Uxbridge Planning Committee

AVAILABLE IN LARGE PRINT

Meeting: Uxbridge Planning Committee

Date: Thursday 8th May 2003 Time:7.30pm

Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre Uxbridge

Committee Administrator: Nadia Williams Tel: 01895 277655 Press Enquiries: Roy Mills Tel: 01895 250534

Councillors on the Committee

Conservative Labour Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Mo Khursheed David Routledge (Vice-Chairman) Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill

Substitute Councillors

Bruce Baker David Horne Henry Higgins Roshan Ghei Ann Banks Paul Harmsworth Margaret Grant Phoday Jarjussey George Cooper Peter Curling Mary O’Connor Rod Marshall

Advisory Members

Dr Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel Mr Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Ms Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel Mr Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Mr Doug Adams/Mr Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel vacancy West Drayton Green Conservation Panel

You are invited to attend the above meeting. The agenda is attached.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 65

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

David Brough Head of Committee Services

Smoking is not allowed in the Committee Room Parking is available to the public attending meetings - entrance in High Street, opposite Discotheque Royale.

DESPATCH DATE: Wednesday 30th April 2003

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 66

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE 8TH MAY 2003

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence and to report the attendance of any substitute members. 2. To receive the minutes of the meeting held on 8th April 2003, copies attached. 3. Declarations of interests 4. Disclosure of ‘any other business’ to be considered in public and private. 5. Confirmation that all items marked Part 1 will be considered in public and that any items marked Part 2 will be considered in private. 6. Report of the Head of Planning Services, copy attached.

PART 1 – PUBLIC

1. Amendments to the Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief and its Proposed Page 1 Adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance

BRUNEL WARD

2. Toolmaster Erection of 48 apartments with associated Page 65 Connaught Works parking and landscaping. Uxbridge Road Hillingdon Recommendation: S106 Agreement 3. 26 Bourn Avenue Installation of a gable roof over existing rear Page 84 Hillingdon extension and conversion of roof space into habitable rooms incorporating two side dormer windows and skylights.

Recommendation: Approval 4. 8 Nine Elms Close Erection of part two, part single storey rear Page 87 Cowley extension and single storey side extension.

Recommendation: Approval

HEATROW VILLAGES WARD

5.A Land forming part of Erection of a 2-bedroom self-contained flat with Page 91 Green Cottage associated car parking and landscaping Uxbridge Road (including demolition of existing outbuildings). Hillingdon (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

Recommendation: Refusal

B. Land forming part of Erection of a 2-bedroom self-contained flat with Green Cottage associated car parking and landscaping Uxbridge Road (including demolition of existing outbuildings).

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 65

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Hillingdon (Application for a Listed Building Consent).

Recommendation: Refusal

6. 16 Myrtle Close Erection of a single storey side and rear Page 101 West Drayton extension.

Recommendation: Approval

HILLINGDON EAST WARD

7. Land forming part of Erection of an attached two storey building with Page 105 64 Regent Avenue a projecting rear ground floor and installation of Hillingdon a rear dormer and front and side skylights to provide two, one-bedroom flats with associated car parking, including the installation of a vehicular crossover and erection of a single storey rear extension and installation of two rear dormers and front skylights to the existing house to allow the conversion of the roof space to a bedroom (w3orks involve the demolition of an existing single storey side extension).

Recommendation: Approval

ICKENHAM WARD

8. 9 Glebe Avenue Erection of single storey rear extension and Page 113 Ickenham conversion of roof-space to habitable rooms involving installation of two side dormers.

Recommendation: Approval 9. 21 Kenbury Close Erection of a single storey rear extension and Page 121 Ickenham replacement garage.

Recommendation: Approval 10. 9 Halford Road Erection of a single storey front extension with Page 125 Ickenham pitched roof.

Recommendation: Approval 11. 69 Copthall Road West Erection of a single storey side extension Page 128 Ickenham (involving demolition of existing garage).

Recommendation: Approval

UXBRIDGE SOUTH WARD

12. 192 Cowley Road Erection of a single storey side and rear Page 131 Uxbridge extension and garage and external alterations to

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 66

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

form a self-contained two-bedroom flat.

Recommendation: Approval WEST DRAYTON WARD

13. 66 Swan Road Erection of a single storey rear extension to form Page 135 West Drayton a two-bedroom self-contained unit at rear (involving demolition of existing conservatory).

Recommendation: Approval

YIEWSLEY WARD

14. 42 Albert Road Conversion of the basement into a one- Page 139 Yiewsley bedroom flat.

Recommendation: Approval

ALL WARDS

15. New Appeals and Appeals Decision received between: Page 142 24 March and 14 April 2003

16. Decisions taken by officers under Delegated Powers between: Page 144 1 March and 31March 2003

17. List of Background Documents to all reports. Page 162

7. Any other business and urgent items in Part 1

PART 2 – PRIVATE

8. Any items transferred from Part 1 9. Any other business and urgent items in Part 2

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 67

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

UXBRIDGE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Meeting held at the Civic Centre, Uxbridge, on Thursday 8th April 2003 at 7.30p.m.

Councillor Sandra Jenkins (Chairman) Councillor David Routledge (Vice-Chairman)

Councillors : Tony Burles Geoff Courtenay Janet Duncan Shirley Harper-O’Neill Mo Khursheed

Advisory Members : * Doug Adams / Frank Harris Old Uxbridge Conservation Panel + Michael Hirst Canal Locks Conservation Panel Pamela Jeffreys Ickenham Conservation Panel Dale Venn Hillingdon Village Conservation Panel Robin Wakelin Greenway Conservation Panel

+ denotes apologies for absence received * denotes other member absent 1. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 8th April 2003 were agreed as correct and signed by the Chairman.

2. BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

The Committee confirmed that all its business would be considered in public.

3. APPLICATIONS APPROVED

RESOLVED

That the following applications are approved subject to the Conditions and Informatives listed in the officers report and amendment sheet and as indicated beneath the individual description below :-

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Uxbridge County Court Details of boundary fencing 5607/APP/ 2001/1770 114 High Street scheme in compliance with Uxbridge Condition 16 of Planning Permission ref: 5607/APP/2000/1149 dated 26/06/01; mixed residential, office and restaurant redevelopment. 14The Greenway Conversion of dwelling-house to 35890/APP/2002/1702 Uxbridge 2, two-bedroom self-contained flats to include internal and

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 65

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

external alterations with the installation of a new ground floor side window and associated car parking.

The committee agreed the following additional conditions:

Conditions

1. The rear garden shall be maintained as a communal amenity for both units hereby approved, so long as the development remains in existence.

Reason - To ensure that satisfactory amenity space is provided in compliance with the Council’s Design Guide ‘Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design’.

2. Prior to commencement of works, details of the parking spaces and landscaping in the front garden of the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, implemented and so maintained.

Reason - To ensure a satisfactory development and to safeguard the appearance of the Street-scene

3. The first floor side windows facing 12 The Greenway shall be replaced with obscured glazing and non-opening except at top sash level so long as the development remains in existence.

Reason - To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Reliance Service Station Change of use from petrol filling 10605/APP/2002/428 Harlington Road station with ancillary selling, Hillingdon displaying, servicing and repairing of motor vehicles and shop (Sui Generis) to selling, displaying, servicing and repairing of motor vehicles (Sui Generis/Class B2) (retrospective application).

The Committee agreed the following additional conditions relating to the management of recyclable oil and waste; and the provision of adequate signage showing customers where the car park is located in order to alleviate the already congested roads nearby.

Conditions

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 66

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

1. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, provision shall be made within the site to provide an area for storage of waste recycling. Details shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and so maintained.

Reason - To ensure that waste is stored on site to safeguard the amenities of the area.

2. The existing parking spaces shall be used both for staff and customers and for no other use or purpose, and maintained for so long as the development remains in existence.

Reason - To ensure satisfactory parking provision for customers and to prevent on-street parking.

3. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, details of signage advising customers of the parking spaces on the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and maintained for so long as the development remains in existence.

Reason - To ensure satisfactory parking provision for customers and to prevent on-street parking.

4. APPLICATION REFUSED

RESOLVED: That the following application be refused for the reasons set out in the officers’ report and amendment sheet.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 4 New Windsor Street A) Change of use from ancillary 1077/APP/2002/1940 Uxbridge retail storage to a car hire business, comprising office use, car valet/wash facilities and ancillary storage and external alterations works and installation of vehicular crossover (works involve the partial demolition of a building).

4 New Windsor Street B) Installation of two internally 1077/ADV/2002/110 Uxbridge illuminated advertisement signs.

Members expressed concerns about the unsuitability of this type of development in this location. Members were particularly concerned about the issues of traffic safety, overspill of parking, the development being out of character with the area and the loss of residential amenity.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 67

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Following discussion, the Committee therefore refused the application.

RESOLVED

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

A) 1. The proposed development by reason of noise, disturbance and pollution, would result in an adverse impact on the character and amenity of the area and detrimental to local residents. Therefore the development is contrary to policies BE19 and OE1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic and parking congestion in Hows Road, adversely affecting the character and amenities of the area, contrary to policies OE1 and AM7 of the Borough’s Adopted Unitary Development Plan.

B) Advert Consent refused for the following reason: The display of signage would be premature in advance of planning permission being granted for an acceptable development on the site.

5. SITE VISITS

The following applications were deferred by the Committee to enable Members to visit the sites.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 8 Nine Elms Close Erection of part two, part single 41094/APP/2002/2004 Cowley storey rear extension and single storey side extension. 16 Myrtle Close Erection of a single storey side 45240/APP/2002/2768 West Drayton and rear extension. Land forming part of Erection of an attractive two 52014/APP/2002/2111 64 Regent Avenue storey building with a projecting Hillingdon rear ground floor and installation of a rear dormer and front and side skylights to provide two, one- bedroom flats with associated car parking, including the installation of a new vehicular crossover and erection of a single storey rear extension and installation of two rear dormers and front skylights to the existing house to allow the conversion of the roof space to a bedroom (works involve the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 68

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

demolition of an existing single storey side extension). 192 Cowley Road Erection of a single storey side 2847/APP/2002/628 Uxbridge and rear extension and garage external alterations to form a self- contained two-bedroom flat.

6. OTHER DECISIONS

Decisions on the following applications are indicated beneath each individual description:-

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER 47-49 High Road Erection of a three-storey block of 47066/APP/2002/1637 Ickenham five, two bedroom flats.

RESOLVED

That the Borough Solicitor enter into an agreement with the applicants under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that:

A contribution of £6,947 towards school places

That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree details of the proposed agreement

That subject to the above the application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transport under delegated powers subject to the completion of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant.

That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the section 106 agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

That if the application is approved, the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report be attached.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Goodburn House Erection of a new workshop and 24001/app/2002/1962 (formerly plot V) offices fro the repair, maintenance Arundel Road and servicing of motor vehicles Industrial Estate (involving demolition of the existing Uxbridge building).

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 69

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

RESOLVED

Officers withdrew this application from the agenda.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER The Moorcroft Complex Erection of a two-storey building 3043/app/2002/715 Harlington Road for use for office purposes and Hillingdon conversion of ;the Manor House, Coach House, and The Lawns buildings to form offices with associated parking and access (involving demolition of two storey wing and ancillary buildings).

The Committee agreed the officer’s recommendation with the following amendments and additional condition.

• Additional Head of terms in S106 Agreement as part of Recommendation ( c )

(vii) The applicant shall agree to make the grounds of the Moorcroft Complex accessible to the public annually for one weekend, and such a weekend shall be in conjunction with the London Open House programme.

• Amendment to Condition 13 of Recommendation B to include the following additional wording:

The landscaping scheme shall include details of the means of containment of car parking or methods of preventing car parking spilling out onto the lawns or landscaped areas of the estate. Such details shall include the details of such bollards or low walls or other alternative means which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Such preventative measures shall be installed prior to the occupation of the building and retained in perpetuity.

Condition

A management plan providing details of the management and control of car parking across the estate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. This management plan shall be implemented and maintained in perpetuity.

Informative to Recommendation B

8. The applicant is advised that the daughter of the former gardener of the estate in the 1920’s, is Mrs Kiddle, she is 101 years old, and lives at 11 Pole Hill Road. She may be able to provide some information on the design of the gardens during that period that may assist with the design of the landscaping scheme.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 70

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

RESOLVED

That delegated power be given to the Head of Planning and Transportation to grant planning permission and Listed Building Consent subject to the following:- a) The consultation period expiring and no new material objections being received. b) That the application for planning permission be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the provisions of the Development Plan, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan and Consultation)(Departures) Directions 1999. c) That should the Secretary of State not call in the application for planning permission, the Council enter into an agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or Section 278 Highways Act 1980 (as amended) and all appropriate legislation to secure:

i) A financial contribution of £32,760 towards public transport; ii) A Management Plan to secure the long term maintenance of the Manor House, Coach House and The Lawns; iii) Legal provisions to secure the appropriate phasing and completion to requisite standards; iv) A landscape, restoration and management plan, including detailed proposals, long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas. The restoration is to be to the appropriate period based on research of their historic development; v) The applicant shall agree to the full and complete costs to undertake associated highway works, as identified by Transport for London and the Council’s Highway Department, including repositioning of the nearby bus stop on Harlington Road, with provision of a bus shelter, bus clearways and low floor accessibility;

vi) A Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the building. The Green Travel Plan shall outline the means and methods of reducing private transport use by employees and customers and facilitate increased use of public transport. The Green Travel Plan shall include the provision of a mini- bus service and provide details of the operation of the mini- bus service. The Green Travel Plan shall be implemented for a minimum period of 5 years from completion and occupancy of the buildings hereby permitted.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 71

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

d) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. e) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreements. f) That subject to the above, the applications be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the completion of legal agreement(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other appropriate powers with the applicant. g) That if the applications are approved, the conditions and informatives set out in the officer’s report be attached.

ADDRESS PROPOSAL APPLICATION NUMBER Land on Donkey Lane A) The unauthorised use of the Enf: 1863 West Drayton at the land for parking, storing, North West Corner of valeting and servicing motor The Spares Site vehicles in connection with a transport business.

B) The unauthorised formation of a tarmacadam, stone and gravel hard-stranding and the erection of corrugated fencing and gates and the creation of a new access in place of existing hedging.

RESOLVED

1. That the Committee consider the expediency of enforcement action, including the service of Enforcement Notices under Section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. That the Head of Planning and Transportation be authorised to instruct the Borough Solicitor to issue 2 enforcement notices (Notice A and Notice B) in accordance with delegated powers in respect of:

A The unauthorised use of the land for parking, storing, valeting and servicing motor vehicles in connection with a transport business

B The unauthorised formation of a tarmacadam, stone and gravel hardstanding and the erection of corrugated fencing and gates and the creation of a new access in place of existing hedging

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 72

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3A. That Notice A shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control:

(a) Cease the use of the land for the parking, storing, valeting and servicing of motor vehicles in connection with a transport business.

(b) Remove from the land all lorries, cars, motor vehicles, portable buildings, plant, machinery, waterbutts, rubble and debris and other assorted paraphernalia associated with the unauthorised use of the land.

(d) Remove from the land the corrugated fencing and gates.

(e) Reinstate the hedge on the western boundary of the land using trees and shrubs of a similar age, species, height and density to the adjoining existing hedge.

(f) Reinstate the land (excluding the western boundary hedge) to grassland, by harrowing the land, importing topsoil and reseeding with grass seed, repeating the process until the grass thrives.

(g) Remove any rubble, building materials or other debris arising from carrying out the steps (a) to (f) above.

3B. That Notice B shall require the following steps to be taken to remedy the breach of planning control:

(a) Remove from the land the hardsurfacing comprising tarmacadam, stones, gravel, rubble and debris. (b) Remove from the land the corrugated fencing and gates.

(c) Reinstate the hedge on the western boundary of the land using trees and shrubs of a similar age, species, height and density to the adjoining existing hedge.

(d) Reinstate the land (excluding the western boundary hedge) to grassland, by harrowing the land, importing topsoil and reseeding with grass seed, repeating the process until the grass thrives.

(e) Remove any rubble, building materials or other debris arising from carrying out steps (a) to (d) above.

4A. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of Notice A shall be as follows:

The use of the land for parking, storing, valeting and servicing motor vehicles in connection with a transport business is a

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 73

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

material change of use of the land in breach of planning control that has occurred within the last ten years.

(1) The use of the land for parking, storing, valeting and servicing motor vehicles in connection with a transport business is not an acceptable use in the Green Belt. It is contrary to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2. It is detrimental to the visual amenities of the Green Belt because of the introduction of large commercial vehicles, cars and other vehicles, a portable building and other associated structures, plant and machinery, large unsightly gates and fencing and by hard surfacing of the land. It also increases urbanisation and harms the rural landscape and therefore represents inappropriate development within the Colne Valley Park. It is therefore contrary to policies OL1, OL4, OL5 and OL10 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(2) The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, if approved the development would act as a precursor to other similar proposals which would further undermine the function and purposes of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy OL1 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

(3) The use of the land for parking, storing, valeting and servicing motor vehicles in connection with a transport business is considered to be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area and the amenities of nearby residential properties because of its siting, appearance and the resulting display of vehicles, the generation of traffic and noise and the emission of dust, smell or other pollutants. These problems are not considered capable of alleviation through engineering layout or administrative measures and there is the potential for the noise annoyance generated to increase greatly. It is therefore contrary to policies OE1 and OE3 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(4) The unauthorised use of the land for parking, storing, valeting and servicing motor vehicles in connection with a transport business generates heavy traffic that infiltrates local roads and prejudices the free flow of traffic in nearby streets and conditions of pedestrian and general highway safety. It is therefore contrary to policy AM7 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(5) The associated gates and fencing are unsightly and obtrusive, being detrimental to the visual amenities of the Green Belt and

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 74

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

are contrary to the aims of the Colne Valley Park. They are therefore also contrary to policies OL1, OL5, OL10 and BE19 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(6) The associated introduction of a new access into Donkey Lane involving the removal of an existing established hedge is detrimental to the appearance of the area and a landscaping feature of merit has been removed without any form of replacement planting. It is therefore contrary to policies BE38 and BE13 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

4B. That the reasons to be stated for the issue of Notice B shall be as follows:

The hard surfacing of the land and erection of gates and fencing is a breach of planning control that has occurred within the last four years.

(1) The hard surfacing of the land represents unacceptable development in the Green Belt. It is contrary to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt as set out in PPG2. It is detrimental to the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt. It also increases urbanisation and harms the rural landscape and therefore represents inappropriate development within the Colne Valley Park. It is therefore contrary to policies OL1, OL5 and OL10 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(3) The gates and fencing are unsightly and obtrusive, being detrimental to the visual amenities of the Green Belt and are contrary to the aims of the Colne Valley Park. They are therefore also contrary to policies OL1, OL5, OL10, BE13 and BE19 of the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(4) The introduction of a new access into Donkey Lane involving the removal of an existing established hedge is detrimental to the appearance of the area and a landscaping feature of merit has been removed without any form of replacement planting. It is therefore contrary to policies BE38 and BE13 the adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 75

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

5. That a period of 3 months be given for compliance with the terms of both Enforcement Notices.

7. NEW APPEALS AND APPEALS DECISIONS RECEIVED

RESOLVED

That the new appeals and appeal decisions received for the period 1 March to 23 March 2003 are noted.

8. PROGRESS REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT ACTION

RESOLVED

That the progress report on enforcement action is noted.

9. DECISIONS TAKEN BY OFFICERS UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

RESOLVED

That the decisions taken by officers under delegated authority for the period 1 February to 28 February 2003 are noted.

10. S106/278 PLANNING AGREEMENTS – QUARTERLY FINANCIAL MONITORING REPORT

RESOLVED

That the S106/278 Planning Agreements – Quarterly financial monitoring report is noted.

ITEM CONSIDERED IN PART 2

11. PROGRESS REPORT ON ENFORCEMET ACTION

The report was included in Part 2 because it contained exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

The report contained information, which if disclosed to the public, would reveal that the Authority proposes; (a) to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person; or (b) to make an order or direction under any enactment.

RESOLVED – That the progress report on enforcement action be noted.

The meeting closed at 8.20 p.m.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 76

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 MAY 2003 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

1. AMENDMENTS TO THE HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM PLANNING BRIEF AND ITS PROPOSED ADOPTION AS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

SUMMARY

A Draft Planning Brief for Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge was approved for consultation purposes by Uxbridge Planning Committee on 24 September 2002. Consultations on the Draft Planning Brief were carried out from 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002. This report details the comments received and the officer response in respect of them. Members approval is sought on adopting the proposed revised Planning Brief as supplementary planning guidance for any future development proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the comments received during the consultation period be noted. That the amendments to the Draft Planning Brief as set out in Appendix 3 be agreed. That subject to the above amendments, the Planning Brief be adopted as supplementary planning guidance for the purposes of development control.

INFORMATION

1. The Uxbridge Planning Committee agreed on 24 September 2002 to approve the Draft Planning Brief for Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge for consultation with the public and other interested parties and that the results of the consultation be reported to a future meeting of the Committee. Consultations were carried out from 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002. Some 2500 copies of the consultation leaflet, including a ‘Freepost’ response form, were delivered to homes in the Hillingdon House Farm area (extending to Woodstock Drive to the north, the River Pinn to the east, Lancaster/York Road and Harefield Road to the west and Saint Andrews Road to the south). In addition copies of the leaflets and the full Draft Planning Brief were also placed at all borough libraries, the Hayes One Stop Shop and the Civic Centre (Environmental Services reception). Interested parties were sent copies of the documents including 36 residents’ associations, 28 local schools, 17 local councillors, 23 local groups and 83 other organisations and agencies. A press release was issued to the ‘Gazette’ newspaper by the Council on 16 October 2002 (this resulted in front page publicity at the beginning of the consultation period).

2. 517 completed response forms have been received. This includes 218 forms from the Frays Centre. In addition 26 letters have also been received,

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 77

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

including a response from Uxbridge College detailing its masterplan proposals. The main issues raised are listed below together with officer comments. Details of all comments received, including the main issues raised and the officer response in respect of them are included in Appendix 1. A brief summary of the analysis of these responses is set out in Appendix 2. The majority of responses are generally supportive and helpful. The proposed amendments to the Draft Planning Brief referred to in the officer comments are shown in bold in the revised Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief set out in Appendix 3. In addition a total of 4 response forms were received in mid December. Whilst these have been received too late to be included in the analysis, they all indicated general agreement with Council’s proposals.

CONCLUSION

3. The majority of responses received during the public consultation on the Draft Planning Brief are generally supportive and helpful. However in light of issues raised, officers propose amendments to the Draft Planning Brief. It is recommended that subject to these amendments, the Hillingdon House Farm Planning Brief be adopted as supplementary planning guidance for the purposes of development control.

0 Observations of the Borough Treasurer

4. To be reported.

1 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

5. Members should note that the purpose of a Planning Brief is to provide detailed advice to potential applicants for planning permission as to matters to consider when considering or submitting a planning application in respect of a particular site. The Brief will not replace the existing legislation on planning matters or the Council's policies contained within its UDP and supplementary guidance. The Brief will merely assist an applicant in formulating their application.

2 BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

6. The background documents used in the preparation of this report are: Report to Uxbridge Planning Committee on 24 September 2002. Responses received during the Hillingdon House Farm Draft Planning Brief public consultation, 14 October 2002 to 29 November 2002 (including responses received after this date).

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 78

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES AND OFFICER COMMENTS Appendix 1

RESPONSES 4 OFFICE R COMME NTS 5 6 Level of agreement with the Council’s General support for the proposed uses brief as it stands. Of the 517 responses received, 346 (67%) expressed general agreement with the Council’s proposals for the site. In comparison, 44 respondents (9%) were indifferent and 127 (24%) were not in general agreement with the Council’s proposals.

Excluding the 218 Frays Centre responses, there were 299 responses received, of which 243 (81%) expressed general agreement with the Council’s proposals for the site. In comparison, 45 respondents (15%) were indifferent and 11 (4%) were not in general agreement with the Council’s proposals.

Views on specific proposals within the Draft Brief

1) ALL PROPOSALS 81 (16%) respondents specifically stated that they were in agreement Noted. with all of the Council’s proposals. In comparison 14 (3%) respondents stated that they agreed with none of the proposals. The remainder of respondents made no comment on all of the Council’s proposals.

2) SITE A: NEW LEISURE CENTRE 183 (35%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of Indicates general support the proposals for the new leisure centre on site A. for the new leisure centre 22 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for the new leisure centre on site A; the main reasons being: o small for all proposed activities The demand for an indoo eds to be bigger pool in Uxbridge has bee e pool is enough identified during previous ool plans are too large public consultations. ould retain the outdoor sunbathing area wanted traffic and parking

3) SITE B: OUTDOOR POOL RESTORED FOR SEASONAL USE 109 (21%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of Significantly more i the proposals for the outdoor pool on site B. favour of restoring th

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 79

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

56 (11%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour outdoor pool compare of the proposals for the outdoor pool on site B; the main reasons with those against th being: proposal. aste of money – weather makes for limited season sufficient demand The statutory ‘listing’ of nvert to indoor pool the building means that eds removable roof key features of the pool duce in size must be retained and restored to preserve its special architectural and historic character. 4) SITE C: ATHLETICS TRACK IMPROVED WITH NEW SPECTATOR STAND Significantly more in 97 (19%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of favour of the proposals fo the proposals for the athletics track improvements with a new the athletics track spectator stand on site C. improvements with a new 16 (3%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of spectator stand compare the proposals for the athletics track improvements with a new with those against the spectator stand on site C; the main reasons being: proposals. sufficient demand The need for improved o need for redevelopment athletics facilities in this ready other tracks in the Borough area has been identified ould be 8 lanes by Education, Youth and Leisure as a priority. 5) SITE D: NEW ADULT EDUCATION CENTRE 88 (17%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of Mixed response to the the proposals for the new adult education centre on site D. proposals for the new adult education centre 74 (14%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour from Frays Centre of the proposals for the new adult education centre on site; the main students. Amend paras reasons being: 5.1 and 6.33 to enable oor access to the proposed site for pedestrians, cars and public consideration of siting of transport Centre elsewhere within rking area insufficient size or too far from classrooms the Hillingdon House sabled access difficult at Uxbridge College Farm site. Parking is tter environment at Frays addressed in para. 6.43. ncerns about mixing with Uxbridge College students (security, Other issues raised would intimidation, noisy, unfriendly) be considered in the determination of any It should be noted that of the 74 submissions objecting to Site D, 57 planning application. submissions (77%) originated from Frays Centre students.

