the Borough’s Revised Standards require a minimum of 1 cycle space per 50m² of floorspace. On this basis, approximately 88 cycle parking spaces would be required. Provision for the 88 cycle parking spaces has not been identified but details of such parking facilities will be required as a condition of consent, should the application be approved.
Further to the parking requirements for vehicles and cycles, 1 space per 20 parking spaces is required for motorised two wheelers or mopeds. Again this can be readily accommodated within the existing design and is proposed to be resolved by way of a condition.
In terms of the transport strategy, a Transport Plan has been prepared by A J Burns and dated October 2002. This plan identifies measures including management of car parking, promotion of car sharing and public transport and the provision of a mini-bus service. A Management Company would be set up to monitor such measures as part of a Legal Agreement for the site.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
No objections have been raised by consultees. Where conditions or elements of a s106 Agreement have been suggested these have been incorporated into the recommendation.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor and Borough Treasurer
Detailed comments from the Borough Treasurer will be reported to Committee.
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
(4) CONCLUSION
The need to secure the long-term future of the Moorcroft Complex is considered to constitute, on Green Belt terms, the special circumstances to justify the departure from national and local policies. The proposed use is considered to be the “optimum viable use” for the site. The enabling development is required to secure the long-term future of the site and the amount of additional office floorspace is considered to be the minimum necessary. Overall, the scheme by reason of its design and location of development does not harm the setting of the Listed Buildings
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 20 and is not considered to have an adverse visual impact on the Green Belt. On the basis, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary development Plan (b) PPG2 Green Belt (c) Letters of representation plus responses from consultees (d) Letters and messages from consultees and local residents.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 21 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 22
Category B Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 12 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: SCHALK VAN DER MERWE Telephone No: 01895 277420
Address: 102 HOYLAKE CRESCENT, ICKENHAM
Development: RETENTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE STRUCTURE
LBH Ref Nos: 9956/APP/2002/1986
Drawing Nos: HCP/1 AND HCP/2
Date of receipt: 22/08/02
CONSULTATIONS:
One material planning objection from the adjoining property raising the following comment:
The proposal would dwarf the bungalow at No. 100.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
UDP Designation: Developed Area
On 02/04/2002 the Council received a complaint regarding the erection of a single storey side structure without the benefit of planning permission.
The single storey side structure measures 2.25m wide at the front, 2.5m at the rear and 5m long. It has a flat roof measuring 2.52m high, a wooden panel and doors in the front elevation, with plastic corrugated sheets on the roof. The structure is open at the rear.
The development is not considered to complement or improve the amenity and character of the area. The use of corrugated plastic sheets and wooden panels fails to harmonise with the materials of the original house. It is considered harmful to the appearance of the original house and detracts from the amenities of the surrounding area, contrary to Policies BE13, BE15, and BE19 of the UDP and Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.
The development is attached to the side boundary wall with 100 Hoylake Crescent. There are three windows in the flank wall of No. 100. The development is considered to be visually obtrusive when viewed from No. 100 and does not maintain or improve the residential amenities of this property. The development is considered detrimental to the residential amenities of No. 100, contrary to Policies BE19 and BE21 of the UDP and Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.
It is therefore considered expedient to institute enforcement action.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 23
Observations of the Borough Solicitor:
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer:
To be reported.
RECOMMENDATION: (A) – Refusal for the following reasons:
The development by reason of its design and materials is considered detrimental to the appearance of the original house and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. It is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A3 and A5 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
RECOMMENDATION: (B) -
That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct the Borough Solicitor to issue an Enforcement Notice to remedy the breach of planning control under delegated authority and to take all necessary legal steps, to secure compliance, in respect of:
The unauthorised erection of a single storey side structure at 102 Hoylake Crescent, Ickenham, Middlesex.
That the Notice shall require the following steps be taken to remedy this breach of planning control:
Demolish the single storey side structure; Remove from the land all debris, rubble, roofing and all other materials resulting from the demolition.
3. That a period of three months be given for compliance with the terms of the Enforcement Notice.
4. That the reason to be stated for the issue of the Notice to be as follows:
The development by reason of its design and materials is considered detrimental to the appearance of the original house and the visual amenities of the surrounding area. It is therefore contrary to policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles A3 and A5 of the Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.
Reference Documents:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 24 (a) UDP (b) Residential Extensions Design Guide (c) One letter of objection
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 25
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 26 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 27
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 13 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: ANDY PARKERTelephone Number: 01895 250111
Address: 66 LONG LANE, ICKENHAM
Development: APPLICATION A: ERECTION OF 12 TWO-BEDROOM AND TWO ONE- BEDROOM FLATS (IN TWO BLOCKS) WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INVOLVING THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE).
LBH Ref Nos: 39319/APP/2002/2259
Drawing Nos: Unnumbered OS plan and Drawing Nos. RW 1007/DL/101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and unnumbered tree survey received 20/09/02 and letter dated 21/02/02
Date of receipt: 20/09/02
Date(s) of Amendment(s):
Development: APPLICATION B: DEMOLITION OF DWELLINGHOUSE (APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)
LBH Ref Nos: 39319/APP/2002/2368
Drawing Nos: RW1007/DL/109, HS5064 received on 11/10/02
SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought to erect two blocks of flats to provide12 two-bedroom and 2 one- bedroom flats with associated car parking and landscaping (involving demolition of existing house). It is considered that the siting, overall scale and design of the proposed development is out of keeping with the character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area. The proposal would result in the overlooking of adjoining properties and provides unsatisfactory accommodation for future residents. The development does not provide a safe means of egress from of the site and the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is therefore likely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety.
Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of a dwelling house. It is considered that in the absence of an acceptable alternative redevelopment the proposal would result in an unsightly open gap which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 28 The planning application is the subject of an appeal against non-determination and, as such, this Council can no longer determine this submission.
(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION A – That the Planning Committee resolve that had an appeal against non-determination not been lodged, the application would have been refused for the following reasons:-
The proposed block of flats, Nos. 9-14, by reason of its overall size, bulk, height, design and projection forward of an established building line along Long Lane, represents an unduly intrusive, obtrusive and incongruous form of development, detrimental to the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed block of flats, Nos. 1-8, by reason of its overall size, bulk and design would result in a form of development, which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area, and detrimental to the visual amenities of surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The proposal by reason of the excessive site coverage by building and hard surfacing results in the cramped overdevelopment of the site at an excessive density. The development therefore fails to harmonise with its surroundings being out of keeping with the character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area, and contrary to policies BE4, BE13, BE19, and H6 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The proposal fails to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the development will safeguard existing trees protected by TPO 5, or by virtue of their location within a Conservation Area and fails to justify the loss of trees shown to be removed. The proposal fails to demonstrate how existing trees will be utilised and makes inadequate provision for new planting within the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies BE4 and BE38 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The proposed development by reason of the siting of the buildings and the windows would result in the direct overlooking of the adjoining properties and proposed flats, causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to both adjoining and future residents. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy BE24 and H12 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principles 5.1 and 5.2 from the Council’s design guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.
The proposal fails to provide sufficient amenity space as defined in this Council’s Design Guide “Residential Layouts and House Design”and would result in a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE23 and H6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
The development does not provide a safe means of egress from the site and makes inadequate provision for pedestrian access within the site. The additional traffic
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 29 generated by the proposed development and failure to provide a safe and convenient means of access for future residents is likely to give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety being contrary to Policy AM7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION B:
In the absence of an acceptable redevelopment the proposed demolition of an existing dwelling house, would result in an unsightly open gap, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area, the street scene and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
This application concerns 66 Long Lane, Hillingdon; a large detached property located on a plot of land 0.202 hectares in area. The property is located on the western side of Long Lane, approximately 40 metres to the north of its junction with Court Road, Ickenham.
The exiting house is one of a group of 5 larger detached houses on generous plots set back from the main road frontage behind groups of trees. These houses run northwards from the application site to the junction with Milton Road.
Immediately to the south of the site are four blocks of two-storey flats, Nos. 23-77 (odd) Pepys Close, which are accessed from both Long Lane and Pepys Close. The rear gardens of semi- detached properties Nos. 11-21 (odd) Pepys Close abut the eastern boundary of the application site.
The site lies within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
(3)(b) Scheme
Permission is sought for the erection of 12 two-bedroom and two one-bedroom flats (in two blocks) with associated car parking and landscaping (involving the demolition of the existing house).
The proposed development comprises two blocks of flats. Block No. 1-8 is a two-storey development, which comprises 8 two-bedroom flats situated on the western half of the site. Block No. 9-14 is a two/three-storey development block, which is situated on the eastern half of the site and fronts onto Long Lane. This block comprises 4 two-bedroom and 2 one-bedroom flats with the 2 one-bedroom flats being situated within the roof. Two front dormer windows, one side and one rear dormer window are proposed in the roof slope.
Between the two blocks of flats in approximately the centre of the site are 17 parking spaces. A further four spaces are situated in the south eastern corner of the site, fronting onto Long Lane. A service road connecting both parking areas runs to the south of Blocks 9-14.
An appeal against the non-determination has been made in respect of this application and a Public Inquiry is due to be held in August 2003 at the Civic Centre.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 30
Members should be aware that a duplicate planning application ref:39319/APP/2002/2885 and duplicate application for Conservation Area Consent were received on 10/12/02.
Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling house.
(3)(c) Planning History
Planning application ref: 49805/95/382 for the erection of a detached house with an integral garage was refused on 26/10/95 for the following reasons:
1. It is considered that the siting and design of the proposal would be visually harmful to the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and that in the context of this part of the street scene, the proposal would be cramped and out of character with neighbouring properties. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposed development by reason of its bulk, siting and location, would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers through overdominance and loss of light and sunlight, contrary to policy UL3 (i) and (iii) of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE14 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
3. The proposal fails to make adequate provisions for the protection or replacement of existing trees and landscape features on the site, thus running contrary to policy UL3 (iv) of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE30 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
Planning application ref: 49805A/96/601 for the erection of a coach house style detached house with an integral garage was refused for the following reasons: -
1. It is considered that the siting of the proposal would be visually harmful to the street scene and detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of Ickenham Village Conservation Area. In the context of this part of the street scene, the proposal would be cramped and out of character with neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
2. The design, form and scale of the proposal does not integrate with the adjacent properties and is considered out of character and visually harmful, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy UL11 of the Ickenham Local Plan and policy BE4 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.
An appeal against the refusal of planning application ref: 49805A/96/601 was dismissed on 29/05/97.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 31
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.8 Seeks to preserve or enhance those features of Conservation Areas, which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Pt1.10 Seeks to ensure that the development will not adversely affect the character and amenity of the residential area.
Pt1.13 Seeks to ensure the provision of 8,000 additional dwellings in the Borough.
Pt1.39 Seeks where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of the development proposed.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 32 Part 2 Policies:
BE4 New development should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE19 New development should improve or complement the character of the area.
BE23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space.
BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours.
BE38 Development proposals will be expected to retain and utilise topographical and landscape features of merit.
H6 Development at a density, above 150 habitable rooms per hectare will need to demonstrate that the scheme produces good environmental conditions and harmonises with the surroundings.
H12 Tandem development of backland should not give rise to a loss of privacy or disturbance to adjoining occupiers.
OE1 Seeks to ensure that development will not be detrimental to the character or amenities of the surrounding area.
R17 The Local Planning Authority will seek to supplement the provision of educational facilities through the provision of through planning obligations.
UDP Designation: Developed Area/ Ickenham Conservation Area
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
NEIGHBOURS: No. Consulted: 37 No. of replies: 26 letters of objection and a petition with 95 signatures objecting to the scheme
Comments:
The proposal will result in the loss of trees and wildlife. The road is full of heavy traffic, particularly at peak hours. There have been several accidents at the junction of Milton Road and Long Lane. There is no safe turning into and out of the site and the proposed increase in traffic generation will exacerbate existing traffic congestion problems and will result in traffic accidents. The proposal will result in the loss of existing tree screening and will result in overlooking. The proposal will be out of character with the Conservation Area, the street scene and surrounding area.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 33 The proposed proximity of residential accommodation and car park will give rise to unacceptable noise and disturbance. The proposal would detract from the area to an even greater extent than the previous application for residential development, which was dismissed on appeal. The proposal will result in the overdevelopment of the site. The number of vehicles proposed will give rise to unacceptable increases in pollution. The proposal represents commercial exploitation and will reduce property values outside of the site. The height of the development is intrusive. The parking provision is inadequate and will give rise to on-street parking. The proposal will result in development at an excessive density. Several TPO trees have already disappeared.
Ickenham Conservation Area The proposal will detract from Advisory Panel residential amenity. The proposal will result in a loss of privacy and overlooking. The only means of access onto Long Lane will exacerbate existing problems of traffic congestion. The proposal will result in the overdevelopment of the site. The unimaginative design neither preserves the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The layout is similar to a previous scheme, which was dismissed on appeal in 1987.
Ickenham Residents’ The proposal results in the Association overdevelopment of the site and would be out of keeping with the street scene, being contrary to policy BE4. The proposal would result in unacceptable tandem development. The overall size, bulk and proximity to adjoining houses would result in a loss of amenity to adjoining residents. The proposal would result in a loss of privacy. The proposal would result in development at an excessive density. The proposal would protrude beyond established building
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 34 lines. The amenity space provision is unsatisfactory for family accommodation. A similar scheme at 58 Long Lane, Hillingdon was refused and dismissed at appeal.
Cllr J Hensley Supports the view of local residents that the application should be refused for the following reasons: -
Infill development reducing residents’ entitlement to privacy. Gross overdevelopment of a residential site. Adverse visual impact. Inappropriate access to the proposed development from a busy main road that already is experiencing traffic congestion. Adverse effect on the Conservation Area.
Pepys Close Residents The proposal results in Company overdevelopment and does not preserve or enhance the surrounding area. The proposed design does not enhance the Conservation Area. The proposal will result in a loss of privacy. Noise, lighting, vehicle movements will adversely affect local residents. The additional traffic will give rise to problems of traffic congestion and safety.
John Randall MP The traffic generated by this proposal is a strong case for refusal.
Internal Consultees
Conservation/Urban Design Supports recommendation and information Officer included in the main body of the report.
Trees and Landscape Officer Supports recommendation and information included in the main body of the report..
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 35 Environmental Protection Unit No objection, subject to conditions.
Traffic Engineer Supports recommendation and information included in the main body of the report.
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The main planningissues in this case are considered to be whether the proposal: -
Impact on character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and the visual amenities of the street scene. Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents. Adequacy of accommodation for future residents Highway and pedestrian safety. Puts unacceptable pressure on school places.
(i) Impact on character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and visual amenities of the street scene.
