PLANNING COMMITTEE – 03/12/2003 SCHEDULE ITEM: 03
Site Location : EUK HorsendenPath (um) Lane South Perivale Drain Drain Sudbury Golf Course Wharf 1 to 4 House HORSENDEN LANE NORTH Council Yard
Depot Sudbury Golf Course Canal Wharf
Posts Depot Grand Union Canal 33.5m 29.9m Paddington Branch Footbridge 29.6m
Towing Path Drain 28.7m 202 to 210 Towing Path
26.5m Playground
200a
El 1
200 Sub Sta Horsenden Hill Recreation Ground 248 258 270 280 290 300 26.8m
194
271 275 26.8m BILTON ROAD 265
Shelter 287
299 Community LB 311 Centre
25.0m 192a 323
192
67 to 72
HORSENDEN LANE SOUTH
186
49 BM 25.68m Clinic to 54 55 to 25 31 60 to to 7 36 Library 30 to 12 Shelter
6 Perivale Wood El 1 Sub Sta
(Brent Valley Bird Sanctuary) AVE BUCKINGHAM
BUCKINGHAM AVENUE
168
to 163
24.4m
120 162
to
180 to 126
115
157
175 to 175 to
121
156
140 to 151
Warehouse 134
132
126 124
17
118 16 23.5m
12
El Sub Sta 116
175 110
El Sub Sta
2 14
14 165 Perivale Industrial Park 26
38
50 BM 23.08m
64 108 14
163 1 SUNLEY GARDENS 7
106
Perivale Industrial Park 2 9 22.3m
4
SALVIA 1
GARDENS
157
3
102 65
8 155 a
65 55 7
12 41 SELBORNE GARDENS SALVIA GARDENS 8 11 7
2 El Sub Sta
31 Perivale Industrial Park
94
3 2
21 141 21.3m
SL 11 1
139 El Sub Sta
Hall 133
21.0m MP 2.75
135 Posts 1 to 8 WOODHOUSE AVENUEBM 21.20m
145 DW El Sub Sta This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. LB Ealing Licence no. 086355 2003 Print Date 12 / 11 / 2003 Planning Services The Ordnance Survey mapping included within this web-site/document is provided by the L.B. of Ealing EGIS 2002 under licence from OS in order to fulfil its public function to act as a planning authority. Original Image Captured at Scale 1:2500 Persons viewing this mapping should contact Ordnance Survey copyright for advice where they wish THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT TO SCALE to licence OS mapping for their own use. 03
PLANNING APPLICATION REPORT DATE: 03/12/03
PLANNING COMMITTEE REF: 03563
WARD: PERIVALE
PLANNING OFFICER: Korkor Dravie AREA TEAM MANAGER: Peter Causer
Address: Warehouse – Entertainment UK Site, Horsenden Lane South, Perivale.
Proposal: Redevelopment of land in warehouse use involving the construction of 20 residential blocks to provide 120 one-bedroom flats, 88 two-bedroom flats, 1 two- bedroom house, 20 three-bedroom houses (229 Residential Units), 225 parking spaces and 115 cycle spaces (Revised Application)
Application Received: 14th March 2002. - Revised: 15th July 2003.
Type of Application: Full
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that subject to any direction of the Mayor of London and the Government Office for London and subject to the applicant and any other person having any interest in the land entering into a legal agreement with the Council, to secure the following: a) A financial contribution of £15,000 to convert the Teignmouth Gardens/ Horsenden Lane South junction to UTC control by Transport for London. b) A financial contribution of £161,500 towards the provision of educational facilities and improvements to existing educational facilities to be identified by the Council within the vicinity of the development. c) A financial contribution of £5,000 towards improvements to existing community facilities to be identified by the Council. d) The provision of 35% affordable housing within the site. e) Payment of the Council’s reasonable legal and professional fees.
That you authorise the Proper Officer to GRANT permission for development as shown on drawing No(s): HL/01/L03H; HLO2/L06 Rev.A; HLO2/L09; HL/O2/LO10; HLO2/L11; HLO2/L12; HL/O2/L13; HL02/L14; HL02/L15; HLO2/L16; HLO2/L17; HL02/L18; HLO2/L19; HL02/L20; HLO2/L22; HL02/L23; HLO2/L24; HLO2/L25; HLO2/L26; HLO2/L28; HLO2/L29; HLO2/L30; HLO2/L31; HL20/L32; HLO2/L33; HL02/L34; HL02/L35; HL02/L40; HLO2/L41; HLO2/L42; HLO2/L43; HL02/L44; HLO2/H45 subject to the following conditions:-
1. 010 Time Limit 5 The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 2 of 55
03 the date of this permission.
REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act.
2. Samples of Materials.
Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.
REASON: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings. (B1, B5, ES6 – 4.1)
3. No Works to Trees.
The existing trees on the site to be retained as shown on the approved drawings shall not be lopped, felled or otherwise affected in any way (including raising or lowering soil levels under the crown spread of the trees) and no excavation shall be cut under the crown spread of the trees without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: To safeguard the trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
4. Details of Drainage.
Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; the scheme as approved to be carried out before any part of the development permitted is occupied.
REASON: To ensure that adequate drainage of the site is carried out site and the pollution of ground water does not occur. ( R10, B1, B5 – 2.5, 4.1)
5. Details of Refuse Storage.
Details of refuse storage in accordance with the standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to and shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision as approved shall be brought into use prior to the first occupation of the development permitted and retained permanently.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 3 of 55
03 REASON: To ensure adequate refuse provision. (B1, B5, ES6, H34 – 4.1, 5.5)
6. Tree Protection.
The area beneath the spread of the branches of the trees to be retained as shown on the approved drawings shall not be used for the storage of building materials, plant, machinery or other items, or for vehicular access or for the burning of materials of any kind.
REASON: To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. (B1, B2, B16 , ES4 – 4.5)
7. Fencing of Trees.
The entire root system of trees to be retained, as shown on the approved drawings, indicated by the spread of their branches, shall be protected by stout exclusion fencing until completion of the development.
REASON: To prevent damage to the trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area. B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
8. Details of Landscaping.
No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works, including a phased programme of works, have been submitted to and have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.
REASON: To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
9. Details of Walls and Fences.
No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment, which shall include fences to the rear of blocks Nos.1 and 2, shall be completed prior to the first occupation of the development. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: To protect the visual appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and to safeguard the buffer zone. (B1, B5, OL19, OL21,
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 4 of 55
03 OL24, ES6 – 4.1, 3.8, 3.9)
10 Details of Landscaping Maintenance.
No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangement for its implementation. Landscape maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.
REASON: To protect the landscaping in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
11. Details of External Lighting.
Details of all external lighting to be erected, demonstrating compliance with the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Engineers “Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution”and the provisions of BS 5489 Part 9, shall be submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development commencing. The lighting as approved shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained in accordance with these standards thereafter. In addition, no external lighting shall face the adjoining Nature Reserve.
REASON: To protect the living conditions of occupiers of the area and the adjoining Nature Reserve. (OL16, OL19, OL21, OL24, B1, B5 – 3.8, 3.9, 4.1)
12. Permitted Development Restricted.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no additions or extension to the dwellinghouses; additions or extensions to the roof of the dwellinghouses; or alterations to the shape of the roof of the dwellinghouses; or erection or construction of a porch outside any external door of the dwellinghouses; or the provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouses of any building or enclosure shall be carried out without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority, obtained through the submission of a planning application.
REASON: To prevent the overdevelopment of the site and to safeguard the amenity of adjoining properties. (B1, B5, ES6, H28, H29 – 4.1, 5.5)
13. Details of Children Play Areas.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 5 of 55
03 Details of the laying out of a children’s play area for residents, shown on the submitted layout plan No. HL/01/L03H shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site and the play area shall be provided in accordance with the details so approved before any part of the development is occupied, and retained permanently.
REASON: To ensure satisfactory development and provision of play facilities. (OL16,B1, B2, H32 – 3.4, 4.1, 5.5)
14. Parking Spaces Retained.
The car parking spaces shown on the approved plan HL/01/L03H shall be marked out on the site prior to first occupation of any part of the development, and these spaces shall be kept continuously available for car parking and shall not be used for any other purpose.
REASON: To ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking within the site. (B1, B5, T50, T63 – 4.1, 9.11, 9.13)
15. Parking, Access, Loading and Unloading Areas Retained.
The areas shown on the approved plans HL/01/L03H as parking, access, loading, unloading and manoeuvring areas shall be kept clear at all times and used for these purposes only.
REASON: To ensure that adequate parking and servicing space is available within the site. (B1, B5, T63 – 4.1, 9.11)
15. No Siting of Lighting
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans and Condition 11 of this approval, no exterior lighting such as (Security lighting) shall be sited close to the application site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood.
REASON: To protect the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. (OL16, OL19, OL21, LO24 – B1, 3.8, 3.9)
16. Details of General Access
Notwithstanding any information contained in the submitted plans, details of general access and access specifically in respect of10% of the residential units being provided within the site together with parking provision in accordance with UDP parking standards for people with disabilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work on the site; such details as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 6 of 55
03 REASON: To ensure adequate access for people with disabilities. (B1, B6, ES3 – 4.1, 4.3)
17. Visibility Splay
Notwithstanding any indications on the plans hereby approved, minimum sight lines of 2.4m x 2.4m x 0.6m for pedestrian intervisibility to enable drivers to see the smallest pedestrian on the footways before entering the public highway shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development and permanently maintained thereafter.
REASON: In the interest of highway safety. (B1, B5, T63 – 4.1, 9.11)
18. Reptile Investigation
Before the commencement of the development hereby approved, a reptile survey, details of which shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, shall be undertaken. If reptiles are found, a scheme to capture and translocate tham shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any work commences on the site.
REASON: To protect the wild life on the site and to protect the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. (OL16, OL19, OL21, OL24 – B1, 3.8, 3.9)
19. Cycle Parking Spaces Retained
The cycle parking spaces shown on the approved plan Drg. No. HL/01/L03H shall be marked out on the site prior to first occupation of any part of the development, and these spaces shall thereafter be kept continuously available for cycle parking and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Details of a scheme to cover and secure the cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the development is commenced and the scheme as may be approved shall be provided before the occupation of the development.
REASON: To ensure that there is adequate cycle parking provision within the site in accordance with UDP standards. (B1, B5, T15, T46 – 4.1, 9.6)
20. Retention of Buffer Strip.
Details of the boundary of the buffer strip to show this distinct from the communal amenity area including the children play area between the rear/side of blocks A, C, houses F and H and PERIVALE WOOD, the NATURE RESERVE, indicated on the approved plan Drg. No. HL/01/L03H shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the work on the scheme commencing and the details as may be approved shall be marked out on site prior to the first occupation of any part of the development and this buffer strip shall thereafter be kept continuously as open space and shall not be used for any other purpose without the prior permission in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 7 of 55
03
REASON: To protect the Nature Reserve. (OL19, OL21, OL24, B1, B2 – 4.1, 3.8, 3.9)
21. Details of Boundary Fence/Screen Along Perivale Wood Boundary.
Notwithstanding any details on the approved plans and Condition 9, details of a boundary fence/screem along the western boundary of the site with Perivale Wood shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any work on site; such details as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained.
REASON: To protect the landscaping in the interest of the visual character of Perivale Wood. (OL19, OL21, OL24, B1, B2, ES4 – 4.1, 3.8, 3.9)
22. Details of Planting in Buffer Zone.
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans and condition 21, details of a scheme including plant species to be planted within the Buffer Strip along the Western Boundary of the development with Perivale Wood, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the species as approved shall be planted within the Buffer Strip along the Western Boundary of the site with Perivale Wood, prior to the first occupation of the development; any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the approved scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season.