6) SITE E: HOUSING AND ADDITIONAL LEISURE/COMMUNITY USES A relatively small 49 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the proportion of respondents proposals for housing and additional leisure/community uses on site specifically stated that E. they were not in favour of 72 (14%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour proposals for housing and of the proposals for housing and additional leisure/community uses on additional leisure/

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 80

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

site E; the main reasons being: community uses on site e is green belt E. o need for more housing The site is not within fect on amenity, resources and quality of life Green Belt. creased traffic A significant demand for k of flooding new housing has been ed more information about the proposals identified in all London ditional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) Boroughs. Other issues raised would be considered in the 7) SITE F: HOUSING AND/OR COMMUNITY USES determination of any 45 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the planning application. proposals for housing and/or community uses on site F. 67 (13%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of A relatively small the proposals for housing and/or community uses on site F; the main proportion of respondents reasons being: specifically stated that e is green belt they were not in favour of ea is overcrowded proposals for housing o need for housing and/or community uses creased traffic on site F. fect on amenity, resources and quality of life The site is not within ould be for community uses only Green Belt. ed more information about the proposals A significant demand for ditional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) new housing has been identified in all London Boroughs. Other issues raised would be considered in the 8) SITE G: CAR PARKING determination of any 86 (17%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of planning application. the proposals for car parking on site G. 20 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of Indicates general support the proposals for car parking on site G; the main reasons being: for the proposals for car e too small parking. e too big -will encourage car use ould combine all car parks (leisure centre, cricket club and College) Measures to control ca ll result in cars parking in local area parking will b implemented as required 9) SITE H: HOUSING AND/OR COMMUNITY USES 48 (9%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the proposals for housing and/or community uses on site H. 31 (6%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of A relatively small the proposals for housing and/or community uses on site H; the main proportion of respondents reasons being: specifically stated that ea is overcrowded they were not in favour of o need for housing the proposals for housing e is green belt and/or community uses ould retain as a home for the elderly on site H. creased traffic The site is not within

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 81

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

fect on amenity, resources and quality of life Green Belt. ould be for community uses only The site is no longer ed more information about the proposals being used as a home for ditional pressure on community services (eg. schools, health) the elderly. A significant demand for new housing has been identified in all London Boroughs. Other issues raised would 10) NEW ACCESS ROAD OFF BELMONT ROAD be considered in the 17 (3%) respondents specifically stated that they were in favour of the determination of any proposals for a new access road off Belmont Road. planning application. 22 (4%) respondents specifically stated that they were not in favour of the proposals for a new access road off Belmont Road; the main A relatively small reasons being: proportion of respondents s not needed as housing should not be built specifically stated that cess should be from North Way they were not in favour of cess should be from Honeycroft Hill the proposals for a new ad will endanger Great Crested Newts access road. pact on traffic and parking as already congested Issues concerning wildlife and traffic will be taken into account in the determination of any planning application.

Other uses that the Council has not identified Ski slope: In terms of other uses that the Council has not identified, the following Note the mixed response were identified by more than 10 respondents: to ski slope proposals. Ski slope re-instatement (17 respondents) Children’s playground (15 respondents) Children’s playground: Bowling alley (13 respondents) Included in para 6.23. Removal of ski slope (12 respondents) Youth centre/activities (11 respondents) Bowling alley: Unable to accommodate this within the leisure centre.

Youth centre/activities: The proposals seek t provide a wide range o facilities for as large cross-section of the publi as possible Management of facilitie including use by specifi groups of users is not planning issue; however will be drawn to th attention of the Director o

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 82

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Education, Youth an Leisure Services.

In addition, the following uses were identified by more than 5 Cycle paths and the respondents: retention of the Green Indoor lawn bowls/bowling green (9 respondents) Belt area are already Skateboard park (8 respondents) addressed in paras 4.1, Community centre/hall (8 respondents) 2.1, 4.1, 6.7, 6.13, 6.23, Parkland/lakes (8 respondents) 6.24, 6.25 and 6.27, 6.28 Cycle paths (7 respondents) and 6.30. Retention of Green Belt (7 respondents) All weather pitches (6 respondents) A relatively small Specific carpark for Adult Education Centre (6 respondents) proportion of respondents Indoor tennis courts (5 respondents) identified these uses. Signposted nature walks (5 respondents) The Director of Education Additional carparking (5 respondents) Youth and Leisure Ice rink (5 respondents) Services will however give consideration to the provision of the other uses, particularly the all weather pitches, indoor tennis courts and signposted nature walks.

Unable to accommodate an ice rink within the site.

Features to be retained on the site Footpaths/walkways: Respondents were invited to specify any important features that Already included in paras should be retained on the site. The following were identified by more 4.1, 6.7 and 6.11 and than 10 respondents: support is welcomed. Footpaths/walkways (125 respondents) Green areas/open space (40 respondents) Green areas/open space Cyclepaths (14 respondents) Already included in paras 2.1, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 4.1, 6.14, 6.23, 6.25 and 6.27 and support is welcomed

Cyclepaths: Already included in para 4.1 and 6.7 and support i welcomed.

In addition, the following features were identified by more than 5 respondents: Woodland/trees Already included in paras Woodland/trees (10 respondents) 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 6.14, Areas for dog walking (6 respondents) 6.15, 6.16, 6.23 and Natural environment (6 respondents) support is welcomed.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 83

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Hedgerows (5 respondents) Open air pool (5 respondents) Areas for dog walking Public rights of way (5 respondents) It is not considere All features (5 respondents) appropriate to hav separate areas for do walking.

Natural environment Already included in paras 2.1, 4.1, 6.1 and 6.23, and support is welcomed

Hedgerows Already included in paras 2.5 and 6.16.

Open air pool Already included in paras 2.3, 4.1, 5.1, 6.24 and 6.25, and support is welcomed.

Public rights of way Already included in para 6.7.

All features The proposals aim to safeguard all key features on the site.

Uxbridge College Most disappointed with the content of the Brief which does not reflect Amendments as set out the extensive discussions with Council officers. below to take account of The future development of this area is beneficial to the Borough as a the views of Uxbridge whole and dependent upon a partnership between the Borough College. and the College. That partnership would provide the Borough with access to, and partial funding for the sports hall. The full funding could be achieved by the support of the College for the Borough’s sports lottery bid. The new sports facilities would assist the College to pursue its planned extension of courses for sports and leisure management and this would be in association with the use of the all-weather pitch, grass football pitches, water-based sports etc. In association with providing new vehicular access for the sports hall, access can also be provided for the enabling development at site E. The new road would also give a better access to the residential

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 84

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

development sites of Brookfield and the College car park.

In 1999 the College’s Governing Body gave its commitment to the development of a partnership with the Council in relation to the replacement of adult education and also the sports facility. The Council should take account of the enormous educational asset which the College represents to the Borough. Its continuing success in providing training and education to Hillingdon residents can only be realised in line with national and regional policy priorities if there is a strong commitment and support from the Borough. The College’s aspirations extend far beyond the development of a sports complex and it would wish Hillingdon House Farm to demonstrate the commitment which both parties have to each other and act as an exemplar for future activity.

The College has worked with the Borough to create a beneficial Financial considerations environment at Hayes Community Campus and it would wish the are not valid planning same outcomes to be realised in Uxbridge. matters. If the partnership does not go ahead because the College is unable to secure appropriate capital receipts for the disposal of its land and car park, then the borough’s aspirations for the development may be limited as follows: No access to the enabling development No adult education provision No financial or site contribution from the College for the sports complex Undermining of support and commitment to the Lottery Bid.

As the College is required to pursue educational aims in line with the requirements of the Learning and Skills Council, it will nevertheless, wish to pursue development for the College in terms of its educational aspirations. This may include the sale of land for capital receipt in order to meet the growing requirement on the Uxbridge Campus for educational and training facilities (planning options arising from College’s Property Strategy discussion have been submitted).

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 85

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Malcolm Judd and Partners (on behalf of Uxbridge College) The Brief does not encompass discussions with the Council’s Leisure Support is welcomed. Services and therefore whilst the college remains enthusiastic about the proposals discussed and would wish to make positive comments on the draft Brief, it is necessary to correct and criticise certain aspects.

Purpose of the Brief 1.1: supports site definition which includes all of the Uxbridge The Brief is entirely i campus of the College. accordance with th 1.4: the draft Brief fails to take account of the adopted UDP. It adopted UDP. should be correct as it will form SPG.

Site characteristics 2.8: The college campus covers 4.56 ha. The base map for Amend site area in para Map 3 is substantially out of date in its physical context. 2.8 to 4.56ha. The base map is the most recent available from Ordnance Survey.

Relevant planning policies 3.3: UDP Policy PR24 and paragraph 15.45 supports The Brief is consistent discussions between both parties. The Policy indicates with the adopted UDP. that development is dependent on the principal vehicular Principal vehicular acces access being from Park Road and that replacement or to the sports and leisure enhancement of car parking for Uxbridge College should complex is to be from take place if the existing College car park is developed Park Road. PR24 (iv) as part of the sports and leisure complex. These seeks to ensure aspects are part of discussions held with the Borough. replacement or enhanced car parking for Uxbridge College if the existing College car park is developed as part of the sports and leisure complex. It is not intended that the sports and leisure complex extends onto the existing College car park. Development objectives Amend para 4.1 to 4.1: These should mention Uxbridge College as follows: include ref. to Uxbridge ‘Maintain and enhance the built facilities provided by College. Uxbridge College for the benefit of the community’. This would be a sustainable objective and therefore fit appropriately.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 86

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Proposed developments 5.1: This section fails to recognise the importance of the Amend Map 3 to identify College in providing land for access, housing and the existing College car associated infrastructure in partnership with the park as a separate parce Borough. of land (site J). The existing College car park should be identified as a Include requirements for separate parcel of land (site J) on Map 3 with site J in new paras 6.37 accompanying text as follows: ‘Replacement of the and 6.38. College car park with housing as part of the enabling Amend para 5.1 to development for the sports hall and the College capital include refs to residential investment programme (site J). development on part or a of site J and retention and enhancement of Uxbridge College campus (including provision of replacement parking from site J as appropriate).

Amend Map 3 to include Uxbridge College campus There should be a notation on Map 3 of the College campus (excluding sites F and J) excluding sites D, F and J. The suggested appropriate as site K. wording in section 5 is as follows: ‘Uxbridge College Include requirements for campus to be maintained and enhanced with improved site J in new paras 6.39 and new educational buildings and relocation of and 6.40. appropriate car parking spaces from the existing College car park. Amend Map 3 to include site of Guide/Brownie Hu as site L. Amend para It is understood that the existing Guide/Brownie Hut was to be 5.1 to include refs to site relocated further north and the site made available for L. Include requirements housing development. This should be considered to for site L in new paras avoid the Hut being sandwiched between the housing in 6.41 and 6.42. areas H and J. Amend para 6.2 to include all sites to be served by the proposed Development considerations new access road off the 6.2: The new access road off Belmont Road roundabout will serve a Belmont Road number of parcels of land, not just sites E and F. It will serve sites roundabout. H, D, A, E, F and the newly included sites J and K. Noted. There is no change proposed to the North Way Tunnel.

6.4: The area under North Way Tunnel sometimes floods to a considerable depth and would be unsuitable at certain times of the year.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 87

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 88

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

6.6: It is suggested that the majority of parking could be shared Amend para 6.6 to between separate leisure facilities and that this would be taken include ref. to possible into consideration when assessing the overall level of parking parking within the College provided. The College acknowledge that for regional or national campus. events it may be possible to provide parking within the College campus to accommodate extra vehicles.

6.9: It is not acceptable for the Borough to insist that any planning Amend para 6.9 to refer application should be a full application as this would conflict with to submission of a full the normal allowance for outline applications to be entered. planning application for any other significant proposals.

6.10: with regard to building heights, a four storey character has been Para 6.10 already state established within Uxbridge College. However paragraph 6.30 that the height o refers to a maximum of three storeys. There should be buildings should hav acknowledgement given to the characteristics of Uxbridge College. regard to the character o the area. It is no considered appropriate t specifically include th characteristics of th College and all othe developments in the area Para 6.30 relates to site E; it is considered appropriate that building heights on this site should take account of the listed buildings, the Green Belt and long views from the surrounding area. 6.17: The College is a long-established use and its extension, Amend para 6.17 to refurbishment and redevelopment in part for educational purposes delete ref. to land will continue. Whilst the College recognise that tree planting is modelling. appropriate it cannot support the suggestion of land modelling as this could take up substantial amounts of land, otherwise usable by the College to provide facilities for the long-term educational benefits of the community. Any reference to land modelling should be removed. 6.23: The College give notice that it may not be appropriate for it to As stated in para 6.23 enter into a Planning Obligation if it has a secured contract with the nature of any plannin the Borough concerning the building of the sports hall and any obligations will depend o associated enabling development. the nature and scale o any propose developments and th nature of plannin submissions.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 89

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

6.23: With regard to the affordable housing requirements, the Brief The Brief reflects the should reflect only the adopted UDP and not the London Plan, adopted UDP and has which may be revised in light of the Inquiry. regard to the Draft London Plan, acknowledging that it has limited status. 6.23: With regard to highways works, reference should be made to Amend para 6.23 to the greater number of sites that are to be served by the new include additional sites to access road. be served. 6.28: The land east of Uxbridge College (site E) covers 2.37 ha. Amend site area in para 6.28 to 2.37ha. 6.29: The sports hall cannot be provided out of public funds. The Amend Map 3 to identif College will pay a proportion of the land value, construction costs, the existing College ca fees and VAT incurred in constructing the sports hall in proportion park as a separate parce to the hours agreed for exclusive use of the facility as a ratio of the of land (site J). total hours available for use during a calendar year. In order to Include requirements for provide the funding the College require enabling development on site J in new paras 6.37 site J (existing car park) and the linked relocation of car parking and 6.38. within site K. Further the College will be offered a licence for use Amend para 5.1 to of the grass football pitches and an all-weather Astroturf pitch. include refs to residential 6.29: The development proposals in the brief are not practical in land development on part or a ownership terms nor financially viable without the inclusion of land of site J and retention and owned in freehold by the College. Therefore it is essential that the enhancement of Uxbridge above changes are firmly adopted. College campus (including provision of replacement parking from site J as appropriate). 6.31: Site F covers 0.53 ha. It is already developed by way of a Amend para 6.31 to sports hall, a temporary refectory building and building D1 and include revised site area associated smaller buildings. and existing sports hall o site F to 0.49ha. All other buildings on site F are temporary/unauthorised. 6.32: Whilst there may be some surplus land on site F for housing, the Amend para 6.32 to College would not support isolated housing development unless ensure that any properly related to site E. The principal purpose of site F is to residential development provide further surplus land for disposal to raise capital for on site F is properly investment within the campus and therefore reference to housing related to residential development should be subsidiary within this context. development on site E. 6.33: Whilst there is potential for an adult education centre for It is not considere community use to be built on College land, this depends on the appropriate to include a new road, enabling development and the provision of the sports potential dependencie hall. This dependency should be mentioned. within the Brief. Map 3: Alterations to the Map should be undertaken in accordance Amend Map 3 to include with the above comments. The College would be happy to assist sites J, K and L. in the updating of the Map.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 90

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Greater London Authority/Transport for London The draft planning brief requires amendment to properly recognise the Amend para 2.1 to potential strategic importance of the site (based particularly on its size include ref to the potentia and Green Belt location) and the positive contribution that it can make strategic importance of to the West London sub-region and to London in general. the site. The brief needs to set out explicitly what kind of leisure development Include new para 5.2 to is inappropriate therefore saving time and resources for prospective specify inappropriate developers and operators. leisure uses. The amount of affordable housing provision needs to be significantly The proportion o increased to recognise the fact that the site is in public ownership and affordable housing set ou to accord with the Mayor’s draft London Plan. in para 6.23 exceeds th requirement in th adopted UDP and take some account of the dra London Plan, given it limited status. Leisure development should be sports led and be focused principally Include ref to sports led on the outdoor swimming pool. leisure development in new para 5.2. Leisure proposals in para 5.1 are already focussed principally on the outdoor pool. The preferred land use for the land east of Uxbridge College should See comment on be housing with a minimum of 35% affordable housing with the proportion of affordable expectation of a higher level dependant upon viability which housing above. In the recognises the public ownership and windfall nature of the site. interests of sustainable development, it is considered appropriate that there should be provision for local community/leisure uses where required in association with residential development on land to the east of the College. The proposed net housing density of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare Welcome this accords with the draft London Plan standards for such a suburban endorsement. location.

Ideas of what constitutes community uses/development would be of It is not considered assistance in the brief. appropriate to define community uses in the brief.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 91

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature Amend paras 2.4, 6.28 conservation should be developed so as to protect bio-diversity. and 6.30 to draw particular attention to the nature conservation site within site E.

The highest quality of urban design, architecture and sustainable Refs to high quality development will be required as part of the comprehensive package development are already of any subsequent planning application. included in paras 4.1, 6.8 6.25, 6.30, 6.32, 6.34 and 6.36. Any future planning applications for strategic related development that Noted. may become referable to the Mayor should take into account the above comments.

Also detailed comments on transport and parking as follows:

Site accessibility Amend para 6.23 to The area is served by 3 bus routes. include ref. to all bus routes in the area.

Welcome ref. in para 6.23 to discussions with TfL/GLA regarding Welcome the support. opportunities for improved accessibility by public transport. Bus standing space Agree with the ref. In para 6.23 that it may be appropriate to provide Welcome the support. bus standing facilities on the site if additional bus links are provided. Pedestrian/cycle links Agree with the ref. in para 6.7 that pedestrian and cycle links be Welcome the support. retained and enhanced. New and existing access routes will need to be compliant with the Amend para 6.7 to Disability Discrimination Act. include ref. to the Disability Discrimination Act. Parking Welcome the support. TfL would expect to see a restraint based approach to car parking as Amend para 6.3 to stated in para 6.5 of the Brief. include ref. to Controlled There may be a need to consider parking restrictions on surrounding Parking Zones. roads to ensure that there is no overspill parking around the site. Amend para 6.6 to Cycle parking should be designed to meet or exceed standards in the include ref. to the London London Cycle Network Design Manual. Cycle Network Design Manual.

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Welcome the Endorse para 6.3. In addition any highway improvements associated endorsement. with the development should be designed to give priority to Amend para 6.3 to pedestrians, cyclists and buses. Modelling and a safety audit will also include refs. for priority to need to be carried out on any alterations to the principal access points pedestrians, cyclists and to assess their impact on the network and to avoid conflict between buses and the need for a

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 92

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general vehicle improvements. modelling and a safety audit.

A comprehensive Travel Plan will need to be developed to support Amend para 6.23 to development applications for the site. It should include a include further details comprehensive and funded package of transport improvements to regarding the Green encourage sustainable access to the site and address issues of Travel Plan. parking management, which should be designed to minimise car use for journeys to the site.

Proximity to the Underground Any proposals for site E should take account of the proximity to the Noted. underground tracks and will be subject to the standard London Underground requirements for line-side development projects.

Impact on the strategic road network The amount of traffic generated by the development proposals is not Noted. expected to have an impact on the operation of the strategic road network.

English Heritage – Historic Buildings and Areas Inspector Welcome the general principles put forward in the Brief and offer Welcome the support. detailed comments: 2.3: there should be explicit mention that the ‘listing’ of the pool Amend para 2.3 to includes 5 separate list entries (swimming pool, entrance building, include details of listing north fountain, south fountain, and the Grandstand) each listed and Register of Buildings Grade II. Mention should also be made of the inclusion of the five at Risk. listed structures to English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk, denoting its concern at the uncertainty over the pool’s future and the decline in its condition. An important characteristic of the overall site, particularly the open land to the east, is that it provides much of the immediate setting for the listed buildings. 4.1: a prime aim should be to ‘have special regard to the desirability of Amend para 4.1 to preserving the buildings and their setting or any features of special include ref. to statutory architectural or historic interest which they possess’ in the listed building promotion of proposals for the site. Linked should be the objective requirements. to bring the listed building back into beneficial use, which in the context of this site is inexorably linked to the wider proposals for a sports and leisure complex. Proposed developments: support the overall principal of the proposals Reference to the subject to a clear proviso that a clear and compelling case is made justification for enabling for the need for enabling development as part of the overall development is already scheme. If such enabling development is advanced as being included in para 6.29. required to support the repair, restoration and reuse of the listed Amend para 6.29 to buildings, reference should be made to ‘Enabling Development include ref. to the English and the Conservation of Heritage Assets’ as a material Heritage policy statement consideration in the assessment of such proposals. 6.9: an application for listed building consent will be required parallel Amend para 6.9 to

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 93

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

to the necessary application for planning permission for proposals include details regarding affecting the listed buildings. If such an application is made by the an application for listed local authority, it would need to be referred to the First Secretary building consent. of State for determination. Alternatively, should it be made by other parties, but involve land owned by the local authority, any Funding is not a planning proposed grant of consent will require the authorisation of English issue; however this will b Heritage. drawn to the attention of An early approach should be made to the Heritage Lottery Fund to the Director of Education establish the potential for grant aid. Youth and Leisure Look forward to supporting the Council in advancing a scheme for this Services. site that will secure the repair, restoration and re-use of the Welcome the support. outdoor pool.

English Heritage – Archaeology Advisor The site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area in the UDP Insert a new para (after but archaeological activity has been noted in the area and there is para 6.18) to include likelihood of archaeological remains to be present, which may be archaeological issues. affected by the present development proposals. It is recommended that archaeology be included in any revised Brief and that an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment be conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. This report should allow for an informed decision regarding any archaeological mitigation required, which may include archaeological excavation.

Environment Agency

1) Development Control The adopted Scoping Part of the site is within the indicative floodplain of the River Pinn and Opinion includes a liable to flood. The Agency will object in principle, to any of the requirement for a following; flood risk assessment and development within the area liable to flood consideration of any proposal to infill the land liable to flood necessary mitigation proposed development ion close proximity to the River Pinn main river measures. proposal to culvert a watercourse Any Environmental Statement or planning application should address the following: a Flood Risk Assessment in line with PPG 25, including a topographic survey and considering a 20% increase in the 1 to 100 year flood event flows due to unknown effects of climatic change a vegetated buffer strip, 10 metres wide adjacent to the River Pinn main river sustainable drainage systems in line with PPG 25.

2) Environment Protection The Agency’s prior written consent is required for any discharge of Accept these detaile

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 94

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

sewerage or trade effluent into controlled waters and may be required comments; the issue for such discharges from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or raised will be taken int into waters that are not controlled waters and also for any discharge account in determinin of surface waters to controlled waters. any future plannin The Agency also offers advice on various techniques for control of application on the site. surface water run-off and recommend that restrictions are imposed on the discharge of surface water from the site.

3) Biodiversity Accept these detaile The Agency is liable to object to proposals which result in comments; the issue development in close proximity to the River Pinn or the 2 ponds of raised will be taken int conservation interest or which cause them adverse harm. account in determinin any future plannin application on the site.

British Waterways Offer support to the Draft Brief. The proposals are entirely Welcome the support. appropriate and if implemented, should ensure that the site is used to the full advantage of the Uxbridge community. As an organisation that seeks to promote the use of outdoor recreation it offers support and assistance on the progress of the Brief, should the Council request it.

Disablement Association Hillingdon (DASH) Welcome the support an DASH approves of the development plans for the HHF site, although note the requirement fo emphasises that amenities should be accessible to all. DASH would full involvement as th also like to be fully involved in all levels of consultation. proposals progress.

Metropolitan Police Fully endorse the principles laid out in paragraph 4b.10 that Welcome the support. development should take into account objectives of ‘Secured by Design’ and ‘Designing out Crime’. The development also falls within the agreed objectives of the Hillingdon Community Safety Strategy 2002-2005 (Environmental Improvements and Reducing the Fear of Crime).

English Ski Council Noted that the ski slope does not form part of the draft brief, although Note the comments of the it would be sensible to consider as part of the development of all English Ski Council; sports facilities on site. The centre was strategically significant for however no general skiing in the London area, with 2.8 million people within a 30 minute support for bringing the drive, and hence should be redeveloped. Since the closure, there has ski slope back into use. only been one other centre serving Greater London despite demand for such a facility.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 95

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Groundwork Trust 1) Buildings Note these detailed The buildings should be designed to high environmental standards – comments; they are not preferably a BRE BREAAM standard and BSRIA Environmental Code appropriate for inclusion of Practice. This should creatively include materials, services and in the Brief. other technology especially water management. Also renewable energy sources should be explored. Disabled access should not be just considered from the Part M and DDA bare minimum but is convincingly built in – including landscaping.

2) Transport Amend para 6.23 to That Green Travel Plan is considered as a matter of course and include further details properly communicated to users in the long run. regarding the Green Travel Plan. That cycle routes and walking routes should be well lit and designed Amend para 6.11 to from the cycling and pedestrians view. include ref. to cyclists.

Concern about the volume of traffic – Park Road is already congested Traffic issues are at peak times. addressed in paras 4.1, 6.2 to 6.7 and 6.23.

3) S106 Planning obligations wi Should be used in consultation and participation with locals who will be sought in accordanc have most disruption. with current plannin policy and governmen guidance to mitigat against any advers impacts arising from development proposals.

London Wildlife Trust No major points to add but emphasise importance of the following: Amend para 2.4 to pleased that the Brief highlights the Borough Grade 1 Sites of include ref. to Great Importance for Nature Conservation. There should be specific Crested Newts. mention that the ponds support breeding populations of Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species. Greatest concern is from the proposed enabling housing Amend para 6.30 to development. The Great Crested Newts do not confine their include ref. to the activities to the ponds and spend much of their lives out of the importance of the nature water. They require low vegetation cover in which to shelter, conservation site and forage and feed. This may extend some distance from the protection of biodiversity. breeding ponds and is also subject to legal protection. Plans for area E should take this into account; the south-west extremity of the Borough Grade 2 site as shown on Map 2 is important. This should be the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. the redevelopment of ‘Brookfield’ and the proposed new access from Amend para 6.36 to Belmont Road roundabout have the potential for a significant include ref. to protection

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 96

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

impact on the Brearley Close Pond, which has already been of habitats. affected by the widening of Park Road. It will be important to protect the habitat, including water quality, from the effects of new development including during construction. It is regrettable that the new access road will increase the separation of the two nature reserve pond and this should be addressed in an ecological assessment. Welcome requirement for a detailed landscape scheme to cover the Welcome the support. wider open space and the importance attached to ongoing management and habitat creation. The disused ski slope is becoming an interesting feature in its own Amend para 6.16 to right, particularly as vegetation develops. It should be retained as reflect the value of the far as possible to provide height and slopes and in time could disused ski slope as an develop considerably increased ecological value. interesting feature.

Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust Satisfied that the draft brief has acknowledged the important areas of Welcome the support. nature conservation, and that these will be excluded from the development area. Also pleased to see that an ecological assessment will be required to accompany any application. As any proposed Amend para 6.13 to floodlighting has the potential to affect the nocturnal activity of wildlife, include ref. to lighting on the need for appropriate lighting should be mentioned in the revised areas of ecological value brief.