The character of much of the conservation area is one of suburban housing in a variety of styles and laid out in well-landscaped gardens and roads. The application site is one of a group of 5 larger detached properties set back from the main road behind trees. The properties are set back between 17 and 19 metres from the road frontage. Although gaps between the properties vary the overall impression is one of spaciousness. Immediately to the south of the site are two, two storey block of flats (Nos. 23-45 (odd) Pepys Close) which front onto Long Lane and respect the building line of the detached properties to the north.
Block No. 9-14 fronts onto Long Lane and is 17 metres wide, 9 metres deep and has a maximum height of 9.7 metres. It would therefore have a considerable overall size and bulk. This block projects beyond the forward building line of No. 64, to the north by 7 metres and is situated only 12 metres from the road frontage. Plans indicate that the siting of this building would result in the removal of two trees to the front of the site and that it would be clearly visible from the street scene.
Two dormer windows are proposed in the front elevation and one of these dormers projects at a higher level than the other, and above that of the proposed roof slope. These dormers do not relate satisfactorily to each other or to the proposed roof slope. Furthermore, in order to incorporate rooms in the roof space three-storey gable ends project to the front and rear of this block of flats. These are considered to be of an unacceptable size and bulk, which result in a development with an unbalanced appearance.
It is considered that this block of flats by reason of its overall size, bulk, design and projection forward of an established building line along Long Lane would represent an unduly intrusive, obtrusive and incongruous form of development which is detrimental to the open character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area and visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area.
Block Nos. 1-8, whilst not visible from the street scene is clearly visible from surrounding residential properties. This block occupies a substantial part of the rear of the site. The flank
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 36 elevation, which faces towards Neela Close and Pepys Close has a depth of 26 metres. The elevation facing towards Neela Close has a blank façade. The overall size, bulk and design of this development is considered out of keeping with development in the surrounding area. The proposal therefore fails to preserve or enhance the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area or the surrounding area.
Policy H6 of the UDP states that applicants proposing development at over 150 habitable rooms per hectare (h.r.p.h.) will be expected to submit sufficient details to indicate that the layout and design of a scheme harmonise with its surroundings.
Whilst the conservation area has a variety of house styles the density of development is relatively low when compared to that of other areas in the Borough. Four, two storey blocks of 31 flats are located immediately to the south of the site. However, these flats occupy a larger plot of land and provide parking immediately adjacent to the two means of access from Long Lane and Pepys Close. This enables large areas of open land to be provided between the flats and results in a development that is well spaced.
The proposed development has a density of 161 h.r.p.h. It provides only one means of access into the site from Long Lane and this results in a significant area being occupied by parking spaces and access/service roads. This area of development, when taken in conjunction with the proposed blocks of flats results in a considerable part of the site, and eastern half in particular being occupied by buildings and hard surfacing. The layout therefore fails to harmonise with the spacious character of surrounding development.
The site indicates many trees on or close to the site. These trees are protected by T.P.O 5. This application therefore raises significant issues in relation to existing trees. Some information has been provided on the site survey plan. However, there is no qualitative information about their protection. The information provided is considered insufficient to justify the removal of protected trees or to demonstrate whether the development would directly or indirectly affect retained trees.
The proposal results in buildings and substantial areas of hard surfacing situated in close proximity to the boundaries of the site. The development would be visible from the street scene and surrounding area. It is considered that insufficient provision has been made for new planting within the site to soften the appearance and screen the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4 and BE38 of the Unitary Development Plan.
In the absence of an acceptable redevelopment the proposed demolition of an existing dwelling house, would result in an unsightly open gap, which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area, the street scene and the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4, BE13 and BE19 adopted Unitary Development Plan.
(ii) Impact on the amenities of adjoining residents.
Policy H12 states that tandem development of backland in residential areas will not be permitted if undue disturbance, or loss of privacy is likely to be caused to adjoining occupiers.
With regard to Block No. 1-8, ground and first floor habitable room windows are proposed in the elevations facing towards 3 Neela Close and 64 Long Lane to the north, and 11-21 Pepys Close to the west. This Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ requires that a distance of 21 metres is required between habitable room windows. Plans indicate that the
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 37 distance between these properties is in excess of 21 metres. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to existing or future occupants.
Habitable room windows are also proposed in the ground and first floor flank elevation of Block Nos. 1-9, which faces south towards the block of flats Nos. 23-33 (odd) Pepys Close. The distance between the proposed and existing block of flats where windows face one another varies from 18 metres to 18.7 metres. Although some screening is provided by existing landscaping which runs along the boundary of the application site with these properties it is considered that the proposal will result in a loss of privacy to the occupiers of these flats.
The distance between the proposed two blocks of flats varies between 17 and 19 metres. Habitable room windows in both blocks face directly towards each other and the proposal would therefore fail to safeguard the privacy of future occupants.
A car park with 17 parking spaces is proposed in between the proposed block of flats. This area of hard surfacing is situated 9 and 10 metres from 64 Long Lane and the nearest flats on Pepys Close respectively. It is considered that it would not detract from the amenities of adjoining residents by reason of noise and disturbance.
Access is provided to the south of Block 9-14. A distance of 8 metres is provided between the flank wall of this property and the boundary of the site with properties on Pepys Close. It is considered that this distance is sufficient to ensure that an access will not be detrimental to the occupiers of these premises by reason of noise and disturbance
(iii) Provides a satisfactory form of accommodation for future residents
This Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design’ requires that shared amenity space should be provided as an area of a convenient size and shape, should be orientated to make full use of the sunshine, that it makes a positive contribution towards the environment. Flats where two bedrooms or more are proposed should also provide safe play space for children.
With regard to block Nos. 1-8, it is proposed to provide approximately 460m² amenity area to the side and rear of the building. This space is considered to be of a suitable size and shape. However, the proposed development would overshadow a substantial part of the proposed amenity area to the north throughout the day.
A row of trees runs along the boundary of the application site with 3 Neela Close. Whilst this provides some degree of screening it is considered that a significant part of the proposed amenity area to the rear would also be overlooked by this property.
It is therefore considered that the garden area for flats 1-8 fails to provide an acceptable degree of privacy and suitable environment for future occupants.
With regard to block No. 9-14, plans indicate that only 130m² of amenity space is provided for the future occupants. This equates to only 22m² per flat, four of which are two bed units. Furthermore, this area is situated between the proposed flats and Long Lane. This Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts and House Design states that areas to the front of flats will not be counted as useable amenity space, as they are more openly visible. In this case the amenity area would be overlooked by 64 Long Lane and, in the absence of suitable screening, by passers-
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 38 by on the adjacent highway. Furthermore, this area, which is located adjacent to the highway and to the main access into the site, would also be subject to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance from traffic and fails to provide a safe environment for children. It is therefore considered that the amenity area for flats 9-14 and is of an insufficient size, and that it fails to provide an acceptable degree of privacy and suitable environment for future occupants.
The proposal therefore provides a substandard form of accommodation for future occupiers being contrary to policies BE 23 and H6 of the U.D.P and this Council’s Design Guide ‘ Residential Layouts and House Design’.
(iv) Highway and pedestrian safety
The Council’s current parking standards require that a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit should be provided. The 21 spaces proposed as well as the refuse collection facilities comply with Council standards.
Access to the site is to be from Long Lane, as at present. Long Lane is a busy road with a steady stream of fast moving traffic. The Highway Engineer considers that the means of access and visibility is adequate for vehicles and that the number of vehicles generated by the development would not prejudice the free flow of traffic.
However, immediately to the south of the means of access are pedestrian bollards. These mark a crossing point which is heavily used by school children. Road crosshatching extends to the north and south of these bollards. Vehicles turning right out of the application site would therefore have to cross the road markings and would do so in close proximity to the pedestrian bollards. These traffic movements would not be readily visible to pedestrians crossing from the west side of Long Lane to the east. In the absence of a physical barrier and U-turn facility nearby it is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development would give rise to additional right turns which in this location would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety.
Within the site, pedestrian access to the flats is not segregated from road traffic. The development therefore fails to create a safe and convenient environment for pedestrians.
The proposal is therefore considered to be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety and contrary to Policy AM7 of the UDP.
(v) Provision for school places
The impact of housing development on school places is a material planning consideration and as such can form the basis for a Section 106 Agreement.
This Council’s Education Directorate has advised that the proposed development of 12, two bedroom and 2, one bedroom flats will bring additional pressure for school places in the area. A contribution of £43,132 has been requested to help fund the required school places and the applicants have agreed this.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
Letters and a petition with 95 signatures have been received objecting to the proposed development.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 39
Points (iii), (iv), (vii), (x) and (xii) are supported in the reason for refusal.
Points (v) and (viii) are not considered to be a sufficient reason for refusal.
Point (i) The area is not designated as an Area of Special Scientific Interest and this objection is not sufficient to justify refusal
Point (ii) is addressed in the main body of the report and is in part supported in one of the reasons for refusal.
Point (vi) The previous application, which was dismissed on appeal differs substantially from the scheme now proposed although both detract from the character of the conservation area albeitfor different reasons.
Point (ix) is not a material planning consideration.
Point (xi) Parking has been provided in accordance with Council standards.
Point (xiii) Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant for this matter to be adequately assessed.
1 letter of objection has been received from Ickenham Conservation Panel.
Points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) are supported in the reason for refusal.
Point (iii) is addressed in the main body of the report.
Point (iv) Although a previous scheme was dismissed on appeal in 1987, the layout of the scheme is not similar.
1 letter of objection has been received from Ickenham Residents’Association
Points (i), (ii), (iv), (v), (vi) (vii) are supported in the reasons for refusal.
Point (iii)The proximity of the proposed development would give rise to overlooking which is supported in the reason for refusal.
Point (viii) each case must be considered on its own merits.
1 letter has been received from J. Randall M.P objecting to the proposal.
The comments made have been addressed in the main body of the report
E-mail has been received from Cllr J. Hensley
The points raised are supported in the reasons for refusal.
I letter of objection has been received on behalf of Pepys Close Resident’s Association.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 40 Points (i), (ii), (iii) are supported in the reasons for refusal.
Point (v) is in part supported in the reason for refusal.
Point (iv) is not considered to be a sufficient reason for refusal.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
To be reported.
Observations of Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 41 (4) CONCLUSION
Application A results in the cramped over development of the site which is out of keeping with the character and appearance of Ickenham Conservation Area and is detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene and surrounding area. The proposal gives rise to overlooking/loss of privacy and fails to provide a safe means of access out of the site. The planning application is the subject of an appeal against non-determination and, as such, this Council can no longer determine this submission.
Conservation Area Consent is sought for the demolition of a dwelling house. It is considered that in the absence of an acceptable alternative redevelopment the proposal would result in an unsightly open gap which would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Ickenham Conservation Area.
Reference Documents:
(a) Adopted U.D.P (b) I petition with 95 signatures and 26 letters of objection (c) Relevant Planning appeals
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 42
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 43 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 44
Category B Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 14 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: GRAHAM NOBBSTelephone No: 01895 277078
Address: 14, HIGH ROAD, ICKENHAM
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR CONSERVATORY
LBH Ref Nos: (A) 51057/APP/2002/2240. (B) 51057/APP/2002/2283 (Application for Listed Building Consent)
Drawing Nos:Scale 1/1250 Location Map, Scale 1/ 500 Block Plan
Date of receipt: 19/09/2002Date(s) of Amendment(s): 2/10/2002
CONSULTATIONS:
Neighbours consulted: 6Responses: 1 from Ickenham Conservation Panel.
No Objections subject to the use of Cedarwood for the construction of the base wall and rendering or window sills, rather than brickwork.
English Heritage: London Borough of Hillingdon can determine this Listed Building Consent application.
Conservation Officer / Urban Design: No objection subject to conditions.
(i) Details of changes to existing openings. (ii) Making good of any damage during the works. (iii) Details of the frame sections and materials. (iv) Details of the weathering detail where the Conservatory abuts the Listed Building.
KEY PLANNING ISSUES:
These applications relate to a Grade II Listed Building.
The proposed single storey pitched roof rear conservatory projects 4.68 metres from the rear of the property, is 4.11 metres wide and has a maximum height of 3.8 metres. It includes a small addition to the side which measures 1.9 metres wide, projects 1.67 metres deep and has a maximum height of 3.3 metres.
The proposed conservatory complies with the Council’s policies and standards and would not have an adverse impact on the design and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building on the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 45 The following policies from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan are applicable:
Part One Policies:
Pt1.8 To preserve or enhance those features of the Conservation Area which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Pt1.9 To seek to preserve statutory Listed Buildings and buildings on the Local List.
Part Two Policies:
BE4 New development within or on the fringes of Conservation Areas will be expected to preserve or enhance the qualities of that Conservation Area.
BE8 Applications for planning permission to alter or extend Listed Buildings will normally be permitted if no damage is caused to historic structures.
BE9 and BE8 Will apply to applications for Listed Building Consent.
BE10 Planning permission of Listed Building Consent will not be granted for proposals considered detrimental to the setting of the Listed Building.
BE13 Requires that new development must harmonise with existing street scene or other features of the area.
BE19 Requires that new development should complement or improve the amenity and character of the area.
BE21 Permission will not be granted for new development which would result in a significant loss of residential amenity by virtue of siting, bulk and proximity.
BE24 The design of the new buildings should protect the privacy of occupiers and neighbours.
The proposed conservatory is sited 6 metres from the eastern boundary, 20 metres from the northern boundary and 10 metres from the western boundary of the site.
The boundaries are demarked by trees, hedgerow, 1.8 metre high fencing and shrubs, which provide adequate screening from neighbouring properties and High Road, Ickenham.
It is considered that this proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building of Special Architectural and Historic Interest, neighbouring properties or the character and appearance of the Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
UDP Designation: Local Centre: - Ickenham Village Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION: (A) Subject to any comments received following consultations, Approval subject to the following conditions:-
1. (G1) Time Limit ( Full ) 1. (G1) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 46 2. (G2) Any damage to the building 2. (G2) in execution of the work shall be To safeguard the special made good after the works are architectural and historic interest completed of the building. 3. Details of the proposed 3. To safeguard the special conservatory including:- architectural and historic interest (i) Details of changes to of the building. existing openings. (ii) Details of frame sections and materials. (iii) Weathering detail where the Conservatory abuts the Listed Building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the commencement of any works.
RECOMMENDATION: (B) Subject to any comments received following consultations, Approval subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit ( Full ) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B7A) Existing Screen Planting / 2. To safeguard the privacy of Hedges …” on side and rear adjoining residents. boundaries”
INFORMATIVES
1. 3. Property rights/ rights of light. 2. 25. Legislation administered by Building Control.