REASON: To ensure that the Buffer Strip is adequately landscaped in the interests of the visual character and the protection of Perivale Wood. (OL19, OL21, OL24, B1, B2, ES4 – 4.1, 3.8, 3.9)
23. Site Investigation.
Before the development is commenced a detailed site investigation shall be carried out to establish if the site is contaminated, to assess the degree and nature of the 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 then be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before development commences. The development shall then proceed in strict accordance with the measures approved.
REASON: To prevent pollution of the water environment. (R10 – 2.5)
24. Bat Survey
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved and the demolition of the existing buildings within the site, a bat survey of the existing
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 8 of 55
03 buildings shall be carried out. If any signs of bats’ roots are found, details of measures for avoidance, mitigation and compensation for any adverse effect on bats shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.
REASON: To protect the wildlife on the application site and to protect the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. (OL16, OL19, LO21, OL24 – 3.8, 3.9)
25. Construction of Soakaways.
No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.
REASON: To prevent pollution of groundwater. (R10 – 2.5)
26. Sound Insulation Measures.
A scheme for protecting sensitive rooms/ gardens from external noise, to the following criteria, shall be submitted to and shall be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development, and such details as may be approved shall be implemented, prior to the first occupation of those rooms/ gardens in the development. The scheme which shall be submitted shall be to the following criteria: Noise levels at the following locations shall not exceed - Private gardens and balconies – not greater than 50dB(A)Leq, 1 hour (07:00 – 23:00 hrs.) Bedrooms - not greater than 30 dB(A)Leq, 1 hour (23:00 – 07:00 hrs.), and individual noise events not greater than 45 dB Lamax (fast time weighting) Living rooms and dining rooms – not greater than 35 dB(A)Leq, 1 hour (07:00 – 23:00 hrs.), and Kitchens, bathrooms and utility rooms – not greater than 45 dB(A)Leq, 1 hour (07:00 - 23:00 hrs.).
REASON: To protect the living conditions of future occupiers of the site. (B1, B5, ES5 - 4.1, 4.11)
27. Archaeological Investigation.
No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains; therefore this will protect such remains. (B1, B28, B29 – 4.1, 4.9)
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 9 of 55
03
28. Siting of Cabins.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of cabins and other temporary structures including their location identified on plans shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details as approved shall be implemented on site prior to the commencement of the development. The cabins and other temporary structures shall be removed including the resulting debris, from the site prior to the first occupation of the development.
REASON: To protect trees being retained on site and trees covered by TPOs , to protect the living conditions of future occupiers of the site and to protect the visual character of the area. (B1, B2, B5, B16, ES4, H33 – 4.1, 3.8, 3.9, 5.5)
29. Dust Screen
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans, a temporary screen shall be erected along the site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, including the commencement of demolition of existing buildings on the site. The details of the temporary screen shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development including the demolition of the existing buildings. The details as approved shall be implemented on site prior to the commencement of the development including the demolition of the existing buildings. The temporary screen shall be removed together with the resulting debris prior to the first occupation of the development.
REASON: To protect the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. (OL16, OL19, OL21, OL24, B1 – 3.8, 3.9, 4.1)
30 Fencing for Trees with TPO
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans and Conditions 3, 6 and 7, protection zones of 8m in respect of the trees covered by TPO, specifically, T1 and T3 and 12m in respect of T2 shall be maintained during demolition and construction work.
REASON: To protect these trees that are covered by TPO and to protect the visual amenity of the site. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
31. Signage on Fencing Around Trees Being Retained.
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans and Conditions 3, 6, 7 and 30, signs stating that all the trees are protected and no fences shall be moved, removed or dismantled for any reason during demolition and construction works without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, shall be attached to the fences to be erected around the trees to be retained within the site and the trees covered by TPO – T1, T2 and T3. These signs shall be removed on completion of the development hereby approved.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 10 of 55
03
REASON: To protect the trees being retained on site and the trees covered by TPO. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
32. Prior Permission for Removal of Highway Trees.
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans, Conditions 3, 6, 7 and 8, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, permission shall be made in writing to the Local Planning Authority for the removal of the Highways trees shown on the approved plan Drg. No. HL/01/L03H that are along the frontage of the application site on Horsenden Lane South and the replacement of these Highways trees. The permission as granted shall be implemented on site prior to the commencement of the development. Any trees that die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the permission shall be replaced during the next planting season.
REASON: To protect the trees in the interest of visual character and appearance of the area. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
33. Details of Underground and Over Ground Services.
Notwithstanding any indications on the approved plans and Conditions 3, 6, 7, 8 and 32, details of underground or over ground services within the protection zones of the trees to be retained within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved. The details as approved shall implemented within the site prior to the demolition and the construction of the development and shall be retained thereafter.
REASON: To protect the trees in the interest of visual amenity of the area. (B1, B2, B16, ES4 – 4.5)
INFORMATIVES
1. Hours of Construction and Demolition
Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
The maximum permitted noise levels are:
- not greater than 72 dB L Aeq. 10hr Mondays to Fridays - not greater than 72 dB L Aeq.5 hr Saturdays.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 11 of 55
03 2. Vibration.
Vibration from demolition, breaking of concrete and piling etc., as measured in the vertical direction on any floor in surrounding noise sensitive buildings, should not exceed an overall peak particle velocity level of 1mm/s.
3. Details of Noise and Dust Mitigation
Prior to commencement of construction and demolition works, details of noise/vibration and dust mitigation measures should be submitted to Environmental Health section for approval.
4. Asbestos Control.
Prior to commencement of construction and demolition works, involving material containing asbestos, details of mitigation measures to control the release of asbestos dust must be submitted to Environmental Health section for approval.
5. Site Works
Prior to commencement of any site works, all residential properties within 50m of the site boundary should be notified in writing of the nature and duration of works to be undertaken, and the name and address of a responsible person, to whom enquiries/complaints should be directed.
6. Bonfires.
No bonfires should be lit on site.
7. Stone Crushing Plant Equipment.
Stone crushing plant may require authorisation under the Environmental Protection Act (Prescribed Processes and Substances ) Regulations 1991, SI 472. Contact the LBE Pollution Control Section on 020 – 8825 6633.
8. Design in Accordance with Proposals
The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage guidelines.
9. Initial Field Evaluation.
The applicant is advised that should significant archaeological remains be encountered in the course of the initial field evaluation, an appropriate mitigation strategy, which may include archaeological excavation, is likely to be necessary.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 12 of 55
03 10. Prior Written Consent
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.
Contact Consents Department on 01707 632300 for further details.
11. Water Resources Act 1991.
Under the terms of Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse.
Contact Consent Department on 01707 632300 for further details.
12. Surface Water
Surface water from car parking areas should discharge via deep seal trapped gullies incorporating a minimum water seal of 85mm or similar.
13. Underground Pipelines.
Underground or overground pipelines should be adequately protected against leakage particularly by corrosion.
14. Clean Water
Clean roof water should not pass through the oil separator. Where soakaways area used should preferably not discharge to soakaways used to drain road and vehicle parking areas.
15. Roof Water
Roof water downpipes should be connected to the drainage system either directly, or by means of back inlet gullies provided with sealing plates instead of open gratings.
16. Refuse Storage Areas
Any open chemical or refuse storage areas should be surrounded by suitable liquid tight bunded compounds to prevent drainage from these areas discharging into the surface water system. Such areas should be connected to the foul sewer subject to the approval of Thames Water Utilities or its sewerage agent.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 13 of 55
03 17. Sewage
No sewage or trade effluent, including cooling water containing chemical additives, vehicle wash waters, steam cleaning effluent, or pressure wash effluent, should be discharged to the surface water system.
18. Trade Effluent.
All sewage or trade effluent should be discharged to the foul sewer if available subject to the approval of Thames Water Utilities or its sewerage agent.
19. Vehicle Loading
Vehicle loading or unloading bays and storage areas involving chemicals, refuse or other polluting matter should not discharge to the surface water system.
20. Waste
Any waste arising from these works must be removed by a Registered Carrier and disposed of at an appropriate authorised waste management licensed facility, following the waste transfer or consignment not system, whichever is appropriate.
21. Waste from Demolition
Waste arising from demolition must be clearly segregated as to the types for disposal within the approved waste categories.
22. Temporary Removal of Protective Fencing.
The applicant is advised that temporary removal of the protective fencing around the trees to be retained within the site will be required to carry out the hand excavation of the concrete pad. This would be agreed to, with reinstatement of the fence on immediate completion of the works. If the sub base is not of a free draining nature, hand excavation would be agreed to in order to clear the site. NJUG10 Guidelines covering excavation within the protection zones of the trees shall be adhered to.
23. Agreement for Removal of Highways Trees.
The applicant is advised that there would be a cost for the works of tree removal, reinstatement, excavation and replacement plantings of Highways trees that would require agreement with the Local Authority’s Highways Department – Tree Section.
24. Access
The applicant is advised that access for fire appliances should meet the requirements outlined in the copy of LFEPA Guidance Note No 29.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 14 of 55
03 25. Approval Relates to Planning Application.
The applicant is advised that this approval relates solely to the Planning Application. The question of other fire precautionary programme should be addressed in the first instance, to the Dept. of Building Control, London Borough of Ealing, who may consult the Fire Authority under Section 16 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
26 Adjacent Premises.
The applicant is advised that the Fire Brigade has not examined the effect that this proposal would have upon adjacent premises. The applicant should ensure that the proposal does not affect the adjacent properties.
27. Fire Hydrants.
The applicant is advised to refer to the Guidance Note 29 regarding the provision of fire hydrants (if necessary).
28 Secure by Design.
The applicant is advised that the development should comply with the aims and objectives of the requirements of the ‘Secure By Design’ scheme as detailed by the Government Circular 5/94 ‘Planning Out Crime’ and the requirements of Clause 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which imposes a duty on a Local Authority ‘to do all that it can to prevent crime and disorder in its area’.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 15 of 55
03 29. The criteria for vibration levels is measured on the foundation of new dwellings.
Highest vibration dose value measured on the foundations in any of the three orthogonal directions.
Day 16 hr G/F 0.17
Day 16 hr F/F and above 0.08
Night 8 hr G/F 0.11
Night 8 hr F/F and above 0.05.
Specification and criteria for ventilation
Category C noise exposures
Either (i) Silenced mechanical ventilator units shall be installed in habitable room and have at least two different airflow settings such that the self noise at highest setting shall be less than 40 dB(A) at the highest setting and less than 35 dB(A) at the lowest setting, when measured in accordance with the procedure at the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975.
Or
(ii) A ducted air ventilation system, such as a whole house ventilation system shall be installed with plant silenced to ensure that the following background noise levels will be achieved with the equipment in normal use and no tonal and impulsive characteristics distinguishable.
Bedrooms – less than 30dB(A) Living rooms and dining rooms – less than 35dB(A) Kitchens, bathroom, utility rooms – less than 45 dB(A).
CONSULTATION:
The proposal was No response received as a result of these advertisements. advertised in the Gazette on19/4/02 and 15/11/02 and by means of site notices on these dates.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 16 of 55
03 Neighbour Notification: Owners/occupiers of 540 neighbouring properties were notified.
110 individual letters and a petition with 366 signatories objecting to the proposal were received.
Grounds of objection:
1. The site was originally used as an open park/playground within green belt that was designated for the Capital.
Response: The current use of the site is as warehouse with building within the site. The site is designated as an Employment site in the adopted UDP. The site is designated as residential area in the Emerging UDP.
2. Site was requisitioned during the war temporarily for factory use and was to be returned to its original use. However, the Council reneged on this agreement and the current occupiers, Entertainment UK began using this site as a distribution centre. Now the Council is proposing another use, housing for this site. The Council is not being honest with rate payers.
Response: The use of the site is presently as warehouse/B8 and is within an Employment site. However, the designation in the Emerging UDP is Housing. The Emerging UDP is currently undergoing stages leading to adoption. Local residents have the opportunity to raise objection to the proposed designation to the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Council is not the Applicant. The Council is performing its duties as the Local Planning Authority in considering and determining this application.