Brunel University The university is very supportive of the overall development, in Welcome the support. particular the proposal for a 50 metre pool which will provide access for university students to high performance facilities. Access is a key issue, and the university would support a local bus service to the facility which reduces car dependence.

Uxbridge Pool Action Group Groups primary interest is the retention of the outdoor pool. Details regarding the Concerned about the following points in particular. length of the outdoor Would like to see full open air season from April to September, swimming season are no morning to evening, with the possibility of reactivating the planning issues; however swimming club. they will be drawn to the attention of the Director o Education, Youth and Leisure Services. Fears the leisure centre/pool site will be cramped, compromising the The Brief already design and dimensions of the outdoor pool and creating summer safeguards the outdoor overcrowding. pool (paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.8 and 6.25). The large building will overshadow the outdoor pool, spoil the view of Para 6.25 already the café whilst obscuring the side and rear elevations and the view includes refs. to ensure a

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 97

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

to Harrow. high quality building that respects its setting within the Green Belt and the listed pool; and to retain key views to and from the site. Favours a smaller, community facility with a 25-30 metre indoor pool There is general local rather than a regional facility. Feels that Sport England is dictating support for a 50m pool in the terms and are not interested in community pools. the Borough. The scale of the facility will attract a wide catchment, and as such will Issues regarding traffic create traffic congestion, noise and air pollution. congestion, noise and air pollution are already addressed in paras 4.1, 6.1 to 6.8, 6.18, 6.19 and 6.23. Cannot see how the facility can provide enough car parking without Issues regarding car using Green Belt land. parking are already addressed in paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.5, 6.6, 6.23, 6.25 and 6.27. Provision should be made for joggers to use the newly refurbished Management of facilities athletics track, in addition to athletics clubs. for shared use between clubs and the public is no a planning issue; howeve this will be drawn to the attention of the Director o Education, Youth and Leisure Services.

Faulkner Browns Two key issues that should be revised: Amend para 6.25 to 1) The statement that ‘Any new buildings should not exceed the provide some flexibility height of the existing outdoor pool Grandstand’ (6.25) will preclude about the height of the the new building gaining beneficial use of the Grandstand balcony new building. internally to the building. A more flexible statement is suggested ‘The height of the buildings should have regard to the character of the area and in particular the context of the Green Belt and Listed Building’. 2) The boundary line on Map 3 between sites A and B could Amend boundary potentially be used to preclude an integrated new development from between sites A and B as using the lido pool surrounds. Suggest that the line is modified to dotted line on Map 3 to incorporate the proposed pavilions shown in the feasibility report as enable integrated well as the new ‘west wing’ accommodation, or dotted to illustrate the development. overall site A plus B is available for the new development.

Other comments: 3.3 PR24 and 6.25: refer to the most important views across the site The impact of any being retained and enhanced. Who is to define these key views? proposals on views to an

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 98

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

4.1: requires ‘retention of key views across and within the site… to from the site will be taken maintain the openness of the Green Belt’. Definition required of into account in the key views. determining any future planning application on 3.3 PR24: Replacement/enhancement of the College car park if their the site. car park site is incorporated into the overall proposals. Who is It is not appropriate to responsible for this? designate responsibility for undertaking specific proposals to individuals o Green Belt policies OL1 to OL5: Are these relevant? agencies within the Brief. Policies OL1 to OL5 are relevant as significant areas of the site are 3.6: ‘ no undue…buildings…adjacent to the Green Belt that designated as Green Belt collectively may injure the visual amenity of the countryside’. Does Any proposals within or this contradict the proposed development? adjacent to the Green Be Policy OL26: ‘seeks to protect trees and woodland..’ lends weight to will need to be justified. retaining the hedgerow to the south site boundary. 4.1 and 6.22: Access for all statements support the proposal to raise Noted. the new building entrance to the Grandstand terrace level. Noted; however there may be alternative ways of securing access for all without increasing the overall height of the new building. 6.25: ‘the entrance should be a key feature particularly as viewed from Gatting Way’. Proposals to retain the site entrance through Noted. the Lido arch will enhance the prominence of the historic structures but its visibility along Gatting Way may be limited.

The Association of The Residents of the Drive Impact on similar alternative facilities in the Borough e.g. Esporta, There is general support Highgrove, one in Uxbridge High Street and one in Northwood and demand for the type Hills – three of these are private and may go bust, resulting in loss of leisure facilities of their taxes and the new facility will receive less revenue and proposed. thus require greater subsidisation. Adequate budgetary provisions and priorities should be made for The level of Council problems such as dumped cars, graffiti, litter, holes in the road and involvement in capital dumping of rubbish, before embarking on this new facility. Also projects is not a planning want an assurance that there is adequate funding for the area to issue; however the be kept clean, free from the effects of vandalism, robbery, Council intends to act as unsociable behaviour, and that roads will be well kept before an ‘enabler’ to secure expenditure is proposed for the new facilities. The Council should good quality facilities on only engage in capital projects which it has a duty to provide, the site and to work in where demand is likely to exceed existing capacity and which partnership with the cannot be provided by the private sector. private sector and other agencies.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 99

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Is the project of value to the community when the average age is The facilities will be open growing and the bulk of taxes are from an age group unlikely to to use by all age groups. benefit from this expenditure?

Is the project totally self-financing in perpetuity and if so, how? Long term finance arrangements for the facilities is not a planning issue; however this will b drawn to the attention of the Director of Education Youth and Leisure Services. There are already more than adequate facilities for adult education in the Borough. There is an increasing need for improvements to adult education facilities.

North Uxbridge Residents’ Association Purpose of the Brief: popular support for the new leisure/sports facilities Welcome the support. insufficient consideration given to the environmental capacity of the Refs. to environmental area capacity of the area are included throughout the Brief and will be taken into account in determining any future planning application on the site the site is unsuitable for a regional leisure complex which would draw It is not possible to motorists from a wide area. There should be a statement that exclude those people wh they are primarily for the use of persons living and working in do not live or work in the the Borough Borough from using the facilities. each of the proposed facilities can be assessed against the above Environmental and traffic criteria and how their management policies can keep any issues are already degradation in environmental and traffic conditions to an addressed in the Brief. acceptable level

Green Belt and heritage issues concern about the likely size of the new buildings and their impact on Green Belt and heritage the Green Belt issues are already likely that the extent of informal landscape moulding and planting to addressed in paras 4.1, visually screen the development mass would need to be as 5.1, 6.1, 6.8 to 6.10, 6.13 substantial as the new building itself 6.14, 6.23, 6.25, 6.27, 6.29, 6.30 and 6.32. It is not proposed that new buildings would be fully screened. the Brief should include markers about requirements of the Para. 6.1 includes details

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 100

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Environmental Impact Assessment to achieve a level of public about the requirements confidence in the worth of the Brief for an EIA. 5.1: question validity of using the footprint of the storage building to It is appropriate to include justify building in the Green Belt (covered Grandstand) the footprint of existing buildings which are proposed to be demolished in justifying new buildings in the Green Belt. Transport and parking 4.1: little in the Brief to maximise the use of public transport. The site Amend paras 6.3 an is too far to walk from the underground stations and barely far 6.23 to include furthe enough for a bus ride from either. No mention of extending details regarding publi cycle routes on Park Road (south) and perhaps Belmont Road, transport. Amend para 6. which are wide enough to consider reducing vehicle lane width to include opportunities t and installing cycle tracks. extend cycle network. existing public car park should remain the principal car parking area. Its capacity may need to be reduced for bus stands and turning This is already recognise points. in the Brief in paras 5.1 and 6.6. likely catchment population is of several millions and this will lead to car parking on the college car park and nearby roads. Public Parking is addressed in transport is unlikely to be plausible for mass transit to events paras 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.3, and there will be pressure to use Green Belt land for car 6.5, 6.6, 6.25, 6.27 and parking. 6.34. Amens paras 6.3, 6.6 and 6.23 to include further details regarding parking. car parking demand is not clearly quantified. Car parking demand and the Brief should address the gap between the realistic view of car provision will be carefully usage and the likely parking demand assessed in determining any future planning application on the site.

Enabling development and housing the enabling land was included in the 1989 Brief for commercial Para 6.29 already states reasons to provide part funding for the leisure facilities that there will need to be circumstances have changed; there is access to monies from the a justification for any lottery and sale of other sites such as Frays College, justifying ‘enabling’ development a the reappraisal of the planning view. part of any development the enabling land is not identified as housing land in the UDP and package for the site. given the MOD review sites, there is likely to be a surfeit of Regional Planning potential housing land Guidance and the Draft London Plan support appropriate additional sites for housing development. water run off from the enabling development may cause flooding in Flooding is already

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 101

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Way, particularly with an increase in hard surfacing. addressed in paras 6.1 and 6.20. given the need for defensible Green Belt boundaries, there is a sound Para 6.29 already states planning argument for abandoning the enabling development that there will need to be and including the site as Green Belt a justification for any ‘enabling’ development a part of any development package for the site. notwithstanding this, the Brief includes in paragraph 3.12, the need for development to respect the surrounding area. It also includes Residential development in paragraph 4.1 the need to secure affordable housing. The of up to 50 dwellings per development of the enabling land must respect the Green Belt hectare is considered boundary and include high standards of landscaping to appropriate considering minimise the appearance of housing. The site should specify its location and the the need for low to medium density housing (as in the 1989 character of the area. Brief). There are special circumstances to justify a departure from the 30-50 units per hectare to a density of 20 units per hectare overall with appropriate landscaping.

Community Centre with the exception of Church halls, there is a dearth of meeting rooms for community use. Management of such facilities may be It is unlikely that a easier if they were within the new leisure centre. Consideration community meeting room should be given to modifying 5.1 to ensure that a meeting room could be accommodated suitable for community use by special interest groups and on site A in light of the clubs is provided. facilities proposed.

Guide and Brownie Hut, Brearley Close No mention of this in the Brief. This site may be at risk of losing land Amend para 5.1 and Map for the construction of the new access road from the Belmont 3 and include new paras Road roundabout. Need to ensure that the interests of the 6.41 and 6.42 to refer to Guide and Brownie movement is accommodated either within residential development the existing site or as part of the new community facilities on the site the Guide and Brownie hut, provided tha satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided Former ski slope locally. The view from the top of the ski slope should be regarded as a benefit to the area and its users. It should be referred to as a Amend paras 5.1 and topographical feature of merit to be retained, rather than as 6.17 to reflect the value o ‘intrusive’. It provides key views across the site, a surveillance the disused ski slopes as point by park wardens and probably some protection against a feature worthy of merit traffic noise from the A40 and for informal The ski slope would become a pleasant feature for walks if it were recreation. grassed over, with some additional planting, and if a good footpath to the top were provided from the Park Road entrance and down the slope to the grassland below. The Council should arrange for this work and any measures to prevent spread of contaminants without delay; this work should not be

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 102

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

linked to the other proposals in the Brief.

Hedges 6.16 and 6.17: 6.16 should be amended to delete reference to the removal of hedges. Hedges form a useful reminder of the Para 6.16 already refers site’s history and also provide wildlife with food, shelter and to introducing other passageways across the site. There appears to be no species to hedges and to justification for removing hedges. Instead their value should be enhance their value. enhanced by planting a more diverse range of plant species. Removal of hedges is Management of hedges may need to be reviewed with wildlife only suggested in certain interests in mind. cases within the central area of the site to maximise the open aspect. Paras 6.14 and 6.15 already refer to landscaping improvements to strengthen ecology in the area. Miscellaneous 2.3: The second sentence is misleading. It implies that the Uxbridge Amend para 2.3 to reflect open air pool has been closed since 1986. The pool was open the use of the pool since during the summers of 1993 – 1998. 1986. 2.5: The second sentence should be modified to clarify that the Amend para 2.5 to reflec ‘playing field’ land is used for informal recreation and has not use as informal recreatio been used as formal sports pitches for many years. area. 6.2: improved facilities for pedestrians to cross Belmont Road at the Para 6.3 refers to any Belmont Road roundabout may be required. necessary highways measures which will be required following a full transport impact assessment.

6.17: two paragraphs are numbered 6.17. Renumber paragraph nos. 6.23 and 6.25: the U1 service is not the only bus service using Park Amend para 6.23 to Road. U1 and U2 both come from Uxbridge Bus/Underground include ref to all bus Station up Belmont Road into Park Road. The U10 bus follows routes in the area. the same route as the U1 along Belmont Road and Park Road but operates for a very limited period. If bus and coach access is provided to site G, suitable arrangements Noted. will need to be made to prohibit traveller encampments.

Oak Farm Residents Association Whilst in agreement with most of its contents and aims, have the Welcome the general following concerns: support. Concerned about the size of the enabling development. The The extent of the site for provision of affordable housing raises financial implications; the the enabling developmen

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 103

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

desire to supply affordable housing does not equate to the desire is identical to that in the to maximise receipts from the site. The Association prefers that adopted UDP. The the site be used for community purposes. Concern that the policies in the adopted development of the site could aggravate any problems at the UDP and the Draft junction of North Road and Honeycroft Hill, such as flooding. London Plan require an element of affordable housing on the site. The justification for the enabling development is included in para 6.29 of the Brief. Flooding is already addressed in paras 6.1 and 6.20. The Friends of Hillingdon House Farm previously objected to the 7 Amend Council about bridleways, which were withdrawn from the maps of para 6.7 the area. Why are these now included in the draft Plan? If it to state proposed to fence off these bridleways, then suggest adequate legislation in place to prevent horses and riders from straying from that there fenced routes. are no Gatting Way residents have always resisted any additional traffic use bridleway of the road and the Association has always supported their view. s in the The additional traffic to the proposed car park is a factor of area. concern and should not infringe the residential area of Gatting Way, especially if this is allowed at unsocial hours. Welcome attempts to conserve and maintain the green belt; express concerns about the development of grandstands and associated Amend para 6.3 to changing facilities, which must be of appropriate size to negate include reference to traffi any major infringements of the green belt policies. impacts on residents in The U2 bus route also passes along this road, although only for a Gatting Way. short distance (para. 6.27), from the Hercies Road, Honeycroft Hill junction up to the Belmont Road roundabout. It serves both Para 6.27 alread Uxbridge and Hillingdon Underground Stations running to includes references t Hillingdon Hospital where it connects to services to the south of green belt policies. the Borough. The U2 route has a high passenger use and the Association suggest some improvement to its capacity and Amend para 6.23 to frequency, when the development at HHF is completed. include reference to all Concern that the time allowed for general public use of the pool bus routes in the area. facilities will be restricted by excessive use for training, particularly Para 6.23 already refers by Uxbridge College and Brunel University. to improvements in frequency and capacity o bus services. Allocation of time for use of facilities between the public and organisations is not a planning issue; this will be drawn to the attention of the Director o Education, Youth and Leisure Services.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 104

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Ickenham Residents Association Pleased that the outdoor pool is to be retained. Overall broadly in Welcome the general favour of what the Brief is trying to achieve – however some concerns support. remain: welcome decent leisure facilities but serious reservations about scale, The Brief addresses car parking, access, infringement onto and inappropriate these issues as far as it is development of the Green Belt. possible; they will be taken into account in determining any future planning application on the site. emphasis on Green Belt endorsed but this is irreconcilable and The policies in the inconsistent with ‘housing mix’ policies. Enabling development adopted UDP and the may be necessary to provide part funding for the leisure facilities Draft London Plan require but such development should be ‘wholly acceptable in relation to an element of affordable its immediate proximity to the Green Belt and extremely sensitively housing on the site; it is carried out’. not considered inconsistent to provide this on a site that adjoins the Green Belt. any new housing development adjoining the Green Belt should be Para 6.30 states that any ‘appropriate’. Three storey blocks of flats would not be building located towards appropriate. the Green Belt boundary should be a maximum of two storeys in height. the car parking provision is inadequate. The LPA’s current parking Car parking provision will standards, let alone the new proposals have already failed be in accordance with the Uxbridge in that several new office blocks have not been let due to Council’s parking lack of car parking. standards. current major events at Hillingdon House Farm use Green Belt land for car parking and when car parking charges are levied, the local Noted. roads well into Ickenham will become overflow car parks. This must not be allowed to occur on a regular basis. an indoor bowls facility would be well used and profitable, given the There has not been a growing numbers of older people with greater proportion of significant number of disposable income. respondents in support of an indoor bowls facility. welcome comments on the separate treatment of pedestrian, cycle Welcome the support. and bridleways. 6.27: overspill car parking is not an appropriate use of Green Belt Para 6.27 states that land. Pressure for car parking should be controlled by a condition provision for overspill allowing only one major event at Hillingdon House Farm at any parking will need to be one time. justified, limited to occasional use only and designed, sited and landscaped to ensure minimal impact on the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 105

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Green Belt. Cost should not prejudice access to any of the facilities for the Cost of use of facilities is ‘ordinary’ borough resident. not a planning issue; this will be drawn to the attention of the Director o Education, Youth and Leisure Services.

Local resident (SB) Feels that the proposed scheme is generally very good and will be of Welcome the general benefit to the local community, whilst the positioning, size and access support. of the enabling development is a good compromise. However, would like to raise the following concerns. The use of Gatting Way will increase notably and although it could Paras 6.2 and 6.3 cope with the extra traffic, it will need greatly improved lighting. address access, traffic People currently park on yellow lines in Gatting Road, creating traffic and parking issues. flow and safety problems. This must be addressed. These will be given Current problems turning into and from Gatting Way will increase, detailed consideration in resulting in safety and aesthetic concerns. This could possibly be determining any future addressed by a roundabout at the junction of Park Road and Gatting planning application. Way. Brearley Close was not designed to access site H and will result in Amend paras 6.2 and further safety concerns. As a result, access to Site H from Brearley 6.36 to include access to Close should be closed, and access to the site should not be Site H from the new obtained from the roundabout, but from the new access road itself. access road off the Park Road roundabout.

Local resident (KD) The Brief aims to achieve Offers support to the proposals only if there are is a more imaginative a balance between solution to the traffic and access issue. If not, then opposes all the maximising the use of proposals. public transport and othe Objects to any proposal that will encourage even more traffic onto sustainable means of Park Road and other local roads in North Uxbridge, and strongly travel, and providing safe objects to any additional access road off Belmont Road roundabout. vehicle access to and from the site.

Local resident (PC) Already concerned about the increasing levels of traffic near The proposed access residential properties, road widening and use of Brookfield House for arrangements are housing homeless people. Strong objection to proposal to build a considered to be the mos road next to residential boundary. appropriate and have general support.

Local resident (RG) The HHF site should not be developed in a way which will create There is general support more traffic, and hence, increase air pollution in the borough. for the proposals in the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 106

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Brief. The HHF site should be preserved as open space, possibly with paths There are no valid and landscaping to make it an attractive walking area. planning reasons against Strongly objects to the proposal to demolish Brookfield, which is debt the principle of residentia free, serves as a useful community facility and is not a particularly development of old building. Brookfield. Housing development at site E may be welcomed if an access road A new access road can be built alongside the railway line into Park Road, or perhaps alongside the railway line the road can be raised or lowered over the railway at Northway. is likely to be unacceptable due to adverse impacts on the The need for further Adult Education centres is questioned as the nature conservation sites existing facility seems under-subscribed. 8 There is strong demand for new and improved adult educatio facilities within the Borough

Local resident (GW) Pleased to read of the future development at Hillingdon House Farm, Welcome the support. in particular the plans for the new leisure centre. Was disappointed to read that plans did not include any attempt to There is no general redevelop the ski slope and incorporate it into the proposed sports support for bringing the complex. The main problem is related to parking, which could be ski slope back into use. overcome by either putting a case for the release of more land or “adjusting” the existing land. The ski slope is a valuable facility, that suffered from mismanagement. A properly run ski slope, running as part of the new complex would be a success.

Local resident (WC) Approves of the majority of the plan, although would like to make the Welcome the support. following points: The athletics track was built for athletics and field events, not rugby. Noted. There is currently demand for track and field facilities in the area, including a throwing circle for shot-put and discus, long jump Noted. runway and pit, and high jump and javelin areas. Football and rugby pitches should be part of the site and made more 9 This affordable, although should have their own dedicated space. informati on will be

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 107

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

drawn to the Will there be housing provided for a groundsman or caretaker? attention

of the Director Sport England have £41 million to help special cases, so could of possibly fund 2 high profile sports people from the local area to Educatio promote the facility. n, Youth The local half marathon could be started from HHF instead of and Uxbridge High Street, whilst the athletics track could also be used for jogging. Leisure Services

The proposals do not include housing for a groundsman or caretaker

These are not plannin issues; however they wi be drawn to the attentio of the Director o Education, Youth an Leisure Services.

Local councillor The A40 bridge wa A bridleway crossing currently exists over the M40. However due to constructed t restrictions brought in by Hillingdon, riders and horses would need to accommodate horses be ‘teleported’ to the start of the bridge in order to cross over and get walkers and cyclists ove to HHF. the A40. 10

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 108

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

ANALYSIS OF COMPLETED RESPONSE FORMS Appendix 2

Total number of responses: 517 100%

How many generally agree with the Council’s proposals 346 67%

How many generally disagree with the Council’s proposals 127 24%

How many are indifferent to the Council’s proposals 44 9%

11 Proposal Number of respondents in agreement with each specific proposal Generally Generally Not Stated Total % agree disagree Site A: New leisure centre 183 22 312 517 100 Site B: Outdoor pool restored for 109 56 352 517 100 seasonal use Site C: Athletics track improved 97 16 404 517 100 with new spectator stand Site D: New adult education 88 74 355 517 100 centre Site E: Housing and additional 49 72 396 517 100 leisure/community uses Site F: Housing and/or 45 67 405 517 100 community uses Site G: Car parking 86 20 411 517 100 Site H: Housing and/or 48 31 438 517 100 community uses New access road off Belmont 17 22 478 517 100 Road

Replies from: Generally Generally Indifferent Total % agree disagree Resident 230 44 11 285 55.1 Residents’ 3 0 0 3 0.6 Assoc. Other Group 9 1 0 10 1.9 Councillors 1 0 0 1 0.2 Frays Centre 103 82 33 218 42.2 TOTAL 346 127 44 517 100.0

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 109

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Age * Generally Generally Indifferent Total agree disagree 0-16 13 2 0 15 16-24 11 4 3 18 25-35 46 12 7 65 35-44 71 16 7 94 45-59 85 26 7 118 60+ 133 56 14 203 Not Stated 30 17 9 56 TOTAL 389 133 47 569

* This information was not provided by all respondents. In addition, some respondents circled multiple age groups; these have each been recorded individually.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 110

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM, UXBRIDGE: Appendix 3 DRAFT PLANNING BRIEF

Purpose of the Brief

This brief aims to provide a planning guidance for the future development of Hillingdon House Farm, which for the purposes of this brief is defined as the area bounded by Park Road, the A40 (Western Avenue) and the Metropolitan railway line (see Map 1). The site includes an extensive area of open land owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon, which is available to the public for various open air recreational and leisure pursuits. It also includes the disused Uxbridge open-air pool. In addition the site encompasses Uxbridge College and some residential areas, mainly off Brearley Close.

The adopted Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan states that the Borough’s main recreational deficiency is in major sports facilities and there is a need for a major sports/leisure complex to be located in a centre with good accessibility to serve the whole of the Borough. It identifies land at Hillingdon House Farm as the most suitable site for such a sports/leisure complex and a detailed planning brief was adopted in March 1989, following public consultation, specifying the area outside the Green Belt for built development, related highway improvements, and environmental improvements.

More recently in October 1999, Hillingdon House Farm was identified in the Council’s Asset Management Review by Education, Youth and Leisure Services for a range of community leisure facilities. Following extensive public consultation it was clear that there was general support for a new community leisure facility at Hillingdon House Farm, including a 50 metre indoor pool, with a separate leisure pool, a health and fitness suite, sports hall and café, but that the new facility should retain key features of the listed outdoor pool and some outdoor seasonal swimming provision. Indeed 72% of Uxbridge respondents supported the proposals.

Since the existing planning brief for the site was adopted in 1989 there have been changes to both planning policies at national, regional and local levels. This revised brief provides up-to-date planning guidance for the site, including an indication of the extent and form of development that may be considered acceptable. It has been prepared within the context of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) adopted in September 1998 and other agreed Council standards, and in light of regional and national guidance. It forms supplementary planning guidance and is held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 111

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Site Characteristics

Hillingdon House Farm is a triangular parcel of predominantly open land of some 186.4 acres. It forms a wedge of mainly Green Belt land (see Map 2) between Uxbridge to the south west, Ickenham to the north and Hillingdon to the south. The topography of the site is outstanding, in part occupying a ridge affording expansive views of the open parkland bordered by deciduous woodland. The visual prominence of the site is evident not only from locations in the immediate vicinity but also from distant higher parts of Harrow and Ealing. The site is considered to have potential strategic importance (based particularly on its size and mainly Green Belt designation) and can make a positive contribution to West London and London in general.

The dominant characteristic is the pronounced slope running east-west and occupying the western half of the area, with gradients up to 1:10. The area is broadly defined by the broad-leaved woodland belt to the north, the copse bordering the River Pinn in the east, the railway embankment woods to the south and the crest-line of the slope to the west.

An important feature of the Hillingdon House Farm site is the disused Uxbridge outdoor pool. The pool was first opened in 1935 but due to financial circumstances it was closed to the public in 1986, although open for limited periods thereafter. Its principal five components (i.e. the pool, north fountain, south fountain, cascades, grandstand and entrance buildings) were each included as separate list entries in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at Grade II in 1998. It is recognised as being built in a Moderne style and is the only example of a 12-sided “star” swimming pool in the country. The five listed structures are included in English Heritage’s Register of Buildings at Risk, denoting the concern of English Heritage over the future and condition of the pool.

Significant areas of the Hillingdon House Farm site are of nature conservation value as shown on Map 2. It includes sites of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation i.e. the Uxbridge Ponds. These include the Uxbridge College Pond which is within the Uxbridge College area and Park Road Pond which is off Brearley Close. These ponds are also designated as nature reserves. The ponds support breeding populations of Great Crested Newts, which are a protected species. Extensive areas of the open land are also of nature conservation value. These include the following sites of Borough Grade II importance for nature conservation: Uxbridge Common Meadows, which lie along the valley of the River Pinn and stretch along the Metropolitan railway line and along a major part of the A40; and

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 112

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Common Plantation, which is an area of woodland to the south and north of the A40.