Reference Documents:
(a) UDP Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 ( Planning and the Historic Environment)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 47
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 48
Category A Report Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 15 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone No.: 01895250840
Address: 47-49 HIGH ROAD, ICKENHAM
Development: ERECTION OF A THREE-STOREY BLOCK OF FIVE, TWO BEDROOM FLATS
LBH Ref Nos: 47066/APP/2002/1637
Drawing Nos: 2/2190/1C Rev C; 02/2190/2A Rev A
Date of receipt: 08/07/2002Date(s) of Amendment(s): 19/11/2002
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal is for the demolition of the existing two storey block and the construction of a three- storey block of five, two bedroom flats. It is considered that the proposal would not harm the amenities of the adjoining properties and is consistent with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Accordingly, approval is recommended.
(2) RECOMMENDATION:-
That the Borough Solicitor enter into an agreement with the applicants under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that:
A contribution of £6,947 towards school places
That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree details of the proposed agreement
That subject to the above the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transport under delegated powers subject to the completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.
That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the section 106 agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.
That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B7A) Existing Screen 2. (B7A) Standard Planting/Hedges 3. (B8) Parking Arrangements 3. (B8) Standard
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 49 (Residential) 4. (B12) Closure of Existing Access 4. (B12) Standard 5. (B14A) Screen Fencing 5. (B14A) Standard (‘… boundary with 45 High Road …’) 6. (B16) Details/Samples to be 6. (B16) Standard Submitted 7. (D1) No Additional Windows or 7. (D1) Standard Doors (‘… facing 45 High Road …’) 8. (D3) Obscured Glazing for 8. (D3) Standard Bathroom Windows 9. (B2) Trees Retained 9. (B2) Standard 10. (B3) Fencing to Protect Root Areas 10. (B3) Standard 11. (B4) Maintenance of Landscaped 11. (B4) Standard Areas 12. Noise – Adequate sound installation 12. To ensure that the amenity and ventilation measures should be of the occupiers of the submitted to and approved by the proposed flats are not Local Planning Authority and adversely affected by noise. implemented before the occupation of the flats and thereafter retained. 13. Provisions shall be made within the 13. To ensure that the site to ensure that all vehicles development does not cause associated with the construction of danger and inconvenience the development hereby approved to users of the adjoining are properly washed and cleaned to pavement and highway. prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 14. A16 (Refuse Storage) 14. (A16) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (I9) Communal Space 4. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Public Protection Services 5. (20) Environment Agency – Land Drainage 6. (22) Mogden Drainage Group – Sewerage 7. (23) Engineering Consultancy Unit – Sewers 8. (24) Crossovers 9. (26) Notification of Building Demolition to Building Control
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
Nos. 47-49 are located on the western side of High Road, Ickenham. The site adjoins a petrol filling station to the north and an office development that has been converted to residential units to
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 50 the south. The rear of the property backs onto a single storey detached dwelling house located on Parkfield Road.
The existing property is a two-storey building located in the centre of the site comprising two flats. A large car parking area is provided at the front of the site.
The site is approximately 60m to the north of the designated Ickenham Local Centre. As such, the area is characterised by a mix of uses and forms of development. There are a number of two and three storey developments as well as single storey development.
(3)(b) Scheme
The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a three-storey block of flats. The ground and first floor would be occupied by two flats and the second floor would be occupied by a flat. Dormer windows are proposed for the front and rear.
Four car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the site. A 2.2m high hedge on the rear boundary would be retained, and a landscaping scheme is proposed.
(3)(c) Planning History
Planning permission was granted for the construction of a rear extension to provide an additional two-bedroom flat in August 2000.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Developed Area
Part One Policies:
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Pt1.13 To seek to ensure the provision of additional dwellings in the Borough.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 51 Part Two Policies:
H6 Appropriate density of development shall balance the full use of housing land and the quality of design, it’s compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding development, the proposed dwelling mix, and the location, configuration and characteristics of the site.
BE13 Requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE19 Requires new development to improve or complement the character of the area.
BE20 Requires that new development ensures adequate sunlight and daylight can penetrate between buildings.
BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity.
BE 23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space.
BE 24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours
BE38 Existing vegetation and landscaping should be retained.
AM7 Permission will not be granted, inter alia, for developments that prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety.
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.
R17 The Local Planning Authority will, where appropriate supplement the provision of recreational open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals.
Residential Extensions Design Guide Principles A1 and A2 Building Lines / impact in the street scene A3 Impact of mass bulk and overlooking A4 visual impact of a development A5 Design of extensions / materials
Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design 4 Outlook and over domination 5 Privacy 7 Amenity space 8 Communal car parking areas
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 52 (3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
5 letters of objection were received raising the following comments.
The proposed three-storey development is too high with regards to the surrounding development of a single-storey petrol filling station and the single storey bungalows on Parkfield Road. The proposal constitutes over-development in an area subject to a number of recent developments. Overlooking and loss of privacy to 2 and 2a Parkfield Road Development should be reduced by one floor. The parking provided is inadequate for the development and would add to the existing on street parking problem on the local side streets as much of the High Road does not have on street parking. There is not enough turning space on site to prevent cars reversing onto the street which is prejudicial to highway safety. The plans are misleading as trees are shown to soften the impact of the development Shortage of parking would be prejudicial to highway and pedestrian safety
Ickenham Residents’ No comments Association Jaykay Residents’ The development would overdominate the Association - (Flats 45, neighbouring dwelling house at No 45 High 45A, 45B and 45C High Road affecting the light and privacy of the Road in ‘JayKay occupiers of these flats. In particular light and House’) privacy to Flat 45B on the second floor, entrance and landing windows, bathroom windows. Also privacy to a rear courtyard would be affected. Construction effects would affect the amenities of the occupants of JayKay House. Structural concerns regarding the demolition and rebuilding. Existing problems with entrance to JayKay House would be similar for residents of the proposal and would be prejudicial to highway safety. Environmental effects of an increase in cars. Lighting of the new building may impact on the amenities of JayKay House Internal Consultees The concluded that the access and parking Traffic Engineer arrangement is acceptable. In accordance with Council’s parking policies, additional car parking would not be required on this site due to the proximity to a local centre, railway station and location on a bus route.
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 53
The main planning issues for consideration are: The impact of the proposal on-
The appearance and character of the area; The outlook, privacy and amenity effects for the neighbouring properties; The adequacy of the parking for the proposed flats; The adequacy of the amenity space for the proposed flats. Contributions towards school places.
(i) The appearance and character of the locality
There are a number of two and three storey developments as well as single storey development. The location of the dwelling house on the site would be to a similar front and rear building line to the adjoining development (37-43 High Road) to the south. The design is considered to be compatible with the density, form and spacing of surrounding development and the location, configuration and characteristics of the site in accordance with Policy H6.
Whilst the site is located next to a petrol filling station, it is considered that this visual relationship is acceptable due to the nature of the two operations. It is not uncommon to have taller buildings adjacent to petrol filling stations.
The proposal complies with Policy Pt1.13 to ensure the provision of additional dwelling houses in the Borough. It is considered that the form of the proposal would comply with Policies H6, BE13, BE19 and BE22.
(ii) The outlook, privacy and amenity effects for the neighbouring properties
As the adjoining property to the north is a petrol filling station, its amenities are not considered to be affected by the proposed residential development. There would be an increase in the degree of shading and loss of sunlight to this property due to the larger bulk of the proposal in comparison with the existing development. However this increased shadow would cast over the car wash located adjacent to the shared boundary.
A shading diagram demonstrates that No 45 High Road would not experience a loss of sunlight as a result of the development due to the orientation of the properties, with No. 45 High Road being located to the south. Objections raised the issue of a loss of daylight to the windows located on the northern (side) elevation of this property. The proposed building would be between 3.6m and 4m from the neighbouring dwellinghouse and this is considered to be an appropriate gap to safeguard residential amenity. The new building is similar in scale and form to No.45 and therefore is not considered to be over dominant.
The design guidance advises a distance of 21m from window to window. The proposed rear elevation of the block of flats would be approximately 22m from the property at No. 2 Parkfield Road to the rear. There is a 2.2m high hedge located on the rear boundary of the subject site which further protects the rear amenity space of the occupants of this house. The building is not considered to result in an over dominant or visually intrusive form of development.
The proposal is considered to comply with Policies Pt1.10, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE24 and BE38 of the UDP.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 54
(iii) The adequacy of the parking for the proposed flats
The applicant proposes to provide four car parking spaces for the five units following the advice of the Traffic Engineer. The perimeter of the car parking area would be landscaped and sufficient manoeuvring area would be provided so that cars can exit the site in a forward direction.
The Traffic Engineer concludes that access and parking arrangements are acceptable. In accordance with Council’s parking policies, additional car parking would not be required on this site due to the proximity to a Local Centre, West Ruislip railway station and location on a bus route.
It is considered that the proposal complies with Council’s car parking standards and Policies AM7, AM14 and AM15.
(iv) The adequacy of the amenity space for the proposed flats
Principle 7 of the Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design sets out the requirements for shared amenity space. It is considered that due to the number of units in the development, the amenity space provided (approximately 160m2) is sufficient. Suitable landscaping (including retention of the existing, established vegetation) and fencing would be secured by condition. The site is level and whilst the proposed development would result in additional shade to this area in the early-late morning, the area would receive sunlight for the remainder of the day. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy BE23.
(v) Contributions towards school places.
Education services consider that the proposed development would generate the need for additional school places. The applicant has agreed to contribute £6,947.00 towards school places. This would be secured by a legal agreement.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
The points raised have been addressed in the report. Comments relating to noise from the construction work and structural concerns are not planning matters.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
''When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.”
(3)(i) Observations of Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 55 It is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers. It would not result in a detrimental effect on the street scene and amenities of the area, and is consistent with the relevant policies of the Unitary Development Plan. Accordingly approval is recommended.
Reference Documents:
Council’s Car Parking Standards Design Guide: Residential Layouts and House Design Residential Extensions Design Guide 6 letters of objection (including Residents’ Association).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 56
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 57
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 16 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: RICHARD BUXTON Telephone No: 01895 250838
Address: ST RAPHAEL’S CONVENT, COURT DRIVE, HILLINGDON
Development: ERECTION OF A REPLACEMENT TWO STOREY CONVENT BLOCK, TWO SINGLE STOREY GARAGES AND ASSOCIATED PARKING (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOME).
Drawing Nos. Unnumbered O/S 1:1250, 166SR313P2, 314, 315, 316 received 21/08/02 & 23/12/02
LBH Ref Nos: 966/APP/2002/1987
Date of receipt: 21/08/02 Date of Amendment: 23/12/02
(1) SUMMARY
The proposal to relocate the convent will not harm the character and appearance of this part of the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Character and will retain the important trees on the site. Whilst there will be some impact on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers, it is not considered to be unacceptable given the positioning of the new building, the surrounding trees and proposed landscaping. Planning permission is recommended.
(2) RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard submitted 3. (TL2) Trees to be retained 3. (TL2) Standard 4. (TL3) Protection of trees and 4. (TL3) Standard plants during site clearance and development. 5. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 5. (TL5) Standard 6. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme 6. (TL6) Standard 7. (DIS1) Facilities for People with 7. (DIS1) Standard Disabilities. 8. (H7) Parking Arrangements 8. (H7) Standard 9. (MCD10) Refuse Facilities 9. (MCD1) Standard 10. Wheel washing on site 10. Standard 11. (OM1) Development in 11. (OM1) Standard accordance with approved plans
INFORMATIVES
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 58
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (14) Environmental Protection Legislation 4. (21) Construction Regulations
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
St Raphael’s Convent is a two-storey detached property located on the northern side of Court Drive between Oak Tree Cottage and Harwood Drive and is within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Character. Set behind a high fence, the site contains a number of trees covered by Tree Preservation Order No.7 (including a Lebanon Cedar, Blue Spruce, Manna Ash, Horse Chestnut and Lawson Cypress). The site adjoins the American Community School to the north and the area is characterised by substantial houses with landscaped gardens.
(3)(b) Scheme
The proposal involves the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a two-storey replacement convent incorporating 10 flats at first floor and a chapel, community room, dining room and offices at ground floor. The built form is being moved to the west of the site avoiding two of the preserved trees and is 8m from the boundary with the houses at Oak Tree Cottage and Silver Birches. Detached garages providing four car parking spaces are shown adjacent to these houses and a service road will run around the northern perimeter of the site. Access to the site will continue to be from Court Drive.
The scheme has been revised to accommodate the preserved trees on the site in terms of the relationship of the buildings and the surrounding hard surfacing. Landscaping has been reserved for detailed approval at a later date.
(3)(c) Planning History
There is currently an application on the eastern part of the site to construct two detached bungalows which is still under construction (966/APP/2002/1987).
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 59 (3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
Part 1 Policies:
Pt 1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Part 2 Policies:
BE5 requires new development in Areas of Special Character to harmonise with the special features of the area, extensions should respect the symmetry of the original building
BE13 requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE19 requires new development to improve or complement the character of the area.
BE20 Requires that new development ensures adequate sunlight and daylight can penetrate between buildings.
BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity.
BE 23 Requires the provision of adequate amenity space.
BE 24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours
BE38 Requires Landscape features and trees to be retained.
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
Hillingdon Court Park Residents No Comments received Association
12 neighbouring properties None Received
Internal Consultees
CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Urban Design/Conservation Current scheme is well designed. No objections subject to conditions.
Trees/Landscape Relationship to TPO tree has been improved with the amended scheme
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 60
The main planning issue are considered to be:-
(i) The impact on the character and appearance of the area (ii) The impact of the proposal on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers
(i) The impact on the character and appearance of the area
The proposed two-storey block has a traditional appearance in terms of design and materials that will complement the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character. These would include red brick and keymer roof tiles which are compatible with the prevailing materials evident in the locality. The building is 31m wide, 32m deep with an overall height of nearly 10m. It will have a staggered configuration that will allow the significant trees on the site to be retained (particularly the preserved Manna Ash located within the middle of the site).
Given that the site has a significant tree screen along the Court Drive frontage, and the fact that the building is set back from the pavement by 18m, the building will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, in line with policy BE5 of the UDP.
(ii) The impact of the proposal on the amenities of the adjoining occupiers
The proposed building is at right angles to the two most affected properties, which are to the west of the site (Oak Tree Cottage and Silver Birches). It will mean that their gardens are overlooked to some extent by the future occupiers in the Convent. However, the nearest first floor window to these properties is more than 15m away and there is adequate screening and landscaping to prevent a significant loss of amenity through loss of privacy.
The location of the detached garages and the service road will not significantly harm the amenity of the adjoining occupiers in Oak Tree Cottage or Silver Birches due to the distance from the boundary and the relationship of these structures to the properties. The proposal is, therefore, considered to comply with policies BE21 and BE24 of the UDP.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
No comments have been received.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 61 (3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
The proposal to demolish and rebuild the Convent takes account of the preserved trees on the site and will not lead to a significant loss of amenity to the adjoining occupiers or be harmful to this area of special character.