3. Development should reflect that of the surrounding area that comprise mainly of two-storey buildings and not three and four- storey buildings.
Response: The development is being sited within the site to reflect the massing of the immediate surrounding area. Along the rear of houses in Sunley Gardens, the houses being proposed are two- storey. The three and four storey blocks are being sited along the Horsenden Lane frontage, in the middle of the site and along the site’s boundary with Horsenden Hill Recreation Ground.
4. There would be an increase in population – about 500+. This will put pressure on existing services – schools, doctors, policing and transport. The possible child yield would be 135 school places.
Response: In recognition of the pressure of the increase in population resulting from the development will put on services, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106/Legal Agreement with the Council to make a financial contribution towards the
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 17 of 55
03 provision of additional facilities and/ or the upgrading of existing ones. Financial contributions towards transport improvements and open space/ parks improvements are also being made under a Section 106 Agreement.
5. Site is close to Perivale Wood, an extremely important nature reserve. The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the conservation value of this valuable site. There would be loss of several hours of morning light into the nature reserve which will have harmful ecological impact on fauna and flora. There will be a fire risk and security risk as a result of the proposal.
Response: The original proposal was to build in close proximity to this nature reserve – only a 5m wide strip of land was being left between the application site and the nature reserve. Following negotiations with the applicant, a 20m strip of land is now being left between the application site and this nature reserve. It is considered that this set back from the nature reserve will minimise any harmful impact of the proposal on the nature reserve.
An Ecological Report was prepared by the Applicant in respect of the Nature Reserve and the impact the development would have on it. The London Wild Life Trust was consulted on the proposal including the Ecological Report. The Regional Conservation Officer supported the buffer strip being provided along the application site’s boundary with Perivale Wood and the fact that the exterior lighting is to be situated facing away from the reserve. Her main concerns were: that the development will be disruptive to Perivale Wood in terms of noise, dust and lighting, particularly during the development stage. She, however, suggested measures that should be taken to mitigate against these concerns. These measures are the erection of a screen along the common boundary and the lighting facing away from the Reserve. Conditions in accordance with the above are being recommended.
6. The proposal will increase the population of this area by 50% and would be out of character with the local community. 225 units (revised to 229) are excessive for the site and represent over development of the site and an intensive development.
Response: New Government Guidance on Housing Development in Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3 encourages high density development, especially in brownfield sites and previously developed sites in order to address the housing shortage provided such developments do not compromise the surrounding environment. This proposal, that represents the development of a previously developed site, falls within the category of development being encouraged in PPG3. In terms of the surrounding environment, the proposal has been
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 18 of 55
03 revised to address issues such as possible overlooking and loss of outlook. The three storey elements of the proposal are being sited away from existing houses in Sunley Gardens and the two storey houses sited along the rear of houses in Sunley Gardens are separated from the rear of these houses by gardens that are 14m deep.
7. Layout causes detriment to adjoining residential are by: a) increased security risk – open site surrounding flats accessible by the public; b) privacy, outlook , visual intrusion and loss of light. Proposal should be revised to maintain the Sunley Garden perimeter as a single family housing zone and re-siting the flats adjacent to those boundaries that are remote from existing low rise residential units.
Response: The proposed residential units would be within their own identified compound with their own fencing/boundary walls – a condition requiring the submission of details of boundary fencing/walls is being recommended.
The Crime Prevention Design Adviser – Metropolitan Police Service – who was consulted on this application has raised no security risks in respect of the surrounding houses. His concerns are in respect of the design and lighting of the parking areas within the application site itself.
The proposal has been revised following concerns raised by the Council in respect of the relationship and distances between the proposed houses and the height of these houses along the rear of houses in Sunley Gardens. Two storey houses are now being sited along this boundary instead of blocks of flats/three storey houses and these houses now have rear gardens with average depths of approximately 14m. These gardens together with the existing rear gardens at the rear of houses in Sunley Gardens means that the actual proposed houses within the site and in Sunley Gardens are further apart.
16 two- storey houses are being sited along the site’s common boundaries with the houses in Sunley Gardens. Of these 16 houses, 8 have rooms in the roof. These are dormer-type windows from which it would be difficult for any overlooking to occur. All these houses have windows at ground and first floor levels to habitable rooms in the rear. However, because of the distances between these houses and the houses in Sunley Gardens, it is not considered the proposal will introduce any material overlooking into this part of Sunley Gardens.
8. Orientation of the development that is facing away from existing routes creates a ‘fortress mentality’. Play area may therefore not be used.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 19 of 55
03
Response: The application site is being developed as an estate. The houses and blocks of flats are being ‘broken up’ with streets, car parking spaces and gardens/amenity spaces to avoid the ‘fortress mentality’. The play areas are being sited in locations where they will be accessible to users.
9. The taller ‘barrier type’ units should be relocated at the rear of the site and the ‘house type’ units should be relocated in the front of the site in keeping with the existing character of the community.
Response: There are concerns that siting the taller ‘barrier type’ units at the rear of the site would have a harmful impact on the various wild life species in Perivale Wood, the Nature Reserve at the rear of the site in terms of loss of light. To protect the Nature Reserve, the orientation proposed is considered to be acceptable.
10. The affordable housing/Council nominated housing will dabble with ‘Social Engineering’, putting socially disadvantaged tenants into settled neighbourhood. This may result in increased rates of crime, increased fear, inconsiderate neighbours and increased insurance. What guarantees/safeguards are there to prevent this area degenerating as a direct consequence of this development? The maternity hospital on A40 was demolished and replaced by a Housing Association development. This estate causes trouble for residents in the surrounding area and shop owners in Medway Estate in terms of criminal activity. Another such development will sandwich existing residents between the 2 estates and further criminal activity may occur.
Response: There is no evidence that people who live in affordable housing/Council nominated housing behave any differently from home owners or people who do not live in affordable/council nominated housing. It is conceivable for affordable housing/Council nominated housing tenants to be law abiding professional people who are just unable to or unwilling to buy their own houses because of the high prices.. Such people are the targets of the Government’s initiative in increasing the housing stock as per the new PPG3. The development of the maternity hospital on the A40 has no bearing on the current proposal. Only 35%(80 units) of the proposal is being earmarked for affordable housing, the rest of the units are earmarked for private ownership/rental.
11. There should be secure fencing between the site and the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood.
Response: The submitted plans indicate impenetrable boundary
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 20 of 55
03 fence to be located within hedgerow to be provided along the site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. In addition, a condition is recommended requiring the submission of details of fencing/boundary treatment particularly along the site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood for prior assessment.
12. Inadequate buffer zone.
Response: The plans submitted for the initial application indicated a 5m strip/buffer zone at the rear between the proposal and the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. Following concerns raised by local residents, the Council and Selborne Society, the applicant has revised the layout to provide an approximately 20m deep buffer zone/strip. It is considered this revision is adequate.
13. Light pollution from cars/vehicles and street lighting and air and noise pollution are likely to have a harmful impact on the various wildlife species in the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood.
Response: A boundary fence/boundary treatment is being proposed along the site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. This will minimise lights from cars penetrating the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. The rear of houses in Sunley Gardens that back onto the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood have rear gardens and garages along their common boundaries with the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. This relationship has not had any significant harmful impact on the wildlife/plants within the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood. The site has an existing lawful use as warehouse with no restrictions on numbers and sizes of cars/vehicles that can operate from the site. There is currently no adequate boundary fence along the site’s common boundary with the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood and therefore more light, air and noise pollution could result from vehicles entering and leaving the site.
14. The proposal would be contrary to the Council’s policy that development next to or near Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and other open land should be of an appropriate scale.
Response: The current proposal is to develop previously developed land within an Employment site. The proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate scale. In relation to properties in Sunley Gardens, the nearest proposed houses are two storey houses – in character with the size and scale of the houses in Sunley Gardens, that share boundaries with the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. Spaces/amenity gardens are being provided within the site. It is considered that these spaces/amenity gardens ‘break up’ the site to reduce the otherwise ‘built-up’ appearance.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 21 of 55
03 15. Loss of green open recreational areas for children and families to enjoy.
Response: The application site is not a green open recreational area, it is a commercial site within an Employment site and contains warehouse buildings.
16. Siting of an access road opposite the distribution centre is both dangerous and inconvenient.
Response: Transport Services and Transport for London have raised no concerns about the siting of this access road.
17. Has there been any Environmental Assessment Report?
Response: Following consultation with the Principal Environmental Health Officer (PEHO), a request was made to the applicant to submit a Noise Assessment Report. A Noise Assessment Report was subsequently submitted. PEHO has assessed this report and has raised no objection to the proposal. He has recommended conditions relating to noise attenuation measures. These conditions are being recommended.
18. Lack of information put forward for public information.
Response: The information provided with the application was included in the initial documents that were made available for consultees. Following the initial consultations of PEHO, Transport Services and Transport for London (TFL), requests were made for the applicant to submit a Noise Assessment Report and Transport Impact Assessment (TIA). Copies of these documents together with the revised proposal were made available to consultees following the re-consultation of local residents on the revised proposal. In addition, the notification letters state that residents/consultees who require further information/clarification on the application may contact the Case Officer. Some residents have indeed contacted the Case Officer and have had meetings with her to discuss/clarify issues.
19. Land water run-off from the Paddock is via a stream that runs along the boundary of the Reserve, Perivale Wood, adjacent to the application site. This water flows via an inspection pit just inside the far south west corner of the proposed development. A spring also runs from the edge of the site and feeds a small stream that runs down the eastern boundary of the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood. There are concerns about the long term maintenance of these water outlets.
Response: Conditions requiring measures for the overall protection of the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood including the water outlets are being recommended.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 22 of 55
03 20. Key workers such as teachers, nurses and young doctors should be housed here instead of 35% of Housing Association nomination.
Response: The affordable housing element in the proposal will be via Housing Association nomination. The Housing Association that will provide the affordable housing element will be nominated by the Housing Department. It is considered that Housing Association nomination may include nurses, teachers and young doctors.
21. The 230 car parking spaces are too excessive and contrary to UDP policy. This will encourage more car usage. The development should be a ‘low car usage’ development and not a ‘car based’ development.
Response: The proposal has been revised. There are now 229 residential units being provided and the car parking provision is 225 car parking spaces – there will be a shortfall of 4 spaces. However, Transport Services has not raised any objections on this shortfall of parking provision. This level of parking provision is in line with the standards in the Emerging UDP and current Government advice on parking provision in new development. The site is located in an area that is well served by public transport – Buses and the underground.
Horsenden Lane South and the immediate surrounding streets have controlled parking zones. The likelihood of on street parking congestion resulting because of this proposal is minimal.
22. London Buses/TFL should be approached to improve the frequencies of the 297 buses.
Response: TFL has been consulted on this application. It has not made any suggestion regarding the frequencies of the 297 buses.
23. Cycle lane along Horsenden Lane South and nearby locations should be provided in addition to cycle parking spaces. Currently, the cycle route for parents taking children to school is only north.
Response: Transport Services has not made any requests for the location of cycle lane along Horsenden Lane South and nearby locations.
24. There should be traffic management measures in this area especially after the Bilton Centre approval and the fact that the 24hour Tesco is operating in this area.
Response: Both Transport Services and TFL have made no requests for any form of traffic management measures in the area in respect of this application.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 23 of 55
03 25. The Perivale area already suffers severe traffic, pollution and noise problems as a result of other developments in the area and its proximity to the A40 and Hanger Lane/the North Circular. There would be increased traffic congestion and overcrowding. Currently, morning and evening congestion along Horsenden Lane South already leads to U turns, queue jumping on the wrong side of the road and blocking of Bilton Road/Horsenden Lane junction. The public car park beside Perivale Industrial Park is used as a rat run to avoid the Horsenden Lane queues (morning and evening). The car park has a shared pathway for pedestrians, however, there is no kerb.
Response: Transport Services has raised no objection to the proposal in respect of increased traffic congestion and overcrowding.