The majority of open land at Hillingdon House Farm consists of grass that is regularly mown with only low clipped hedges breaking up the space at a local level. The central and flatter part of the site is largely uninterrupted open land and used as an informal playing fields area. During the summer this central area accommodates the Middlesex Show. The eastern section, delineated by the River Pinn, is triangular in shape and represents a great contrast in that the land is parcelled into small fields enclosed by informal hedgerows and small tree belts of oak, elm, birch and other broadleaved species.

The built development is in the south-west of the site and lies principally near the crest of the slope. Whilst the housing is low enough to be hidden from the open space below, the buildings of Uxbridge College are clearly visible from the open spaces in the area. The derelict Uxbridge open air pool lies immediately to the north-east of Uxbridge College. Uxbridge Cricket Club with its extensive club and social facilities is situated to the north of Gatting Way and to the east lies the athletics track and Rugby Club with changing and ancillary accommodation. The other main intrusive element is the former ski- slope, which is visible from a long distance all around. The area to the north of the ski slope is used as school playing fields.

Coupled with the attractive physical nature of the site are the exceptional locational advantages. Hillingdon House Farm is bounded on the north by the A40, to the west by Park Road from which the principal access is gained, and in the south east by the Metropolitan Line and Piccadilly Line between Hillingdon and Uxbridge stations. It has a central location within the Borough and is easily accessible from both east and west along the A40 (Western Avenue), from both north and south along Park Road (B483), and also from Hillingdon and Uxbridge stations.

The land was all originally farmed but this activity ceased in the 1930’s. At its acquisition by the County Council in 1931 for open space purposes, the only building on the site was Coaxden, later redeveloped for sheltered housing. Development began with the Uxbridge open air swimming pool, opened in 1936, but it was only in the 1960’s that substantial development took place which coincided with the transfer of the estate to the Borough Council. The major built development has been Uxbridge College occupying some 7.2 ha (18 acres) 4.56ha (1.3 acres) in the south-western part of the site. Residential elements include ‘Brookfield’ a former residential home for the elderly; sheltered housing (formerly Coaxden) and privately owned housing in Brearley Close which consists of detached and semi-detached properties. Despite these developments, a key function performed by the site is

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 113

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

that for which it was originally purchased, that is open space and the overall impression remains one of open parkland.

Surrounding the site, the roads dominate to the north and west, and the railway to the southeast. Beyond these lie suburban residential areas, although there is an area of Metropolitan Open Land (Uxbridge Common) to the west off Park Road and further areas of Green Belt between the railway line and Sweetcroft Lane and to the north of the A40 including Park Wood, Common Plantation, the Clump and Vyners Secondary School. Direct pedestrian links exist from each of these residential areas into Hillingdon House Farm which although separate, provides an oasis of publicly available open land. To the extreme east lies Hillingdon Station and Hillingdon Circus, including the local shopping centre on Long Lane and the Master Brewer Hotel.

2.10 Park Road provides the principal access to Hillingdon House Farm via Gatting Way. Park Road connects the A40 Western Avenue to the north with the A4020 Hillingdon Road to the south. It carries substantial traffic flows generated by Uxbridge town centre, and is of a dual carriageway standards with a central reservation and a 30mph speed restriction. There is a dedicated right hand turn lane from the northbound carriageway of Park Road to Gatting Way; the right hand movement from Gatting Way is banned by means of signs and road markings. Uxbridge College is served by a separate access off Park Road.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 114

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Relevant Planning Policies

3.1 This brief has been formulated within the strategic and local policy framework provided by the Hillingdon Development Plan (UDP) adopted in September 1998 and relevant regional and national planning policy guidance. The key policies of relevance to the site are referred to below. However this Brief should be read in conjunction with the wider policies and proposals of the UDP.

The key relevant guidance and planning policies governing any redevelopment of this site are contained in: PPG1 ‘General Policy and Principles’ (February 1997) PPG2 ‘Green Belts’ (January 1995) PPG3 ‘Housing’ (March 2000) PPG9 ‘Nature Conservation’ (September 2002) PPG13 ‘Transport’ (March 2001) PPG15 ‘Planning and the Historic Environment’ (1994) PPG17 ‘Sport and Recreation’ (July 2002) Draft PPG17 ‘Sport, Open Space and Recreation’ Consultation Paper – March 2001, Draft RPG9 ‘Regional Planning Guidance for the South East’ (March 2000), and in local policies contained in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council’s Proposed Alterations to the UDP Parking Policies and Standards. The Draft London Plan was published by the Mayor of London for the Greater London Authority (GLA) in June 2002. This Draft Planning Brief does not take full account of the Draft London Plan because it is subject to consultation and scrutiny at an Examination in Public and currently has limited status.

In the adopted UDP Hillingdon House Farm is subject to a site specific policy PR24 with proceeding text as follows:

15.45 The Borough’s main recreational deficiency is in major sports facilities and there is a need for a major sports/leisure complex to be located in a centre with good accessibility to serve the whole of the Borough. Land at Hillingdon House Farm, Uxbridge has been identified as the most suitable site for such a sports/leisure complex and a detailed planning brief was adopted in March 1989 following public consultation, specifying the area outside the Green Belt for built development, related highway improvements, and environmental improvements to the open land bounded by Park Road, the A40 and railway line. This Council is seeking, in co-operation with the private sector, a development including a sports/leisure complex, and enabling development if appropriate. Any development should take into account the criteria set out in the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 115

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Planning Brief, the key elements of which are reflected in the following proposal.

PR24 AN INDOOR SPORTS AND LEISURE COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING WILL BE REGARDED IN PRINCIPLE AS ACCEPTABLE ON OR ADJOINING THE SWIMMING POOL SITE AT HILLINGDON HOUSE FARM SUBJECT TO:

i) COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON GREEN BELT LAND TO THE EAST, PROVISION OF FOOTPATHS AND CYCLE WAYS, BRIDLEWAYS IF APPROPRIATE, AND FACILITIES FOR OUTDOOR SPORT AND INFORMAL RECREATION; ii) NEW DEVELOPMENT BEING INTENSIVELY LANDSCAPED SO THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT VIEWS ACROSS THE SITE ARE RETAINED AND ENHANCED. iii) DEVELOPMENT IS DEPENDENT UPON THE PRINCIPAL VEHICULAR ACCESS BEING FROM PARK ROAD, UXBRIDGE. IF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY DEVELOPMENT SIGNIFICANTLY EXCEEDS PRESENT LEVELS, IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROPOSALS WILL BE DEPENDENT ON COMPLETION OF APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENTS TO PARK ROAD. iv) REPLACEMENT OR ENHANCEMENT OF CAR PARKING FOR UXBRIDGE COLLEGE IF THE EXISTING COLLEGE CAR PARK IS DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE ABOVE SPORTS AND LEISURE COMPLEX.

As the majority of the Hillingdon House Farm site falls within the Green Belt, any new developments should comply with Green Belt policies in the adopted UDP, in particular policies OL1 to OL5. Policy OL1 specifies those predominantly open land uses that will be acceptable in the Green Belt, including open air recreational facilities. It states that planning permission for new buildings or for changes of use of existing buildings will not normally be granted except for purposes that are essential to and associated with an acceptable Green Belt use.

Policy OL2 states that where development proposals are acceptable in principle within the Green Belt, there should be comprehensive landscaping improvements to achieve enhanced visual amenity and other open land objectives. Policy OL3 extends the principle of enhancing visual amenity of the countryside to proposals that adjoin the Green Belt by stating that there should be retention and improvements to existing landscape where development proposals affect land adjoining the Green Belt.

Policies OL4 and OL5 seek to ensure that there is no undue intensification or enlargement of buildings within or adjacent to the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 116

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Green Belt that collectively may injure the visual amenities of the countryside. They therefore refer to the need for attention to design and landscaping of proposals in or conspicuous from the Green Belt.

Policy BE38 aims to retain and utilise topographical and landscape features of merit and provide new planting and landscaping wherever appropriate, and requires planning applications to provide an accurate tree survey where proposals would affect any existing trees. Policy OL26 seeks to protect trees and woodland and encourage the preservation, proper management and where appropriate the extension of woodlands. It also requires development proposals in more rural areas to be accompanied by proposals for landscaping and tree planting wherever practicable.

Policy R4 seeks to safeguard existing recreational facilities and in particular specifies that planning permission will not normally be granted for proposals that involve the loss of land used (or where the last authorised use was) for recreational open space, particularly if there is (or would be) a local deficiency in accessible open space.

As the Uxbridge outdoor pool contains four Grade II Listed Structures, policies BE8 to BE10 apply. These policies refer to applications for planning permission and Listed Building consent and aim to protect the historic structures of Listed Buildings and their setting.

As the Hillingdon House Farm site includes sites of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (Uxbridge Ponds, including Uxbridge College Pond and Park Road Pond, which are also nature reserves) and extensive areas of Borough Grade II importance for nature conservation (Uxbridge Common Meadows and Common Plantation) policies EC1 to EC5 apply. These relate to the protection and enhancement of existing sites of nature conservation value and the creation of new habitats where appropriate.

The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, policy H11 states that for proposed developments of 25 or more dwellings, or for sites of one or more hectares, the Council will seek to obtain the highest acceptable proportion of affordable housing.

The UDP makes it clear in policy BE13 that, in terms of built environment, the design of new buildings should complement or improve the character and appearance of the surrounding area and should incorporate design elements which stimulate and sustain visual interest. At the same time, it should not cause detriment to the amenities of the surrounding area by reason of siting or appearance or as a result of traffic generation, and congestion as laid in policy OE1. In addition, policy BE19 states that new development within residential

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 117

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

areas should complement or improve the amenity and character of the area.

The UDP policies relating to environmental considerations apply, particularly policies OE1 to OE6 and OE12 which relate to environmental assessments, noise, air pollution and energy conservation. Policy OE1 specifies that an assessment of environmental impacts will be required where appropriate, for any proposed development which would have a significant environmental impact, before the relevant planning application can be considered.

Against the background of high car ownership and traffic congestion in the borough, encouraging sustainable forms of travel and efficient management of traffic are considered essential as guiding principles. In this respect policy AM1 seeks development which would draw upon more than a walking based catchment area if (i) it can be made accessible by public transport from areas from which it is likely to draw the majority of its customers/visitors and (ii) the existing public transport system has sufficient capacity to absorb additional journeys. Policy AM7 goes on to state that permission is unlikely to be granted for developments whose traffic generation is likely to (i) unacceptably increase demand along roads or through junctions which are used to capacity, (ii) prejudice the free flow of traffic or general highway or pedestrian safety, (iii) diminish materially the environmental benefits brought about by new and improved roads, or (iv) infiltrate streets classed as local roads.

It is adopted policy that new developments accord with the Council’s car parking standards and that conveniently located spaces should be reserved for disabled persons in accordance with policies AM14 and AM15. In addition adequate provision should be made for bicycle parking in line with policy AM9.

In addition to the adopted UDP, the Council has adopted supplementary planning guidance (SPG) in relation to the following: Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development (1998) Residential Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (1999) Changes to Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation Air Quality (2002) Noise (2000) Each of the above SPGs contain more detailed guidance to supplement the development plan policies and are held to be a material consideration in the assessment of any planning application.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 118

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Development Objectives

4.1 The objectives of this brief are to seek sustainable development that will:

a) safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and retain and enhance its character;

b) retain the character and key features of the listed outdoor pool in its reuse; have special regard to the desirability of preserving the outdoor pool, its buildings and their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess, linked with bringing the listed pool back into beneficial use.

c) protect and enhance areas of importance for nature conservation;

d) secure a comprehensive package of environmental improvements; in particular to enhance the visual amenity of the site and reduce the impact of any development through comprehensive landscaping proposals;

e) retain key views across and within the site, and in particular to maintain the openness of the Green Belt and the setting of the listed outdoor pool;

f) ensure the retention of public open space for open air recreational uses within the Green Belt area, including the provision of playing pitches for a range of outdoor sports;

g) provide complementary sports/leisure/community uses on the site balanced between formal and informal so as to provide a wide range of facilities for as large a cross-section of the public as possible;

h) maintain and enhance the built facilities provided by Uxbridge College for the benefit of the community;

i) achieve a high quality development that respects its setting, in the context of the Green Belt, listed outdoor pool, the areas of nature conservation value and the existing built up areas. In particular to ensure that the built facilities are located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt;

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 119

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

j) maintain the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities;

k) improve access for informal recreation, including footpaths and cycleways and bridleways if appropriate;

l) maintain access to the site for the Middlesex Show

m) ensure that the site and the proposed developments are fully accessible for pedestrians and people with disabilities and that they meet the needs of the community;

n) provide a safe and secure environment;

o) provide safe vehicle access to and from the site, including road improvements in the vicinity;

p) maximise the use of public transport and other sustainable means of travel, including the promotion of cycling and pedestrian movement;

q) provide sufficient car parking provision for the development in accordance with the Council’s parking standards, including provision for disabled parking;

r) provide safe and secure cycle parking facilities on site in line with the Council’s cycle parking standards and to meet the needs of users of the community facilities;

s) to secure provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing within residential developments in line with the Council’s planning policies as set out in the Council’s adopted UDP.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 120

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Proposed Developments

5.1 Those developments that are considered acceptable in principle on the Hillingdon House Farm site are listed below and indicated on Map 3:

a) Leisure and recreational facilities which could include provision of a leisure centre with a 50 metre competition indoor pool of up to 50 metres, including a separate leisure pool with flumes/slides, a health and fitness suite, a dual use sports hall, wet and dry changing areas, a café and spectator areas (site A).

b) Retention and restoration of the key features and character of the listed outdoor pool, linked to associated leisure and recreational facilities in order to ensure their long term protection and to provide some outdoor seasonal swimming facilities (site B).

c) Refurbishment of the existing athletics track, retaining the rugby pitch in its centre and to provide enhanced facilities including a grandstand and associated changing facilities (site C). The site should include satisfactory car parking for the proposed outdoor sport and recreational uses, including the athletics track and stadium, outdoor pitches, other informal outdoor recreational uses within the Hillingdon House Farm site, and any associated ancillary facilities.

d) A comprehensive package environmental improvements; including proposals to reduce enhance the impact of the former ski slope.

e) Provision of an adult education centre for community use within the Uxbridge College site (site D) or in any other appropriate location within the Hillingdon House Farm site.

f) Enabling development on land to the east of Uxbridge College (site E); acceptable uses may include residential development, provision of community facilities or leisure uses.

g) Residential development or other appropriate community uses on land to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings (site F).

h) Car parking for proposed leisure uses on land immediately to the north of the outdoor pool (site G).

i) Residential development or other appropriate community uses on the site of the former residential home of “Brookfield” (site H).

j) Residential development on part or all of the Uxbridge College car park (site J).

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 121

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

k) Retention and enhancement of Uxbridge College campus including provision of replacement car parking from site J as appropriate.

Residential development on the site of the Guide/Brownie Hut (site L) provided that satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided locally for the Guides/Brownies.

5.2 It should be noted that the following leisure and/or associated uses would generally be considered inappropriate at Hillingdon House Farm: Cinema Amusement games Food and drink establishments unless ancillary only Other leisure uses which are not sports led, or which are inconsistent with open air recreational uses.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 122

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Development Considerations

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: A) Environmental Impact Assessment 6.1 Given the scale and location of development, the Council has adopted a screening opinion, in accordance with the criteria set out in EIA regulations 1999, requiring any proposals for a leisure centre, including a new swimming pool and athletics stadium, along with residential development, to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The EIA would be expected to assess issues relating to transport, air quality, water discharge, flood risk, noise, architectural heritage, archaeology, visual impact/urbanization and the residential development of approximately 100 residential units, as well as proposing mitigation measures for any identified environmental impacts. The Council subsequently also adopted a Scoping Opinion in July November 2002 setting out the requirements for an EIA in more detail. A full Environmental Statement, to cover the EIA requirements of the Scoping Opinion, will be expected to accompany any planning application relating to the leisure centre or residential developments. Any subsequent development at Hillingdon House Farm, including a residential scheme on the enabling land at Site E, will need to be subject to a separate screening opinion to establish whether it would be considered as EIA development; the Council would then, if it were considered to be EIA development, draw up and adopt a Scoping Opinion to cover the cumulative environmental impact of this additional development.

B) Access and Car Parking 6.2 Gatting Way should be the principal access road to any proposed athletics stadium and leisure centre. It is of single carriageway width and will require improvement for adoption by the Council. Scope exists for widening the road within the curtilage of the highway boundary without substantial damage to the avenue of trees, on either side of the road, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TP0312). A new access road will be required off the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout to serve the proposed developments on sites E, and F, H, J and L on Map 3. The new access road should be as perpendicular to the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout as possible, and improvements to the roundabout will be required.

Any development proposals must demonstrate that access arrangements are adequate and that the traffic generated from the development can be accommodated on the surrounding road network without any significant adverse effects, and accompanied by a full transport impact assessment (dealing with both traffic generation and sustainable transport) as necessary. Any necessary measures such as highway works, traffic management schemes, Parking Management Areas, public transport improvements and a Green Travel Plan will be imposed by means of planning conditions and legal agreements as appropriate.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 123

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Any highway improvements associated with the development should be designed to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and buses as appropriate. Modelling and a safety audit will also need to be carried out on any alterations to the principal access points to assess their impact on the network and to avoid conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general vehicle movements. Any development proposals should include appropriate measures to ensure that the residential amenities of residents in Gatting Way are not adversely affected by significant additional traffic, particularly at unsocial hours.

6.4 The other minor vehicular access point to the estate is on its southern boundary at North Way Tunnel. This is mainly used for service and maintenance vehicles. It is intended that this access be closed to all vehicles except during the in exceptional circumstances such as the Middlesex Show and other ‘one-off’ major events, and used on a permanent basis only by pedestrians and cyclists.

6.5 The Council is in the process of revising its car parking standards and policies as an alteration to its adopted UDP. The Council has responded to the Inspector’s recommendations following the Public Local Inquiry into the proposed alterations, which was held in March/April 2002. The revised Council’s parking policies and standards have been approved for development control purposes. The Council is therefore applying the new standards to all new planning applications. The standards may be subject to further change prior to being adopted and clarification should be sought at the time of any application, before assessing the level of provision at Hillingdon House Farm.

6.6 With regard to any proposed leisure developments, the existing public car park at the end of Gatting Way should remain the principal car parking area and should be re-surfaced and landscaped. Additional car parking will be considered appropriate within site C (to the south west) to serve the proposals for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, provided that it meets the requirements of PPG3 and the UDP policies relating to the green belt. The following standards will apply to any swimming pool proposal: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 50 square metres of swimming pool complex and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 5 square metres of pool and poolside area. With regard to other leisure proposals (including sports facilities with or without a licensed club house and health club), the following standards will apply: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 50 square metres and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 15 square metres of floorspace and 1 space per 10 spectator seats. With regard to any proposed stadium, the standards in PPG13 would apply, which specifies 1 space per 15 seats for stadia of 1,500 or more seats. Notwithstanding this, the specific level of car parking for any proposed athletics stadium would be considered on its merits and would in part, be dependant on the manner

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 124

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

and frequency of use of the stadium and its relationship with any other proposed leisure facilities. If it can be shown that the majority of parking could be shared between separate leisure facilities, this would be taken into consideration when assessing the overall level of parking provided. In addition, with regard to any proposed leisure developments, provision should be made for separate bus/coach parking areas, turning areas and drop-off points. Uxbridge College has acknowledged that for regional or national events, it may be possible to provide parking within the College campus to accommodate extra vehicles. With regard to any residential developments, the following standards will apply: a maximum of 2 car parking spaces per dwelling where there is curtilage parking and a maximum of 1.5 car parking spaces where flats and houses are without individual curtilages and have communal parking areas. In addition residential developments will require a minimum of 1 cycle parking space for every 1-2 bedroom dwelling and 2 spaces for dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms. With regard to any proposed adult education centre, the following standards will apply: a maximum of 1 car parking space per 150 square metres of floorspace and a minimum of 1 cycle parking space per 25 square metres. For all development proposals it will be necessary for 10% of all car parking spaces to be provided to the mobility standard of 3.6m x 4.8m. All cycle parking should comply with or exceed the standards in the London Cycle Network Design Manual.

6.7 Particular attention should be paid to the pedestrian and cycle routes and bridleways through Hillingdon House Farm. Existing routes should be retained and enhanced unless alternative routes are considered more appropriate. In particular, a good north south link through the site should be provided in order to improve cycle access from Uxbridge to Eastcote. In addition, this would simplify cycle access to the site from North Hillingdon, by allowing a link from Honeycroft Hill. Some additional footpaths providing better access through the site may be desirable. Attention will also need to be paid to preventing motorbikes using footpaths and cyclepaths whilst allowing wheelchairs, prams, buggies and cycles where appropriate. Surface treatment of the paths should reflect appropriately the permitted users and the degree of formality of that part of the site. All new and existing access routes should be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act. There are no bridleways in the area; however the A40 bridge was constructed to accommodate horses, walkers and cyclists over the A40. Any proposed new bridleways should be surfaced appropriately for the purpose and fenced to prevent horses entering the main part of the site.

C) Design Approach 6.8 Design of proposed developments will be important given the location of the site in the context of the Green Belt, Listed Building and nature conservation sites. A high standard of building and landscaping will be required, especially since the site will serve the whole Borough. A

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 125

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

scheme that was purely functional in character and which would not relate to and integrate with its immediate surroundings would be rejected.

6.9 The developer will be required to submit a full planning application for any leisure development, including a detailed landscaping scheme for the wider Hillingdon House Farm site. A full planning application should also be submitted for any other significant proposals. Designs should enhance views into, within and out of the site. Planning applications should be supported by a landscape analysis and assessment including long views from and to the site with regard to the immediate and wider area. Any application for listed building consent will be required parallel to the necessary application for planning permission for proposals affecting the listed buildings. If such an application is made by the local authority, it would need to be referred to the First Secretary of State for determination. Alternatively, should it be made by other parties, but involve land owned by the local authority, any proposed grant of consent will require the authorisation of English Heritage.

Elevations should be designed to add interest and assist in informal surveillance of open air facilities and spaces. The main entrances to buildings and facilities should be carefully designed and sited to relate well to pedestrian routes and adjoining residential areas. The height of buildings should have regard to the character of the area and in particular the context of the Green Belt and Listed Building.

The safety and well being of pedestrians and cyclists should be incorporated into the design layout, which should be convenient and direct, with clear sight lines, lighting and security. Options to extend Borough initiatives such as CCTV to Hillingdon House Farm should be considered to promote safety of users and facilities. Footpaths should also be smooth and non-slip so as to be suitable for people with ambulant difficulties, wheelchairs and pushchairs/prams. Contrasts in surface textures would benefit partially sighted and blind people and will be required. Landscaping proposals should carefully examine the use of materials and planting to break up car parking areas, which should be located in a safe and subservient manner.

The proposed developments should acknowledge the proximity of residential properties in Brearley Close and should be designed to minimise noise, visual impact, overlooking, loss of light and obtrusiveness by siting buildings and structures as far as possible from private amenity spaces.

The proposed buildings and lighting associated with car parking areas and any outdoor activities have the potential to produce a substantial amount of light. In order not to impinge on the amenities of adjoining residential properties or on areas of ecological value or on and the character of the Green Belt, the sources of such light must be limited

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 126

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

both in hours of use and height and angled/shielded so that light spillage is contained within appropriate areas.

Landscaping and Landform Environmental improvement to Hillingdon House Farm to increase public usage and enjoyment of the area has been a longstanding aim of the Council since the publication of the 1973 Hillingdon House Farm Study. The character and appearance of the open space derive from (i) the landform, (ii) the management of woodland and grassland and (iii) control over intrusive built form both within and adjacent to the area. As mentioned in paragraph 6.9 above, any proposals for leisure purposes will require a detailed landscaping scheme for the wider Hillingdon House Farm site including an implementation and management programme. This should be supported by a full landscape analysis and assessment, taking account of landscape character, natural features, vegetation including tree survey, drainage, ecology, historic and archaeological features, views into and out of the site, existing rights of way, and existing and proposed land uses.

Landscape treatment reflects the use to which the land is put. In order to maintain a balance between active sports provision and informal recreation, the intrinsic informal landscape characterising the eastern part of Hillingdon House Farm needs to be retained and strengthened. If possible some of this informality should be extended westwards around the margins of the site and opportunities for the creation of natural habitat should be exploited wherever possible throughout the area. This will require reviewing the landscape management strategy and the creation of new woodland/copse areas, as well as new wetland habitats associated with the River Pinn.

In the central area the single species, straight and mechanically clipped hedges create a formality inappropriate to the use of the area. Other appropriate species should be introduced, some tree planting to reduce monotony and, in some places, where there is no strong justification for a hedge, they should be removed to maximise the open aspect.

The built structures, particularly of Uxbridge College and to a somewhat smaller degree the cricket club pavilion, represent an intrusion into are prominent within the skyline and the wider vistas of the park. Means of reducing their impact should be sought especially in relation to views from footpaths and other viewpoints (such as the main car park), by tree planting and land modelling other means as appropriate. Likewise The hummock of the former ski slopes is also prominent but is becoming an interesting feature in its own right. It provides key views across the site and a surveillance point. Provision of satisfactory footpaths and appropriate planting is likely to be sought. As vegetation develops the slopes could in time have considerable ecological value. should be reduced in height and its impact on the surrounding area lessened by screening and grassing.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 127

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

On the Park Road frontage there may be some scope for tree planting to vary the monotony of the boundary hedge.

(Note: renumber paras 6.18 to end)

Ecology 6.18 In view of the significant areas of ecological value, the Council will require an ecological survey and an ecological assessment to accompany any planning application demonstrating that the proposed development will not have any adverse ecological effects.

Fi) Archaeology 6.19 The site does not lie within an Archaeological Priority Area as defined in the adopted Hillingdon UDP, although archaeological activity has been noted in the area. The site is within an area where archaeological remains are likely to be present and therefore an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment should be included as part of any Environmental Impact Assessment. The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment should be conducted by a recognised archaeological organisation to the standards of the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service. This report should allow for an informed decision regarding any archaeological mitigation required, which may include archaeological excavation.

F) Air Quality 6.18 Any proposed development will be required to comply with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on air quality and policy OE6 of the UDP. The site is within an Air Quality Management Area and developers will be required to provide an air quality assessment of the impact that the proposal may have on the locality. An example would be the additional traffic likely to be generated by the development. Planning conditions are likely to be attached to any planning permission to control any adverse impacts with respect to air quality.

G) Noise Any proposed development will be required to comply with the Council’s supplementary planning guidance on noise and policy OE3 of the UDP. Developers will be required to provide an acoustic assessment for proposed noise sensitive buildings likely to be affected by road traffic and rail noise. The acoustic assessment should also include the impact that any proposal may have on the locality. Planning conditions are likely to be attached to any planning permission to control any adverse impacts with respect to noise.