Reference Documents:
UDP
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 62
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 63
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 17 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: RICHARD PHILLIPS Telephone Number:01895 250836
Address: 4 NEW WINDSOR STREET, UXBRIDGE
Development: (A): CHANGE OF USE FROM ANCILLARY RETAIL STORAGE TO A CAR HIRE BUSINESS, COMPRISING OFFICE USE, CAR VALET/WASH FACILITIES AND ANCILLARY STORAGE AND EXTERNAL ALTERATION WORKS AND INSTALLATION OF VEHICULAR CROSSOVER (WORKS INVOLVE THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING)
Development: (B): INSTALLATION OF TWO INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENT SIGNS
LBH Ref Nos: (A) 1077/APP/2002/1940 and (B) 1077/ADV/2002/110
Drawing Nos: (A) Drawing Nos. SK 01, SK 02, SK 03, SK 04 Rev. A, SK 05, SK 06, SK 07 Rev. A and 5 A4 photographic sheets received 4/3/03 and 14/8/02 and letters dated 3/3/03 and 29/1/02; and (B) Drawing Nos SK 07 Rev. A and SK 08 received 23/10/02 and letters dated 3/3/03, 22/10/02 and 25/10/02.
Date of receipt: (A) 14/8/02 and (B) 30/10/02
Date(s) of Amendment(s): (A) & (B) 4/3/03
(1) SUMMARY
The application site is located close to Uxbridge town centre and is sensitively sited in terms of its proximity to residential properties. As the site has an authorised commercial use, no objections are raised to the principle of the car rental use of the site in terms of the character of the area. The proposal would not significantly harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties.
The illuminated signage would not have an adverse impact upon highway safety or the visual amenities of the surrounding area.
Planning permission and advertisement consent are therefore recommended.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 64 (2) RECOMMENDATION
(A) – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. The number of vehicles for hire 3. To safeguard adjoining operating from this site shall not residential amenity. exceed 30 vehicles. 4. The premises shall not be open to 4. In order to accord with the the public outside the hours of terms of the application 08:00 and 18:00 hours, Mondays to and to protect the Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on amenities of adjoining Saturdays and at no time on residential occupiers. Sundays and Bank Holidays.. 5. Staff shall not be permitted to be on 5. In order to accord with the the premises except between the terms of the application hours 07:00 and 20:00, Mondays to and to protect the Fridays, 08:00 and 15:00 Saturdays amenities of adjoining and 09:00 and 15:00 Sundays. residential occupiers. 6. The car valeting and washing 6. To protect the amenities facilities hereby permitted shall be of adjoining residential used only for purposes ancillary to occupiers. the use of the site as a car hire business and shall not be offered as a separate service to visiting members of the public. 7. All car valeting, washing and 7. To protect the amenities associated activities shall take place of adjoining residential within buildings. occupiers. 8. No plant and /or machinery shall be 8. To protect the amenities used on site unless previously of adjoining residential agreed in writing by the Local occupiers Planning Authority and only between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 hours, Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 to 13:00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.. 9. No plant and/or machinery shall be 9. To protect the amenities used on the premises until a of adjoining residential scheme which specifies the occupiers. provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site or to other parts of the building, has been submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include such combination of measures as may be approved by the LPA.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 65 10. (B8) Parking Arrangements 10. (B8) Standard 11. (B5) New Planting 11. (B5) Standard 12. (B6) New Planting 12. (B6) Standard 13. Prior to the commencement of the 13. To safeguard the visual use hereby permitted, full details of amenities of the street a boundary treatment scheme shall scene and to protect the be submitted to and approved by amenities of surrounding the Local Planning Authority and residential occupiers. thereafter permanently retained on site for so long as the use remains.
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Advertisement Regulations 3. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
(B) – CONSENT, subject to the following conditions :-
1. Standard Advert Conditions (1 to 6) 1. Standard (1 to 6) 2. (C1) Constant illumination 2. (C1) Standard 3. (C2) Brightness 3. (C2) Standard (Insert “1,000” and “lit”)
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The application site is located immediately to the west of Trumper Way and Uxbridge town centre, to the rear of purpose built flats fronting New Windsor Street to the north. The site comprises various vacant commercial buildings, including a two storey building which fronts Trumper Way at the eastern end of the site (Building 1) and four essentially single storey buildings located at the rear. The larger of these buildings is sited towards the centre of the site and has been sub-divided into two (Buildings 4 and 5). Buildings 2 and 3 are smaller and are sited on the site’s northern boundary, in between buildings 1, and 4 and 5. Building 2 is a brick outbuilding with a large loft space. Building 3 is a wooden lean-to structure. These buildings are surrounded by hardstanding with vehicular access to the site provided from both Trumper Way and How’s Road abutting the site to the east and west. There is a small landscaped area fronting Trumper Way adjacent to building 1.
To the north, the site is adjoined by the access and car park serving the flats to the north known as William Court, whereas to the south, the site adjoins the rear garden areas of terraced properties fronting How’s Close.
(3)(b) Scheme
(A)Planning permission is sought to change the storage use of the site to a car hire business, comprising office use, car valet and wash facilities and ancillary storage. It is proposed to carry out external and internal alterations and refurbishment works, including the installation of a new ground floor window within the eastern elevation of building 1 to allow it to be used for office
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 66 purposes. Buildings 4 and 5 would be used for car valeting and washing and building 2 for ancillary storage. Building 3 would be partially demolished to allow greater access to building 4. Car parking for 17 cars would be provided including two disabled spaces with improved access from How’s Road provided by means of a new vehicular crossover.
The applicants state that the proposed Uxbridge car hire depot would primarily serve the needs of corporate customers. The planned opening hours would be from 0700 to 2000 hours, Monday to Friday, 0800 to 1500 hours on Saturday and 0900 to 1500 hours on Sunday, although the core hours of the business will be from 0800 to 1800 hours Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 hours Saturday, the extended hours would allow occasional delivering and collecting of cars to and from the premises.
(B) Advertisement consent is sought for two internally illuminated signs on building 1, one would be a 5.6 metre by 1.5 metre sign located on the eastern elevation of the building, sited 3.6 metres above ground level and the other a 5.6 metre by 0.7 metre sign on the northern elevation, sited 2.4 metres above ground level.
(3)(c) Planning History
Numerous temporary permissions for the retention and continued use of a single storey storage building in connection with the former “Mahjack’s” DIY store on the Trumper Way roundabout have been granted since 1964. Permanent permission was granted on 12 May 1989 (ref. 1077M/88/2691).
An appeal against non-determination of an application for the alteration of the existing building, erection of a new front canopy, enclosure of a retail sales area and erection of a single storey building for timber cutting and storage purposes with associated car parking and landscaping details was dismissed on 4/10/90 (ref. 1077P/90/5). The Inspector considered the proposal represented an unacceptable intensification of the retail use of the site.
An application for a certificate of lawfulness for a retail shop with ancillary storage and distribution space was refused on 14/5/96 (ref. 1077T/95/1645), as the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the use had existed for a 10 year period.
The two storey building at the front of the site has been in use for office purposes recently, albeit without planning permission.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Developed Area
The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies are:
Part One Policies:
Policy Pt 1.10 - Protects residential areas.
Part Two Policies:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 67 BE15 – Alterations and extensions to existing buildings.
BE19 - New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area.
BE27 – Advertisements requiring express consent – size, design and location.
BE29 – Advertisement displays on business premises.
BE38 – Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals..
OE1 – Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area.
OE3 – Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance – mitigation measures.
S1 – New retail development within the shopping hierarchy.
LE1 – Proposals for industry, warehousing and business development.
LE5 – Small scale business activities within the developed area.
AM7 - Consideration of traffic generated by proposed developments.
AM14 - New development and car parking standards.
(3)(e) Consultations
Neighbours consulted: 41 No. of responses: 2
Comments:-
The use of the site as a valet/wash facility will only increase the number of cars in this already overcrowded residential area. Proposal will generate additional pollution and noise. Demolition of buildings will reduce screening and privacy. How’s Road is densely parked with cars all day. The site access on How’s Road is narrow and lies opposite another access to a private car park road, giving rise to safety concerns. Another access onto Trumper Way is situated before a set of traffic lights and any queuing of cars could be potentially hazardous. New parking scheme proposed for Hows Road would be put in jeopardy by this proposal with extra car movements.
Whitehall Residents’ Association 1. Application states that only 20 cars would be on site, but there could be a fairly continuous entry and exit of cars.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 68 2. The Mahjack’s roundabout is an extremely busy roundabout. Any additional regular traffic would cause difficulties. 3. Site is very close to residential areas and could cause noise and extra pollution to those living nearby.
North Uxbridge Residents Association No response
Environmental Protection UnitNo objections subject to various conditions
Traffic EngineerNo objections to car parking or vehicular crossover.
(3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
The impact of the use upon the character and visual amenities of the area The impact upon the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers The implications for car parking and highway safety
(i) The impact upon the character and visual amenities of the area
The application site is located on the edge of the town centre and already has an authorised use for commercial storage purposes. There is no objection to the part demolition of building 3, which is of little architectural or historical interest. The only external alteration is the installation of a new ground floor window in the elevation of the two storey building that fronts Trumper Way (Building 1). Subject to a condition relating to the use of matching materials, the alteration would not be out of keeping with the character of the building, particularly as a similar window has already been installed on this corner on the southern elevation of the building. As such, the proposed use and alterations would not be unduly out of keeping with the existing character of the building and visual amenities of the area.
The proposed signage is of an acceptable design and would not be unduly out of scale with the building and would therefore not harm the visual amenities of the area.
The proposals therefore accord with policies BE15, BE19 and BE27 of the UDP.
The impact upon the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers
Currently, the only restrictions on the storage use of the site, imposed when permanent planning permission was granted (ref. 1077M/88/2691), require that the site should be used only for storage purposes and that noise generated should not exceed background noise. The office use would not result in any undue disturbance to neighbouring properties as such uses are considered capable of locating within residential areas without harming residential amenities. Although the car valeting and washing element of the use could result in harm to residential amenity by reason of noise and general disturbance, it is considered that conditions restricting hours of operation and use of machinery would adequately safeguard residential amenity. Furthermore, the nearest residential properties in How’s Road are over 10 metres away which would reduce any adverse impact. Noise and general disturbance due to car collection and deliveries would be controlled to
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 69 within acceptable hours by conditions, which restrict the size of fleet vehicles for hire, public opening and staff occupancy of the premises.
The proposed signage would not face adjoining residential properties. As such, residential amenity would not be adversely affected by the signage.
(iii) The implications for car parking and highway safety
There are no car parking standards for the use proposed. The applicants anticipate that the use will result in twenty car movements a day. The Traffic Engineer is satisfied that the main vehicular access to the site from How’s Road with the installation of a vehicular crossover is suitable and the overall level of car parking provided is adequate for the expected level of trip generation.
The signage is sufficiently set back from the road so as not to threaten highway safety.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
The use for valeting/washing of cars will only be for hire cars in connection with the use of the car hire business and not for visiting members of the public. Any additional pollution caused by car movements associated with the use would be negligible compared to existing pollution levels. Noise issues have been dealt with in the main report. The demolition of the building is partial, with the side boundary wall retained. Site access onto How’s Road is existing. Improvement would be made with the installation of a new vehicular access. The proposal would not impede visibility at this access. The access onto Trumper way is existing. The plans show this access to be used for emergency purposes only. As such, this proposal represents an improvement in terms of road safety. The controlled parking scheme will restrict non-residential parking within this area. This proposal would not interfere with the scheme’s operation.
Comments of the Whitehall Residents’ Association:-
As regards point 1, the number of vehicle movements to the site in a working day has been estimated at 20 by the applicant. This seems a reasonable estimate given that the number of vehicles for hire would not exceed 30 vehicles. In terms of point 2, any additional traffic generation resulting from the operation of this proposal would be negligible as regards the operation of Mahjack’s roundabout and pollution. Point 3 has been dealt with above.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor and Borough Treasurer
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
The observations of the Borough Treasurer are to be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 70 The proposed use would be acceptable, both in terms of the character of the building, the visual amenities of the area and the amenities of surrounding residential occupiers, subject to the conditions. Furthermore, road safety would not be prejudiced. The proposed signage is acceptable, both in terms of design and road safety. As such, planning permission and advertisement consent are recommended.
Reference Documents:
(a) 47 Three consultation letters received
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 71
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 72
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 18 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: NICK SUTTONTelephone Number: 01895 277 079
Address: GOODBURN HOUSE, ARUNDEL ROAD, UXBRIDGE
Development: ERECTION OF A NEW WORKSHOP AND OFFICES FOR THE REPAIR, MAINTENANCE AND SERVICING OF MOTOR VEHICLES (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING)
LBH Ref Nos: 24001/APP/2002/1962
Drawing Nos: 519/S1/4c (site plan), 1c (ground floor plan), 2a (first floor plan), 3a (elevations)
Date of receipt: 14/08/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 04/12/02
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for demolition of the existing industrial building and erection of a new two-storey workshop and office building for the maintenance and repair of motor vehicles. The site is located within an Industrial and Business Area. Three letters of objection have been received in relation to the proposal. The key planning issues relate to car parking, vehicular access and the impact of the development on the character and amenity of the area.
The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the bulk and scale of surrounding buildings, while the workshop and office use is seen as being compatible with the industrial character of the area. The building has been designed to ensure vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction while the level of on-site parking is considered satisfactory. Accordingly, the development is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
(2) RECOMMENDATION
1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples 2. (M1) Standard 3. (RCU4)Internal Floorspace 3. (RCU4) Standard 4. (H3) Vehicular Access 4. (H3) Standard 5. (H7) Parking Arrangements 5. (H7) Standard 6. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 6. (TL5) Standard 7. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme - 7. (TL6) Standard Implementation 8. (TL8) Screen Planting (1.5 metres) 8. (TL8) Standard 9. Provisions shall be made within the 9. To ensure that the site to ensure that all vehicles development does not
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 73 associated with the construction of cause danger and the development hereby approved inconvenience to users of are properly washed and cleaned to the adjoining pavement and prevent the passage of mud and highway. dirt onto the adjoining highway. 10. (MCD10 Refuse facilities) 10. (MCD10) Standard 11. Details of a designated area for the 11. To provide a designated storage of waste recycling area in addition to the bin receptacles adjacent to the bin store where recycled waste store shall be submitted to and can be stored before it is approved by the Local Planning removed from the site. Authority. This recycling area shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained.