TFL requested that the applicants make a financial contribution of £15,000 towards the conversion of the Teignmouth Gardens/ Horsenden Lane South junction to UTC control. The applicants have agreed to make this financial contribution and therefore forms part of a Legal Agreement for the whole application site.
26. Current use of the warehouse site for industrial purposes – since the Council’s approval of 24 hour access by HGVs to Perivale Park Industrial Estate, the Traffic and Noise Assessments in support of this proposal need to be reviewed as they assume a night time lorry curfew.
Response: The current application is for a change of use of the site from industrial/warehouse use to residential use and would not involve the traffic of HGVs that are normally associated with industrial/warehouse use. Transport Services who requested the Transport Impact Assessment Report and were consulted on the submitted report have not raised this issue in their comments on the application.
27. The HGV exit from the current site is restricted by a parking bay on the opposite carriageway.
Response: This arrangement is what currently exists in respect of the lawful existing use of the application site.
28. The conversion of this land from industrial to residential will have a significant impact on the area. The existing industrial use is a better option.
Response: It is not considered that the residential use will have a more harmful impact on the local area than the commercial use. The warehouse/commercial use currently taking place at the application site does not cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and on traffic in the area possibly because of the way the current occupiers of the site carry out their operations. It
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 24 of 55
03 is conceivable that a new occupier may operate the site in such a way as to have significant harmful impact on the living conditions of local residential occupiers and traffic in the area. This is because there are no restrictions in terms of HGV movements and hours of operation on the grant of planning permission for the warehouse use in 1965.
29. The proposal will have a detrimental impact on trees along the boundary.
Response: The Council’s Arboricultural Officer was consulted on the proposal. He recommended that Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) be placed on three trees along the Horsenden Lane South frontage of the site that he considered to be of high amenity value. Accordingly, TPOs have been placed on these trees. The Arboricultural Officer, in addition, requested that the applicant submit detailed measures for the protection of these TPO trees and other trees being retained within and along the boundaries for prior assessment. These details have been submitted by the applicant to the Council and the Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to these measures. In addition, the Arboricultural Officer requested that the site layout be revised such that there are protection zones in respect of the trees being retained on site and those covered by TPO. The site layout has been revised to provide these protection zones.
Overall, the Council has ensured that trees worthy of retention within and along the site’s boundary are being protected and conditions are being recommended to safeguard trees within the site.
30. Loss in the value of properties in this area due to their proximity to the proposed ‘housing estate’. Who will compensate homeowners?
Response: Loss in property value is not a planning issue.
31. Insufficient parking provision is made in respect of the proposal. This will lead to on street parking congestion.
Response: The current Government advice is for a move towards reduction of the use of the car as far as possible. The Emerging UDP has accordingly been revised to incorporate this move. There is in addition an affordable housing provision within the site. Car parking provision for affordable housing is generally lower than for other housing. Horsenden Lane South and the surrounding streets all have controlled parking and therefore indiscriminate on-street parking is not likely to be common. In addition, it is noted that the site is very close to Perivale Tube Station.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 25 of 55
03 32. The proposal allocates more ground area to road/street and car parking spaces within the site than to housing.
Response: The parking spaces and road/streets are necessary for this development. Any increase in housing/building would be likely to increase the number of units and consequently the density of the proposal. There are already objections to the density of the current proposal.
33. Legal Agreement/Section 106 money should be sought for the Nature Reserve/Perivale Wood.
Response: A financial contribution is being made for the provision/upgrade of community facilities to be identified by the Coucil in this area.
34. The housing mix being proposed is unacceptable. There are only 23 units of more than 2 bedrooms out of 225 units.
Response: The overall number of units being provided within the site has been revised to 229 units with 20 units of more than 2 bedrooms. The 2 bedroom units are regarded as family units.
35. There will not be adequate community/health services such as doctors’ surgeries, play-groups, schools in this area.
Response: A financial contribution is being provided by the applicants in respect of provision of additional educational facilities which is likely to include funding for play groups.
In respect of doctors’ surgeries, the relevant Health Authority was consulted on the proposal and it has not raised any issues concerning lack of/inadequate medical facilities within this area.
The Selborne Society The Society has stated the following: notified. 1. The Society understands that at one stage there was a covenant on the land that required it to become public open space once the current users relinquished it. It is therefore assumed that this impediment to the present housing scheme has been removed. The Society’s comments on the proposal are therefore on the assumption that it has. Can the details of the situation, in particular the ‘variation’ be made available to the Society?
Response: The Council is not aware of any such covenant and has no details on this. An Owner’s Certificate duly signed by the applicants was submitted with the application. There has been no
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 26 of 55
03 challenge to the ownership of the site.
2. The proposed development is immediately adjacent to Perivale Wood, which is a Local Nature Reserve (LNR), a site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and the second oldest nature reserve in Britain. It is on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and is part of the tract of open land that includes Horsenden Hill. It is borough policy that development next to MOL and other open land should be of an appropriate scale and in particular should not bear over those sites and reduce the sense of openness. A suitably laid out housing development next to the reserve need not bear over it. The layout currently proposed will adversely affect Perivale Wood.
Response: These issues have been raised in some of the individual letters and petitions received as a result of neighbour notification and have been answered under the ‘Neighbour Notification’ section of this report. The Society did not raise this issue on the revised scheme.
3. The buildings proposed along the western side of the site will be obtrusive and will overlook Perivale Wood. There are 3 and 21/2 storey houses proposed for this boundary. The roof line of the houses would make an angle of about 30 degrees for the eastern edge of the Reserve and would be much higher than the angle of the current warehouses. The proposal would cut several hours of morning sunshine. This would have a detrimental impact on the Reserve. The Society therefore requests that the buildings are moved away from the Reserve and that only two storey buildings are sited along the west and south and that the higher buildings are sited in the middle and east side of the site.
Response: Following concerns raised by the Council, some local residents and the Society in respect of siting and loss of light into the Reserve, the applicant has revised the scheme to address the concerns raised. An approximately 20m wide buffer strip is being maintained along the site’s boundary with the Reserve and only two storey buildings/houses are being sited along this common boundary.
4. A key feature of Perivale Wood, (the Reserve), is that it has restricted access. It is open to members, invited groups such as schools and to the public on particular days. The restricted access is vital because: a) it increases conservation value; b) it allows management activity that would not otherwise be possible, for example, the meadows are grazed by horses and this would not be possible except in an area that was properly fenced and with restricted access; c) it makes it a suitable, safe and secure site for educational work with schools and adults. For these reasons, there needs to be secure fencing between the site and the Reserve.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 27 of 55
03
Response: There is an indication on the submitted plans that ‘impenetrable boundary fence’ would be located within hedgerow along the site’s common boundary with the Reserve. In any event, a condition requiring the submission of details of boundary fence/wall be submitted to the Council for assessment prior to the commencement of the development is being recommended. The Society will be consulted on any details that are submitted in compliance with this condition.
5. There will be over 500 new people living next to the Reserve and this could cause severe problems of incursion. The Society therefore requests that a secure fence is constructed along the present fence line or to the east of it. The only realistic fence is ‘pallisade’ at least 2.5m high since any other fence can be easily cut or pushed down. The fence between the Reserve and the recreation field immediately to the north of the site demonstrates how easily that type of fence can be cut or pushed down. The fence between the north of the Reserve and the canal is an excellent example of a suitable strong and durable fence.
Response: As already stated above, a condition requiring the submission of details of fencing/wall along all the boundaries is being recommended.
6. It is normal practice to have a ‘buffer zone’ for developments adjacent to sensitive sites. In the case of the land at the other side of Perivale Wood, (the Reserve), a buffer zone of 20 metres has been provided. The proposed zone that is 5m in places is not adequate.
Response: The proposal has been revised following concerns from the Society, residents and the Council. There is now a 20metre ‘buffer zone’ along the site’s common boundary with the Reserve.
7. There is a significant risk of light, noise and air pollution from the site as well as visual intrusion. The Society therefore considers that there should be a continuous screen of shrubs along the buffer zone. The occasional line of trees shown on the plan is not satisfactory. There should be a gap between the planting and the fence to allow maintenance access in order to prevent climbing over the fence. Shrubs to be planted in the ‘buffer zone’ should include native species and could include selected non-native ones. They should have a dense rather than spreading habit so that they can provide a good screen. It is especially important that they are not suckering species such as blackthorn. The Society does not want encroachment into the Reserve Perivale Wood and the residents would not want encroachment into their gardens. Initial suggestions for species are: field maple, guelder rose, sallows, buckthorn, alder buckthorn, rowan, crab apple, wild
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 28 of 55
03 pear (if a source can be found), Berberis and Barberry. The Society would be happy to discuss the species for planting in the buffer zone in more detail.
Response: The Council’s Senior Landscape Architect, who was consulted on the proposal has made similar comments. Conditions requiring the submission of details of landscaping, tree/shrub planting particularly along the site’s common boundary with the Reserve are being recommended. Tree species will be assessed and agreed by the Senior Landscape Architect before these conditions are discharged. The Society will be notified about these details.
8. Light pollution is an important issue in Perivale Wood, the Reserve. Much of the fauna is nocturnal and can be disrupted by artificial lights. The Society carries out moth trapping (for identification and release) in the meadow adjacent to the site. This uses a special light; bright lights from the estate shining directly into the reserve would ruin moth trapping and more importantly, light from the estate could interfere with the moth fauna itself. Car headlights are an additional source of light pollution. An acoustic barrier could also act as an effective light barrier. The Society therefore requests that no lights be installed to the west of the line of houses on the west side of the site. If there are lights, such as road or path-side lights, these should be such that no light strays into the Reserve and preferably little into the buffer zone. Modern designs of light can provide profiles with a very sharp cut-off in a desired direction so this should be an easy matter to address.
Response: A condition requiring the submission of details of external lighting and the prohibition of any external lighting facing onto the Nature Reserve is being recommended.
8. Air pollution arising mainly from the large numbers of cars is a further cause for concern. Vegetation is more sensitive to certain forms of pollution than humans. Standards set to protect human health are not therefore necessarily adequate to protect Perivale Wood, the Reserve. Currently, nitrogen dioxide is monitored by the Council in Perivale Wood, the Reserve, and the values are the lowest of all LBE sites. The Society requests therefore that an estimate be made of the air pollution impact.
Response: Local residents have raised a similar issue. A response has been provided under the Neighbour Notification section of this report.
9. A spring issues from the edge of the application site and this feeds a small stream that runs down the eastern boundary of Perivale Wood, the Reserve. This is an important resource. The stream feeds some pools that are the main habitats of frogs and
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 29 of 55
03 newts in the Reserve as well as the only location for floating sweet grass. It is essential that the building works do not interfere with this spring. It may be desirable to construct the foundations such that water runoff from roofs, percolates from the site into the Reserve. (Run-off from hard standing may not be desirable as it could be contaminated by oil etc.).
Response: This issue has been raised by local residents and a response has been provided under the Neighbour Notification section of this report.
10. The Society needs to ensure that the Reserve is not broken into, however, the Society would wish to encourage the new residents to use the Reserve and benefit from this remarkable local asset. The Society’s resources are severely stretched as it is run entirely by volunteers and receives no borough or other outside funding. It would seem an appropriate use of Section 106 money for the Society to receive funding to be able to enhance its facilities for the benefit of the new and existing residents.
Response: Conditions requiring details of boundary fencing along the site’s boundary with Perivale Wood to be submitted for approval is being recommended.
11. With the increased population, the Society would request that London Buses/TFL be approached about 297 bus. There should be improved frequencies, better reliability, a Countdown’ system that works, bus lanes and other bus priority measures. Unless this is done, the bus service will tend to get worse and the Reserve and local residents will be even more adversely affected. This will be inconsistent with Council and GLA policies to improve public transport and effect ‘modal shift’. Such a worsening situation would be an argument for rejecting the scheme as a case of ‘unsuitable development.’
Response: TFL, which was consulted on this application has not requested a Section 106 Agreement to facilitate the frequency of bus 297. It has not requested the provision of bus lanes.