H) Flooding The River Pinn corridor is an area at risk from flooding. Given the topography of the area and the introduction of a range of new and possibly impervious surfaces, any proposal for a leisure centre,

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 128

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

athletics stadium or housing will require a flood risk assessment to consider surface water and drainage across Hillingdon House Farm. Any appropriate mitigation measures will be required.

I) Contaminated Land 6.21 The Council currently do not have any record regarding materials used for the former ski slopes. It is possible that there may be some contamination and any proposals relating to the mound of the former ski slopes will require a contaminated land assessment prior to commencement of work and appropriate ameliorative measures must be taken.

J) Access for all 6.22 Both in terms of access to and within the site and access to individual buildings, universal design principals will be upheld. Provision must be made for people with disabilities in any development taking account of the responsibilities under the relevant legislation.

K) Planning Obligations (s106/s278 requirements) 6.23 The nature of any obligations will depend on the nature and scale of any proposed developments and the nature of planning submissions, i.e. whether the related benefits are on-site which could be covered by condition or off-site which require a legal agreement. They are likely to include:

Linkages between phasing and implementation of various elements of proposals in order to achieve comprehensive rather than piecemeal development of sites, facilities and associated improvements. This is to guarantee that enabling development is phased and implemented in an acceptable manner to ensure achievement of other proposals, improvements and community benefits including access and highways works, restoration of Uxbridge Pool and Green Belt improvements.

Contributions towards expanding school places. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) “Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development” specifically identifies pressure on primary school places in the Hillingdon area. The level of contribution will depend on the number and type of units and whether, since adoption of the SPG in 2000, there has been any significant change in the levels of pressure on both primary and secondary school places in the Central/South-West Education Planning area which includes Uxbridge and Hillingdon.

Provision of affordable housing. Any enabling or other residential development (Sites E, F, H, J and/or H L) will be considered comprehensively in assessing the likely levels of provision. The adopted UDP requires that proposals which involve 25 units or more or sites in excess of one hectare provide 25% in the form of

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 129

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

affordable housing. This will be normally on the individual site in question but the related and phased development of two, three or even four adjacent sites provides an opportunity to consider provision in an alternative manner that still meets Council policy requirements.

The Draft London Plan was published by the Mayor of London for the Greater London Authority (GLA) in June 2002. The Draft Plan includes new affordable housing requirements, which state that for the London Borough of Hillingdon 35% of housing should be affordable. The definition of affordable housing comprises social housing, intermediate (includes low-cost home ownership schemes and key worker housing) and in some cases low cost market housing. The Draft London Plan requires that the proportion of affordable housing should be 70% social rented and 30% intermediate housing. The Draft Plan does not set site thresholds as it seeks an affordable housing requirement on all sites wherever reasonable.

However, the Draft Plan is subject to consultation and scrutiny at an Examination in Public and currently has limited status. It is, therefore, proposed that the affordable housing requirement in the Planning Brief would be set between the adopted UDP requirement of 25% and the GLA proposed requirement of 35%. It is suggested that the proportion of affordable housing on the site should be 30% of which at least one-third should be key worker housing, and reviewed according to the status and content of the UDP and London Plan at the time of any proposal. Given the close proximity of Uxbridge College and the relatively easy accessibility to Brunel University and Hillingdon Hospital, it is considered appropriate to seek such a level of key worker housing in this particular location. The proportion of affordable housing will apply to the adopted UDP threshold until such time that the London Plan is finalised.

Landscaping, Green Belt improvements and Ecological Impacts. Depending on a landscape analysis (likely to be included as part of an Environmental Statement) and the nature of development, a variety of off-site measures may be required to mitigate against the physical and visual impact of new development. These benefits could range from new planting to soften and screen new buildings in both short and long views to replacement tree planting where existing trees may be affected and associated Green Belt improvements as outlined in the Brief. A landscape management and maintenance strategy is also likely to be required. Any analysis should include a study of existing public access and routes to and through the area and seek to maintain and establish new and improved linkages to and from surrounding residential areas to new leisure facilities and recreational open space. The impact and mitigation measures associated with development on

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 130

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

any areas of acknowledged nature conservation and ecological interest will have to be covered by an Environmental Statement and any identified measures, if off-site, will have to be subject of a legal agreement.

Highways works. As well as looking at improvements to the existing Park Road/Gatting Way junction, redevelopment and use of sites D, E, F, and H, J, K and L requires the provision of a new access to the south at the Park Road/Belmont Road roundabout. Additional works will be required to ensure limited access is controlled at North Way. The potential for sensitively designed and located CCTV to monitor vehicular and pedestrian routes and car parks as well as the area generally should be considered as an integral part of the design approach. Other traffic management and road safety measures may be required depending on the findings of the required traffic impact assessment.

Public Transport. Improved accessibility by public transport should be provided and the opportunities must be discussed with GLA/TfL. Serious consideration should be given to the provision of a shuttle service to Uxbridge Station, particularly at peak times. The U1 is currently the only regular route that passes along Park Road. The area is served by three bus routes (the U1 along Park Road; the U2 – the nearest stop is a short walk from the southwest corner of the site and the U10 – with one bus per hour during shopping hours only). The options to improve frequencies or even extend alternative routes by providing a dedicated bus stand within a new leisure facility and to relieve pressure from Uxbridge Bus Station should be fully explored.

g) Green Travel Plan. Dependent on the findings of the transport impact assessment for the redevelopment of the site, and use of sites A, B and C, a Green Travel Plan may be required to ensure best use of the leisure facilities, without causing traffic congestion and parking problems. It should put forward a comprehensive and funded package of transport improvements to encourage sustainable access to the site, and also address issues of parking management, which should be designed to minimise car use for journeys to the site.

h) Local play facilities. Even though not within the Green Belt the development of land for housing that was previously open in character may require some compensatory replacement of formal/informal recreational space either within a development or off-site particularly if the area is deficient in certain types of facility. It may be a requirement to provide a small scale play facility for children or communal garden in the case of a significant housing development on Site E. Alternatively this facility might be dedicated from adjacent wider open space or provided off-site in

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 131

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

the local area. A new facility would generate maintenance requirements and a short-term management agreement or dedicated funding would be sought.

SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS: A) Listed outdoor pool and proposed leisure centre

6.24 The site of the disused Uxbridge outdoor pool, the proposed leisure centre and associated car parking (sites A, B and G on Map 3) adjoin the Green Belt to the east and north. The principal components of the disused outdoor pool (i.e. the pool, cascades, grandstand and entrance buildings) were included in the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest at Grade II in 1998.

6.25 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Key features of the listed outdoor pool must be retained and restored as part of any leisure centre proposal in order to ensure their long term protection and to provide some outdoor seasonal swimming facilities.

b) Any new building should be of a high quality that respects its setting in the context of the Green Belt and the listed outdoor pool. In particular it must be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. The slope of the land should be fully exploited, and rooflines, form, height and materials should be sympathetic to the landscape setting.

c) Key views from and to the site should be retained.

d) The height of any new building should have regard to not exceed the height of the existing outdoor pool Grandstand and the context of the listed pool and the Green Belt.

e) The entrance to any new building should be a key feature of its design, particularly as viewed from Gatting Way.

f) Vehicular access to the site should be provided from Gatting Way and any necessary highway improvements to Park Road and Gatting Way will be required.

g) There should be adequate parking provision for people with disabilities in close proximity to the entrances to leisure facilities.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 132

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

h) Car parking areas should be appropriately designed and landscaped.

i) Provision should be made for bus, coach and taxi access including a stopping facility and turnaround area.

j) Provision should be made for safe and secure cycle parking facilities.

B) Athletics track and proposed grandstand

6.26 Site C on Map 3 currently consists of a disused athletics track, with a rugby pitch located within its perimeter, changing facilities and storage buildings. The changing facilities have a footprint of 230 square metres and the storage buildings have a footprint of 240 square metres.

6.27 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Only open-air recreational facilities as appropriate within the Green Belt will be acceptable.

b) Additional car parking will be considered appropriate (to the south west of the site) to serve the proposals for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, provided that it meets the requirements of PPG3 and the UDP policies relating to the green belt; is satisfactorily designed, sited, landscaped and gated with regard to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt.

c) Planning permission will not normally be granted for new buildings or for changes of use of existing buildings except for purposes that are essential to and associated with open-air recreational facilities, as appropriate within the Green Belt.

d) The rooflines, form, height, detailed design and materials of any new building or structure should make full use of the existing contours of the site in order to minimise its impact on the character of the surrounding area.

e) Given the existing footprint of built development of 470 square metres, any significant increase in footprint will need to be justified in terms of the new facilities being essential for the operation of the open air recreational use.

f) Where provision of ‘overspill parking’ can be justified, for example to enable good use of the proposed leisure facilities on an occasional basis such as a major borough sports event, this will be considered acceptable provided that the ‘overspill parking’

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 133

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

area is satisfactorily designed, sited, landscaped and gated with regard to the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. Planning conditions and a legal agreement are likely to be required to limit the numbers and types of events when the ‘overspill car park’ can be used.

C) Land east of Uxbridge College

6.28 The land east of Uxbridge College (site E on Map 3) is currently open land that is used for informal recreation. It is part of the developed area and immediately adjoins Green Belt land. The site covers approximately 2.11ha 2.37 hectares. The triangular shaped area of land adjacent to the railway, forming the most southern part of site E is designated as a nature conservation site of Grade II importance (Uxbridge Common Meadows).

6.29 National and local planning policies attach great importance to the retention of recreational and amenity open space in urban areas. The redevelopment of this part of Hillingdon House Farm is considered to be justified on the basis that the site adjoins the extensive areas of open space and will enable the provision of major sports and recreational facilities that will serve the whole of the Borough as set out in paragraph 1.3 and the first three bullet points in paragraph 5.1 of this Brief. It is unlikely in the present and foreseeable financial climate that the sports and leisure facilities sought for Hillingdon House Farm could be provided out of the public purse. If such facilities are to be provided, an acceptable joint scheme will need to be developed by the public and private sectors together. In considering a development package due regard will be given to the justification for any ‘enabling development’ proposed. There is no justification for development on Site E other than the facilities required by the Council as referred to above, except as part of a supporting package. In this context uses which may be considered acceptable subject to the Council’s normal requirements for such a site, are residential and additional leisure facilities and/or community uses. If the enabling development is clearly required to support the repair, restoration and re-use of the listed buildings, then the policy statement ‘Enabling development and the conservation of heritage assets’ is a material consideration for English Heritage in its assessment of such proposals.

6.30 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Enabling development consisting of residential uses, leisure facilities and/or community uses will be considered acceptable in principle.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 134

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

b) Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare (equating to between 63 and 105 dwellings on the site).

c) The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, the guidance in bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.23 applies.

d) The Environmental Impact Assessment should fully cover biodiversity issues. No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature conservation should be developed so as to protect biodiversity.

e) Significant high quality landscaping will be required at the northern edge of this part of the site.

f) Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the Green Belt and the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool, and the visual amenity and openness of the Green Belt. The slope of the land should be fully exploited, and rooflines, form, height and materials should be sympathetic to the landscape setting.

g) Buildings located towards the Green Belt boundary should be a maximum of two storeys in height.

h) Buildings near Uxbridge College and the railway line should be a maximum of three storeys in height.

i) Appropriate measures must be taken address the likely adverse impact of noise from the railway line on the proposed development.

j) Vehicular access to the site should be from a new road to be built off the Belmont Road roundabout in Park Road. Highways improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly in the vicinity of the Belmont Road roundabout.

k) Access from North Way to the Hillingdon House Farm site should be retained for pedestrians and cyclists only, with the exception of vehicular access for emergency and service purposes and during the Middlesex Show.

D) Land immediately to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 135

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

6.31 The land to the east of the Uxbridge College buildings (site F) is part of the developed area. It adjoins the listed outdoor pool to the north. It is already partly developed by way of a sports hall. The site covers approximately 0.46 hectares 0.49 hectares.

6.32 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Residential uses, leisure facilities and community uses will be considered acceptable in principle.

b) Any residential development should be properly related to residential development on site E. Isolated residential development on site F will not be considered acceptable.

c) Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.

d) Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool. Particular regard should be given to rooflines, form, height and materials so that the development is sympathetic to the listed outdoor pool.

e) Vehicular access to the site should be from a new road to be built off the Belmont Road roundabout in Park Road. Highways improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly in the vicinity of the Belmont Road roundabout.

f) Car parking areas should be appropriately landscaped.

E) An adult education centre within the Uxbridge College site

6.33 The need has been identified for an adult education centre for community use within the Hillingdon House Farm site; the Uxbridge College site (site D on Map 3) being the preferred location.

The proposed adult education centre will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Any new buildings should be of a high quality and sympathetic to the form, height, rooflines and materials of surrounding buildings.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 136

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

b) There should be adequate parking provision in close proximity to the entrance to the proposed building for people with disabilities.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 137

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

F) The site of the former residential home of “Brookfield”

6.35 The former residential home of “Brookfield” (site H on Map 3) is being used as temporary housing to accommodate the homeless. Vehicular access is off Brearley Close, although there is pedestrian access Access to “Brookfield” is off Park Road, near the Belmont Road roundabout. The site covers approximately 0.38 hectares.

The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Part of the site will be required for an access road off the Park Road roundabout to serve the proposed developments on sites E, and F, J and L on Map 3.

b) Residential development or community facilities will be considered acceptable in principle on the remainder of the site.

c) Vehicular access to the proposed development on the site should be from Brearley Close only. a new access road off the Park Road roundabout.

d) Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the site of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (the Park Road Pond which is also designated as a Nature Reserve), and in particular should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance its ecological value. Proposals should include measures to protect wildlife habitats, including water quality, from the effects of new development and during construction works.

e) Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.

G) The site of the existing Uxbridge College car park

The existing Uxbridge College car park (site J on Map 3) has 327 car parking spaces. Access is primarily off Gatting Way although 130 spaces, which are reserved for the disabled and staff only, are served via the College campus which is accessed from Park Road. The site covers approximately 0.82 hectares.

6.38 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 138

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

a) Residential development on part or all of the Uxbridge College car park is considered acceptable in principle provided that adequate car parking is provided in a convenient and safe location elsewhere to meet the requirements of Uxbridge College.

b) Vehicular access to the proposed residential development on the site should be from a new access road off the Park Road roundabout. There shall be no vehicular access for residential development off Gatting Way. Highways improvements will be required in Park Road, particularly to the Belmont Road roundabout.

c) Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.

d) The UDP housing policies H4 to H6, H9 and H11 apply. These relate to the mix of housing units, residential density, housing for special needs and affordable housing. With regard to affordable housing, the guidance in bullet point 3 of paragraph 6.23 applies.

e) Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the listed outdoor pool. They should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance the setting of the listed outdoor pool.

f) Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.

H) The Uxbridge College campus (excluding sites F and J)

6.39 The Uxbridge College campus (site K on Map 3) comprises 4 main teaching blocks, numerous ancillary buildings, two main car parking areas and access roads. It also encompasses open spaces, including a site of Borough Grade 1 importance for nature conservation. This includes the Uxbridge College Pond which is designated as a nature reserve. Vehicular access to the site is off Park Road. The site covers approximately 3.25 hectares.

6.40 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 139

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

a) Retention and enhancement of the educational facilities of Uxbridge College for the benefit of the community will be considered acceptable in principle.

b) Development will be considered acceptable provided that adequate car parking is provided in a convenient and safe location to meet the requirements of the College campus, including provision of replacement car parking from site J as appropriate.

c) The main vehicular access to the site should be provided from Park Road and any necessary highway improvements to Park Road will be required.

d) There should be adequate parking provision for people with disabilities in close proximity to the entrances to educational facilities.

e) Car parking areas should be appropriately designed and landscaped.

f) Provision should be made for bus/coach access including a stopping facility and turnaround area as appropriate.

g) Provision should be made for safe and secure cycle parking facilities.

h) No part of the site which is of Borough importance for nature conservation should be developed so as to protect biodiversity. Any development proposals in the vicinity of the site of Borough importance for nature conservation should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment that fully covers biodiversity issues.

i) Any new buildings should be of a high quality that respect their setting in the context of the site of Borough Grade I importance for nature conservation (including the Uxbridge College Pond which is also designated as a Nature Reserve), and in particular should be located, designed and landscaped to contribute positively to the character of the area and to enhance its ecological value. Proposals should include measures to protect wildlife habitats, including water quality, from the effects of new development and during construction works.

j) Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 140

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

I) The site of the Guide/Brownie hut

6.41 The Guide/Brownie hut is a temporary building on land adjoining the site of the former residential home of ‘Brookfield’ (site L on Map 3). Access to the site is from Brearley Close. The site covers approximately 0.14 hectares, of which the hut occupies 0.02ha.

6.42 The redevelopment of this site will need to meet the following requirements:

a) Residential development will be considered acceptable in principle on the site provided that satisfactory alternative facilities can be provided locally for the Guides/Brownies.

b) Vehicular access to the proposed development on the site should be from a new access road off the Park Road roundabout.

c) Any residential development should have a net density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare.

Any new buildings should be of a high quality and sympathetic to the form, height, rooflines and materials of surrounding buildings.

Any proposed development should maintain and improve the amenity of adjoining residents and those in the vicinity through careful siting and orientation of any new buildings and activities.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 141

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 142

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 143

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 144

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 8 MAY 2003 REPORT OF THE HEAD (UXBRIDGE) OF PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

Item No. 2 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: TOOLMASTER, CONNAUGHT WORKS, UXBRIDGE ROAD, HILLINGDON

Development: ERECTION OF 48 UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING

LBH Ref Nos: 3048/APP/2003/552

Drawing Nos: P03b, P04b, P05b, P06a, PO9 AND P10

Date of receipt: 11/03/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 07/04/03

(1) SUMMARY

This application proposes the demolition of the existing Toolmaster Connaught Works building on the corner of Uxbridge Road and New Road, Hillingdon and the construction of a part two and part three-storey building containing 48 residential units with associated parking and landscaping.

Three objections have been made to the application. The issues raised relate to parking impacts on New Road and Russet Close and the traffic impacts along New Road impacts on the character and appearance of the New Road streetscene and amenity impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of privacy.

A previous application (Ref: 3048/APP/2002/1738) for a similar redevelopment proposal on this site was reported to the Uxbridge Committee Meeting of 4 February 2003. Members resolved to refuse this application.

In comparison to the previous scheme, the applicant’s have reduced the number of units, amended the parking layout, increased the level of parking, increased the provision of amenity space and reduced the bulk of the building. In view of such amendments, the scheme is considered to represent a significant improvement on the previous proposal.

Overall, the proposal removes an industrial and incongruous use from a predominantly residential area. The building is considered to be of an articulated design with varied materials, roofline and vertical elements which break up its linear shape. The proposal includes a package of Section 106 contributions towards traffic calming along New Road, improvements to the Connaught Recreation Ground, the provision of school places as well as 12 affordable housing units.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 145

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

The proposal is considered suitable for approval subject to conditions and the preparation of a Section 106 Agreement.

(2) RECOMMENDATION:

1. That subject to no further material planning objections being received to the consultation on the amended plans within 21 days of the date of the notification, that:

2. The Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Section 278 of the Highways Act and all appropriate legislation in order to ensure that:

a) That at least 25% of the residential units constructed on the land shall be reserved for the provision of affordable housing by or on behalf of a registered social landlord;

b) The applicants provide a financial contribution of £214,661 towards the provision of primary and secondary school places in the Hillingdon area.

c) The applicants provide a financial contribution of £59,000 towards improvements to the Connaught Recreation Ground.

d) The applicants provide a financial contribution of £24,000 towards the implementation of traffic calming measures along New Road.

e) That the village pump within the Uxbridge Road reserve be retained and enhanced

3. That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree detailed terms of the proposed agreement.

4. That subject to the above, the application be deferred for the determination of the Head of Planning and Transportation under delegated powers, subject to the completion of the of the agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 278 of the Highways Act and other appropriate powers, with the applicant

5. That the applicant meets the Council’s reasonable costs in the preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and Section 278 of the Highways Act and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 146

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

6. That if the application is approved, the following conditions be attached:

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M1) Details/Samples to be 2. (M1) Standard Submitted 3. (M3) Boundary Treatment Details 3. (M3) Standard 4. (M7) Means of Boundary 4. (M7) Standard Enclosure- Existing Screen Planting/Hedges 5. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 5. (TL5) Standard 6. (TL7) Landscaping Maintenance 6. (TL7) Standard 7. (TL8) Screen Planting 7. (TL8) Standard (‘… on the eastern boundary of the site…’) 8. (H7) Parking Arrangements 8. (H7) Standard 9. (B31) People with Disabilities 9. (B31) Standard 10. (D4) Signage for Disabled Users 10. (D4) Standard 11. (H12) Closure of Existing Accesses 11. (H12) Standard 12. (H13) Installation of Gates 12. (H13) Standard 13. Provisions shall be made within the 13. To ensure that the site to ensure that all vehicles development does not associated with the construction of cause danger and the development inconvenience to hereby approved are properly users of the adjoining washed and cleaned to prevent the pavement and highway. passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway. 14. (OM11) Details of External Lighting 14. (OM11) Standard 15. Details of a designated area for the 15. To provide a designated storage of waste recycling area in addition to the bin receptacles adjacent to the bin store where residents can store shall be submitted to and store and handle recycled approved by the Local Planning waste before it is removed Authority. This recycling area shall from the site. be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter permanently retained. 16. Before any part of this development 16. To ensure that the is commenced a site survey to occupants of the assess the land contamination development are not levels shall be carried out to the subjected to any risks from satisfaction of the Council and a land contamination. remediation scheme for removing or rendering inoccuous all contaminates from the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall include

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 147

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

an assessment of the extent of site contamination and provide in detail the remedial measures to be taken to avoid risk to the occupiers when the site is developed. All works which form part of this remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

Any imported material i.e. soil shall be tested for contamination levels therein to the satisfaction of the Council. 17. (RPD4) Prevention of 17. (RPD4) Standard Balconies/Roof Gardens 18. Development shall not begin until a 18. To ensure that the amenity scheme for protecting the of the occupiers of the proposed development from road proposed development is traffic noise has been submitted to, not adversely affected by and approved by, the Local road traffic noise in Planning Authority. The noise accordance with policy OE5 protection scheme shall meet of the Hillingdon Unitary acceptable noise design criteria Development Plan. both indoors and outdoors. The scheme shall include such combination of sound insulation, acoustic ventilation and other measures as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority. The said scheme shall include such secure provision as will ensure that the said scheme and all of it endures for so long as the development is available for use and that any and all constituents parts are repaired and maintained and replaced in whole or in part so often as occasion may require.

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (14) Environmental Control on Construction Sites 3. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 148

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(3) CONSIDERATIONS

(3)(a) Site and Locality

The site is known as the Toolmaster Connaught Works site and is located on the corner of Uxbridge Road and New Road, Hillingdon.

The site has a frontage of approximately 54m to Uxbridge Road and boundary of approximately 80m to New Road to the west. It is approximately 0.34 hectares in area and generally flat.

A largely two and three storey office/warehousing building stands on the site. Vehicular access to the site is off New Road. There are no trees of any significance on the site.

Two-storey semi-detached dwellings adjoin the site to the west, along New Road. A pair of two-storey semi-detached dwellings lie adjacent to the north-east corner of the site at 943 and 945 Uxbridge Road. To the east are three-storey maisonette type dwellings fronting Russet Close.

To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Uxbridge Road is the three storey London Borough of Hillingdon Housing Services Offices and Knights Florist, which is a part two and three-storey commercial building with residential above.

Connaught Recreation Ground is located within 40m of the site at the rear of the residential properties on the western side of New Road.

(3)(b) Scheme

The application proposes the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a residential building containing 48 flats.

The new building is to be part two and part three-storeys in height. It is designed with the two storey elements adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries and the stepping up to a three-storey element on the Uxbridge/New Road corner of the site.

The 48 units consist of 34 two-bedroom flats and 14 one-bedroom flats. Twelve of the flats are to be affordable housing units consisting of 11 two-bedroom units and 1 one-bedroom unit. All of these affordable housing units will be on the Uxbridge Road frontage of the site.

Vehicular access to the site is proposed off New Road to 50 parking spaces, which are largely beneath the building adjacent to New Road. Four spaces are proposed for disabled persons.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 149

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(3)(c) Planning History

Planning Application No.3048/APP/2002/1738 which proposed the erection of a part two, part three and part four storey block of 53 residential units and associated parking and landscaping (involving demolition of the existing building) was reported to the Uxbridge Committee Meeting on 4/2/03 at which Members resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, density and lack of amenity space, would result in an overdevelopment of the site and unacceptable living conditions to the detriment of the established character of the area. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies H6, BE19 and BE23 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.

2. The proposed development, by reason of its overall size, height, design and siting would be detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of 7-13 Russett Close. In this regard the proposal would be contrary to policies BE21 and BE24 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan and Council's Design Guide - 'Residential Layouts and House Design'.

3. The proposal fails to provide adequate car parking for future occupiers of the site.

The applicant has since lodged an appeal against this decision and the appeal is to be heard at a public inquiry on 20/8/03.

Planning Application No. 3048/D/79/0865 was granted permission on 6/11/1979 for the retention and continued use of the existing building and erection of new toolmaking and office accommodation.

(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards

PPG3 – Housing PPG13 - Transport

UDP Designation: Developed Area

The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-

Part One Policies:

1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.34, and 1.35

Part Two Policies:

Design/ Impact on Amenity

BE13, BE15 Design of new development.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 150

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

BE18 Designing out Crime BE19 Character of the area. BE20 Adequate sunlight BE21 Loss of residential amenity BE22 Side setbacks for residential buildings of two or more storeys. BE23 Provision and maintenance of external amenity space. BE24 Protection of privacy of occupiers and neighbours BE38 Trees and Landscaping.

Housing

H4 Mix of housing H6 Density of Development H9 Provision of Housing for special needs

Environmental Impact

OE1 Character and amenities of surrounding properties. OE3 Seeks to prevent buildings or uses with the potential to cause noise annoyance unless this impact is acceptably mitigated by engineering, lay-out or administrative measures.

Accessibility and Highways

AM7 Considers the impact of proposals in terms of traffic generation on local roads and includes the requirement that developments should not prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety. AM14 New development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council’s parking standards.

(3)(e) Consultations

External Consultees

NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 42 No. of replies: 3

Comments:

The main issues raised relate to:

(i) parking impacts on New Road and Russet Close; (ii) Adequacy of access off New Road; (iii) Traffic impacts along New Road; (iv) Impacts on the character and appearance of the New Road streetscene;

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 151

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(v) Impacts on privacy of dwellings on opposite side of New Road.