INFORMATIVES
1. Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Advertisement Regulations 3. Notification to Building Contractors 4. Environmental Control on Construction Sites 5. (24) Crossovers 6. Legislation Administered by Building Control 7. Notification of Building Demolition
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The Site
The application site is a level, square shaped allotment on the western side of Arundel Road, Uxbridge. The site contains a one and two-storey building which covers the majority of the site. There are no trees or car parking spaces provided on-site. As a consequence, vehicles are required to park on the street.
The Locality
The site is surrounded by the following:-
North: A two-storey industrial building with an approximate setback of 13 metres. Fifteen car spaces are provided in the front setback area.
South: A single storey industrial building having a minimum setback of 3.0 metres. Four parking spaces are provided within the front setback area and another six at the rear of the building.
East: Arundel Road. On the other side of Arundel Road is a part single/part two storey industrial building with car parking in the front setback area.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 74
West: Vacant land (designated as IBA), further beyond which is the Green Belt.
(3)(b) Scheme
The application proposes the erection of a 2-storey workshop and office building for Class B2 use with associated landscaping and car parking. The building comprises 235m² of workshop floorspace and 100m² of office space, including toilets, lunch room and reception area.
The building is to be used for the repair, maintenance and servicing of motor vehicles, coaches and other vehicles. The office component of the building is proposed to be ancillary to the workshop use.
Seven car spaces are proposed on-site (being 4 at the rear of the building, 2 adjacent to it and 1 within the front setback area). The space within the front setback area is proposed as a disabled space. Access to the site is via a new driveway along the southern side of the building. Vehicles will enter the site and drive through the proposed building before exiting onto Arundel Road, although, should the exit (through the building) and onto Arundel Road be blocked, then the driveway on the southern side of the building can be used for both ingress and egress.
Landscaping is proposed in front of the building and along the rear portion of the site while a new path is proposed within the front setback area to provide pedestrian access to the street. The building is to be constructed of brick and coloured steel sheeting with coloured steel sheeted roof and skylights.
(3)(c) Planning History
There is no record of any previous planning applications on the site.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Industrial and Business Area (IBA)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 75 The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies are:
Part 1 Policies:
Pt1.23 To encourage industry and warehousing to locate within existing Industrial and Business Areas.
Pt1.24 To reserve designated Industrial and Business Areas as the preferred locations for industry and warehousing.
Pt1.25 To encourage the provision of small industrial, warehousing and business units within designated Industrial and Business Areas.
Part 2 Policies:
BE13 New development should harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE25 Careful attention is to be given to the design, landscaping and vehicular access arrangements of new developments within Industrial and Business Areas.
OE1 The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on the character or amenities of surrounding properties having regard to the siting and appearance of the building, the storage of goods, the level of traffic generation or noise and vibration emissions.
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the revised UDP Car Parking Standards.
AM15 All new development is to provide reserved spaces for disabled persons.
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
No external consultations were undertaken.
Internal Consultees
Highway Engineer The applicant has demonstrated that the lorry access to the rear of the property is satisfactory. Accordingly, there are no objections to the proposal.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 76 (3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
Impact on the character or appearance of the area. Access arrangements Parking standards
Impact on the character or appearance of the area
The proposed development involves demolition of the existing two-storey building and erection of a new two-storey building with improved vehicular access to the site. The proposed setback to Arundel Road is similar to the setback of the existing building while the setbacks to the rear of the property have been substantially increased. Accordingly, the footprint of the building has been substantially reduced, providing greater spatial separation to the Green Belt and increased car parking provision at the rear. The setback areas at the front of the building and along the rear portion of the site are proposed to be landscaped which will help improve the street scene and soften the impact of the built form. The proposed development is therefore considered to have a positive impact on the character and appearance of the area in accordance with UDP policies BE13, BE25 and OE1.
Access arrangements
The proposed access arrangements are an improvement on the existing and have been designed to cater specifically for the proposed use. In this regard separate entry and exit points are proposed which enable all vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction. These considerations have also been applied to larger vehicles and motor coaches proposed to be serviced on-site. The Council’s Highway Engineer considers the access arrangements to be satisfactory.
Parking standards
The Council’s Revised Parking Standards provide maximum levels of provision that seek to reduce traffic generation and reliance on the car. The Council’s maximum rates for this form of development (General Industry) are as follows: 2 spaces plus 1 space per 100m² of floorspace in excess of 235m². 10% to be allocated as disabled spaces The proposed development has a floorspace of 335m² and therefore generates a maximum parking provision of 3 spaces. The development proposes a total of 7 spaces, including 1 disabled space. The proposal therefore exceeds the Council’s maximum parking standards. The amount of car parking is considered reasonable given the nature of the proposed use and the likely number of employees for this type of use. In this regard, motor vehicle workshops generally require a relatively high number of car spaces in order to accommodate staff parking and vehicles waiting to be worked on and collected. As a result, a parking rate above Council’s maximum standard is considered reasonable for this form of development. Arundel Road is also heavily congested which makes the movement of large vehicles difficult. This is due to its narrow width and the number of vehicles parked along it. It is therefore considered beneficial to the overall area to have a greater number of car parking spaces provided
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 77 on-site, thus reducing demand for on-street parking. This will also help to ensure the large coaches are able to manoeuvring safely onto the site. A variation to Council’s maximum parking standards is therefore supported in this instance.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
Four local businesses were notified by letter of the proposed development and three letters of objection were received. Some of the planning objections have been addressed in the main body of the report however the following comments are made in respect to those that have not.
All cars associated with this use should be required to park on-site.
The level of on-site parking exceeds the Council’s current standards. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the amount of parking generated by the development will be accommodated on-site. It is also noted that additional space is available at the rear of the building to accommodate any overflow parking should the need arise.
More heavy goods vehicles in Arundel Road will cause further damage to the road surface.
The road surface along Arundel Road has been designed to cater for large vehicles. Accordingly, the use of Arundel Road by coaches and large vehicles accessing the site is considered reasonable and in keeping with the size and volume of traffic generated by other surrounding land uses.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 78 (4) CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed two-storey workshop and office building is in keeping with the street scene and general character and appearance of the area. The building has been sited and designed to enable increased on-site parking and forward ingress and egress to the site. The proposed setbacks provided spatial separation to the rear and opportunities for landscaping within the front setback area. Accordingly, the development is recommended for approval subject to conditions.
Reference Documents:
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are:-
(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) UDP Revised Parking Standards (c) 3 letters of objection
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 79
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 80 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 81
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL TEAM CONTACT OFFICER: CHRISTINE COSTE EXTENSION: 3837
Application No. Location Proposal
19. 24174/APP/2002/1673 63 WEST DRAYTON ERECTION OF PART PARK AVENUE TWO-STOREY AND PART WEST DRAYTON SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION, SINGLE- STOREY AND FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE). (Date of receipt: 15/07/02) Drawing Nos. 1 received (Last amended plans received: 02/09/02) 15/07/02, 2/A and 3/A (Letter dated 04/11/02) received 02/09/02 and letter dated: 04/11/02
Unitary Development Plan: West Drayton Conservation Area
(1) SUMMARY
This report was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 9 January 2003 to enable Members to visit the site.
The house is detached and of a modern design located within the West Drayton Conservation Area. The proposal includes the erection of a part two-storey and single storey side extension, incorporating two side dormer windows. The single storey extension will extend to the side boundary with 65 West Drayton Park Avenue and, as a result, would not comply with the Council’s policy for maintaining a gap of 1m to the side boundary. The proposal also includes a first floor rear extension over an existing flat roofed single storey extension and a single storey rear extension behind the side extensions. The accommodation at ground floor is designed to be self- contained for an elderly relative.
Objections to the proposal have been received on the grounds that the development would be overdominant and out of character with surrounding houses. Revised plans show a reduction in the bulk of the roof of the two-storey side extension. The revised proposal is considered in keeping with the design of the original house, maintains the spaciousness between buildings and would not harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.
(2) RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B14A) Screen Fencing 2. (B14A) Standard (‘Nos. 61 and 65 West Drayton Park Avenue’)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 82 3. (B16) External Surfaces To 3. (B16) Standard Match (including dormers, window frames and external pipework) 4. (B38) Single Dwellings 4. (B38) Standard Occupation 5. (D1) No Additional Windows or 5. (D1) Standard Doors (‘Nos. 61 and 65 West Drayton Park Avenue’) 6. (D4) Prevention of Balconies 6. (D4) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
INFORMATION
CAR PARKING: Lost: 1 Provided: 2 Required: 2 (Max)
TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF DEVELOPMENT: 58.7m2
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:
being within or affecting a Conservation Area
CONSULTATIONS:
NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 3 No. of replies: 1
Comments:
Total volume of proposal would double the living space of the original dwelling. The loss of garage, the altered roof line with dormers and front windows are out of character with the house and area. The roofline could be extended along the existing line without the need for dormers. The proposal is visually over dominant in relation to 61 West Drayton Park Avenue. Concerned about damage resulting from demolition of existing development. New hardstanding abutting driveway with 61 West Drayton Park Avenue will destroy appearance of neighbouring detached property – a gap of 1m should be retained between driveways.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 83
OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:
Original Scheme:
West Drayton Green Conservation Proposal is rather overwhelming in this Panel small cul-de-sac and impact could be overwhelming on neighbours. Amended Scheme:
West Drayton Conservation Panel Object – The plans now seem to be overwhelming changing the front aspect and losing the garage.
Conservation Officer Supports approval subject to conditions relating to specific details of materials. The proposal would be extended in the same manner as the neighbouring extension.
(4) REPORT
The Site
The application relates to a detached two-storey dwelling located on the west side of West Drayton Park Avenue, which is a cul-de-sac. The house forms part of a row of four detached properties of a similar modern design and appearance. These properties are within the West Drayton Conservation Area.
The Proposal
The proposal incorporates the following:
Erection of a part two-storey, part single storey side extension replacing the existing garage to the side. The two storey extension would be set back 1.2m from the front elevation, project 2.4m to the rear of the original two storey elevation in line with the proposed first floor rear extension and be set back 1.6m from the side boundary with No. 65. Two first floor dormers are proposed in the side. A single storey rear extension behind the proposed two-storey side extension, extending to a depth of 3.2m from the existing single storey rear elevation, 5.7m from the original rear elevation. A first floor rear extension over the existing single storey rear extension, 2.4m in depth and in line with the proposed two-storey rear projection.
Relevant Planning History
Planning permission was granted in 1977 for a single storey rear extension 2.4m in depth.
Planning Standards and Policies
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 84
Part One Policies:
Pt1.8 To preserve or enhance those features of Conservation Areas which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Part Two Policies:
BE4 New development must preserve or enhance the special architectural or visual qualities of the Conservation Area.
BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE15 Extensions must be in harmony with the original building.
BE19 New development must improve or complement the character of the area.
BE20 New development must ensure adequate sunlight and daylight can penetrate between buildings.
BE21 Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting, bulk and proximity.
BE22 Requires two storey extensions to be set back a minimum of 1m from the side boundary for the full height of the building.
BE24 Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours.
AM7 Permission will not be granted, inter alia, for developments that prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety.
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.
Design Guides: ‘Residential Extensions’ and ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 85 Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area The effect of the proposal on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties
The effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area
The original scheme proposed a part two-storey and single storey side extension that retained a gap of 1.0m from the first floor flank elevation to the side and to the boundary at ground floor. A hipped roof was proposed at the same height as the existing main ridge height. This extension was considered to be too bulky in relation to the existing dwelling and out of character with surrounding development.
The amended scheme maintains a larger gap of 1.6m to the side boundary from the first floor flank elevation. The proposed roof catslides from the main roof to the side and incorporates two side dormers in order to obtain sufficient height internally. The roof bulk is substantially reduced and retains more space between houses than originally proposed.
No. 65 West Drayton Park Avenue has extended the original roof pitch towards No. 63 in a similar manner although dormers are not included and there is no single storey projection to the side towards No. 63.
Although the proposal is technically contrary to Policy BE22 in that a gap of 1m to the side boundary for the full height of the extension is not proposed, the proposal would not result in a terracing effect. The facing two storey flank elevation to No 65 has a gap of 1.1m to the shared boundary and due to the increased gap of 1.6m (from 1m) from the proposed first floor flank elevation a total gap of 2.7m between properties at first floor would be maintained. In addition, the roof heights of both houses, at the closest points are low having a maximum height of 4.5m. These factors, plus the proposed set back of the side extension serve to maintain the spaciousness between the houses.
The dormers would be small in size, located at the lowest level of the roof extension and be set back from the front elevation. The proposed front windows follow the proportions of existing windows on the front elevation. These features are not considered to be obtrusive in the street scene. The proposed roof form is now considered to be in keeping with the design of the original dwellinghouse and would not be overdominant in the street scene.
Similarly the rear extensions conform to the lines and proportions of the original house and are in keeping with the original design. It is considered that the proposed development would not be visually overdominant or out of character with surrounding development and therefore would not detract from the qualities of the Conservation Area. The proposal is considered to comply with policies BE4, BE13, BE15, BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan.
The effect of the proposal on the residential amenity of the neighbouring properties
No. 61 West Drayton Park Avenue has a single storey garage 3.8m wide adjoining the side boundary with No. 63. Habitable rooms are therefore over 3.8m away from the boundary and
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 86 would be set back 2.2m from the proposed first floor rear elevation of No. 65. There is sufficient space between the properties so that the proposed development would not be overdominant. Due to the orientation, whereby No. 61 lies south of No. 63, there would be no increase in shadow to the rear of No. 61.
The single storey rear extension proposes patio doors facing No. 61 West Drayton Park Avenue. Overlooking of the amenity area to No. 61 may arise and therefore a condition is recommended to ensure adequate boundary screening is retained to prevent overlooking.
No. 65 West Drayton Park Avenue has an existing two-storey side extension located 1.1m from the shared boundary that extends slightly beyond the proposed two-storey extension. No. 65 has no windows in the side elevation and one door located facing the existing garage at No. 63. The proposed development would not give rise to overlooking or overdominance of this property.
The proposed single storey rear extension would project 1m beyond the existing single storey rear extension to No. 65 with a distance of 1.1m between the flank elevations. The front of the proposed side extension would be situated behind the front elevation of No. 65. Due to the relative position of each property it is not considered that the development would cause any detriment to the amenities of No. 65. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the relevant UDP policies.
The proposal involves the creation of a flat for an elderly relative that would not be used as a separate residential unit. A condition is recommended to ensure that the development is not used as a separate residential unit in order to ensure that amenity and parking standards are not affected and the character of the area is maintained.
Observations of Borough Solicitor
To be reported.
Observations of Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 87 Public Consultation
Three neighbouring properties were consulted and objections from one property were received. The matters raised in respect of the extensions are dealt with above. The provision of hardstanding and a new access to a non-classified road within the curtilage of a residential property is permitted development. Notwithstanding this, the second access and parking space to the rear has been removed from the scheme. Building regulations cover structural matters of development.