Perivale Residents’ The Residents’ Society has stated that the Society objects to the Society notified. proposal as it stands on the following grounds:
1. Too many dwellings are proposed for erection in such a relatively small area. Over-crowded housing is a classic sympton and the major cause of problem housing estates of which we already have several in Perivale and its immediate surrounding areas.
Response: These issues have been raised in the individual letters
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 30 of 55
03 and petition and responses have been provided under the ‘Neighbour Notification’ Section of this report.
2. The traffic situation in Perivale, particularly on Horsenden Lane South is already chaotic. The additional traffic which would be engendered by this development would cause chaos.
Response: These issues have been raised in individual letters and petition from local residents and responses have been provided under the ‘Neighbour Notification’ Section of this report.
3. Utilities such as sewage and rubbish collection, to say nothing about cleaning, are stretched to breaking point as it is, and the additional 233 Residential Units, on top of the influx of Asylum seekers flooding the area can only lead to even more problems for the Council.
Response: It is considered that the proposal would provide much needed accommodation within this Borough. Both the Environment Agency and Transport Services have raised no objections in respect of utilities such as sewage and rubbish collection. Any influx of Asylum seekers into this has not the resulted from the current application.
4. The beautiful and long established bird sanctuary behind this proposed development is far too close to its boundaries, particularly, bearing in mind that a large number of children could be housed there and as a natural result of normal curiosity and sense of adventure, would cause great disturbance to the wild life.
Response: These issues have been raised by local residents in individual letters and petition and responses have been provided in the Neighbour Notification section of this report.
9. The Selborne Society has objected to this application on the grounds that this particular area is protected by a Church Covenant. If this is proved to be the case, the Society will support the Association.
Response: This issue has been raised by local residents in individual letters and a response has been provided in the Neighbour Notification section of this report.
Buckingham Avenue The Association has raised the following concerns: Residents’ Association notified. 1. Parking facilities on the proposed development appear inadequate, considering that a large number of families have two cars. 2. What precautions does the Council intend to take to prevent an
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 31 of 55
03 overflow of cars parking on the Buckingham Avenue estate and thereby denying the residents here of their own parking facilities? 3. The 4 storey blocks are not in keeping with the local area. 4. The facilities in the local area will need to be improved upon; e.g doctor’s surgeries, bus services, etc. What are the Council’s plans to address these issues? 5. Additional traffic volume will be created on Horsenden Road – how does the Council intend to deal with this? 6. The entrance/exits to the proposed estate will cause congestion at peak hours where there area already tailbacks along Horsenden and Bilton Roads with drivers now taking chances to drive on the wrong side of the road to bypass the queuing traffic; e.g vehicles turning right into Bilton Road.
Response: The concerns raised have been raised by residents in individual letters of objection and a petition objecting to the proposal. Responses have been provided to these concerns/objections under the Neighbour Notification Section of this report.
London Fire Brigade Has stated that the Brigade is satisfied with the proposals, subject to notified. “other comments” provided below.
1. Access for fire appliances is to meet the requirements outlined in the enclosed copy of LFEPA Guidance Note No. 29. 2. This approval relates solely to the Planning Application. The question of other fire precautionary arrangements should be addressed, in the first instance, to the Dept. of Building Control, London Borough of Ealing, who may consult the Fire Authority under Section 16 of The Fire Precautions Act 1971 in due course. 3. The Brigade has not examined the effect that this proposal would have upon adjacent premises. 4. Applicant should refer to Guidance Note 29 regarding the provision of fire hydrants (if necessary).
Response: An informative advising the applicant of the above is being recommended.
Transport for London – On the original submission, TFL requested a Transport Impact TFL Street Assessment (TIA). The applicant submitted a TIA in response to this Management consulted. request. On the TIA, TFL has stated the following:
1. Much of the estate consists of shared surface areas. This presents problems when designing street lighting layouts. The developer should demonstrate that the estate would be lit to an adaptable standard, i.e. BS5489 part 3 category 1.
Response: An informative accordance with the above is being recommended.
2. The split between affordable and private housing is approximately 30% to 70%. As such it is well below the 50%/50% split specified
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 32 of 55
03 in the Mayor’s policies. The developer should be asked to increase the amount of affordable housing.
Response: It is considered that the affordable housing element being provided which has been increased to 35% is now acceptable.
3. The number of cycle spaces provided are less than the 1 to 1.5 flats specified in Ealing’s adopted UDP. The cycle parking spaces should also be covered and well lit.
Response: The applicant has confirmed that the cycle spaces will be covered and lit. There is scope for the provision of additional cycle space within the site. A condition in accordance with this is being recommended.
4. The disabled parking bays should be clearly marked as such.
Response: A condition in accordance with this is being recommended.
5. Given the density of housing, the estate should be designated as a 20mph zone, with appropriate entry treatments provided at the junctions with Horsenden Lane South.
Response: Neither Transport Services nor TFL have recommended a 20mph zone within the site.
6. What measures does the developer propose to prevent on street parking within the estate?
Response: No measures are being proposed by the developer, however, the imposition of parking restrictions is outside the developer’s control.
7. According to the TIA, the development will result in an increase in traffic of about 2.5% on Horsenden Lane South to the south of the estate during the peak period. Whilst this is a relatively small increase, the junction of Horsenden Lane South with Teignmouth Gardens is already operating at capacity, with significant queues occasionally developing during the peak period. The developer should produce a TRANSYT or LINSIG model of this junction and either demonstrate that the development will not result in more frequent queues or propose improvements to overcome this problem.
Response Following negotiations between TFL and the applicants, the applicants have agreed to make a financial contribution of £15,000 towards the cost of upgrading the traffic signals at the junction of Horsenden Lane South and Teignmouth Gardens to UTC. This will give the London Traffic Control Centre greater flexibility in their control over this junction and will be of benefit to all road users
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 33 of 55
03 in the area.
Environment Agency The Agency has stated that it has no objection to the proposal consulted. provided 4 conditions relating to site investigation; submission of details of construction of site drainage system; details of site foundations and the prevention of soakaways in contaminated grounds, and 12 informatives identified by the Agency are recommended.
Response: These conditions and informatives are being recommended.
Crime Prevention Has recommended that a condition requiring that the development Design Advisor complies with the aims and objectives of the requirements of the consulted. ‘Secured By Design’ scheme.
Has in addition made the following comments: 1. That he is concerned at the lack of surveillance afforded to the car parking area in the south west corner of the proposed development. 2. That as a general rule, dwellings with in-curtilage car parking arrangement are preferred. Where communal car parking areas are necessary, they should be in small groups, close and adjacent to the owners’ premises, preferably within the owners’ view. 3. Where parking is designed to be adjacent to or between units, a gable window should be considered to allow residents unrestricted view over their vehicles. Lighting requirements should be discussed with the CPDA. In certain conditions additional security features may be required and to this end the physical principles of the ‘Secured Car Parks’ award may be referred to.
Response: Conditions and informatives in accordance with the above are being recommended.
London Wildlife Trust Has stated the following: consulted. 1. Although the evaluation (Ecological Report submitted by the applicant) indicates that there is little of ecological value on the development site, the development will be disruptive to the adjoining Reserve in terms of noise, dust and lighting, particularly during the development stage. It suggests that these factors are taken into consideration and steps taken to mitigate against this as far as possible. In terms of dust, a screen should be erected along the boundary and lighting faced away from the Reserve. 2. It notes that the site layout plan indicates a ‘buffer strip’ along the boundary with Perivale Wood, the Reserve, on completion of the development and supports this proposal.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 34 of 55
03 3. It notes that exterior lighting is to be situated facing away from the Reserve which it supports. 4. The primary concern is therefore any adverse effects that will occur during the development.
Response: Conditions are being recommended to address the potential effects of dust from building works on the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood.
Government Office for Has stated the following: London (GOL) That it has no observations to offer at this time, however, it assumes consulted. that the application will be formally referred to the Secretary of State in due course.
Greater London On the original application the GLA stated the following: Authority (GLA) consulted. 1. The redevelopment of this brownfield site and the loss of a non- strategic employment location was justified in strategic planning terms, as it would contribute to meeting London's housing needs. However, the Mayor sought the level of on site affordable housing provision to be increased to at least 50% and to include an element of intermediate affordable housing. The Mayor also supported an increase in the density of the development. 2. “Biodiversity Issues: The site is adjacent to Perivale Wood, a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and a statutory Local Nature Reserve. Most of the reserve consists of ancient woodland, but the eastern part of the reserve, adjacent to the application site is unimproved grassland, a rare habitat in London. Perivale Wood has been managed as a nature reserve, with strictly controlled access by the Selborne Society for many years and is one of the oldest nature reserves in the country. There are three issues relating to ensuring that the nature reserve is not adversely affected by the application. 3. The first is an adequate buffer zone between the new development and the reserve. The current plans indicate a landscaped buffer of five metres width. Back gardens therefore come within five metres of the nature reserve. A buffer strip of at least ten metres width would be appropriate. This should be densely planted with native shrubs, but avoiding any species, such as blackthorn, which spread by suckering and might invade the grassland. A planning agreement will be required to ensure the long term management of the buffer strip to maintain dense scrub. 4. The second issue relates to preventing unauthorised access from the new development to the nature reserve. It is essential that the boundary between the reserve and the new development has a secure fence. Ideally, this should be on the development side of the buffer zone. 5. The third issue is that of lighting. It is important that exterior lighting (such as security lighting) is not situated close to the boundary with the nature reserve and that any lighting faces away
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 35 of 55
03 from the reserve. This is particularly important because educational activities such a moth studies are sometimes undertaken at night in the meadow on the eastern edge of the reserve. 6. There are a number of improvements to the nature reserve which could be secured as part of the planning gain from this development. A mixed hedge (again, avoiding potentially invasive species such as blackthorn) could be planted along the entire eastern boundary of the reserve. Some new interpretation boards are also required for the reserve. 7. The other biodiversity issue relates to protected species. Slow worms are common in the nature reserve and in the areas of grassland within the application site. A planning condition should be imposed requiring a reptile survey to be undertaken and if reptiles are found, a scheme to capture and translocate them should be agreed with English Nature before any work commences on site. Unless reptile numbers are very large, they should be released in the adjacent nature reserve. 8. It is possible that bats might roost in some of the existing buildings. A planning condition should require a bat survey of the buildings before any demolition is carried out. If any signs of bat roosts are found, measures for avoidance, mitigation and compensation for any adverse effects on bats should be agreed with English Nature before work begins. 9. Transport for London (TFL) – Car Parking: The application is for the provision of 230 spaces which is equivalent to just over one space per unit. PPG3 provides the level of 1.5 spaces per dwelling and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy recommends between 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit for residential development in this type of location. TFL considers that it would be appropriate for the development to have parking which is at the more restrictive end of this range due to the proximity of the development to both bus and Underground facilities. TFL recommends a small reduction, to a provision of one space per dwelling. 10. London Buses have aspirations to extend the E5 from Medway Estate via Perivale Station, Horsenden Lane South, Bilton Road, Aintree Road providing links to the Perivale Tesco, Southall and higher frequency service to Perivale Station. This requires a new access road between Scorton Avenue and Perivale Station. However, no funding is available to carry out a feasibility study or the service improvements. It would be appropriate for this development to contribute funding towards implementation of this scheme. 11. Pedestrian access – provision has been made on site for pedestrians only, which TFL supports. It should be ensured that pedestrian routes off the site are as direct as possible to local shops and other facilities to encourage people t walk rather than use their cars. 12. Cycle access – cycle parking has been provided throughout the site, which is supported by TFL. The London Cycle Network
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 36 of 55
03 guidelines recommend a provision of 1 space per dwelling, which TFL suggests this scheme should try to meet. However, the provision of 115 spaces is welcomed. 13. Travel Plan – whilst TFL appreciates that it can be difficult to enforce a travel plan on a residential development, it is considered that the applicants could be responsible for compiling and distributing an introductory pack for residents. This should include information on the local public transport networks, with times and destination and access to walking/cycling routes in relation to the site. Signage from the site is also a way in which the applicant can seek to encourage residents to make use of public transport and walking/cycling facilities, as it generates awareness. 14. S106 - in addition to contributions towards implementing the bus link, audits could also be carried out of the pedestrian routes between the site and rail/bus stations and stops. These should assess where there is the potential to improve safety and directness of the routes and then seek to improve any areas it is felt are not satisfactory. This could involve the widening of footpaths, or resurfacing, the provision or upgrading of a-grade pedestrian crossing facilities. 15. Equal Opportunities Considerations – in accordance with both the draft London Plan and Ealing’s First Deposit UDP it is expected that all of the new housing will be built to ‘lifetime home’ standards and that a minimum of 10% of the new housing will be designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.