Internal Consultees

Policy and Environmental Planning In terms of policy LE4, given the limited access into the site and its location close to residential properties, it may be that the industrial use in unsuitable in this particular location. The loss of the existing use should however be adequately justified.

The site is not located in a town centre but benefits from a reasonable level of public transport accessibility given its proximity to various bus routes on Uxbridge Road. The reduction in density in the revised scheme from approximately 438 to 374 hrh (or 156 dwellings to 141 dwellings per hectare) is welcomed. Nevertheless, the proposed density is still significantly above what would normally be accommodated on a site outside of a town centre/public transport interchange. Given the scheme is significantly in excess of both Policy H6, PPG3 and the range set out in the recent ODPM London and South East Residential Density Direction (2002), it must be demonstrated that the site is capable of accommodating this level of development. Given the relative proximity of the site to an area of public open space and the fact that the scheme would compromise non-family units, the increased provision of private amenity space to 1113m² is acceptable.

Assuming there are no significant on- street parking problems within the vicinity, the parking standard of one space per dwelling is considered acceptable and in accordance with the emerging parking standards (which set a maximum of 1.5 spaces per dwelling).

The provision of 12 units as affordable housing meets the requirements of Policy H11.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 152

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Highways Engineer No objections. All comments on the previous application have been accommodated in the design through the widening of the footpath, location of security gates across the driveway, width of driveway access and proposed road calming improvements to New Road.

Environmental Protection Unit Given the location of the site on Uxbridge Road which is subject to traffic noise a noise impact assessment was requested. A noise report was been prepared by noise.co.uk dated 04/12/02. The report recommends that acoustic ventilators are provided in at least those rooms to be fitted with secondary double glazing. The noise report concludes that noise mitigation measures should be applied to ensure recommended internal criteria are met. Therefore an additional condition should be imposed.

Furthermore in view of the level of parking proposed on the site and that the site is located within an Air Quality Management Area, a condition should be imposed to require a scheme that will control and minimise air emissions.

Housing Directorate The revised scheme provides 12 affordable housing units, which is 25% of the total development and meets the requirements of policy H11.

(3)(f) Main Planning Issues

(i) Whether the principle change in use from industrial to residential is acceptable (ii) Whether the proposal will result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network in terms of congestion and parking (iii) Whether New Road is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposal (iv) Whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and is not detrimental in terms of bulk and scale; (v) Whether the density of the development is appropriate; (vi) Whether the proposed development will have unreasonable amenity impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring properties

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 153

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(vii) Whether the level of amenity space is suitable (viii) Whether the location is suitable for residential in terms of traffic noise (ix) Whether the proposal will have a detrimental impact on air emissions; (x) Whether the proposal will have place unreasonable pressure on school places

(i) Whether the principle change in use from industrial to residential is acceptable

The site comprises a large, flat roofed industrial/warehouse building with offices above which historically has been used as a tool making factory. The building is vacant and vehicular access to the site is off New Road. The site is surrounded by residential uses on all sides with the exception of those buildings on the northern side of Uxbridge Road.

In view of the surrounding residential uses and the narrow nature of New Road, it is considered that the principle of the change of use of the site from industrial to residential is acceptable.

(ii) Whether the proposal will result in a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network in terms of congestion and parking

Vehicular access to the site is proposed off New Road to a part under-croft/part open car park for 50 vehicles, including 4 spaces for wheelchair or disabled persons.

All of the objection letters received raise concerns about parking and the expected overflow of parking onto the surrounding streets.

Under the Council’s Revised Parking Standards a maximum of 1.5 spaces per flat is permitted. On this basis, a maximum of 72 parking spaces would be permitted. The applicant was of a mind to provide less parking on the site given the public transport services along Uxbridge Road. It has been through Council officer insistence that the proposed development has a parking ratio of marginally in excess of 1 space per unit.

The proposed development is for 48 units comprising of 34 two-bedroom units and 14 one-bedroom units. The site is located on Uxbridge Road which has good bus connections through to the city and is two miles from Uxbridge Town Centre. Given the proximity of the site to the Uxbridge Town Centre and on a good public transport corridor, the provision of one space per unit is considered acceptable and in accordance with the Council’s Revised Parking Standards.

The Draft London Plan indicates that car parking provision for a development of mostly flats should be low with less than 1 space per unit. In view of this, the proposed development can be considered to have an over provision of car parking.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 154

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Paragraph 49 of PPG13 – Transport, states that the availability of car parking has a major influence on the means of transport people choose for their journeys. Car parking also takes up a large amount of space in development, and reduces densities. Reducing the amount of parking in new development is essential to promote sustainable travel choices. The provision of one space per unit and the location of the site on the bus route along Uxbridge Road is in accordance with the principles of the policy.

In terms of the Council’s other parking standards the proposed development complies in terms of the provision of spaces for persons in wheelchairs or disabled people. Cycle parking is also accommodated on site.

The Council’s Traffic Engineer has raised no objections to the application subject to set criteria, all of which have been accommodated in the design. He considers that the proposal would result in a reduction in traffic especially in comparison to the previous HGV movements from the site. Furthermore the applicant has agreed to the payment of a contribution towards traffic calming measures along New Road in a bid to reduce the level of “rat running” of vehicles between Uxbridge Road and West Drayton Road. This contribution of £24,000 is proposed to be incorporated as part of a Section 106 Agreement should the application be considered acceptable.

It is acknowledged that the residents have raised concerns about the lack of parking for the scheme. However, taking into account Council’s Revised Parking standards, PPG13 and the draft London Plan, the location of the site on key bus routes, the absence of objections from Council’s Traffic Engineer and the contribution towards traffic calming measures, it is concluded that the proposed development is acceptable on parking and traffic grounds.

(iii) Whether New Road is adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the proposal

The Council’s Traffic Engineer advises that there is no objection to the principle of replacing the existing industrial building with flats. In terms of traffic along New Road the development is considered to be an improvement on the previous use. The proposed scheme removes a number of sub-standard accesses from the site; visibility from the site access junction would comply with highway standards; traffic generation will be reduced including reduction in HGV movements; and the site has good access to public transport facilities.

However, under the previous application the Council’s Traffic Engineer required the applicant to investigate highway improvements to reduce “rat running” along New Road. The applicant employed consulting engineers and transportation planners, Denis Wilson Partnership, to undertake this research.

The Denis Wilson Partnership investigated 3 options for highway improvements to New Road involving:

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 155

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

a) closing the gap within the central reservation of the Uxbridge Road/New Road intersection; b) traffic calming along New Road; and c) making New Road one way only.

Their conclusions recommended traffic calming along New Road. As a consequence the applicant has undertaken costings of traffic calming along New Road and has offered a financial contribution of £24,000 for the Council’s implementation of traffic calming measures.

Furthermore, the applicant was also required to widen the footway along New Road by 2m, ensure refuse is collected off New Road, set the vehicle entrance gate back a minimum of 7m from the front boundary to maintain free flow of traffic and not prejudice pedestrian safety. All of these measures have been incorporated in the revised scheme.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposal will represent an improvement on existing circumstances and will result in highway improvements.

(iv) Whether the proposal is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and is not detrimental in terms of bulk and scale;

The existing building on the site is a large commercial, flat roofed warehouse with offices above. The central area of the building is the tallest and it presents a staggered frontage to Uxbridge Road. In terms of surrounding development, west along New Road is a row of 2-storey 1920’s semi-detached dwellings and beyond this a recreation ground. To the north, is the 3/4 storey office building.

The revised scheme represents a significantly amended scheme in terms of the bulk and scale when compared to the previous application. The four-storey corner element has been deleted and the building is now part two and part three- storeys. The building is proposed to step from two-storeys at either end, adjacent to 945 Uxbridge Road and 19 New Road, to a third. The greater mass and bulk of building has been located on the Uxbridge Road frontage, as opposed to the New Road frontage where the amended design has endeavoured to retain a largely two storey presentation or facade with a lighter weight third storey stepping back behind this facade. The two-storey facade with the third storey stepping back acknowledges the two-storey scale of the 1920’s semi-detached dwellings along New Road. On this basis the scale of the development is considered acceptable.

In terms of setbacks, the building is setback 2.8m from the southern boundary, providing a total separation of 4 metres from the dwelling at 19 New Road. On the eastern boundary of the site, the proposed building provides a setback varying between 1.8 and 3.8m, due to the splayed nature of the boundary, and a total separation of 4 metres to the adjoining dwelling at 945 Uxbridge Road.

The design of the building is relatively contemporary with distinct changes in roofline, materials and articulation which break up its linear nature and mass. The use of tower features to create vertical elements and to place a focus on entrances

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 156

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

also serve to break up the length of the building along the two road frontages. The prominence of the site on Uxbridge Road is also acknowledged through a corner element with a shallow curved roof form above.

(v) Whether the density of the development is inappropriate

Section 7.13 of the UDP indicates that the Borough contains housing built at a variety of densities, from approximately 50 HRH in Northwood to over 250 HRH in town centres. As a guide to developers, new housing is generally expected to be in the range of 100-200 HRH. However Policy H6 states:

‘The appropriate density of development depends on a balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and the following important considerations; the quality of housing, layout and design, its compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding development, the proposed dwelling mix, and the location, configuration and characteristics of the site. However, applicants for a residential development at a density above 150 habitable rooms per hectare will be expected to submit sufficient details to demonstrate that the layout and design of the scheme are of a quality which produces good environmental conditions within the development and harmonise with the surroundings.’

The application proposes a development with a density of approximately 374 habitable rooms per hectare (HRH) or 141 dwellings per hectare. Such a density is clearly well in excess of the guidance of 150 habitable rooms per hectare of Policy H6 of the UDP and, therefore, the applicant has had to demonstrate why this development nevertheless is appropriate.

The applicant has presented a statement addressing the question of density in relation to PPG3 in particular. The statement points out that PPG 3 requires local planning authorities to avoid inefficient use of land and encourage housing development of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net and “seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors”. The statement notes that PPG is a material consideration which may override policies in the UDP and that additional criteria are set with the aim of achieving sustainable residential development such as linking to public transport, greening the residential environment, designing for quality and making the best use of the land.

The proposed development lies adjacent to good public transport links with thirteen services per hour in the day time and eight services per hour in the evening. The scheme removes an incongruous use in a largely residential area, allowing some limited greening of the site and includes improvements to a neighbouring park. In terms of design the application proposes to demolish a vacant and unattractive industrial building and replace it with a high quality flatted scheme.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 157

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

In terms of the draft London Plan, (Table 4b.1 – Density Location and Parking Matrix (habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare)) the site can be categorised as a site along a transport corridor. The setting is urban and comprises entirely flats. The range of density appropriate for this type of site is outlined as 300-450 habitable rooms per hectare or 100-150 units per hectare. The level of density proposed on the site comes within this habitable rooms per hectare threshold and, therefore, can be considered appropriate.

On this basis, whilst the proposed development is clearly above the guidance of Policy H6 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan, it is in line with the principles of PPG3 and the draft London Plan, and it is has been demonstrated why it is acceptable at this density.

(vi) Whether the proposed development will have unreasonable amenity impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring properties

A Privacy

One of the concerns raised by objectors to the previous application was the impact of the development on the privacy of the surrounding residential properties, in particular those properties in Russet Close that adjoin the eastern boundary of the site.

Under the Council’s Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House Design new residential development should be designed so as to ensure adequate privacy for its occupants and those of adjoining residential property. Adequate distance should be maintained to avoid overlooking. As a guide the distance should not be less than 21m between habitable rooms.

Paragraphs 5.6 and 5.7 of the Council’s Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House Design states that ‘From windows above ground floor an angle of 45 degrees each side of the normal is assumed in determining overlooking distances. In some cases a distance of 21m cannot be achieved. Visual privacy to the private garden area can, in certain circumstances, be protected by careful layout and screening.’

The proposed development at its closest point is 17m from the nearest habitable room window to the flank wall 13 Russet Close, which is a relatively minor infringement of standards. It should also be noted that the rear part of 13 Russet Close is within 0.8m of the eastern boundary of the site. This means that to strictly comply with the 21m setback requirement of the Design Guide would prevent development of a significant part of the site. In view of this minor non- compliance with the standards, the applicant has agreed to suitable screen planting along the eastern boundary of the site (This is reinforced with a proposed condition).

The remainder of the building maintains a setback of 23-25m to the buildings in Russet Close. This is in accordance with the Design Guide. The flats at first floor levels have inward opening doors with a railing rather than balconies with the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 158

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

purpose of minimising the level of overlooking from the first and second floor levels.

It is appreciated that the degree of overlooking will be increased from living rooms above the ground floor level. To minimise the potential privacy impacts of the development the applicant has agreed additional privacy measures. These include semi-mature screen planting along the eastern boundary of the site and the retention of the existing brick wall along the eastern boundary in accordance with the wishes of the residents. (A condition is proposed to be imposed should the application be approved requiring screening measures along this boundary).

With respect to the objections in terms of privacy raised against the previous application from the residents of 8 Russet Close, the nearest part of the proposed building is approximately 26m from the building at 8 Russet Close. Such a separation complies with the Design Guide in terms of the required 21m distance between habitable rooms.

With respect to the objection from the occupiers of 2 and 2B New Road who also raised concerns that the development would impact upon their privacy, the proposed building would be 16m from their dwelling. This distance or setback is consistent with the semi-detached dwellings along New Road. With respect to privacy impacts of the use of balconies along the New Road frontage, only Units 5 and 22 being the first and second floor units on the very corner of the building, on the corner of Uxbridge Road and New Road, have balconies. The separation between such balconies and such dwellings is in excess of 20m and across a public road. On this basis, it is considered that the balconies would not have a significant impact on the opposite dwellings in terms of privacy.

In view of the above assessment and the additional measures proposed, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in significant privacy impacts on surrounding properties and, therefore, in this respect it is acceptable.

B Loss of views and light

The occupiers of 4 New Road have raised concerns that, as the building will be more than 3 storeys in height, it will obstruct their views and right to light. Given the 16m separation between 4 New Road and the proposed building, it is not considered that the proposal will have a significant impact on their level of light.

With respect to views, it is acknowledged that the proposed building will be significantly larger than the existing warehouse/office building in general outlook from 4 New Road. However, given the generally flat topography of this area, it is considered that the building will not obstruct any views of any significance.

(vii) Whether the level of amenity space is suitable

The proposed amenity space for the 48 flats is located to the south and east of the building and is 1113m² in area. In comparison to the previous scheme which

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 159

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

proposed 448m² of amenity space, the proposed amenity space on the current scheme represents a 250% increase.

The Council’s Design Guide for Residential Layouts and House Design states that shared amenity space should be of a convenient size and shape which should where possible be orientated to make full use of the sunshine. The amenity space provided on the site is of a substantial size and shape and will achieve good morning sunshine.

Further to this increase in amenity space, the site is in close proximity to Connaught Recreation Ground and this recreational ground can be relied upon to supplement the amenity space on the site. In view of the likely increased use of the Connaught Recreation Ground generated by the proposed development, the applicants’ have offered a contribution of £59,000 towards improvement works to the park.

Based on the improvements to the provision of amenity space under the revised scheme and the proximity of the site to Connaught Recreation Ground, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in terms of amenity space.

(viii) Whether the location is suitable for residential in terms of traffic noise

Under the previous application, the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit requested that a noise report be submitted to determine whether the development should be allowed to proceed in its present form and if so what the noise conditions should be applied.

A noise report was been prepared by noise.co.uk dated 04/12/02. The report was referred to the Environmental Protection Unit who advised that the Noise Survey report recommends that acoustic ventilators are provided in at least those rooms to be fitted with secondary double glazing and therefore an additional condition should be imposed.

The noise report concludes that noise mitigation measures should be applied to ensure recommended internal criteria are met. The applicant has given an undertaking to implement such measures.

On this basis, it is considered that the issue of noise along Uxbridge Road will be satisfactorily addressed.

(ix) Whether the proposal will have a detrimental impact on air emissions

The Environmental Protection Unit have requested that, in view of the level of car parking proposed and the fact that the site is located within an Air Quality Management Area, a condition be imposed requiring the submission of a scheme that will control and minimise emissions of pollutants from and attributable to the development.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 160

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

The application proposes 50 car parking spaces for the 48 residential units which is not considered unreasonable in terms of parking provision. In terms of traffic, the Council’s Traffic Engineer considers the scheme an improvement in terms of the reduction in HGV movements. For these reasons it is considered that a condition to restrict air emissions is unreasonable and therefore it has not been included as part of the recommendation.

(x) Whether the proposal will have place unreasonable pressure on school places

Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan states that: ‘The local planning authority will, where appropriate, seek to supplement the provision of recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals.’

Under the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development, the proposed development produces a child yield of 30.468 which requires the payment of a contribution of £214,661.

Given that the applicant has agreed in writing to the payment of a financial contribution by way of a Section 106 Agreement, the proposed development is considered to be in accordance with Policy R17 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations

One of the concerns raised in the submissions received was that the width of the access to the parking area was insufficient to allow vehicles to pass. The proposed access is 5.2m wide and the security gates are setback 7.2m from the boundary of the site. Council’s Highways Engineer states that the 5.2m wide access and 7.2m setback are satisfactory and allows for a vehicle to stand off the street as the gates open and two vehicles to pass.

All other issues raised as a result of the public consultations have been addressed in the main body of the report.

An additional consultation period for the amended plans has been undertaken and is yet to expire. The amended plans provided amend the roof form over the corner feature, provide greater detailed elevations and materials of construction, increase the number of car parking spaces from 48 to 50 and increases the number of car parking spaces for people with disabilities from 2 to 4.

(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 161

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

Observations of Borough Treasurer

The report indicates that the costs of the development will be fully met by the developer and the developer will make a Section 106 contribution towards associated public facilities. The developer will also meet all reasonable costs of the Council in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed. Consequently, there are no financial implications for this Planning Committee or Council.

(4) CONCLUSION

This application represents a revised scheme that has made significant amendments to overcome the reasons of refusal for a previous application. The number of units has been reduced consequently reducing the density of development and the parking layout has been amended so that it is contained largely beneath the proposed building consequently allowing for a significant increase in the provision of amenity space on the site. The bulk of the building has been reduced to two and three-storeys so that it is more in keeping with the character of the area.

In view of these amendments, it is considered that the revised scheme represents a significant improvement on the previous application and is generally in accordance with the UDP.

With the package of Section 106 contributions towards park improvements, traffic calming measures, school places and affordable housing, the development is considered acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

Reference Documents: a) Planning Policy Guidance No.3 – Housing (March 2000) b) Planning Policy Guidance No.13 – Transport (March 2001) c) Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan d) Supplementary Planning Guidance Design Guide to Residential Layouts and Housing Design e) Supplementary Planning Guidance to the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan: Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development f) Letters of objection

Contact Officer: MICHAEL BAKER Telephone No: 01895 250525

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 162

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 163

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 3 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 26 BOURN AVENUE, HILLINGDON.

Development: INSTALLATION OF A GABLE ROOF OVER EXISTING REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE INTO HABITABLE ROOMS INCORPORATING TWO SIDE DORMER WINDOWS AND SKYLIGHTS

LBH Ref Nos: 20908/APP/2003/228

Drawing Nos: 02/272 Rev B and 1:1250 scale location plan

Date of receipt: 31/01/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 10/02/03

CONSULTATIONS:

One letter has been received raising objections on grounds of loss of amenity caused by odour, loss of privacy and loss of light.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• The scheme proposes a new pitched roof over the existing single storey rear extension and the installation of two dormer windows and two rooflights. The height of the new pitch roof matches the height of the existing roof and the dormer windows would measure 2.2m deep, 1.9m wide by 1.7m high. Three additional ground floor windows are proposed, together with the re-positioning of a door. The application site is within a developed area. • The dormer windows would be subordinate to the existing roof in that they are set within the middle third of the roof slope and are set back 4.2m from the front elevation. The dormer windows would therefore not appear unduly prominent in the street scene and comply with planning policies BE15 and BE19 of the UDP and design principle B4 of the Council’s design guide ‘Residential Extensions’. • A number of bungalows in the street have dormers of varying designs and sizes. As such the proposed dormer windows would not adversely impact on the character or appearance of the street scene and would not be contrary to policy BE13 of the UDP. • The dormer windows could give rise to some overlooking of the adjoining neighbours. It is recommended that this be controlled by a condition requiring the dormer windows to be obscure glazed, in order to comply with policy BE24 of the UDP. • The proposed roof extension would add some bulk to the rear of the dwelling. However, both the adjoining properties have been extended at the rear. Although there would be some minor loss of daylight to the side windows at

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 164

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

No. 24 and No. 28, this would not be sufficient to warrant a refusal of permission. The scheme complies with planning policy BE20 and BE21 of the UDP. • The grounds of objection regarding loss of amenity and privacy will be addressed by the condition requiring obscure glazing. It is not considered that the loss of daylight would be sufficient to warrant a refusal of permission.

Observations of Borough Solicitor When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

Observations of Borough Treasurer As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider Council.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match 2. (M2) Standard Existing Buildings 3. (RDP1) No Additional Windows 3. (RDP1) Standard or Doors (facing No. 24 and No. 28 Bourn Avenue) 4. The ground floor bathroom, 4. To prevent overlooking and loss kitchen and hallway windows, of amenity to adjoining and first floor bathroom, landing properties in accordance with and bedroom windows shall be policy BE19 and BE24 of the obscure glazed and non-opening Hillingdon Unitary Development for so long as the development Plan. remains in existence.

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Building Regulations 3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work

Contact Officer: EMILY LOW Telephone No: 01895 277 825.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 165

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 166

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 4 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Contact Officer: MATT BROWN Telephone Number: 01895 250 596.

Address: 8 NINE ELMS CLOSE, COWLEY.

Development: ERECTION OF PART TWO, PART SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

LBH Ref Nos: 41094/APP/2002/2004

Drawing Nos: shar01.dwg sheet 1 shar01.dwg sheet 2 shar01.dwg sheet 3 shar01.dwg sheet 4

Date of receipt: 14/10/2002 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A

This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 8 April 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.

CONSULTATIONS:

The letter has been received objecting on the ground that the proposal would result in a loss of light to a bedroom window at No. 12. Concerns were also raised regarding the use of the extensions.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

UDP Designation: Developed Area.

• The application site relates to a semi-detached dwelling on the eastern side of Nine Elms Close. The street is characterised by semi-detached dwellings of similar design and size.

• The single storey side extension is not considered to impact the character and appearance of the dwelling as the addition would be set back 3.5m from the front of the dwelling.

• The single storey rear extension and first floor addition have been designed to relate satisfactorily with the original dwelling. The proposed rear extension is 3.23m deep and 3.5m at its highest point. The proposed extensions would not be visible from the street. The proposal is in accordance with planning policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the Unitary Development Plan, and the residential design guide.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 167

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• The proposed rear extension is set from the boundary with number 10 Nine Elms Close. The proposed two-storey side extension is not considered to have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. The roof of the first floor extension would be hipped and slope away from the side boundary reducing the proposals impact on the neighbouring property. It is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property in terms of over dominance and loss of sunlight. The proposal is in accordance with planning policies BE21 and BE24 of the Unitary Development Plan.

• With regard to the comments received, the development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the amenities of no. 12. A condition is recommended to ensure that the extensions do not form an additional dwelling. Any change of use from residential will require planning permission.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor

''When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.”

Observations of the Borough Treasurer

“As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations accessed have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council.”

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL – subject to the following conditions:-

1. (B1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (B1) Standard 2. (B15) External Surfaces to Match 2. (B15) Standard 3. (D1) No Additional Windows or 3. (D1) Standard. Doors (in any walls or roof slopes facing number 10 or 6 Nine Elms Close) 4. (B38) Single Dwelling 4. (B38) Standard Occupation

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights / Rights of light 2. (25) Legislation Administered by Building Control. 3. The existing dwelling shall not be used for purposes other than those incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse without prior written approval from the local planning authority.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 168

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Reference Documents:

(a) 1 letter (b) Unitary Development Plan

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 169

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 170

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

A Item No. 5 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: LAND FORMING PART OF GREEN COTTAGE, UXBRIDGE ROAD, HILLINGDON

Development: (A) ERECTION OF A 2-BEDROOM SELF-CONTAINED FLAT WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS) (APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION)

LBH Ref No: (A) 57726/APP/2002/2228 Drawing Nos: (A) 000321/01 Rev A, 000321/03 Rev B, 000321/05 Rev A, unnumbered location plan

Development: (B) ERECTION OF A 2-BEDROOM SELF-CONTAINED FLAT WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (INCLUDING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDINGS). (APPLICATION FOR LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

LBH Ref Nos: (B) 57726/APP/2002/2229

Drawing Nos: (B) 000321/01 Rev A, 000321/03 Rev B, 000321/05 Rev A, unnumbered location plan received 20/09/02

Date of receipt: (A and B) 17/09/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A

(1) SUMMARY

This report relates to applications for planning permission and Listed Building Consent for a new dwelling to replace existing storage buildings within the small side garden of Green Cottage, one of two adjacent listed houses. The new dwelling would be single storey and finished in wood with a slate roof. The proposal would not provide adequate amenity space and the amenity space at Green Cottage would be greatly reduced. The proposed parking in front of the new dwelling would further reduce the usability of the remaining space. The parking area would be shared with the 2 listed houses and is considered likely to harm the amenity of residents of the proposed dwelling.

Moreover, the added level of activity and curtilage effects including additional parking, associated with the new dwelling, are considered unacceptable in terms of their impact on the adjacent Listed Buildings and the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area.

Therefore, both applications are recommended for refusal.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 171

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(2) RECOMMENDATION–(A) REFUSAL of Planning Permission, for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal would provide inadequate amenity space for residents of the new dwelling. It would result in an unacceptable reduction of amenity space associated with Green Cottage. The remaining amenity space at Green Cottage and the proposed dwelling would have only limited usability and would not protect occupiers' amenities. It is therefore contrary to policy BE23 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed parking layout would be detrimental to the amenities of occupiers of the proposed dwelling by reason of noise, disturbance and loss of privacy. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies OE1 and BE24 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan 3. The proposal would lead to additional parking, external storage and other external activities within the curtilage associated with residential use. It would be an overdevelopment of the site that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area and to the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4 and BE10 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. 4. The proposed parking and access arrangements would require excessive hardsurfacing of the proposed front garden. It would remove soft landscaping and as a consequence be detrimental to the setting of the existing and proposed houses and visual amenities of the street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE4, BE13, BE19 and BE38 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan. It is also contrary to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance: “Car Parking in Front Gardens”.

INFORMATIVE

If you require further information concerning the reason(s) why the Council refused planning permission or would like to discuss possible revisions to the scheme, please contact the Planning Department on 01895 250788. The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge.