The West Drayton Green Conservation Panel had no objection to the original scheme but considered that it could be ‘overwhelming’. The Panel have objected to the revised proposal on the grounds that it will be overwhelming. The revised proposal is considered acceptable for the reasons explained in the report.
Conclusion
This proposal is considered to be of a design, bulk and scale consistent with the design of the original dwellinghouse and the adjacent dwellinghouses, and is therefore considered to preserve the architectural qualities of the Conservation Area. The proposed extensions would not harm the amenities of the adjoining properties due to the design and distances maintained between them. The proposal is therefore is recommended for approval.
Background Documents
The background documents used in the preparation of this report are:-
Unitary Development Plan Design Guides: ‘Residential Extensions’ and ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ Letters from consultees
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 88
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 89 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 90
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 20 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: PATRICK MAGUIRE Telephone No: 01895 250794
Address: 15 FRAYS AVENUE, WEST DRAYTON
Development: THE UNAUTHORISED CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL TO A MIXED RESIDENTIAL / BUILDING CONTRACTORS DEPOT
LBH Ref Nos: Enf: 1908
Drawing Nos: N/A
Date of receipt: N/A Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A
(1) SUMMARY
The site, which consists of a detached bungalow, outhouse, garage and large gardens to the side and rear, is situated on the east side of Frays Avenue West Drayton. The street is characterised by detached and semi detached bungalows.
The outhouse to the rear of the bungalow is being used for offices in conjunction with the use as a building contractor’s depot. The double garage and an area to the front and side of the garage are being used for the storage of gas bottles and building materials including ladders, scaffolding and a skip. The skip is used for the storage of waste brought from building sites operated by the owner.
The business use is being undertaken without the benefit of planning permission. The use by reason of its activity, noise generation and its visual appearance is harmful to the character and appearance of this residential street, the residential amenities of local residents and the area of special local character. It is therefore considered expedient to instigate enforcement action.
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Committee consider the expediency of enforcement action, including the service of Enforcement Notices under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct the Borough Solicitor to issue an enforcement notice in accordance with delegated powers in respect of:
The change of use of the land from residential to use for residential purposes and as a building contractors’ depot.
3. That the notice shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 91
(a) Cease the use of the land as a building contractor’s depot.
(b) Remove from the land all vehicles / building materials / equipment / tools / plant / machinery / skips and other items associated with this business including all office equipment and related paraphernalia.
4. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of the notice be as follows:
The unauthorised building contractor’s depot, by reason of noise, smells, fumes, dust, activity and visual appearance, is detrimental to the amenity of nearby residential properties and fails to improve the amenity and character of this area of special local character, contrary to policies OE1, OE3, BE5, BE19 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.
5. That a period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms of the Enforcement Notice.
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The site is located on the east side of Frays Avenue, West Drayton. It consists of a detached bungalow, a single storey outhouse, garage, and large rear and side gardens. Frays Avenue is a residential street running east to west between the Rivers Colne and Frays comprising bungalows. The area is designated as an Area of Special Local Character.
(3)(b) Planning History
Planning permission for the erection of a double garage was granted on 20th November 1995 (Ref4355C/95/1419).
Planning permission for the erection of a single storey rear extension and retention of an existing single storey outbuilding was granted on 4th December 1995(Ref4355D/95/1420).
Planning permission for the erection of single storey front and rear extensions was granted on 24th November 1993.
In September 2002, the Council became aware that a commercial use was operating on this residential site. A building company known as ‘C.P.Holdaway and Sons’ is operating a building contractor’s depot. A double garage and an area to the front and side of this garage is being used to store building materials, gas bottles, ladders and a builders skip. A single storey outbuilding in the rear garden is also being used as the builder's office. The occupier claimed that the use has been in existence for over 10 years. A Planning Contravention Notice was served on 17th January 2003 and an application for Lawful Development Certificate, for the existing use of the land as a builder's yard with ancillary offices, was refused on 10th March 2003 as the occupier could not demonstrate that the use had been in existence for over 10 years.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 92 Visits to the site and evidence provided by local residents suggest that there has been an intensification of the unauthorised use over the past twelve months. Small trucks have been seen delivering waste for depositing into a skip on site on a regular basis.
(3)(c) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Area of Special Local Character
The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies, Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) documents to this report are considered to include:-
Part 1 Policies
PT 1.10 Development should not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Boroughs residential areas.
Part 2 Policies:
OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of the surrounding properties and the local area
OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance-mitigation measures.
BE5 New development within areas of special local character
BE19 New development within residential areas complementing and improving amenity and character of the area
BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions
PPG 4: Industrial and Commercial development and small Firms
PPG 18: Enforcing Planning Control Paragraph 5: The Local Planning Authority has a general discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it is expedient.
Circular 10/97 Enforcing Planning Control: Legislative Provisions and Procedural Requirements Paragraph 2.2: The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and requires remedial steps to be taken within a specified time limit. It should only be used where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control and it is expedient to issue a notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material consideration.
(3)(d) Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be the:
(i) Effect on the character of the area (ii) Impact on the amenity of local residents. (iii) Expediency of enforcement action
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 93
(i) Effect on the character of the area.
The area is residential in character and appearance. Government Guidance in PPG4, paragraph 9, advises that many businesses can be carried out in residential areas without creating unacceptable increases in traffic, noise or other adverse effects. The introduction of a commercial business with the parking, collection and delivery of materials by vehicles within this residential area has resulted in unacceptable levels of activity such as noise and disturbance which is considered to be harmful to the amenities of the area. Furthermore, the storage and display of vehicles and building materials on open land is considered to be harm the visual appearance this area of special local character. The development is therefore contrary to Policies OE1, OE3 and BE5 of the Unitary Development Plan.
Impact on the amenity of local residents.
It is considered that this activity is consistent with those of an industrial site. The disruption caused by parking, deliveries and storage of materials, loading and unloading of skips causes harm to the residential amenities of adjoining residential properties. The use is considered to be out of keeping with this residential area, contrary to Policies BE19 and BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.
(iii) Expediency of enforcement action
The unauthorised use is considered to be detrimental to the amenities of nearby residents and the character of the area. The use is contrary to the clear and established Development Plan Policies. In view of the harm caused by this breach of planning control it is considered expedient to take enforcement action.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 94 (3)(e) Observations of Borough Solicitor and Borough Treasurer
Observations of the Borough Solicitor:
The power to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary and should only be used where the Local Planning Authority are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control. They must also be satisfied that it is expedient to issue the notice having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and to any other material considerations. Consequently the Council must decide based on the particular circumstances of each individual case the question of expediency. The decision to take enforcement action must be reasonable and not based on irrational factors or taken without proper consideration of the relevant facts and planning issues or based on non planning grounds. Enforcement action should not be taken purely to regularise the situation
Observations of the Borough Treasurer:
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
It is considered that the unauthorised use is detrimental to the character and amenities of the surrounding area. The use breaches UDP policies and it is considered that it could not be ameliorated satisfactorily through conditions attached to any regularising application. As such, it is recommended that the Committee resolve to take enforcement action to secure the cessation of the use.
Reference Documents:
(a) The Unitary Development Plan (b) PPG18: Enforcing Planning Control (c) PPG4: Industrial and Commercial development and small Firms
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 95
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 96
Category A
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 21 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: NICK SUTTONTelephone Number: 01895 277079
Address: FRANKLIN HOUSE, THE GREEN, WEST DRAYTON
Development: (A) - Demolition of an existing Residential Care Home (Franklin House) – Application for Conservation Area Consent (B) - Redevelopment to provide a three-storey, 64 bedroom Care Home with associated parking and landscaping
LBH Ref Nos: (A) - 8621/APP/2002/2498 (B) - 8621/APP/2002/2439
Drawing Nos: (A) - 9978/PLAN/002 – Rev F (B) - 9978/PLAN/002,003,004,005,006,007 - Rev F
Date of receipt: (A) - 28/10/02 (B) - 15/10/02
Date(s) of Amendment(s): 29/11/02, 20/12/02 & 28/02/03
(1) SUMMARY
Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent are sought for demolition of the existing two- storey building (Franklin House) and erection of a new three-storey building for use as a Residential and Nursing Care Home. The proposed building comprises 64 on-suite bedrooms with associated office, kitchen, communal lounge and dining facilities.
The applications (8621/APP/2002/2498 & 2439) were reported to the Uxbridge Planning Committee on the 9 January 2002. Committee resolved to defer the application for further negotiation between the Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the applicant with a view to an amended scheme that would reduce the visual bulk of the building.
A meeting was held between the two parties on the 28 January 2003 and an amended scheme prepared. The amended scheme provides for a three-storey building that is considered to be more in keeping with the character and appearance of the conservation area. The amended scheme has been assessed by Council’s Conservation Officer who raises no objections to the proposal. Accordingly, the applications are recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
(2) RECOMMENDATION
(A) – CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 97 1. (G1) Time Limit 1. (G1) Standard 2. (G3) Demolition 2. (G3) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (14) Environmental control on construction sites 3. Legislation Administered by Building Control 4. Notification of demolition
(B) – PLANNING PERMISSION - APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. (B1) Time Limit 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B2) Trees Retained 2. (B2) Standard 3. (B3) Protective Fencing 3. (B3) Standard 4. (B4) Landscaping Maintenance 4. (B4) Standard 5. (B5) Landscaping Scheme 5. (B5) Standard 6. (B6) New Planting 6. (B6) Standard 7. (B7) Screen Planting (2.0 metres) 7. (B7) Standard 8. (B8) Parking Arrangements 8. (B8) Standard 9. (B16) Details of Materials (These 9. (B16) Standard are to include brickwork, render finish, cladding, eaves, bargeboards, balcony rails, doors, windows, window frames, rw gutters and pipes and all other external timber and metal work. 10. (B31) People with Disabilities 10. (B31) Standard 11. The existing fence along the 11. To maintain the existing southern property boundary is to street scene and minimise be retained or replaced with a disturbance to the existing similar timber fence to the same trees and shrubs along the height. southern boundary. 12. Provisions shall be made within the 12. To ensure that the site to ensure that all vehicles development does not associated with the construction of cause danger and the development inconvenience to Hereby approved are properly Users of the adjoining washed and cleaned to prevent the pavement and highway. passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 13. (OM11) Details of External Lighting 13. (OM11) Standard 14. Delivery times are to be restricted 14. To protect the amenity of to the hours of &am to 7pm Monday surrounding property to Friday, 8am to 5pm Saturday owners. with no deliveries on Sundays. 15. The use of the building shall be 15. To ensure the use of the restricted to “C3 – Sheltered development remains Residential” unless otherwise compatible with the
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 98 approved by the Local Planning residential character and Authority. amenity of the area. 16. Details of a designated area for the 156 To provide a designated storage of waste recycling area in addition to the bin receptacles adjacent to the bin store where residents can store shall be submitted to and store and handle recycled approved by the Local Planning waste before it is removed Authority. This recycling area shall from the site. be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained.
INFORMATIVES
1. Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. Disabled Persons 3. Notification to Building Contractors 4. (14) Environmental Control on Construction Sites 5. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control
(3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The application site, which is rectangular in shape, is located on the north eastern side of the intersection of Richard Close and The Green, West Drayton. It is situated within the West Drayton Green Conservation Area and faces a listed building on the corner of The Avenue and The Green, West Drayton. It has an area of approximately 0.31 hectares and contains a two-storey brick and tile building with associated landscaping and car parking. A grassed courtyard area is located on the northern side of the building with mature trees located on the southern portion of the site, all of which are proposed to be retained. The car parking area contains a total of 13 spaces and is accessed off Rickard Close.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 99 The site is surrounded by the following:-
North : A row of two-storey semi-detached brick and tile dwellings setback between 10 to 15 metres from the common property boundary. The setback area contains rear gardens, some of which are over-grown while others appear well utilised.
South : The Avenue Close containing one and two-storey detached brick and tile dwellings setback 7 to 12 metres off the common property boundary. The setback area contains the roadway (Avenue Close), driveways and well-maintained front gardens. The listed buildings “Avenue House” and the adjoining older cottage and converted barn are located on Avenue Close and The Green respectively.
East : A driveway providing access to a row of two-storey attached dwellings setback approximately 10 to 15 metres from the common property boundary. The setback area contains the driveway(s) and front gardens, which are well maintained.
West : Rickard Close which provides access to a three-storey residential flat building to the north west and a two-storey semi-detached dwelling to the west. The property to the west contains a number of large trees in the front yard which help to screen the site when approaching along “The Green”.
(3)(b) Scheme
Background
The original scheme (15/10/02) proposed a three-storey building with the third storey contained within the roof space. The application was considered to have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area having regard to the size and proportions of the dormer windows and the unrelieved massing of the building.
Accordingly, a revised scheme was submitted (29/11/02) and then further amended (20/12/02) in an attempt to address the concerns of Council’s Conservation Officer. The scheme was reported to the Uxbridge Planning Committee on the 9 January 2003. Committee resolved that the application be deferred for further negotiation between the Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the applicant with a view to an amended scheme that would reduce the visual bulk of the building.
A meeting was held on the 28 January 2003 and an amended scheme prepared. The amended scheme (28/02/03) provides for a three-storey building with the following notable design changes:-
The elevations have been altered to create greater modulation by providing. recessed and projecting elements Contrasting colours and materials are proposed to help break up the bulk and scale of the building. The dormer windows have been removed from the upper level. The upper level is now partially accommodated within the roof space, partially setback from the main facade and partially treated with a contrasting timber finish.
The amended scheme has been assessed by Council’s Conservation Officer who raises no objections.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 100
The proposal
The proposal seeks Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing building (Franklin House) and the redevelopment of the site to provide a new 3 storey, 64 bed residential and nursing Care Home with associated landscaping and car parking. The building comprises 64 on-suite bedrooms with associated office, kitchen and communal lounge and dining areas.
A parking area comprising 9 spaces (including 2 disabled spaces) is proposed in the south-west corner of the site while 5 staff and delivery vehicle parking spaces are proposed at the western end of the building. Access to both parking areas is off Rickard Close.
The site is owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon and is currently leased to Care UK under the terms of the original contract. A new lease agreement is to be negotiated between Care UK and The London Borough of Hillingdon for the proposed new building. Care UK have indicated that the new building will comprise the following levels of care:-
Intermediate Care: Designed for elderly people who may be ill but do not need to occupy a bed in a District Hospital. These residents need care in a domestic rather than a hospital environment.
Nursing Care: Designed for residents who need full-time nursing care, as they are unable to undertake normal living functions without support.
Residential Care: Similar to Nursing Care but of a lesser dependency. These type of residents are similar to those who occupied the original building.
The Care Home is proposed to be staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in a daily, 3-shift rotation. The staff will include nursing, domestic, catering, care and management staff. No staff will reside in the home. It is anticipate that a maximum of 12 staff will be on-site at any one time with lesser numbers during the afternoon and evening periods.