On the revised proposal, the GLA states the following:
1. The amendment to the proposal regarding the enlargement of the green area adjoining Perivale Wood, the Reserve, is welcomed in the interests of nature conservation/biodiversity. 2. The level of affordable housing has not been increased and remains below the level sought by both the draft London Plan and the Ealing second deposit UDP. Without a robust supporting cast to support the provision of a lesser amount of affordable housing, the position of the GLA remains that a minimum of 50% affordable housing provision should be provided on the site which should include an element of intermediate affordable housing.
Response: It is considered that the affordable housing element being provided at 35% is acceptable and is in line with what has been achieved elsewhere.
3. Another concern is that the density of the development has not been increased. It is recognised that there are constraints on the site, such as the green buffer area adjoining Perivale Wood, the Reserve. However, according to our rough calculations, the proposed density is approximately 200 habitable rooms per hectare, which is at the lower end of the density range of 200-250
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 37 of 55
03 habitable rooms per hectare sought by the draft London Plan and the Ealing second deposit UDP. Policy 4B.3 of the draft London Plan states: “The Mayor will and boroughs should ensure development proposals achieve the highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles in Policy 4B.1 and with public transport capacity. Boroughs should develop residential and commercial density policies in their UDPs in line with this policy. Residential development should conform to the density ranges set out in Table 4B.1”
4. The issues raised in relation to transport on the original application are still outstanding.
Response: It is considered that the density being proposed is appropriate taking into account the density of the neighbouring residential areas and any further increase in density would be out of character with this area. There would also be increased traffic considerations.
English Heritage Has stated that the site survey shows that the western and southern consulted. areas of the site do not appear to have been subject to modern truncation and therefore retain the potential for undisturbed archaeological deposits. The site at the base of Horsenden Hill is situated in an area where prehistoric remains, in particular may be located. In this instance, it does not consider that any archaeological fieldwork needs to be undertaken prior to determination of this planning application but that the archaeological position should be reserved by attaching a condition to any consent granted under this application:
Condition: No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The archaeological works shall be carried out by a suitably qualified investigating body acceptable to the Local Planning Authority.
Informative: The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with appropriate English Heritage guidelines.
Should significant archaeological remains be encountered in the course of the initial field evaluation, an appropriate mitigation strategy which may include archaeological excavation in likely to be necessary.
This advice relates solely to archaeological matters.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 38 of 55
03
Response: An appropriately worded condition and informatives are being recommended.
Friends of the Earth No response received. notified.
Railtrack notified. No comment received.
London Underground Has stated that LUL has no comment to make on this application. Ltd (LUL) notified.
Ealing and No comment received. Hammersmith Health Authority notified.
Ealing Access Has stated the proposal does not comply with the Council’s Committee notified. Supplementary Guidance (SG) Note 1 “Accessible Ealing” dated December 1994 and the “Accessible Ealing Update” dated May 1999. The following are the points of non-compliance:
1. Car Parking – the plans do not show designated disabled parking bays. 2. Width of pathways to residential block in some cases insufficient. All pathways, footways and pavements should be a minimum of 2000mm wide. The areas surrounding the residential blocks and houses should meet the standards set out in SG1. Attention should be paid to the section relating to the outside of buildings. 3. All Dwellings – Policy requires that 10% of the housing in a development of this size should be to wheelchair standards. The preference would be for a variety of flat/house types. To qualify as wheelchair accessible housing development should meet lifetime home standards and meet the additional requirements outlined in SG1 for ‘Wheelchair Housing’. 4. Approaches to all entrances should be level or gently sloping (no more than 1:20 gradient) 5. Entrances should be illuminated and have level access over the threshold and the main entrance should be covered.
Response: Conditions requiring the provision of disabled parking clearly marked and 10% houses/flats to wheelchair standards within the site are being recommended.
Senior Landscape Has stated the following: Architect consulted. 1. No objection in principle to the proposal subject to satisfactory landscaping prepared by a Landscape Architect. 2. The height of buildings on western boundary adjacent to Perivale Wood should be restricted to no more than two and half storeys
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 39 of 55
03 as Blocks A. House type F and H should likewise be no higher than Blocks A in order to reduce the impact of light pollution and noise to the ancient woodland. 3. Drawing states “impenetrable boundary fence to be located within hedgerow for the Western boundary”. It may be preferable to provide 2.0m high mild steel railings (painted black) on this boundary for security rather than the security fencing that surrounds Perivale Wood, and plant a native hedgerow (mainly hawthorn and blackthorn) adjacent to the fence and within the site. The hedge can grow through the railings and form an impenetrable barrier. Along this boundary there are a number of willows which stand in semi permanent wet conditions. There should be no loss of these trees and the wet conditions existing to these trees. 4. All buffer zone planting to the North and West boundaries should be locally native species agreed between Parks and Countyside and the Selbourne Society. 5. The trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) are noted but no difference is shown between the symbols used for both existing and indicative new trees. All existing trees should be accurately plotted and condition surveyed and approval sought for siting of roads and parking areas near these existing trees. 6. There are several car parking areas which should be broken up with more tree planting (clear stem) than already indicated within/around these areas to reduce the impact of parking. 7. Surround all parking areas with medium/low hedges/shrub areas in addition to clear stem trees to play down the impact of the parking which will considerably improve visual amenity within the site. 8. This proposal for 225 units comprises 197 one or two bedroom flats and only 28 houses and as a consequence there is a shortage of useable amenity space especially around most of these blocks of flats. Nearby south of the site is Ealing Central Sports Ground which is one of a group of Ealing Parks and Countryside open spaces identified for major improvements to paths, play areas sportsfield drainage, planting works and Multi Use Games Area with a budget cost of some £480K. This open space would be ideally placed to provide various facilities for the new residents of this proposed housing should it receive planning permission. A contribution averaging at £500 per unit totalling £112.5K by way of Section 106 (legal agreement) is suggested as appropriate. The Council has no funds at present for these improvements which will be valuable community facilities in this area.
Response: A Condition requiring the submission of details of landscaping is being recommended. Following negotiations, the applicant has agreed to provide a financial contribution of £5000 towards the remedial works on Perivale Wood. The proposal has been revised to provide an adequate buffer zone
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 40 of 55
03 along the site’s common boundary with Perivale Wood.
Senior Arboricultural On the original application, he has stated the following: Officer consulted. 1. The Oak trees to the front of the site were of concern due to the proposed development and therefore a TPO was placed on the trees. These trees would be classed as veteran status and would require increased protection at all stages of development – from siting of temporary structures, demolition, service routes, road development, site level changes, material delivery and storage, construction and ultimately landscaping. 2. Due to the importance of TPO on this site as well as the increased number of trees over the whole area, it would be appropriate for the developer to provide a tree survey in accordance with British Standard 5837 section 5 and to cover relevant issues in sections 6-18 3. In order to fully appreciate the impact that the development would have on the tree stock, a fully proposed method statement should be submitted in order to assess the methods of demolition, construction and protection methods adopted and implemented prior to any permission being granted. 4. Although the vegetation on site is around the perimeter, specific details are requested as to materials storage to avoid contamination into the soil and root zones. In addition working and mixing areas for concrete/cement would be requested again to avoid contamination both from direct soil penetration as well as run off. 5. Consideration and influence should be brought to bear in relation to the under ground and over ground service routes. The request for information regarding the Services is to assess the lines of travel and depths required. This can be put into context regarding the trees on site. Similarly, site levels on detailed plans should be requested to gauge the likelihood of soil level changes surrounding the tree root systems. This information is regarded as significant to the long-term retention of trees on site. 6. No detail is given on root or canopy protection methods with reference to on site machinery. 7. The development of the access roads within the site would require the positioning of edging stones or other means of retention for the proposed hard standing, drive ways and roads. The excavation and positioning of these edges are likely to require the severance of root systems within the minimum protection zone as stated in BS5837 1991 ‘Trees in relation to construction’. Root severance will be detrimental to the health and safety of the trees. Ultimately those trees whose roots are damaged would require removal. This is viewed as unacceptable. 8. Individual specific tree pruning proposals should be submitted and agreed if action is required. 9. Landscaping proposals are minimal and are not detailed. The Landscaping Section should be consulted in relation to hard and
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 41 of 55
03 soft landscaping. 10. Site cabins and other temporary structures will be required during demolition/development. Location plans regarding their positioning would be required to fully appreciate the area required during demolition. This initial area is likely to come into conflict with the existing trees on site.
Response: The applicant was advised to submit the details required and to revise the layout in accordance with these comments. Tree Preservation Orders have been placed on the relevant trees. The layout was revised to provide protection for both the trees with TPOs and the trees being retained within the site. The buildings along the Horsenden Lane South frontage closest to these trees were re-orientated to provide distances of approximately 10m from these trees. Conditions in respect of tree protection during construction works are being recommended.
Transport Services On the original planning application, it requested the submission of consulted. Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) and a Travel Plan.
On the TIA that was subsequently submitted, it stated the following: - That a Travel Plan would be required as part of this proposal. It is stated in the TIA that “it is not realistic to have a formal Travel Plan”, however, it is Ealing Borough Council policy to encourage the creation of travel plans for residential developments of 25 dwellings or over. As the site is well served by public transport this site would appear to be well placed for measures to reduce car use and should be used to reduce parking provision. This should also seek to improve public transport such as a contribution towards the implementation of the proposal to an extension of the E5 bus route from the Medway to Perivale Station and Bilton Road. The size of this contribution should be agreed following consultation with London Buses and in relation to agreed parking provision. - In creating a Travel Plan, the applicant may wish to consider including a commitment to implement a City Car Club, a car pool service that residents in the proposed development could have access to. - Fifty percent of the parking provision should be designed to disabled standard (4.8 x 2.4m with 1.2m strip along the side of the bay, which can be shared with another bay. 10% of all bays should be reserved for disabled users. - Pedestrian visibility splays measuring 1.5m by 1.5m with no obstruction in height over 600mm should be provided wherever there is conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. These should be marked out on the plans where the parking access meets the road and on landscaped land adjacent to parking bays. - To address the sight line issue raised, the applicant should provide detailed plans showing the exact level to which the existing trees infringe on visibility for emerging vehicles.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 42 of 55
03 - There should be a cycle provision of 1.5 spaces per dwelling.
On the revised proposal, it stated the following:
- visibility splays should be shown on the submitted plans. - Covered and secure storage for cycle spaces integrated into the building design. - Swept paths on roads (for fire engines, removal lorries and refuse bin collection vehicles) and circulation areas should be indicated on the plans. - Pedestrian access to all buildings – minimum 2m – to all buildings should be provided. - Details of shared surface roads should be indicated on plans. - Lamp posts/ramps to slow the vehicles should be provided. - Roads are a bit narrow. - Travel Plan – surveys of car users – whether changing; measures to reduce this should be agreed. - City Car Club should be explored. - Will there be controlled parking within the site.
Response: The plans have been revised to provide the details requested. Transport Services has not at the time of writing this report, provided any figures in terms of money that may be required for the extension of E5 bus route it has suggested. Conditions in accordance with relevant requests are being recommended.