(3) RECOMMENDATION–(B) REFUSAL of Listed Building Consent, for the following reason:-

1. The proposal would create an additional curtilage and lead to additional parking, external storage and other external activities within the curtilage associated with residential use. It would be an overdevelopment of the site that would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area and to the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies BE4 and BE10 from the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 172

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

INFORMATIVE

If you require further information concerning the reason(s) why the Council refused Listed Building Consent or would like to discuss possible revisions to the scheme, please contact the Planning Department on 01895 250788. The policies referred to in the refusal notice are available for inspection in Planning Reception, Level 3 at The Civic Centre, Uxbridge.

(3) CONSIDERATIONS

(3)(a) Site and Locality (A and B)

The application site is a roughly rectangular piece of land approximately 13m wide by 19m deep, on the south-west side of Uxbridge Road. It is adjacent to Green Cottage (a Listed Building to the north west) and Greenside an attached house (also a listed building). It is bounded to the rear (the south-west) by Coney Green recreation area and to the south-east by a small access road, which services existing parking for Green Cottage, Greenside and the recreation area.

The rear part of the site is taken up by some lean-to storage buildings made of wood and corrugated iron. These are obscured by climbing plants and are in a relatively poor condition. In front of them is a hard surfaced area currently used for parking for Greenside and Green Cottage, with the front part of the site laid to lawn. The land is roughly level and is bounded to the front and north-east by a low wooden fence. There is a bus stop in front of the site on the Uxbridge Road.

On the other side of the access road there is an open area with trees and shrubs and an abandoned low brick building. The area nearby is mainly residential.

(3)(b) Scheme (A and B)

Listed Building Consent and planning permission are sought for the erection of a single storey building for use as a 2-bedroom house at the rear of the site.

Internally there would be a lounge/dining room with kitchen space, 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. Externally, it would appear as a pitched roof building 6m deep by 8.6m wide reaching to within 2.7m of the side access road joined to Green Cottage by a monopitched element 1.5m wide and 4m deep. The maximum height of the main pitched roof element would be 4.2m and it would have a slightly asymmetric gable end with the eaves 2.3m high at the rear and 1.8m high at the front. It would have timber walls (except for the rear wall and the joining element, which would be in brick) and a slate roof. There would be five front-facing windows, 3 rear-facing in-line rooflights and a door and 2 high level windows in false garage doors in the end elevation. The front garden/hardsurfacing would be slightly altered to provide 3 parking spaces, including one allocated to Greenside less than 1m from the larger bedroom, a tree in the front of the site and a hedge on the south-western boundary. The access and rear hedge would be retained.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 173

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Application (B) would also cover the demolition of the existing buildings

(3)(c) Planning History

A previous proposal for an externally similar structure for use as workshops ancillary to the residential use of Green Cottage was granted planning permission and Listed Building Consent on 25 October 2000 (application references 10894/APP/2000/1443 and 10894/APP/2000/1828)

(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: Hillingdon Village Conservation Area / Listed Building

The Borough’s Unitary Development Plan was adopted in September 1998, the following policies from the plan are considered relevant to this application:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.8 To preserve or enhance those features of Conservation Areas which contribute to their special architectural and visual qualities.

Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough's residential areas.

Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough of new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards.

Part 2 Policies:

H6 Appropriate density of housing development.

BE4 New development within or on the fringes of conservation areas shall preserve or enhance their special architectural and visual qualities.

BE8 Alterations or extensions to Listed Buildings should not damage their historic structure.

BE9 Policy BE8 will apply to applications for Listed Building Consent as well as those for planning permission if related.

BE10 Planning permission or Listed Building Consent will not normally be granted for proposals that are considered detrimental to the setting of a Listed Building.

BE13 New development must harmonise with the existing street scene.

BE15 Alterations or extensions must harmonise with the original building.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 174

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

BE18 Relates to pedestrian / footway security / safety for developments with footway frontages or overlooking bus stops or other transport interchanges.

BE19 New development within residential areas must complement or improve the amenity and character of the area.

BE20 Buildings should allow adequate penetration of daylight and sunlight into and between them.

BE21 New buildings or extensions should not result in a significant loss of residential amenity by reason of their siting, bulk and proximity.

BE23 New residential buildings or extensions should provide or maintain external amenity space sufficient to protect the amenity of the occupants of the proposed and surrounding buildings, and which is usable in terms of its shape and siting.

BE24 New development must ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours.

BE38 Requires Landscape features and trees to be retained.

AM7 Permission will not be granted inter alia for developments that prejudice general highway or pedestrian safety.

AM14 New development must comply with the car parking standards

RESIDENTIAL LAYOUTS, LANDSCAPING AND HOUSE DESIGN GUIDELINES

RESIDENTIAL EXTENSIONS DESIGN GUIDELINES

CAR PARKING IN FRONT GARDENS SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE

PPG3 (Housing) AND PPG15 (Historic Environment) are also considered relevant.

(3)(e) Consultations

External Consultees

Comments:

NEIGHBOURS: No. consulted: 6 No. of replies: none

THE PROPOSAL HAS ALSO BEEN ADVERTISED AS:

Applications for listed building consent and planning permission that would affect the character or appearance of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 175

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

OTHER CONSULTATIONS COMMENTS:

English Heritage Have considered the application and concluded that the application can be determined without notification to them.

Hillingdon Village Conservation (A) Proposed flat poorly sited, separated Panel from its amenity space and surrounded by car parking to the detriment of Green Cottage. Side "garage doors" incongruous.

(B) Consider the temporary appearance of the proposed flat unsatisfactory and detrimental to the adjacent Listed Building and the character of the HVCA.

Internal Consultees

Urban Design / Conservation Proposal would create an additional planning unit and increase activity within the new curtilages that would be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Buildings and the character of the HVCA.

(3)(f) Main Planning Issues

The main planning issues in this case are considered to be:-

(i) Whether housing is acceptable in principle on the site (ii) The visual impact of the proposal (iii) The impact of the development on the amenities of future occupiers of the proposed or existing buildings (iv) The impact of the development on the setting of the Listed Building and on the historic character of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area

(i) Whether housing is acceptable in principle on the site

Policy H6 states that density of housing should be judged on its own merits. PPG7 and PPG13 both encourage higher housing densities, particularly where there are adequate public transport links. It is considered that this proposal is acceptable in principle on this basis, subject to other criteria.

(ii) The visual impact of the proposal

The proposed design has already been considered and approved under the previous application for ancillary workshops referred to in the planning history. Therefore, irrespective of its location within the Hillingdon Village Conservation

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 176

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Area and even though it would not look like a house or be in similar materials to the adjacent house, this is not considered to be a justifiable reason for refusal.

(iii) The impact of the development on the amenities of future occupiers of the proposed or existing buildings

Amenity Space

Excluding the parking/turning area and some very small areas close to the house, the remaining external space for the new house would be approximately 90m². However, this would all be in front of the house near the road in public view and subject to significant road noise. It would not provide any private amenity space or be very usable. Although the large recreation ground to the rear of the site could perform some of the functions of normal amenity space, it is not considered that this does away with the need for usable private amenity space. The amenity space at the proposed new dwelling is not therefore considered acceptable. It is not considered that fencing off any part of this area would represent an acceptable means of creating private or usable space because there would be access into the area by the occupiers of the two listed houses for parking. In any event, it is unlikely that such fencing would be considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area or the setting of the Listed Buildings.

Moreover, the proposal would leave Green Cottage with even less amenity space, only about 60m², which again would all be in front of the house, in public view and close to the road.

It is therefore considered that the amount and quality of amenity space to be provided are unacceptable at both Green Cottage and the proposed dwelling.

Parking

A maximum of 2 parking spaces is required per house in the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance. Here one space is proposed for each of the new dwelling, Green Cottage and Greenside. The site is near to very good public transport links into Uxbridge, Hayes and other shopping areas and there are other facilities including the recreation ground nearby. Proposed parking facilities are therefore considered acceptable.

Privacy, Noise and Disturbance

The proposed parking layout would involve the use of the proposed dwelling's front garden by occupiers of Green Cottage and Greenside. Indeed, the space proposed for Green Cottage would be directly outside the main bedroom windows at the new house. It is considered that this would lead to undue and unavoidable invasion of privacy and unacceptable noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the new house.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 177

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(iv) The impact of the development on the setting of the Listed Building and on the historic character of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area.

The built form is the subject of an extant approval, as mentioned above. However, it is considered that the dwelling would lead to additional parking requirements and the likely use of the new curtilage for other external activities associated with residential use that would impact visually on the area. It would also leave Green Cottage with a greatly reduced curtilage, thereby concentrating such curtilage effects as they relate to this listed property. Thus, for instance, external storage or hanging out washing that could currently be accommodated within the side land would have to be done in the front garden. The creation of a new unit would also remove the side garden that is currently characteristic of Greenside and Green Cottage. The proposed The impact of the development on the setting of the Listed Building and that this would lead to curtilage effects (including additional parking, hard surfacing and some domestic activities) that would be detrimental to the setting of the Listed Building and thereby on the historic character of the Hillingdon Village Conservation Area.

(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations

No comments were received

(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor

When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

Observations of the Borough Treasurer

As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made at a later stage. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider Council.

(4) CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is considered that these proposals would be unacceptable in planning terms because of the unavoidable loss of privacy and noise and disturbance to the occupiers of the proposed house and the lack of amenity space and because of the unacceptable reduction in amenity space at Green Cottage.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 178

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Moreover, in this case, there would be additional domestic use and other activity within the new curtilage and a concentration of such effects within the reduced curtilage at Green Cottage. It is considered that these effects would be detrimental to the setting and character of the adjacent Listed Buildings and thereby to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The proposals are therefore recommended for refusal on planning and Listed Building grounds.

Reference Documents:

(a) UDP (b) PPG3, PPG15 (c) Design Guide "Residential Extensions"

Contact Officer: CHRIS WOOD Telephone Number: 01895 250 788

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 179

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 180

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 6 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277 7722

Address: 16 MYRTLE CLOSE, WEST DRAYTON

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION

LBH Ref Nos: 45240/APP/2002/2768

Drawing Nos: 2 unnumbered photographs of site, unnumbered location plan and SKC/1602A* (amended)

Date of receipt: 22/11/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 17/01/03

This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 8 April 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.

CONSULTATIONS:

3 letters of objection have been received concerning the front to rear access and distance from the boundary. Although issues relating to the drainage/sewage, guttering overhanging and encroachment on the neighbouring property have been raised, they are not considered to be material planning considerations.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

UDP DESIGNATION: Developed Area

• Planning Permission for a single storey side and rear extension was refused on 26/04/91, (ref: 45240/90/1876). The reasons for refusal were based on pedestrian access from the front to the rear and the proximity to the side boundary with No. 18 Myrtle Close.

• The single storey side extension is 2.68m wide, 7.4m deep and 3.4m high. The rear extension is 9.4m wide, 3.05m deep and has a dummy pitch roof to the same height which runs along the full length and width of the proposed side extension. The side extension would be in line with the front of the main house and is considered not to have an adverse impact on the street scene.

• The adjoining property, No. 18 Myrtle Close, is 2m forward of the application site and is 3m from the side boundary between these two properties. This 3m gap is sufficient to maintain the residential amenities of the neighbouring property. The loss of rear outlook to No. 18 has been minimised by the reduction in the depth of the rear extension.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 181

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• No side windows have been proposed in the side elevations facing Nos. 14 & 18. Therefore it is considered that the proposed extensions would not result in overlooking, overshadowing or loss of daylight to the neighbouring properties.

• The internal layout of the existing house and proposed extensions is such that front to rear access can be achieved through non-habitable rooms in line with the Council’s guidelines. This addresses the first reason of the previously refused scheme. The second reason has been addressed by the Council’s current guidelines which allows single storey side extensions to be built to the boundary.

• The proposed extensions would match the design, materials and fenestration of the house. Therefore the proposed extensions are considered to comply with the Councils policies and standards.

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

To be reported.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard 3. (H7) Parking Arrangements 3. (H7) Standard (Residential) 4. (RPD6) A 1.8m high fence or 4. (RPD6) Standard imperforate wall shall be maintained on the boundary with (‘Nos. 14 &18 Myrtle Close’) 5. (RPD1) No Additional Doors or 5. (RPD1) Standard Windows (‘….facing Nos. 14 & 18 Myrtle Close’) 6. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 6. (OM5) Standard

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (31) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 182

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Reference Documents:

(a) UDP (b) 3 letters of objections

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 183

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 184

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

A Item No. 7 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Contact Officer: RICHARD PHILLIPS

Telephone Number: 01895 250836

Address: LAND FORMING PART OF 64 REGENT AVENUE, HILLINGDON

Development: ERECTION OF AN ATTACHED TWO STOREY BUILDING WITH A PROJECTING REAR GROUND FLOOR AND INSTALLATION OF A REAR DORMER AND FRONT AND SIDE SKYLIGHTS TO PROVIDE TWO, ONE-BEDROOM FLATS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, INCLUDING THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW VEHICULAR CROSSOVER AND ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND INSTALLATION OF TWO REAR DORMERS AND FRONT SKYLIGHTS TO THE EXISTING HOUSE TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF THE ROOF SPACE TO A BEDROOM (WORKS INVOLVE THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION).

LBH Ref Nos: 52014/APP/2002/2111

Drawing Nos: 64RA/2002/01, 64RA/2002/02, 64RA/2002/03, 64RA/2002/04, 64RA/2002/05, 64RA/2002/06, 64RA/2002/07, 64RA/2002/09

Date of receipt: 03/09/02

This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 8 April 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.

(1) SUMMARY

This application seeks permission to erect an attached two storey building with a rear dormer to provide two, one bedroom flats at the side of a pair of semi- detached properties, and the adjoining property to be extended by means of a 3.25 metre deep single storey rear extension and installation of two rear dormers to allow the conversion of the roof space to provide a third bedroom. Although the character of the street comprises pairs of semi-detached properties in use as single family dwellings, the introduction of a row of three terraced properties incorporating two flats is not considered to be detrimental to the character of the area. The amenities of adjoining residential properties would not be adversely affected and adequate amenity and parking space would be provided. Permission is therefore recommended.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 185

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(2) RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limits 1. (T1) Standard 2. (OM1) Development in 2. (OM1) Standard Accordance with Approved Plans 3. (M1) Details/Samples to be 3. (M1) Standard submitted 4. (RPD1) No Additional Windows 4. (RPD1) Standard or Doors (Insert ‘No. 62 Regent Avenue and Nos. 104 and 106 Windsor Avenue’) 5. (RPD2) Obscure Glazing and 5. (RPD2) Standard Non-Opening Windows (Insert ‘Nos. 104 and 106 Windsor Avenue’) 6. (RPD4) Prevention of 6. (RPD4) Standard Balconies/Roof Gardens (Insert ‘new flats and’ after ‘The roof area of the’) 7. (MRD4) Single Dwellings 7. (MRD4) Standard Occupation 8. (H7) Parking Arrangements 8. (H7) Standard (Residential) 9. (TL5) Landscaping Scheme 9. (TL5) Standard 10. (TL6) Landscaping Scheme- 10. (TL6) Standard Implementation 11. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 11. (OM5) Standard 12. (M5) Means of Enclosure 12. (M5) Standard

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (24) Crossings 3. (25) Legislation administered by Building Control 4. You are advised that residential flats do not enjoy any permitted development rights.

(3) CONSIDERATIONS

(3)(a) Site and Locality

The application site is located at the southern end of Regent Avenue on its southwestern side. It comprises a 6 metre wide semi-detached house on a plot 13 metres wide and 41 metres deep. There is a double garage sited at the end of the rear garden with access via a rear service road from Grosvenor Crescent. A two storey attached side building is currently being erected.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 186

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(3)(b) Scheme

Permission is sought to demolish an existing side extension and erect an attached two-storey building with a hipped roof to provide two, one bedroom flats. The proposed building would be 6 metres wide and 7.8 metres deep on the first floor, set off the side boundary by 1.1 metres. The ground floor would project at the rear by 3.25 metres across its full width and the roof would incorporate a flat roofed rear dormer, measuring 1.5 metres wide, a maximum of 2.1 metres deep and 1.8 metres high. Two skylights are proposed in the roof at the front of the house, with one at the side.

As part of this proposal, permission is sought to erect a 3.25 metre deep single storey rear extension and install two rear dormers on the existing property to provide a third bedroom within the roof space. The dormers would match the proportions of the dormer proposed on the new building, the only exception being that one of the dormers would have a width of 2.1 metres. Three skylights are also proposed at the front of the property.

Car parking for two cars would be provided in the front garden of the new property, which would involve the formation of a vehicular crossover. The front garden of the existing property would be retained. The double garage at the rear, accessed from the rear service road would continue to provide off-street car parking for the house.

(3)(c) Planning History

Permission to erect an attached two storey, three bedroom house with a similar siting to the current proposal was granted at the Uxbridge Planning Sub- Committee meeting on 28/10/97 (ref. 52014/97/876). The proposal also incorporated 3.25 metre deep single storey rear extensions for the proposed and existing properties.

(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: Developed Area

The following Unitary Development Plan policies are considered relevant:-

Part One Policies:

Pt1.10 - Protects residential areas.

Part Two Policies:

BE13 - Layout and appearance of new development

BE15 - Alterations and extensions to existing buildings

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 187

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

BE19 - New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area

BE20 - Daylight and sunlight considerations

BE21 - Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions

BE22 – Residential extensions/buildings of two or more storeys

BE23 - External amenity space and new residential development

BE24 – Design of new buildings – protection of privacy

H6 – Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development

AM14 – New development and car parking standards

Design Guides: Residential Extensions, Residential Layouts and House Design

(3)(e) Consultations

External Consultees

No. of neighbours consulted: 11 No. of responses received:- 3 (2 from same resident)

Comments:

1. Proposal out of character within an area of single family dwellings. 2. Proposal will allow complete overlooking of rear garden and property from proposed rear bedroom windows and dormer windows. 3. Proposal would result in loss of light. Adjoining properties have a right to light. 4. Area already congested, proposal would exacerbate this. 5. Owner has already commenced works. 6. Proposal will block the skyline. 7. Proposal resulted in reduced value of property. 8. Not consulted on previous application. 9. No balconies should be formed. 10. View of proposed rear car parking unacceptable. 11. Proposal is for rent.

Oak Farm Resident’s Association 1. Proposal is out of character within this location which is characterised by two and three bedroom properties. 2. Any additional building to that already granted permission could affect other residents and

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 188

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

result in overdevelopment and infilling. This estate should remain as per the agreements and covenants with the original developer in order to maintain open aspects.

Internal Consultees

Environmental Protection Unit No response

(3)(f) Main Planning Issues

The main issues are considered to be:-

(i) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene (ii) Impact upon the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers (iii) Acceptability of the accommodation provided (iv) Parking provision

(i) Impact on the visual amenities of the street scene

The siting and size of this proposal is not materially different from the scheme for an attached dwellinghouse on this site that was approved in 1997 (ref. 52014/97/876). As this site has a frontage width of 13 metres and the proposed house would maintain the front building line and a one metre set back from the side boundary, it is considered acceptable within the street scene as plot widths typically measure 7.5 metres. The introduce of a terrace of three in this location which is characterised by semi-detached properties would not be so discordant with the character of the road as to warrant a refusal of permission, particularly as the site is located at the end of the road, with a garage court opposite. The proposal would also not significantly close the 23 metre gap between No. 64 and the rear elevations of adjoining properties fronting Windsor Avenue. The proportions and design of the building would mimic that of the existing pair of semi-detached properties. The only exception to this would be the introduction of skylights in the front and side elevations. However, these are sufficiently small scale as to appear subordinate to the main roof. The rear dormers would not be readily visible within the street scene. The car parking layout at the front of the property would allow landscaping to be provided which would be controlled by condition.

The proposed use as two flats would not be out of keeping with the residential character of the area, which primarily comprises single family dwellings.

The proposal therefore accords with Policies BE13, BE15, BE19 and H6 of the Unitary Development Plan and supplementary design guidance.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 189

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

(ii) Impact upon the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers

The previously approved scheme proposed a similar siting and mass of building. This proposal differs from the former scheme in that two flats are proposed, together with rear dormers, front and side skylights and alteration of the window detail.

The introduction of two one-bedroom flats would not generate significant additional noise and general disturbance as compared to a three-bedroom house as to warrant the refusal of permission.

The rear dormers would not result in any undue direct overlooking of adjoining properties as they would be sited 28 metres from the rear boundary of the property. The main rear elevations of properties fronting Windsor Avenue are separated from the application site by at least 15 metres, the length of their rear gardens. No 62 adjoins the site to the north west but the dormers would bear a similar relationship to this property as existing rear facing windows and any additional overlooking from the dormers would not be significant.

The side skylight and a secondary first floor side window which would serve a living room would be obscure glazed and would be controlled by condition.

The proposal would not result in any undue loss of privacy to adjoining properties, contrary to Policy BE24.

(iii) Acceptability of the accommodation provided

With the large rear garden of No. 64 divided to provide an amenity area for the house of 114 m² and two smaller amenity areas of 80 m² and 94 m² for the two flats, adequate space would be provided to meet adopted standards. Furthermore, the layout of the properties and gardens would ensure that a satisfactory standard of privacy would be achieved.

(iv) Parking provision

The car parking layout shows provision for two cars to be parked within the front garden area of the two flats, with the rear garage providing off-street car parking space for the house, accessed from Grosvenor Crescent via the rear service road. As such, the proposal complies with adopted car parking standards.

(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations

Points 1 and 2 have been dealt with in the main report. The only material loss of light (point 3) would be to a rear facing dining room window at No. 62 from the rear extension to the existing house. This element of the proposal was previously granted permission as the light loss was not considered significant. The occupier of this property has not objected to the proposal. Any rights of light are not a planning matter. As regards point 4, any additional traffic resulting from the proposal would be insignificant as compared to existing traffic levels. In terms of

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 190

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

point 5, an existing permission relates to this site which largely mimics much of this proposal. The skyline will not be unduly blocked from views of adjoining properties (point 6). Point 7 is not a planning matter. Point 8 is noted. Balconies would be prevented by condition (point 9). The rear parking spaces have been omitted, but the parking within rear gardens is characteristic of this area due to the rear access road (point 10). Point 11 is noted.

The comments of the Oak Farm Resident’s Association have been dealt with in the main report.

(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor

When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance and circulars and also, the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Furthermore, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account.

Observations of the Borough Treasurer

As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the Council.

(4) CONCLUSION

The proposal would provide two additional residential units within an established residential area which would not be detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene or the residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. Permission is recommended.

Reference Documents:

(a) 47, Design Guides, ‘Residential Extensions’ and ‘Residential Layouts and House Design’ (b) 4 objection letters

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 191

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 192

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

A Item No. 8 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 9 GLEBE AVENUE, ICKENHAM.

Development: THE RETENTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND THE CONVERSION OF ROOFSPACE TO FORM HABITABLE ROOMS, INVOLVING INSTALLATION OF A FIRST FLOOR REAR WINDOW, TWO SIDE DORMERS AND FOUR ROOFLIGHTS

LBH Ref Nos: 28887/APP/2003/489

Drawing Nos: Location Plan; 02/113/01; 02/113/02; 02/113/03; 02/113/04; 02/113/05; 02/113/06; 02/113/07; 02/113/08; 02/113/10B; 02/113/11B; 02/113/12B; 02/113/13; 02/113/14A; 02/113/15B; 02/113/16B; and 02/113/17.

Date of receipt: 27/02/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 26/03/03

(1) SUMMARY

Planning permission is sought for the retention of a single storey rear extension and conversion of the roof space to form habitable rooms, involving installation of two side dormers, four rooflights and a rear first floor window. Works have commenced on site comprising the construction of the elevations to the rear extension and the removal of a chimney stack. The development is not considered to detract from the character or appearance of the conservation area or harm the amenities of adjoining occupiers. As such, it is recommended for approval.

(2) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (M1) Details/Samples to be 1. (M2) Standard Submitted (roof tiles) (prior to the any further works commencing) 2. (RPD1) No Additional 2. (RPD1) Standard Windows or Doors (facing nos. 7 & 11 Glebe Avenue) 3. (RPD7) Obscure Glazing and 3. (RPD7) Standard Non-Opening Windows (both side dormer windows) 4. A drawing at a scale of 1:50 4. (M1) Standard detailing the junction between the tiled roof and the new flat roof of the rear extension shall be submitted to and approved prior to the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 193

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

construction of the roof of the rear extension. 5. (MRD4) Single Dwelling 5. (MRD4) Standard Occupation 6. The rooflights shall be 6. (M2) Standard (and planning ‘Heritage’ or ‘Conservation’ policy BE4) type and details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. 7. (OM1) Development in (OM1) Standard accordance with approved plans

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Building Regulations 3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work

(3) CONSIDERATIONS

(3)(a) Site and Locality

No. 9 is located on the north side of Glebe Avenue opposite its junction with Edinburgh Drive. It is adjacent to an area designated as a ‘Local Centre’ and is within the Ickenham Village Conservation Area. This part of Glebe Avenue comprises single storey detached bungalows.

(3)(b) Scheme

Planning permission is sought for the retention of the single storey rear extension, the installation of two side dormer windows, four rooflights, and a high level window at rear first floor level. The dormer windows measure 2.9m wide, 1.4m high by 1.8m deep. They are set in the middle third of the roof slope, set back 5.1m from the front elevation. The rear extension measures 9.55m wide, extending across the full width of the bungalow, and 3.4m deep. The roof of the rear extension is part flat and part pitched. The flat roof section is 2.8m high and the pitched roof section is 4.0m high. Work has commenced on site and as of 30 April, the elevations to the rear extension and the removal of a chinmey stack have been carried out.

(3)(c) Planning History

In February 2002, planning permission (ref: 28887/APP/2001/2405) was refused for the erection of a single rear extension, front extension to the existing porch and garage, installation of side dormer windows and new front bay window, on the grounds that the proposal would be visually intrusive, overdominant, project

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 194

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

beyond the front building line and result in a loss of privacy by reason of overlooking.

In February 2003, planning permission (ref: 28887/APP/2002/2892) was refused for the erection of single storey rear extension, conversion of roofspace to provide additional habitable rooms involving installation of first floor rear french doors with guard rail and four side dormers, for the following reason:

“The proposed dormer windows by reason of their siting would result in the direct overlooking of the adjoining properties causing an unacceptable loss of privacy to the adjoining occupiers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies BE20 and BE24 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and design principle A3 from the Council’s design guide “Residential Extensions”.

(3)(d) Planning Policies and Standards

UDP Designation: Ickenham Village Conservation Area.

Part 1 Policies:

Pt 1.8: Proposals to preserve or enhance conservation areas Pt 1.10: New development will not adversely affect residential amenity.