The building is to be constructed of face brick at ground and first floor levels with rendered panels to the recessed zones. The upper level is to be constructed of cedar timber lining with the roof being metal deck sheeting. No roof or external wall colours have been specified. Accordingly, should the application be approved, a condition is proposed requiring further details of external finishes to be submitted to Council for approval.
(3)(c) Planning History
There is no record of any previous planning applications on the site.
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation:Within the West Drayton Green Conservation Area
The relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies are:
Part One Policies:
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 101
Pt1.8 To preserve the features of Conservation Areas which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.
Pt1.10 To ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas.
Pt1.30 To promote and improve opportunities for everyone in Hillingdon, including in particular women, elderly people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities.
Pt1.31 To retain a wide range of local services, which are easily accessible to all, including people with disabilities or other mobility handicaps.
Pt1.32 To encourage development to locate in places which are accessible by public transport.
Part 2 Policies :
BE4 New development should preserve the features of Conservation Areas that contribute to their special architectural or visual qualities.
BE13 New development should harmonise with the existing street scene.
BE10 Planning permission will not be granted for proposals that are considered detrimental to the setting of a listed building.
BE19 New development should complement or improve the character and amenity of the area.
BE20 Buildings should be laid out so that adequate daylight can penetrate between them.
BE21 The bulk, siting and proximity of new buildings should not result in a significant loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.
BE24 The design of new buildings should protect the privacy of the occupiers and their neighbours.
BE38 New development should retain and protect landscape and topographical features and provide new landscaping where appropriate.
OE1 The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on the character or amenities of surrounding properties.
OE12 New residential developments should take into account the requirements of energy conservation.
OE13 Developments should provide facilities for the collection of recyclables.
H7 Applications involving an increase in units need to demonstrate that the character of the area and residential amenity of adjoining occupiers is not compromised.
H9 New housing should include units for people with disabilities.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 102
H10 Development for hostels or people in need of care are to comply with Council’s parking requirements and be conveniently located to local shops, services and public transport facilities.
AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the revised UDP Car Parking Standards.
AM15 All new development is to provide reserved spaces for disabled persons.
Also considered relevant are:
PPG1 (General Policy and Principles) PPG3 (Housing) PPG13 (Transport) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment ) SPG – Residential Design Guide
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
English Heritage To be reported.
Hillingdon Primary Care Trust Hillingdon PCT are one of the partners involved in the design of this building and believe the development will support the needs of the Hillingdon population.
West Drayton Green Residents Strict measures are required to protect the surrounding houses against dust and noise pollution. The third storey creates privacy problems for adjoining residents while the height of the building is outside the scope of the original planning brief and exceeds the two-storey height of the adjacent listed building. The parking for the site should be adequate, not minimal. If approved conditions should be placed restricted demolition working hours and the movement of service vehicles during the early mornings. Lastly, the ownership of the site should remain with the London Borough of Hillingdon for use as a Care Home.
Internal Consultees
Urban Design/Conservation This should be a better building for its inhabitants and for local people in terms of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings around the site. I therefore
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 103 recommend approval subject to a materials condition.
Trees/Landscape Officer The plans fail to show retention of the immature trees and shrubbery along the Avenue Close (now addressed by amended plans).
The parking layout should be modified to show screening of the car park close to the corner of Rickard Close and the Avenue Close (addressed by amended plans).
A method statement is required detailing the necessary tree protection measures during demolition and construction (dealt with by condition).
Highways To be reported.
Social Services No comments
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 104 (3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The main planning issues are considered to be:-
Whether the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area Whether the bulk and scale of the building is compatible with the existing street scene and character of the area Whether the design of the development protects the privacy and amenity of adjoining properties Whether the development allows adequate sunlight penetration into the buildings on the site and any other adjoining buildings Whether the proposal has an adverse impact on any significant landscape features Whether the development satisfies the relevant car parking standards
Whether the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area
Franklin House is located within a Conservation Area and faces a listed building on the corner of The Avenue and The Green, West Drayton. The listed building is known as Avenue House and adjoins an older cottage and barn (further to the south and fronting The Green) which are also listed buildings although they are located some distance from the subject site.
Apart from the listed building on the corner of The Avenue and The Green (“Avenue House”), the site is surrounded by buildings of little historical or architectural significance. In this regard, the surrounding buildings represent an eclectic mix of building forms and styles incorporating single storey detached cottages, two-storey terraces and semi-detached dwellings and a three-storey residential block of flats. The building styles and materials lack any overall design theme which could be considered characteristic of the immediate area.
In accordance with UDP Policy BE4, BE10 and BE13, the building has been designed to harmonise with the architectural and visual qualities of the adjoining listed building (“The Avenue”). In this regard, the use of recessed and projecting building elements in combination with contrasting colours and materials helps to break up the bulk and scale of the building. The upper level of the building has also been set back at the western end (immediately adjacent to the listed building) which further helps ensure the development is in keeping with the scale and massing of the adjoining listed building on the corner of The Avenue and The Green.
Council’s Conservation Architect considers the revised scheme to be a better building for its inhabitants and for local people in terms of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings around the site. Accordingly, the development is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
Whether the bulk and scale of the building harmonises with the existing street scene and character of the area
The predominant scale of development within the surrounding area is two-storeys although there are examples of three-storey developments within close proximity to the site. The proposed development presents as a two-storey building to Rickard Close with the third storey being setback behind the main façade. Along Avenue Close and to the north of the site, the building
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 105 presents as three-storeys with the upper level constructed of a contrasting, light weight timber finish. The building bulk is broken up along these elevations by the projecting and recessed elements which help to achieve a scale more in keeping with the surrounding buildings. To the rear of the site, the building presents as two storeys in keeping with the existing building and the bulk and scale of the adjoining two-storey buildings to the east.
The proposed development is also considered to provide generous setbacks to all property boundaries in line with the footprint of the existing building. This is emphasised by the spatial separation created by the roads and driveways which border three of the sites four sides. Notwithstanding, the setback to the front boundary has been increased from zero to 8.0 metres, thereby providing greater spatial separation and additional landscaping opportunities within the front setback area. The building has therefore been sited to achieve spatial separation to adjoining properties and improve its relationship with the primary street frontage of Rickard Close.
It should also be noted that the existing Franklin House building has fallen into a state of disrepair and the grounds appear overgrown and in need of maintenance. Accordingly, having regard to UDP policies BE10, BE13, BE19, BE21 and OE1, the proposed development is considered to be of a bulk and scale which harmonises with the existing street scene and compliments the character and amenity of the area.
Whether the design of the development protects the privacy of adjoining properties
Council’s UDP policy BE24 requires new buildings to protect the privacy of the occupiers and their neighbours. The proposed development has been sited to reflect the layout and configuration of the existing building whilst also providing a greater setback to the front property boundary (Rickard Close). The proposed setbacks enable the provision of screen landscaping along the boundaries of the site whilst also providing spatial separation to the adjoining residential properties. The main lounge and dining areas have been designed to open out and overlook the internal courtyard while the bedroom, lounge and dining room windows at the upper levels generally achieve the accepted separation distance of 21 metres, as set out in Council’s Residential Layouts and House Design Guide. Accordingly, the design of the proposed building is considered to reasonably protect the privacy of adjoining properties.
Whether the development allows adequate sunlight penetration into the buildings on the site and adjoining properties
The proposed building will not result in any significant overshadowing impacts onto adjoining residential properties. In this regard, the existing dwellings on the northern side of the site are setback between 16 and 30 metres from the proposed building and this setback distance is considered adequate to allow sunlight penetration into the main living areas of the dwellings. Notwithstanding, some overshadowing of the rear amenity areas will occur although the extent of overshadowing is considered minimal. In respect to the dwellings to the east and west, the minimum setback distance of 15 metres is considered sufficient, particularly given that the areas comprise roads and driveways rather than the primary amenity areas of the dwellings. Accordingly, the layout and configuration of the proposed building is in line with the footprint of the existing building and is not considered to result in adverse overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 106 With respect to the proposed building, the design and configuration allows for good sunlight penetration into the building while the use of windows along all elevations and to every room within the building will ensure adequate levels of solar amenity for future occupants.
Whether the proposal has an adverse impact on any significant landscape or topographic features
The site contains a number of significant trees along the southern portion of the site as well as a hedge of immature trees and shrubs along the southern property boundary. The plans have been modified to ensure these trees and landscape features are retained while also providing for additional landscaping opportunities within the front setback area and the south-west corner of the site. Subject to conditions, all of these landscape features will be retained and enhanced as part of a new landscape scheme for the site.
Whether the development satisfies Council’s Revised UDP car parking standards
Council’s Revised UDP Parking Standards are maximum rates, which seek to promote the use of public transport rather than reliance on private cars. Council’s maximum parking standards for this form of development are as follows: 1 space per 4 resident bed spaces 1 space per 2 staff (based on 1 employee per 3 residents) 10% of all spaces to be allocated for wheelchair users of people with disabilities Based on the above rates, a maximum of 27 spaces are required for the site, including 3 disabled spaces. The development proposes a total of 14 spaces, two of which are disabled spaces. This level of parking is considered sufficient given the proximity of the site to a bus route (Mill Road) and the nature of the use which generates a relatively small amount of visitor parking demand. Accordingly, the development is considered to satisfy Council’s Revised UDP Parking Standards.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
On the original application, 49 local residents were notified by letter, a site notice was erected on the property and the application was advertised in the local paper as a development affecting the setting of a Conservation Area. One letter of objection and one letter of support were received. Amended plans have since been received and the report is being written before expiry of the consultation period (28/02/03 – 14/02/03). Accordingly, any further representations will be recorded on an amendment sheet or reported orally.
Notwithstanding, the following comments are made in respect to the concerns raised as part of the original consultation.
Noise and dust pollution during demolition
Noise and dust pollution are controlled through Informative No. 14 of the consents which restricts the level of dust and noise emissions from the site during construction.
Previously, the planning office has insisted on only a two storey building that faces the existing listed buildings.
The only pre-application discussions held in relation to this application focused on minimising the bulk and scale of the building by containing the third storey to the centre portion of the site and within the roof space. The proposed development is three-storeys in the centre portion of the site
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 107 although the third storey of the building is not contained wholly within the roof space. This is due to the design changes made after extensive consultation between Council’s Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the applicant. These changes were made to achieve a built form, which was more in keeping with the bulk and scale of the adjoining Listed Buildings.
If approved, restrictions should be placed on the movement of service vehicles early in the mornings.
In response to this concern it has been recommended that a condition be imposed restricting delivery times to between the hours of 7am and 7pm Monday-Friday, 8am to 5pm Saturday with no deliveries on Sunday.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor and Borough Treasurer
Detailed comments from the Borough Treasurer will be reported to Committee.
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
(4) CONCLUSION
The revised scheme represents a significant improvement on the original scheme reported to Committee. The changes have come about after extensive consultation between Council’s Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the applicants. The result is a scheme which is far more in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the adjoining Listed Buildings. The development will also benefit the wider community by providing a much needed aged and nursing care facility within a well landscaped setting which is in close proximity to public transport facilities. Accordingly, the applications for Listed Building Consent and Planning Permission are hereby recommended for approval, subject to conditions.
Reference Documents:
(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) UDP Revised Parking Standards (c) Residential Layouts and House Design – Design Guide (d) Letters of objection (e) PPG1 (General Policies and Principles) (f) PPG3 (Housing) (g) PPG13 (Transport) (h) PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment)
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 108 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 109
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 22 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: LUNGILE MNGADI Telephone No: 01895 277948
Address: 31 PEAR TREE AVENUE, YIEWSLEY
Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
LBH Ref Nos: 29215/APP/2002/2132
Drawing Nos: Unnumbered drawings
Date of receipt: 06/09/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A
(1) SUMMARY
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side and part rear extension. The proposal has been brought in front of Members because of the two letters of objection received. Conditions have been recommended to address the concerns raised; the proposal would not detract from the character or visual amenity of the area, I recommend accordingly.
(2)RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:
1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B14A) Screen Fencing 2. (B14A) Standard (2m) (8 Birch Avenue) 3. (B15) External Surfaces to 3. (B15) Standard Match 4. (B38) Single Dwellings 4. (BE38) Standard Occupation 5. (D4) Prevention of Balconies 5. (D4) Standard 6. (E4) Loss of Integral Garage 6. (E4) Standard
INFORMATIVES
1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (14) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Public Protection Services 3. (24) Crossovers 4. (25) Compliance with Legislation Administered by Building Control
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 110 (3) CONSIDERATIONS
(3)(a) Site and Locality
The site comprises a two storey semi-detached house with a large side garden, and is located adjacent to an electricity sub-station. It is located adjacent to the junction of Pear Tree Avenue and Birch Avenue.
The side garden is a triangular plot of approximately 27 metres in depth. There are no trees on the site and a fence, which encloses ground used by a previous occupier for car storage/repairs, currently divides the property. The immediate locality is residential in character.
(3)(b) Scheme
Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey side extension, incorporating a garage. The extension is set back 0.15m from the building line of the original property. It has a width of 6.5m across the front elevation, with a mock pitch roof at the front and a flat roof behind, at a height at 3.2m. The single storey side extension would run along the whole depth of the house, but with an additional 2.6m into the rear garden.
The proposed garage will be attached to the single storey side extension and will have a width of 2.7m across the front elevation with a flat roof at a height of 2.6m.
(3)(c) Planning History
Planning permission was approved for the erection of a single storey side extension incorporating a double garage in January 1991 (29215/C/90/1172). This was never implemented.
An outline application for the use of the site for the erection of a detached dwelling house with attached garage was refused in July 2000 (54595/APP/1999/2600).
An outline application for the use of the site for the erection of two terraced houses was refused in April 2001 (54595/APP/2001/29).
An outline application for the erection of a dwellinghouse with garage was refused in July 2001. A subsequent appeal was dismissed in June 2002 (APP/R5510/A/02/10817919).
(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards
UDP Designation: Developed Area
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 111 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered relevant:
Part 1 Policies:
None.
Part 2 Policies:
BE13 Development will not be permitted if its layout and appearance fail to harmonise with the existing street scene or other features, which the LPA considers desirable to retain or enhance.
BE15 Requires extension to harmonise with the scale form and architectural composition of the original building.
BE19 Development in residential areas should complement/improve the amenity / character of the area.
BE24 The design of new buildings should protect the privacy of the occupiers and their neighbours.