Principal Environmental Has stated the following: Health Officer (PEHO) consulted. 1. The acoustic report submitted demonstrates category B or C noise exposure from transport sources.
Sound insulation measures should be implemented to achieve the following criteria:
1.1 Internal noise criteria for dwellings
Bedrooms – not greater than 30dB(A)Leq, 1hr (2300-0700hrs) Bedrooms – individual noise events not greater than 45 dB Lamax (fast time weighting) Living rooms and dining rooms – not greater than 35dB(A)Leq,1hr (0700-2300hrs) Kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms – not greater than 45dB(A)Leq,1hr (o700-2300hrs).
1.2 Criteria for gardens and amenity areas.
Private gardens and balconies – not greater than 50dB(A)Leq,1hr,(0700-2300hrs)
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 43 of 55
03 1.3 Criteria for vibration levels measured on foundations of new dwellings 1.4 Specification and criteria for ventilation
Category C noise exposures
Either (i) Silenced mechanical system, such as a whole house ventilation system shall be installed with plant silenced to ensure that the following background noise levels will be achieved with the equipment in normal use and no tonal and impulsive characteristics distinguishable.
Bedrooms – less than 30dB(A). Living rooms and dining room – less than 35dB(A) Kitchens, bathrooms, utility rooms – less than 45 dB(A).
2. The layout of some flats shown on the plans is unsuitable in terms of noise nuisance prevention. The layout and internal arrangement should be designed to ensure that:
Similar types of rooms in flats, maisonettes are stacked above each other or adjoin each other. Halls are used as buffer zones between sensitive rooms and staircases. Large family units are not situated above individual flats or bed- sits.
3. The applicant shall be advised that:
3.1 Construction and demolition works, audible beyond the boundary of the site shall only be carried on between the hours of 0800 – 1800hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800 – 1300hrs on Saturdays and at no other times. 3.2 The maximum permitted noise level are:
Not greater than 72 dB LAeq, 10hr Mondays to Fridays. Not greater than 72 dB Laeq 5hr Saturdays.
3.3. Vibration from demolition, breaking of concrete and piling etc., as measured in the vertical direction on any floor in surrounding noise sensitive buildings, shall not exceed an overall peak particle velocity level 1mm/s. 3.4. Prior to the commencement of any site works, all sensitive properties surrounding the site boundary shall be notified in writing of the nature and duration of works to be undertaken, and the name and address of a responsible person, to whom an enquiry/compliant should be directed. 3.5. No bonfires shall be lit on site.
Response: Conditions and informatives in accordance with the c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 44 of 55
03 above are being recommended.
Director of Education Has stated the following: consulted. - From the information available, the department would anticipate that this development may generate a child yield of 128 which is in line with the previous application. The department have assumed a 25% - 75 % split between affordable and owner/occupier housing. - At a meeting with the applicant/developer, a contribution of £0.3m dependent on the eventual out-turn was discussed. - From further information available, the department anticipates that this development may generate a child yield of 135, a figure slightly higher than the original projection. However, the department would be seeking a contribution in the order mentioned.
Response: The applicants have agreed to provide a financial contribution of £161,500 towards the provision of educational facilities and improvement to existing educational facilities to be identified by the Council within the vicinity of the development. The grant of planning permission for this development is dependent on the applicant or any other person having an interest in the land entering into a legal agreement with the Council to make this financial contribution. Director of Housing No objection. consulted.
Open Space Committee Has stated the following: (OSAC) consulted. - Seek shared play area within site adjacent to the community centre for use by residents and users of the community centre. - Selborne Society should be involved in finalising any scheme for this site. - Comprehensive landscaping scheme required.
Response: Play area are being sited within the site though these are not adjacent to the community centre and not for the use of users of the community centre. The applicants have agreed to make a financial contribution of £5,000 towards the improvement of existing community facilities in the area to be identified by the Council.
Selborne Society has been consulted on this application. They have raised several concerns that have been addressed through negotiations with the applicant.
Conditions requesting the submission of details landscaping its management are being recommended.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 45 of 55
03
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Ref. Date Proposal Decision
3563 2/10/5 Erection of store building. Approved. 7
3563/1 30/7/6 Use as warehouse and distribution depot. Granted. 5
3563/2 21/12/ Erection of single faced free standing notice Granted. 65 board.
3563/3 19/7/6 Re-instatement of existing building to provide Granted. 6 warehousing accommodation with ancillary office accommodation.
3563/4 28/2/6 Erection of single storey extension to house Granted. 9 air pressure.
3563/5 17/2/7 Erection of canopies to form loading bays. Granted. 1
3563/6 6/11/7 Continued use of warehouse with ancillary Granted. 4 offices and separate office use.
3563/6/ 28/7/8 Relaxation of Condition 1 (TPW 3563/6) Approved. RC 2
3563/7 1/12/8 Change of use of existing offices in main Not Development. 0 building to warehousing and use of part of annexe for office accommodation.
3563/8 4/2/97 Erection of pump house and installation of Granted. adjoining water tank to rear of building.
3563/10 27/8/9 Erection of a 7.2 metre high storey Withdrawn. 9 warehouse for a temporary period of 6 months to be sited on the existing trailer park to the north of the existing 8.0m high warehouse (Revised scheme).
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
SUMMARY The application is for redevelopment of the site to provide 233 residential units, 229 parking spaces, 115 cycle spaces and associated roads and landscaping.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 46 of 55
03 The application site is designated in the statutory UDP as an Employment site is currently used as a Warehouse (B8). It is however designated in the Emerging UDP as residential. It is considered that the proposal is in tune with Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3 which encourages the development of brownfield sites to provide housing.
35% affordable housing is being provided. Though this does not fully meet UDP standards, the Housing Department has raised no objection to this level of provision.
The proposed dwellings have been located within the site to minimise any harmful impact on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and also to ensure that the development does not have any significant environmental harmful impact on the adjoining Perivale Wood, the Nature Reserve.
Financial contributions are being made for the provision/improvement of educational facilities in this area; for the upgrade of an existing traffic monitoring system at the Horsenden Lane South junction with Teignmouth Gardens and towards the improvements to existing community facilities in the area.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The application site is the industrial site known as ‘the Entertainment UK Site’ that is currently in use as a warehouse. It shares a boundary to the north with the Community Centre, in the west with Perivale Wood, the Nature Reserve, and in the south with houses in Horsenden Lane South and Sunley Gardens. The application site fronts onto Horsenden Lane South and access into the site is via Horsenden Lane South. The site comprises industrial buildings and tarmac areas that serve as parking areas and road and service areas.
The site is designated in the adopted UDP as an Employment site. It is however designated in the Emerging UDP as residential.
PLANNING POLICY
Planning policies in the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) chapters 3 “Planning for the Borough”, 4 “Sustainable Development”, 6 “Open Land”, 7 “Built Environment”, 8 “Environmental Standards”, 9 “ Housing”, 10 “Employment” and 13 “Transport”.
These policies are under chapters 1 “Strategy”, 2 “Environmental Resources and Waste, 3 “Green Space and Natural Environment”, 4 “Urban Design”, 5 “Housing”, 6 “Business” 9 “Transport” in Emerging UDP.
P2 on Legal Agreements, the Council will use legal agreements with developers to assist the best use of land and a properly planned environment as stated in Strategic Planning Guidance for London. (1.10)
R10 on Drainage and Flood Prevention, the Council will have regard to the drainage implication of new development and will liaise with the appropriate authorities to ensure that proper provision is made. (2.5)
OL2 on Development adjoining Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land , the Council will ensure that development or redevelopment adjacent to Major Open Areas does not prejudice
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 47 of 55
03 their environmental character in terms of height, appearance, boundary treatment and compatibility of user. (3.1)
OL3 on Environmental Improvement of Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land, the Council will actively seek to promote through all appropriate means, including the negotiation of legal agreements appropriate proposals. (3.1)
OL9 on Alternative Use, the Council will consider exceptions to preferred uses in OL7 Table 3 provided that they are not in conflict with other open land policies. (3.1)
OL16 on Children’s Play, the Council will seek to ensure the provision of safe children’s play facilities in connection with new developments. (3.5)
OL19 on Landscape features and Ancient Habitats, the Council will consider landscape features which are affected by development and will promote conservation and enhancement of important features such as ancient habitats. (3.8)
OL20 on Metropolitan Sites of Nature Conservation Importance, development will not be permitted within such sites and development adjoining such sites will not be permitted unless it can be shown that there would be no damage to the amenity and nature conservation interest. (3.8)
OL21 on Sites for Local Nature Conservation, the Council will encourage the protection and sensitive management of sites for Local Nature Conservation identified on the Proposals Map and listed in Table 6. (3.8)
OL24 on Habitat Conservation and Reconstruction, the Council recognises the paramount importance of conserving and enhancing established habitats and landscape through suitable protection and sympathetic management. (3.9)
B1 on Design of Buildings expects development to reflect the best elements in an area. (4.1)
B2 on Landscaping, the council considers the space around buildings as an important element of new development. (4.2)
B5 on Design and Neighbouring Development, the Council will only approve development which respects adequate standards of safety, health, privacy and freedom from disturbance or visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses. (4.1)
B6 on Design for an Accessible Development, the Council expects all buildings and land to be accessible. (4.3)
B8 on Noise and Visual Intrusion, the Council will require development which causes of is affected by excessive noise of visual intrusion to be screened by landscaping, tree and shrub planting or barrier fencing and walls. (4.11)
B9 on Noise and Building works, the Council will seek to minimise serious environmental intrusion during development work. (4.1)
B11 on Impact of Traffic on the Environment, the Council will seek to alleviate problems caused by traffic volume and congestion. (4.1)
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 48 of 55
03
B16 on Preservation and Planting of Trees, the Council will continue to encourage new tree planting and seek to preserve individual trees and groups of trees which contribute to the quality of the urban environment. (4.5)
B20 on Safe Environment, the Council will ensure that design in area-based action plans schemes has regard to incidence of crime. (4.4)
B28 on Ancient Monument and Archaeological Areas, the Council will require the protection of ancient monuments and their setting whether scheduled or not. (4.9)
B29 on Archaeology and Development, the Council will promote the protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage of the Borough. (4.9)
ES2 on Daylight and Sunlight, new building and extensions to existing buildings should be arranged to provide adequate natural lighting conditions in all living and working space, and also in garden and amenity spaces. (4.1)
ES3 on Accessible Buildings expects new buildings or existing building being altered to be accessible. (4.3)
ES4 on Planting and Safeguarding Trees and Landscapes, the Council will expect that existing trees to be retained on site wherever appropriate and trees to be retained should be protected from direct and indirect damage during development works. (4.5)
ES5 on Noise and Vibration expects new development to avoid noise nuisance to adjoining occupiers.(4.11)
ES6 on Design of Elevation and Rooflines expects the design and treatment of elevations of new development to respect the style and character of the surrounding area. (4.1)
H4 on Affordable Housing in Residential Development, when considering development schemes comprising 25 or more dwellings, the Council will seek to achieve agreements with developers to secure affordable housing. (5.2)
H6 on The Range of Dwelling Sizes in New Development, the Council will have regard to the range of dwellings in any development in relation to the size and type of units most urgently required to meet existing and anticipated housing need. (5.4)
H12 on Accessible Housing, the Council will give consideration to the needs of people with disabilities in all residential developments (5.6)
H13 on Mobility and Wheelchair Housing, the Council has set detailed guidelines for dimensions of rooms, garages and positioning of switches, sockets and handles in ‘Accessible Ealing’, in Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) (5.3)
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 49 of 55
03 H20 on Residential Sites, planning permission will be given for the development or redevelopment of sites, where appropriate, for residential purposes. (5.1)
H23 on Change of Use to Housing, the Council will encourage the change of use of suitable non-residential premises to residential use where the appropriate standards and amenities can be provided. (5.1)
H26 on Housing Layout, the Council will regulate the design of new residential development. (5.5)
H27 on Garden and Backland Development, the Council will permit backland development only where adequate access for drivers and pedestrians and acceptable density and good design standards are provided. (5.5)
H28 on Housing Density, the Council has set housing density standards for development. (5.1)
H29 on Density in Sensitive Areas, the Council considers that in certain locations in the Borough, the range in density as set out in the standards in H28 is restricted by important site constraints.(5.5)
H31 on Amenity Open Space and Residential Development, applicants should consider the provision of amenity open space when submitting schemes for development. (5.5)
H32 on Children’s Play Space, adequate and appropriate space for all children to play should be provided for all new development. (5.5)
H33 on Outlook and Privacy expects residential schemes to provide the most attractive outlook possible for proposed and existing dwellings. (5.5)
H34 on Refuse Collection and Storage, where refuse facilities are required, these should be located conveniently to the nearest access point for the collection vehicle. (5.5)
E7 on Employment Sites, the Council will encourage the development of employment uses, however, development for purposes other than employment may be permitted but only if the proposed development would meet an exceptionally strong local need for the identified use. (6.1)
T15 on Cycle Parking, the Council will encourage the provision of suitable cycle parking facilities. (9.6)
T26 on Traffic Management and Disabilities, all development proposals incorporation traffic management schemes shall include suitable provision for people with disabilities.