Part 2 Policies:

BE4: Requires new development within or on the fringes of Conservation Areas to preserve or enhance those features, which contribute to the special architectural and visual qualities of the area.

BE13: Requires new development to harmonise with the existing street scene.

BE15: Requires extension to harmonise with the scale form and architectural composition of the original building.

BE19: Requires new development to improve or compliment the character of the area.

BE20: Requires that new development ensure adequate sunlight and daylight can penetrate between buildings.

BE21: Planning permission will not be granted for new development that results in a loss of residential amenity by reason of siting bulk and proximity.

BE23: Requires the provision of adequate amenity space.

BE24: Requires new development to ensure adequate levels of privacy to neighbours

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 195

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

“RESIDENTIAL EXTENSIONS” DESIGN GUIDE DESIGN PRINCIPLES A1 and A2 Building Lines / impact in the street scene A3 Impact of mass, bulk and overlooking A4 Visual impact of a development A5 Design of extensions / materials A1/12 Dormer W9indows

(3)(e) Consultations

External Consultees

5 letters of objection have been received making the following comments:

1) Overlooking from the dormer windows resulting in loss of privacy; 2) Materials of the rear extension do not match the existing building; 3) Overshadowing and loss of light; 4) Out of character with the area; 5) Over dominant in relation to surrounding bungalows; 6) Lack of car parking; 7) Development is for commercial gain; and 8) Works commencing without planning approval.

Ickenham Conservation Area Advisory Most of the amendments are Panel welcomed however the Panel remains concerned that the design does little to enhance the conservation area and the scale is indicative of over-development. The reduction in the number of side dormer windows is welcome however their design is unfortunate. The width of the dormers should be reduced to 2m or less. No objection to the introduction of rooflights. The arched roofs over the dormer windows are ungainly and that there is insufficient detail of materials including the glazed roof. Ickenham Residents’ Association Objects to the design of the dormers being excessive and over dominant; presumption against side dormers and velux windows that are visible from the street in conservation areas; overlooking from the dormer windows; and concern over works commencing without prior planning approval.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 196

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Internal Consultees

Conservation Officer No objection to the scheme subject to conditions requiring further details on the rooflights, materials and the junction between the existing and proposed roof for the rear extension.

(3)(f) Main Planning Issues

The main issues for consideration are:

(i) The impact on the appearance of the street and the character and appearance of the conservation area; and (ii) Impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

(i) The impact on the appearance of the street and the character and appearance of the conservation area

The extension replaced a previous rear extension. The elevations of the rear extension have been constructed in blockwork. It is proposed to render the elevations. The size and scale of the rear extension is considered to be acceptable, and complies with the Council’s residential design guide. It relates satisfactorily with the appearance of the bungalow and does not result in an overdominant form of development.

It is proposed to install one dormer window on either side of the roof slope, set within the middle third of the roof slope. They are considered to be subordinate to roof and comply with the Council’s residential design guide. The set back of the dormers from the front elevation is considered to lessen their impact on the street scene. The rooflights and rear first floor window are considered to be acceptable.

Therefore, it is considered that the development would not adversely impact on the street scene or detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area, in line with policies BE4, BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP.

(ii) Impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties

The previously refused scheme proposed two dormer windows on either side of the roof to form two bathrooms and a bedroom within the roof slope. The dormer windows resulted in overlooking and loss of privacy to adjoining occupiers.

This application proposes one dormer on either side to provide light to two bathrooms. These windows would be fitted with obscure glazing and fixed to prevent any overlooking. As such, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy and now overcomes the previous reason of refusal.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 197

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

The rear extension will result in additional overshadowing onto the rear gardens of adjoining properties, however this overshadowing is not considered to be sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission.

Therefore, it is considered that the development would not result in a significant loss of residential amenity, in line with policies BE20, BE21, BE23 and BE24 of the UDP.

(3)(g) Comments on Public Consultations

Points 1-5 are addressed in main body of the report. On point 6, no additional parking is required, as it is not proposed to provide additional dwelling units. Point 7 is not a planning matter and on point 8, the works have commenced without the benefit of planning permission. They are being carried out in accordance with the submitted plans. If Members resolve to refuse planning permission a separate report considering the expediency of enforcement action will be presented to a future committee.

The Conservation Area Advisory Panel recommended alterations to the design of the dormers. However, it is not considered that the dormer windows would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

(3)(h) Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

(4) CONCLUSION

The development is not considered to harm the appearance of the street scene or the character and appearance of the conservation area. Furthermore, it is not considered to harm residential amenity. As such, it is recommended for approval.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 198

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Reference Documents:

(a) UDP (b) Design Guide: Residential Extension (b) 7 letters received

Contact Officer: EMILY LOW Telephone No: 01895277825

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 199

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 200

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 9 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 21 KENBURY CLOSE, ICKENHAM

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND REPLACEMENT GARAGE

LBH Ref Nos: 55816/APP/2003/437

Drawing Nos: (00) 01, P10, P11, P12, P13.

Date of receipt: 24/02/03

CONSULTATIONS:

Four adjoining owner/occupiers were consulted, together with the Ickenham Residents Association. One objection letter received from neighbouring property, which raises the following planning concerns: -

(i) Loss of light to side dining room and rear patio. (ii) Roof would appear dominant. (iii) Contrary to Council’s Design Guide “Residential Extensions”.

Ickenham Residents Association have objected:

(i) Proposal is contrary to Council’s design guidelines and UDP. (ii) Extension would result in loss of light and general amenity to side windows at No. 20.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• No 21 is located on the north side of Kenbury Close, and comprises a detached bungalow with detached garage and associated outbuildings. The application site forms part of the developed area as designated by the UDP.

• The proposal is for the erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement garage.

• The single storey rear extension would have a total depth of 6 metres, a width of 8 metres, an eaves height of 2.9metres to match the existing bungalow, and a ridge height of 5.1 metres. The rear extension would also be setback 2.3 metres from the western (side) boundary and 1 metre from the eastern boundary of the site.

• The replacement garage will be located on the same footprint as the existing garage, but with a slightly higher wall height of 2.5 metres. It will have a flat roof, unlike the existing garage which has a pitched roof.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 201

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• Council refused an application, ref. 55816/APP/2002/2627 for the erection of a rear extension, raising and extension of the roof, installation of a rear dormer window and erection of a replacement garage on 19/12/02. The application was refused on the grounds that it introduced a gable end wall and an inappropriate dormer window and by reason of its overall size, height and siting, was considered overdominant and visually obtrusive.

• The current application differs from the previous application in that it is now proposing a single storey rear extension, which does not incorporate a rear dormer window and gable end wall. Furthermore, it does not raise the height of the existing roof.

• The design of the proposed single storey rear extension is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building. The proposed garage due to its siting, at the rear of the property, would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene.

• The side elevation of No. 20 is already overshadowed by the existing bungalow at No. 21 and the boundary fence. Additional overshadowing to Nos. 20 and 22 Kenbury Close is not considered sufficient to warrant the refusal of planning permission, as only part of their rear gardens would be affected.

• The proposal is considered acceptable

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

RECOMMENDATION – APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match 2. (M2) Standard Existing Buildings

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 202

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows or 3. (RPD1) Standard Doors (facing 20 and 22 Kenbury Close) 4. Prior to the commencement of 4. To safeguard the privacy of works, the 2 metre high close adjoining occupiers. boarded fence shown on the side boundary with No. 20 Kenbury Close in Drw. No. P12, received 24/02/03 shall be provided on site and thereafter permanently retained.

INFORMATIVES

1. You are advised this permission is based on the dimensions provided on the approved drawings as numbered above. The development hereby approved must be constructed precisely in accordance with the approved drawings. Any deviation from these drawings requires the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. 2. You are advised that if any part of the development hereby permitted encroaches by either its roof, walls, eaves, gutters or foundations then a new planning application will have to be submitted. This planning permission is not valid for a development that results in any form of encroachment. 3. You are advised that this permission does not dispense with the necessity to obtaining approval or consent under the Building Regulations Building Acts and other relevant legislation or regulations. You should contact Building Control Services, Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Tel. 01895 250111 ext 3806) if you require further information. 4. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction 5. (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light

Reference Documents:

(a) UDP (b) 2 letters making representation (the contents of which are summarised in the report) (c) Residential Design Guide.

Contact Officer: ROBERT SZYMANSKI Telephone No: 01895 277 081

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 203

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 204

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 10 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 9 HALFORD ROAD, ICKENHAM

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY FRONT EXTENSION WITH PITCH ROOF

LBH Ref Nos: 11805/APP/2003/460

Drawing Nos: 09/01 and 09/02

Date of receipt: 27/02/03

Dates(s) of Amendment(s): None.

CONSULTATIONS:

One letter has been received offering no objections to the proposal, providing the roof does not exceed the height of the existing roof and no overlooking arising from the proposed window in the front elevation.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• The application site comprises a detached bungalow with an attached side garage and single storey rear extension. It within a developed area. • The proposed full width extension would measure 3.9m deep on the west side elevation and 3.3m deep on the east side elevation due to the existing stepped front elevation of the bungalow. It would have an eaves height of 3.1m and ridge height of 6.7m to match the height and design of the existing bungalow. The two windows in the front elevation would match the existing windows in size, proportion and height but would be constructed as bay windows, which would project beyond the new front elevation by 0.3m. An additional high level window measuring 1.4m by 0.6m is proposed in the roof of the front elevation. • Halford Road does not have a uniform front building line in this vicinity. No. 9 is set back from the front building line of other dwellings in this part of Halford Road. The extension would align with the front building line of the neighbouring property at No. 7 and be set back from No. 11. As such the proposal would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene and complies with polices BE13 and BE19 of the UDP. One additional window to the existing western side extension of the bungalow is proposed but this would serve a bathroom window and be obscure glazed, controlled by a condition. No. 11 does not contain any windows in the side elevation and No. 7 does not have any side windows facing the proposal other than the small side element of a front bay window. The front elevation of neighbouring properties on the opposite side of the road are greater than 30m from the front elevation of the proposal. As such there would be no impact on residential amenity due to loss of privacy, loss of

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 205

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

light or overshadowing. The scheme complies with policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP. • The roof of extension does not extend beyond the existing roof height. The matter of has been discussed above and it is considered that the proposal will not cause overlooking.

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match Existing 2. (M2) Standard Buildings 3. (RPD1) No additional windows or doors 3. (RPD1) Standard (facing No.7 and No. 11 Halford Road) 4. (RDP3) Obscure glazing (bathroom window 4. (RDP3) Standard facing No.11 Halford Road)

INFORMATIVES

1. (7) Building Regulations 2. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work 3. (36) Property Rights

Contact Officer: EMILY LOW Telephone No: 01895 277 825

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 206

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 207

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 11 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 69 COPTHALL ROAD WEST, ICKENHAM.

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE)

LBH Ref Nos: 57769/APP/2003/342

Drawing Nos: 1:1250 scale location plan, 1:200 block plan, AJP/2, AJP/3, AJP/5, AJP/6, AJP/7, and AJP/1A.

Date of receipt: 12/02/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 08/04/2003

CONSULTATIONS:

One letter of objection was received concerning loss of light. No reply was received from Ickenham Residents Association.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• Planning permission (reference 57769/APP/2002/2351) for a two storey side extension was refused on 08/11/03 on the grounds of closing the visual gap and being a visually obtrusive form of development. Planning permission (reference: 57769/APP/2002/2735) for a two storey side extension was refused on 09/01/03 on the grounds of closing the visual gap and being a visually obtrusive form of development. This planning permission is for a single storey side extension. • The proposed side extension is for the full length of the side elevation and replaces an existing detached garage. The extension would project 2.2m from the existing side elevation, 1.0m from the existing rear elevation and 0.9m forward of the existing front elevation to align with an existing porch. The extension measures 2.7m high to the eaves level with a mock pitched roof to a total height of 3.5m. The existing door in the side elevation is to be replaced with a window and one additional window is proposed for the study. The UDP designation is developed area. • In the original scheme, the eaves height of the side extension was 3.0m with a pitched roof to a total height of 4.0m. An amended scheme was requested in order to reduce its height and to lessen its impact on the neighbouring property, No. 67. . There is an existing fence and hedge between the neighbour at No. 67. No. 67 has one window on the side elevation located behind the existing garage. The extension would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or be overbearing. The scheme is therefore in line with policies BE20 and BE21. • The extension replaces an existing garage and front porch. The scheme would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene and is in keeping with the

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 208

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

character and design of the house. As such the scheme complies with planning policies BE13, BE15 and BE19 of the UDP.

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match 2. (M2) Standard Existing Buildings 3. (RPD1) No Additional Windows 3. (RPD1) Standard or Doors ‘No. 67 Copthall Road’. 4. (RPD3) Obscure Glazing 4. (RPD3) Standard ‘bath, toilet and study window facing No. 67 Copthall Road West’ ‘and the study window shall be top opening only’ 5. (RPD4) Prevention of Balconies 5. (RPD4) Standard 6. (M6) Boundary fence - retention (M6) Standard

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Building Regulations 3. (20) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work

Contact Officer: EMILY LOW Telephone No: 01895 277825

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 209

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 210

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 12 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277722

Address: 192 COWLEY ROAD, UXBRIDGE

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION AND GARAGE AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO FORM A SELF-CONTAINED TWO- BEDROOM FLAT

LBH Ref Nos: 2847/APP/2002/628

Drawing Nos: AFC02 – S, unnumbered site location plan and AFC02/01A (amended)

Date of receipt: 08/07/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 29/08/02

This application was deferred from the Uxbridge Planning Committee held on 8 April 2003 to enable Members to make a site visit.

CONSULTATIONS:

1 letter of objection was received from the Greenway Conservation Panel concerning the impact of the proposal on the existing building. The scheme has now been revised and is now considered to be in keeping with the existing property and the surrounding area.

Conservation Officer – No Objections

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

UDP DESIGNATION: Greenway Conservation Area

• The proposal is for a self-contained unit. The single storey side extension is 3.2m wide, 7.4m deep and 5.7m high. The rear extension is 3m wide, 3.3m deep and 4.2m high. The new self-contained flat would incorporate a new kitchen and bathroom in the ground floor extensions.

• The proposal has been revised removing the external staircase which will now be incorporated within the proposed side extension, creating a separate access to the first floor. The side extension would also enlarge the ground floor area of the retail unit.

• Two parking spaces at the rear of the property have been provided in compliance with the car parking standards. Adequate amenity space has also been provided.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 211

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• The application site has an existing extension 15m deep on the side facing No. 194. It is therefore considered that the proposed extensions would have little impact on the neighbouring property No. 194.

• The proposed garage would replace an existing garage and would be located further back from the rear boundary with No. 85 Chiltern View Road. The garage is 2.8m wide and 2.7m high. It is not considered to result in a loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring property, as there are no side windows facing No. 85.

• It is considered that the proposed extensions would not be visible from the road as there is a 1.8m high fence along the boundary. The materials and fenestration would match the existing property. Therefore the proposal is considered not to affect the character and appearance of the Greenway Conservation Area. The Conservation Officer has no objections.

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

To be reported.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard 3. (H7) Parking Arrangements 3. (H7) Standard (Residential) 4. (RPD6) A 1.8m high fence or 4. (RPD6) Standard imperforate wall shall be maintained on the boundary with (‘With Chiltern View Road’) 5. (RPD1) No Additional Doors or 5. (RPD1) Standard Windows (‘….facing 85 Chiltern View Road, 94 Cowley Road & Chiltern View Road’) 6. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 6. (OM5) Standard 7. (TL20) Amenity Areas 7. (TL20) Standard (Residential Developments)

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 212

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (24) Crossover

Reference Documents:

(a) UDP (b) 1 letter of objection

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 213

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 214

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 13 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 66 SWAN ROAD, WEST DRAYTON

Development: ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO FORM A TWO-BEDROOM SELF-CONTAINED UNIT AT REAR (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY)

LBH Ref Nos: 19540/APP/2002/1936

Drawing Nos: A) 66SR/09 & 66SR/10, B) letter dated: 13/11/02, 66SR/8, 66SR/12 unnumbered site plan.

Date of receipt: A) 12/08/02 Date(s) of Amendment(s): B) 14/11/02

CONSULTATIONS:

Nine neighbouring properties, the West Drayton Residents’ Association and the West Drayton Green Conservation Panel were consulted. One objection letter from the Conservation Panel was received. The issues raised relate to overlooking, rear outlook and the depth of the rear extension. These matters are addressed in the report.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• The application relates to a retail property on the ground floor with a residential flat above. It is located in a shopping parade within walking distance of West Drayton Town Centre and near to the West Drayton Green Conservation Area.

• It is proposed to erect a single storey rear extension to form a self contained flat. The proposed self-contained unit is 7.8m deep, 6.2m wide and 3.7m high with a pitch roof. The materials would match the existing property.

• The self-contained unit would incorporate a new kitchen, living area, two new bedrooms and a bathroom. The scheme has been amended to provide sufficient amenity space and one parking space. As the proposal would be in close proximity to the Town Centre, it is considered that further parking spaces would not be required. The Traffic Engineer raises no objections to the scheme.

• Although the rear extension projects relatively deep into the rear garden, it is not considered to result in an adverse impact on No. 64. A similar scheme for a rear extension was granted at No. 64 in 2002. Furthermore, the proposal is not considered to harm the viability of the retail unit at 66.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 215

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

• No. 68 is a residential property. It is considered that as the proposed extension would be set 1m from a 1.8m high side boundary fence, and that the only window facing the neighbouring property would be a high level bathroom window, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy, outlook or overlooking to no. 68.

• The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the neighbouring properties or the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development fulfils the policies and standards adopted by this Council and, as such, planning permission is recommended.

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

As there are no S106 or enforcement issues involved, the recommendations have no financial implications for the planning committee or the council. The officer recommendations are based upon planning considerations only and therefore, if agreed by the planning committee, they should reduce the risk of a successful challenge being made. Hence, adopting the recommendations will reduce the possibility of unbudgeted calls upon the council's financial resources, and the associated financial risk to the Environmental Services Group and the wider Council.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL - subject to the following conditions:-

1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External surfaces to match 2. (M2) Standard 3. (H7) Parking Arrangements 3. (H7) Standard (Residential) 4. (RPD6) A 1.8m high fence or 4. (RPD6) Standard imperforate wall shall be maintained on the boundary with (‘No. 68 Swan Road’) 5. (RPD1) No Additional Doors or 5. (RPD1) Standard Windows (‘….facing Nos. 64 & 68 Swan Road’) 6. (RPD3) Obscured glazing 6. (RPD3) Standard (‘facing Nos. 64 and 68 Swan Road’) 7. (OM5) Provision of Bin Stores 7. (OM5) Standard 8. (TL20) Amenity Areas 8. (TL20) Standard (Residential Developments)

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 216

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

INFORMATIVES

1. (3) Property Rights/Rights of Light 2. (7) Legislation Administered by Building Control 3. (24) Crossover

Contact Officer: NOSHEEN JAVED Telephone No: 01895 277722

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 217

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 218

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 14 Report of the Head of Planning and Transportation

Address: 42 ALBERT ROAD, YIEWSLEY

Development: Conversion of the basement into a one-bedroom flat.

LBH Ref Nos: 30662/APP/2002/2783

Drawing Nos: 02/DB/58/1, 02/DB/58/2, 02/DB/58/3

Date of receipt: 20/11/03 Date(s) of Amendment(s): N/A

CONSULTATIONS:

2 letters of objection have been received. The objections relate to traffic and parking problems created by the proposed flat.

KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

• No. 42 is a semi-detached dwelling house located on the eastern side of Albert Road. The site lies within the Developed Area and is situated in close proximity to the Yiewsley Town Centre.

• The basement layout will remain the same. Internal excavation work will be required in order to achieve required clearance heights. There will be only minimal change in the appearance of the dwelling.

• The property provides in excess of 80m2 of amenity space. It is considered that adequate access to amenity space in the rear garden is provided via the side pathway. The existing amenity area (in excess of 80m2) is large enough to cater for both the existing house and the proposed flat.

• No car parking space is provided. The Traffic Engineer considers that as the site is situated in close proximity to the Yiewsley Town Centre and local public transportation networks, no additional parking spaces are required. Furthermore, the development is not considered to result in an increase in traffic and parking problems.

• The proposal is not considered to result in a loss of privacy is not considered to unduly impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring occupiers.

• The proposal therefore complies with Policies BE13, BE15, BE19, BE20, BE21, and BE23 of the adopted UDP.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 219

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Observations of Borough Solicitor

Observations of Borough Treasurer

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL – subject to the following conditions:

1. (T1) Time Limit (Full) 1. (T1) Standard 2. (M2) External Surfaces to Match 2. (M2) Standard 3. The external amenity space at 3. To ensure the continued the rear of the property will be availability of external amenity made available for use of all space for residents in residents on site. The amenity accordance with policy BE23 of areas shall thereafter be so the Hillingdon Unitary retained. development Plan.

INFORMATIVES

1. (36) Property Rights/Rights to Light 2. (7) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 3. (35) Party Walls

Contact Officer: CAMERON STANLEY Telephone Number: 01895 250840

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 220

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 221

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Item 15 NEW APPEALS AND APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

24 March 2003 to 14 April 2003 New Appeals

Appeal No: 4811 Start Date: 24 March 2003 Application Ref No: 20576/APP/2002/215 Location: 62 The Greenway, Uxbridge Development: Change of use from residential care home (Class C2) to bed and breakfast accommodation (Class C1) and erection of part two-storey and part single-storey side and rear extension and side external staircase (works involve the demolition of existing single-storey side and rear extension) Procedure: Written Representation Appeal Type: Against Refusal *********************** Appeal No: 4822 Start Date: 9 April 2003 Application Ref No: 57402/APP/2002/2483 Location: 80 Halford Road, Uxbridge Development: Erection of an attached garage Procedure: Written Representation Appeal Type: Against Refusal ***********************

Appeal Decisions

Appeal No: 4760 Decision Date: 26 March 2003 Application Ref No: 32186/APP/2002/1349 Location: 10 Dickens Avenue, Hillingdon Development: Extension of a bungalow roof Decision: Dismissed ***********************

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 222

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Appeal No: 4762 Decision Date: 26 March 2003 Application Ref No: 56811/APP/2001/2429 Location: 31 Derby Road, Uxbridge Development: New dwelling in grounds of No. 31 Decision: Allowed *********************** Appeal No: 4738 Decision Date: 28 March 2003 Application Ref No: 57069/APP/2002/1709 Location: 15-17 High Road, Ickenham Development: New building with ground floor offices and first and second floor flats Decision: Dismissed ***********************

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 223

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL CONTACT OFFICER: KELVIN WILLIAMS EXTENSION: 3556

Item 16 OFFICER DELEGATED CASES - UXBRIDGE AREA

SUMMARY

Members expressed an interest in receiving a monthly update on the number and type of officer delegated decisions made each month.

A list of planning decisions determined by the Head of Planning Services under delegated powers is attached.

RECOMMENDATION

That Members note the content of this report.

INFORMATION

Between 01/03/03 and 31/03/03 there were 82 cases determined under delegated authority.

BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS

Nil.

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8 May 2003 Page 224

PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS - 65 -

LIST OF BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY BE USED IN THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS

Title Date Publisher 1 Available Premises Register (6 monthly) LBH 2 Buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest LBH (Being Updated) 3 Colne Valley Park: A Vision for the future and a Strategy 1995 Colne Valley Park 4 Conservation Area Study- Hillingdon Village 1981 LBH 5 Conservation Area Study- Old Uxbridge 1990 LBH 6 Conservation Area Study-Hayes Village 1981 LBH 7 Ecology Handbook 4- Woodland, Wasteland, the Tidal 1986 London Thames in two London Boroughs Ecology Unit 8 Ecology Handbook 7- Nature Conservation in Hillingdon 1988 London Ecology Unit 9 Ecology Handbook 8- London Meadows: Pastures 1988 London Ecology Unit 10 Funding for Training Initiatives Policy (Initial Draft) 1999 LBH 11 Gledwood Estate Replacement Roofs Policy 1992 LBH 12 Government Circulars (Various) DETR/HMSO 13 Hillingdon Census Atlas 1991 LBH 14 Hillingdon Census Employment Monitor 1991 LBH 15 Hillingdon Census Monitor 1991 LBH 16 Industrial Profile (Annual) LBH 17 LPAC: Strategic Planning Advice for London 1994 LPAC 18 LPAC: Supplementary Strategic Advice (Various) LPAC 19 Minerals Policy Guidance Notes (Various) DETR 20 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Industrial, Office & LBH Warehousing Developments (Quarterly). 21 Outstanding Planning Permissions for Residential LBH Developments & Hotels (Quarterly). 22 Parking Standards 1998 LBH 23 Parliamentary Acts (Various) HMSO 24 Parliamentary Statutory Instruments (Various) HMSO 25 Parliamentary White Papers (Various) HMSO 26 Planning Brief- 40- Western Avenue- Hillingdon Circus 1990 LBH 27 Planning Brief- Block 13, Uxbridge Town Centre 1990 LBH 28 Planning Brief- Blocks 6 & 7, Uxbridge Town Centre 1988 LBH 29 Planning Brief- Breakspear House, Harefield 1997 LBH

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8th May 2003 Page 65 - 66 -

Title Date Publisher 30 Planning Brief- British Waterways Land at Packet Boat 1997 LBH Lane, Cowley Peachey 31 Planning Brief- Former Barn Hill School Site, Yeading 1998 LBH Lane, Hayes 32 Planning Brief- Hayes Station Site 1996 LBH 33 Planning Brief- Hillingdon House Farm, Park Road, 1988 LBH Uxbridge 34 Planning Brief- Minet Estate 1988 LBH 35 Planning Brief- Thorn Complex, Blyth Road, Hayes 1997 LBH 36 Planning Inspectorate/ Secretary of State for ETR- HMSO Inspectors Decisions on Planning Appeals 37 Planning Policy Guidance Notes DETR 38 Regional Planning Guidance Note3 (London) 1996 HMSO 39 Regional Planning Guidance Note9 (South East) 1994 HMSO 40 SERPLAN: Regional Strategy and Reviews (Various) SERPLAN 41 Standards for Canalside Development 1993 London Canals Committee 42 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Changes to 1995 LBH Boundaries and Gradings of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 43 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential 1999 LBH Layouts, Landscaping and House Design (Consultation Draft) 44 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Guidance for 1998 LBH Seeking funding for School Places from Residential Development 45 The Canal Way: A Review 1990 LBH 46 Transport Policies and Programme 1999/2000 1998 LBH 47 Unitary Development Plan (Adopted) 1998 LBH

Planning Services: Friday, 05 March 1999

Uxbridge Planning Committee – 8th May 2003 Page 66