Design Guide: Residential extensions B3.1 Single storey rear extensions
Design Guide: Residential Layouts & House Design 5.2 & 5.4 Privacy
(3)(e) Consultations
External Consultees
NEIGHBOURS No. Consulted: 7 No of replies: 2
Comments
Will result in loss of privacy to rear garden. Concern that the applicant will turn it into a self-contained flat. Size of extension plus garage means there is no provision for a back entrance, thereby problem in emergency. Concern that the applicant will build on top of the current proposal to create a separate house.
Internal Consultees
No. Consulted: None No of replies: None
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 112 (3)(f) Main Planning Issues
The principal issues are considered to be:-
(i) Impact upon the character and appearance of the area and street scene (ii) Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining properties
(i) Impact upon the character and appearance of the area and street scene
This part of Pear Tree Avenue comprises two storey houses arranged as terraces of four or semi-detached pairs on plots that have typical frontages of 6.5 to 9.0 metres. In the vicinity of the application site the layout and spacing of the houses is a distinctive feature that gives the area an open character which is largely unaltered by infilling or extensions. The road junctions also have an open character and make an important contribution to the character of the area.
It is considered that the extension would not detract from the visual amenity or the character of the area, nor would it affect the open appearance that characterises the area. This is because the extension is 3.2m high, the garage is 2.6m high, and both structures are set back from the front building line. The single storey rear extension is in accordance with design principle B3.1 of the Design Guide on Residential Extensions.
(ii) Impact on the residential amenities of adjoining properties
The application proposes two picture windows on the front elevation, and a picture window and patio doors on the rear elevation facing the rear garden of 8 Birch Avenue. The distance between the extension and 8 Birch Avenue would be less than 15m and therefore, less than the preferred 21m separation distance between windows to habitable rooms. However a Condition is recommended that the applicant installs a 2m high close-boarded fence on the boundary in question to avoid a loss of privacy to 8 Birch Avenue.
(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations
Two objection letters have been received expressing concern over the loss of privacy, and that the proposed development would be used as a separate unit. Condition 2 is recommended to address the issue of privacy between the application site and 8 Birch Avenue. Conditions 4 and 6 are recommended to address the concerns about the use of the extension as a separate unit. (Condition 4 states that the development shall not be used to form an additional dwelling unit; and Condition 6 states that the garage shall be used only for the accommodation of a private motor vehicle incidental to the use of the dwelling-house as a residence).
Further concern is that, because of its size, the extension will not allow for a back entrance, thereby causing a problem in an emergency. The drawing submitted with the application indicates the extension and garage will be set 2.5m from the side boundary, thereby providing ample access to the rear garden of the property. Concern is also raised that the applicant will build on top of the current proposal to create a separate house. Such works would require planning permission and the acceptability or otherwise of such a scheme would be addressed at this stage.
(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 113
When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
The proposal for a single storey side extension is considered to be acceptable since it would harmonise with the existing street scene and retain the pleasant open appearance of the area. The proposal would not adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbours and as such is recommended.
Reference Documents:
(a) 47
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 114
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 115 Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 116
Category A Report
Committee: UXBRIDGE
Item No. 23 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation
Contact Officer: JON M FINNEY Telephone No: 01895 250536
Address: UXBRIDGE LOCK & UXBRIDGE MOOR
Development: PROPOSED CONSERVATION AREAS
LBH Ref Nos: N/A
Drawing Nos: N/A
Date of receipt: N/A Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A
(1) SUMMARY
Following consideration of these two areas by the Conservation Council and the Canal Locks Conservation Panel, Members authorised a Consultation exercise involving the notification of all residents and businesses within the proposed areas together with a request for individual’s vies. The results of that exercise are reported below.
(2) RECOMMENDATION
That Members recommend to Cabinet that that part of the proposed Uxbridge Lock Conservation Area that lies within the London Borough of Hillingdon be designated. That Members further recommend to Cabinet that this Council re-states its case to the South Bucks District Council, encouraging them to designate that part of the area that lies within their District. That Members recommend to Cabinet that the proposed Uxbridge Moor Conservation Area be designated. That Members authorise the Head of Planning and Transportation to prepare guidelines for residents and businesses within the two areas as soon as is practicable. 5. That following designation, the Canal Locks Conservation Areas Advisory Panel be consulted on applications within the two new areas.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 117 (3) CONSIDERATIONS
A. UXBRIDGE LOCK
History and Character
The canal was constructed in the late 18thC - there is an old stone dated 1793 built into the bridge revetment at Three Ways Wharf. Both the Canal and its associated structures and buildings are of historic interest. The Lock, Bridge and Marina are a part of this character and this Lock is the only one between Springwell and Cowley that is not the focus of a Conservation Area.
The area within South Bucks includes older historic buildings and mills which may well have been the original settlement of Uxbridge. The town must have started closer to the river (hence its name), and this group between Hillingdon and Denham is ideally located in terms of its mills and the river crossing.
Buildings of importance include the Swan and Bottle PH with its slipway, possibly marking a former fording point of the River Colne. On the other side, it fronts the Canal and, on the opposite bank is the Three Ways Wharf Office block. This is a building designed very specifically for its site with a nautical feel to reflect its water-side location. It is of 5 storeys stepping back from the canal
There are several new buildings within the overall area and, because of their size, they tend to predominate, although the early 20thC grain silos at the former King’s Mills are similarly vast. The block of flats on the island site is the most intrusive modern structure.
To the south is the Crown and Treaty PH Grade ll* Listed. The name commemorates the meeting held here in 1644 between Royalists and Roundheads. It is one wing of a grand “H” shaped house and retains the curved, possible Jacobean gable to the road. The interior is famous for its panelled rooms to the upper floor – dating from the 16th and 17th C. The west elevation has dramatically grouped original chimney stacks and an octagonal turret.
To the west of the Colne, within South Bucks, the group of Mill Buildings includes No 2 Oxford Road, which is an old Mill House with mill races below. There is a row of buildings along the narrow lane which form an attractive and historic group. On the corner is the entrance to the Kings Mill on an island site with some major historic buildings.
The individual buildings within this area are clearly of architectural or historic importance. However it is the character and appearance of the wider area that is important and the water-courses (the Canal, River Colne, its tributaries and mill races) tie the individual buildings and parts of the area together
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 118 Planning Background
This area has been under consideration since the late 1980s and was formally considered by the Conservation Council on the 3rd February 1992. Following that meeting – it was resolved that Hillingdon was in favour of designation in principle, and that the South Bucks District Council should be encouraged to designate the contiguous area.
The District Council were unwilling to do that at the time because of their UDP Review. And the matter was therefore left, although it was discussed regularly at meetings of the Conservation Council. In 2002, a further meeting was held with the new Conservation Officer of South Bucks. As a result of the subsequent meeting of the Conservation Council, a report was put to the Planning Committee recommending public consultation. The consultation took place at the end of last year, and the results are now reported.
Recent changes have included the Three Ways Wharf development; known as The Quays (see above) and demolition of outbuildings at the Swan and Bottle PH, opening up the frontage on the canal-side. New developments outside the Borough but having a direct impact upon the area include the development of the Sandersons site now in progress, and the future development of the now vacant King’s Mill.
Result of Consultation
The number of leaflets distributed was just over 100, and to simplify matters the leaflets were hand delivered throughout the proposed Conservation Area. Other organisations have expressed an interest and the comments of the Inland Waterways Association (IWA) are reported below. Local Councillors in Denham have given their views as has the Denham Parish Council. All these groups have been told that this Council can only designate the area within its boundary. It is for the South Bucks District Council to decide on that part of the proposed area which is their responsibility. The District Council’s comments are summarised below but given the importance of co-operation copies of the correspondence are attached to this Report as Appendix 1.
Broadly the response has been favourable, with support being expressed by Councillors on either side of the boundary. There were also two individual residents’ letters of support, which raised queries of joint administration, the conversion of Kings Mill, the need for enhancement and the present inadequacy of parking in the area. The Hawthorn Drive and Poplar Road Residents Association also expressed concern over the development of Kings Mill but were generally supportive and awaited the fuller guidance information referred to. The Society also submitted a petition with 18 signatures (12 addresses). All of this information has been copied to the South Bucks District Council.
The Inland Waterways Associations supported the designation agreeing that the “boundary seems to encompass all the buildings associated with the Lock and the adjoining Mill”. The Association sees “the preservation of the openness of the canalscape at the Lock (as) important”. It is noted that this is the only Lock between Springwell and Cowley that is not a conservation area and that this increases the importance of designation. Finally the Association note that a large part of the area is in South Bucks and hope that the District Council are supportive. They request that their views be passed on and this has been done.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 119 The Denham Parish Council were not consulted directly but have written to express their support and their regret that South Bucks are not “treating this as a joint project”. The Parish Council states that “ a Conservation Area on both sides of the boundary is an excellent idea and your paper on the history and character of the area is a comprehensive summary.” The Parish Council supports your proposals and look forward to South Bucks District Council joining with Hillingdon. We will be pressing them to do this”.
South Bucks District Council has written, following a meeting and discussion between Conservation Officers. This letter, and the Council’s response is attached as Appendix 1.
Response to Consultation
The support, indeed enthusiasm, for the designation is welcomed while the questions raised are noted. These questions mainly relate to developments in South Bucks and these have been recorded and passed on.
The comments of the IWA, local Councillors and the Denham Parish Council are again supportive of Hillingdon’s position both in proceeding to designate and in encouraging South Bucks District Council to treat this as a joint project.
No-one consulted objects to the designation; most enthusiastically support the proposal. It was hoped that South Bucks District Council would designate their area at the same time but that has not been proved possible.
UXBRIDGE MOOR
History and Character
When the Canal was constructed in the late 18thC, an encampment of Navigators – or Navvies as the workers were called – was set up at Uxbridge Moor. The Canal was dug from the Thames to this point and, from here, proceeded northwards towards the Chilterns; Tring being the highest point. The encampment had some of the character of the Wild West frontier towns and for some time it had a reputation to match. In the 19thC however, Churches and Schools were built – and rows of Victorian terrace houses.
A major Boatyard was created and operated by Fellows, Morton & Clayton. It included sheds parallel to the Canal with beams spanning over 80 feet (24m) to allow for the side launching of narrow boats. The sheds are still there although intermediate supports have been inserted. To the north is a covered Dry Dock while to the south is the Boat Yard proper surrounded by Victorian ranges of Workshops and Chandlers. The Yard still operates as an important canal-side facility, and a reminder of the more industrial history of the Grand Union.
Opposite the Boatyard is the Grade ll Listed General Elliot PH, a late Georgian canal-side inn (although it may pre-date the construction of the actual canal). It has bay windows fronting onto the canal where a small garden is dominated by a colossal horse chestnut tree. To the north is the road bridge carrying Rockingham Road over the canal. Built into the revetment is a World War ll Pill Box; one of a line of such defences along the Grand Union and other watercourses around London.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 120 The proposed Conservation Area would extend southwards to the Culvert. This is an overflow leading from the canal to the River Colne some 1½ miles away. It is now a natural looking stream and has become a Nature Conservation Area. From the cottage and sluices on the Canal, the stream flows westwards with Culvert Lane alongside and Victorian cottages fronting the road. At the corner of Church Lane a footbridge crosses the stream and gives access to the churchyard of St John’s. The Church is an excellent example of the simple preaching box type of church erected in the early 19th C. It has been made redundant and is being converted it into a private residence.
The area from the General Elliot and the Boat Yard down to the Culvert and along to St John’s Church has individual buildings of special architectural and historic importance. These buildings are within an area of considerable interest in relation to the history of the Grand Union Canal.
Planning Background
Interest in this “working” part of the Canal is again longstanding, and the importance was re- assessed when the Boundary Commission changes put the Bulls Bridge Conservation Area (designated by the London Borough of Ealing) into Hillingdon. That was in 1991 and while Hillingdon’s Canal-side Conservation Areas had until then been based around Canal Locks, the re-assessment pointed to other areas of the Canal that were of architectural or historic interest.
Chief among these was Uxbridge Moor, and the idea of designating a Conservation Area was considered and agreed by the Conservation Council in 1999 when the area was assessed as part of the Conservation Areas Review. A Report was put to Committee following that Review and, last year, a further report sought authorisation for a public consultation exercise the results of which are reported here.
Recent changes in the area have included the ongoing project to convert St. Johns Church to residential. The redevelopment of the Waterloo Road Electricity Station affects the area although outside the boundary, and recently there have been enquiries from house-builders and others about the Waterloo Wharf site
Result of Consultation
The number of leaflets distributed was over 50 and these were hand delivered throughout the proposed area. There have been a number of responses, a petition and, again the comments of the IWA are reported.
The individual responses with additional comments are listed below:
Supports designation and wishes to see the canal path upgraded. Supports designation; would like to see pipe bridges removed, concern over plans to expand Dagenham Motors. Delighted by proposal and supports it. Would however like to see area extended to the west in connection with The Culvert Nature Conservation Area and the London Loop Walk. Support, would again like to see larger area, and the removal of the pipe bridges. Supports designation and expresses interest in the history of the area.
A petition has also been received from residents in Culvert Lane (32 signatures; 23 addresses) asking that the proposed area be extended to the west.
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 121 Y. Goldberg and Sons Ltd. of 3-5 Waterloo Road support the designation particularly as they are a timber trader based at Waterloo Wharf beside the boatyard. The Company has a long heritage that connects timber business to canals and waterways by use of horse drawn barges. The Company point out that BWB have plans to develop the site for housing and add that they would be delighted to remain within the proposed Conservation Area if the Council were “prepared to take on the developers”.
The IWA support the proposal particularly as it includes both Waterloo and Uxbridge Wharfs – the latter containing the Boatyard. The Association suggests the inclusion of the modern suburban housing to the west of the canal in order that the canal-side can be protected from future developments.
Response to Consultation
The respondents all support the proposed designation and some have asked for a larger area to be considered. The area west of St John’s Church, along Culvert Lane has been carefully considered by Officers and by the Conservation Council. The proposed area is based on the Canal and was extended to include St John’s Church after consideration on site by the Conservation Council.
To extend the area further is not considered appropriate although developments adjoining the designated area will have to be carefully considered. The same point applies to the IWA suggestion that the housing between the General Elliot PH and The Culvert be included. Members will be aware of the fact that UDP Policy BE4 applies to development proposals within or on the edges of Conservation Areas. The fringe areas mentioned above will therefore be covered by this Policy.
Observations of Borough Solicitor:
To be reported.
Observations of the Borough Treasurer:
To be reported.
(4) CONCLUSION
Given the support for these proposed designations, backed by English Heritage, Members are recommended to agree in principle so that a decision can be made at Cabinet.
The areas recommended are as discussed and agreed with the Conservation Council and the amendments suggested are not considered necessary or appropriate for the reasons set out above.
Reference Documents:
(a) Proposed Conservation Areas Leaflets (b) Uxbridge Lock & Uxbridge Moor 2002
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 122
Uxbridge Planning Committee – 18th March 2003 Page 123