T45 on Parking for Car Users with Disabilities, all new development should have due regard for the needs of people with disabilities. (9.12)
T46 on Cycle Parking, in most development, 1 cycle space per 2 car spaces in new housing development should be provided. (9.12)
T50 on Car Parking for New Residential Development sets a standard of 1 space per dwelling plus 20% visitor parking. (9.12)
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 50 of 55
03
T52 on Parking for Social Housing, a lower parking standard may be allowed where there is sufficient evidence that car ownership will be low enough to justify such a reduction. (9.12)
T63 on Design of Parking and Service Areas sets out standards for the design of parking spaces and service areas. (9.11)
SG1 on Accessible Ealing Update, provides guidance on standards for accessible home provision. (5.3)
SG 3 provides guidance on garden/amenity space provision in development proposals. (5.5)
______
HUMAN RIGHTS
In making your decision, you should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the Act, it is unlawful for a public authority such as the London Borough of Ealing to act in a manner, which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
You are referred specifically to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property). It is not considered that the recommendation for approval of the grant of permission in this case interferes with local residents’ right to respect for their private and family life, home and correspondence, except insofar as it is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others (in this case, the rights of the applicant). The Council is also permitted to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest and the recommendation for approval is considered to be a proportionate response to the submitted application based on the considerations set out in this report.
REASONED JUSTIFICATION
The application is for the redevelopment of land in warehouse use to provide residential development. The proposal involves the construction of 20 residential blocks to provide 120 one-bedroom flats; 88 two-bedroom flats; 1 two- bed room house and 20 three-bedroom houses – overall, 229 residential units; 225 car parking spaces; 115 cycle spaces ; provision of children play area and associated landscaping.
Types of Blocks of Flats and Houses:
Block type A is two and half storey block that comprises 9 one bedroom flats and 2 two bedroom flats. Four of such blocks are being proposed within the development.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 51 of 55
03 Block type B is three storey block comprising 12 one bedroom flats. Five of such blocks are being provided within the development.
Block type C is three storey block comprising 12 two bedroom flats. Four of such blocks are being provided within the development.
Block type D is a four storey block comprising 16 two bedroom flats. One block of this type is being provided within the development.
Block type J is a four storey block comprising 8 two bedroom flats and 12 one bedroom flats. Two of these blocks are being provided within the development.
Block type E is a two bedroom terrace house. One of this type of house is being provided.
Block type F is a three bed house – based on type Block E with a third bedroom in the roof. 11 of this type of house are being provided.
Block type H is a three bed house of type F with integral garage. 9 of this type of houses are being provided.
DENSITY
The proposed density is 202hrh (82hra). The UDP standard is 172-210hrh (70-85hra) for family housing and 70-100hra (172-247hrh for non-family housing. The proposed density is therefore within the UDP density standard.
Orientation/Layout of Residential Units
The Perivale Wood/Western Boundary.
Along the site’s boundary –( western boundary) – with Perivale Wood, type – Block type A – 2 blocks are being sited in the northern corner of the site. These blocks are approximately 19m away from the Perivale Wood boundary. Two Block type C blocks are being sited in the middle of this western boundary. The actual blocks are being sited behind the car parking spaces/car parks that are approximately 19m away from the site’s common boundary with Perivale Wood. These blocks are therefore approximately 30m away from Perivale Wood. A block comprising House type F (3) and House type H (2) is being sited in the southern corner of this boundary. These houses, including their rear gardens, would be approximately 20m away from Perivale Wood – From the edge of the rear gardens, they would be approximately 10m away from Perivale Wood.
The Sunley Gardens Boundary
Along the Sunley Gardens boundary, three blocks comprising 7 House type H; 8 House type F and one House type E are being sited. These houses all have rear gardens that share boundaries with the rear gardens of houses in Sunley Gardens. The distance between these houses and the rear of houses in Sunley Gardens is approximately 30m.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 52 of 55
03 The Horsenden Lane South Frontage
Along the Horsenden Lane South frontage, six Blocks of flats – two Block type B blocks; two Block type J block; one Block type D block and one Block type A block – are being sited.
Boundary with Horsenden Hill Recreation Ground – Northern Boundary.
Along this boundary, three blocks – one Block type A block; one Block type C block and one Block type B block are being sited. These blocks would be approximately 12m away from this boundary.
In the middle of the site, four blocks – three Block type B block and one Block type C block are being sited.
The orientation proposed avoids siting higher buildings/blocks adjacent to Perivale Wood or houses in Sunley Gardens. It is considered that this orientation minimises any harmful impact of the proposal on the Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood which contains species that rely on natural daylight.
This orientation also minimises any harmful impact of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of houses in Sunley Gardens because the proposal would not be in close proximity to these houses and their heights are comparable with the height of houses in Sunley Gardens. The distances between the proposed houses/blocks along the Sunley Gardens boundary when taken together with the rear gardens of the houses in Sunley Gardens are such that it is not considered that the proposal would introduce new elements of overlooking into this area.
Concerns were raised, when the application was initially submitted, about the proximity of the proposal to Perivale Wood, the Nature Reserve. Following negotiations, the proposal was revised and the depth of the buffer strip between the site boundary and Perivale Wood was increased from 10m to 20m. It is considered that this buffer strip is now adequate. Conditions are being recommended to ensure that this buffer strip is permanently retained and to ensure that it is properly landscaped with the proper tree species. Other conditions in respect of lighting, landscaping and details of fencing are being recommended to safeguard Perivale Wood.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
35% affordable housing is being provided within the site. The Housing Department has raised no objection to this level of affordable housing provision, which represents an improvement to the 30% originally proposed. Housing Department has advised that it is in negotiations with a Housing Association to provide the affordable housing within the site. The affordable housing will be a mix of shared ownership and rental.
GLA initially raised an objection against the level of affordable housing provision. In line with the UDP standard, it requested that this provision be increased to 50% within the site. If, however, this was not possible, it requested that the applicants provide a reasoned rationale that justifies the shortfall in the affordable housing provision. In response, the applicant, in a reasoned rationale, has stated that the application site is still a viable commercial site with the current tenant wishing to extend his lease. This is because the existing warehouse use has no hours - constraints imposed by way of planning conditions – a
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 53 of 55
03 feature that many recently approved warehouses uses do not have. Consequently the application site is still financially viable and considerable rent is already being generated by the landowners from the existing warehouse use. A high density development, which would enable the proportion of affordable houses to be increased, is however not an option because of concerns raised in respect of the proximity of the application site to Perivale Wood, the Nature Reserve. Concerns also have been raised about the impact of high density development on the surrounding residential properties and consequent traffic generation. A further increase in the proportion of affordable housing without a significant increase in density would render the scheme not viable commercially.
At the time of writing this report, GLA had not responded to the written rationale justifying the 35% provision of affordable housing it requested from the applicant. In a telephone discussion with the Lead Officer from GLA, there is an indication that the 35% provision is likely to be acceptable to the GLA given the fact that the Council’s Housing Department has raised no objection to this level of provision.
DESIGNATION OF SITE WITHIN EMERGING UDP
The site is designated as an Employment site in the statutory UDP. However, in the Emerging UDP it is designated as residential land. It is considered that the proposal which is the development of a brownfield site, is in line with Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 3 which encourages the development of such sites to augument housing provision.
A financial contribution is being provided for the improvement/development of new educational facilities in the area in recognition of the effect the development will have on existing educational facilities. In relation to the impact of the proposal on traffic, TFL has requested that a financial contribution of £15,000 be made to enable it to undertake a traffic monitoring the Horsenden Lane South junction with Teignmouth Gardens.
Concerns and objections have been raised against the proposal in respect of high density, traffic generation, potential on street parking, possible adverse impact on the adjoining Nature Reserve, Perivale Wood, impact on the character of the area and the possible overall impact on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring and surrounding properties.
The density being proposed, 202hrh (82hra), is within the UDP guidance and considered to be in line with current Government advice in PPG3 which is geared towards provision of much needed housing, particularly for key workers. GLA considers that the density being provided is low and would have expected a much higher density on the site to enable the provision of more affordable housing.
In respect of traffic congestion, on street parking congestion and traffic impact on the area, neither Transport Services nor TFL have raised unresolvable concerns in respect of these issues. TFL request a financial contribution from the developer towards the upgrading of an existing traffic monitoring system at Horsenden Lane South junction with Teignmouth Gardens and this is being provided by the developer.
Following initial objections and concerns about the potential impact of the application on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and on the adjoining Perivale Wood, Nature Reserve, meetings were held with the developer to negotiate a re- orientation of the blocks of
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 54 of 55
03 flats and houses within the site to minimise any harmful impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers and the Nature Reserve. The two storey houses are being sited along the site’s boundary with the properties in Sunley Gardens and along the site’s common boundary with Perivale Wood, Nature Reserve. In addition, the buffer strip along the Perivale Wood boundary has been increased from 5m wide to 20m wide. These revisions minimise any harmful impact of the proposal on both the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and Perivale Wood.
The application site has an existing use as a warehouse and distribution depot with ancillary offices. There are no restrictions in terms of number of lorries and lorry movements or hours of operation. Currently the use does not generate many lorry movements and the Council has not received complaints in respect of use. However, this may be due to the way the site is being operated by the current occupiers. It is a possibility that future occupiers may operate the site in a way that may result in more lorry movements/traffic generation and thereby cause problems such as more pollution, including light from lorries/vehicles and dust pollution, which may affect the adjoining Perivale Wood.
However, this application offers the Council the opportunity to remove a commercial use from a predominantly residential area and, through conditions, safeguard Perivale Wood and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.
CONCLUSION
The proposal is for the provision of 229 residential units with 225 parking spaces and 115 cycle spaces. 35 % (80 units) affordable housing is now being proposed within the site. The proposed density is 202hrh (82hra). This is compatible with UDP density standard and in line with current Government advice in PPG3.
Concerns have been raised about the impact of the proposal on Perivale Wood, Nature Reserve, neighbouring occupiers, traffic generation and on street parking congestion and the overall impact of the proposal on services in this area. The proposal has been re-orientated to minimise any impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers; the buffer strip along the application site’s boundary with Perivale Wood, Nature Reserve has been increased from 5m to 20m.
Financial contributions are being provided for the provision of additional and upgraded educational/community facilities and traffic monitoring by TFL through legal agreement.
Overall, it is considered that the proposal would provide valuable housing in the borough without compromising the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or the continued viability of Perivale Wood, Nature Reserve; or give rise to any other circumstances which would justify planning refusal.
The proposal is being recommended for conditional approval.
c:\program files (x86)\neevia.com\docconverterpro\temp\nvdc\26493402-0fc2-44e7-a258-484789f91386\03 - horsenden lane.doc Page 55 of 55