planning report PDU/2857/02 2 October 2012 Land at Colonial Drive, Bollo Lane, Chiswick Park in the London Borough of Ealing planning application no. P/2012/0338

Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal Demolition of the existing warehouses and the erection of a mixed-use development of up to eight storeys comprising 124 residential units (33 x affordable and 91 market units), 589sq.m of office space (Use Class B1) and a 478 sq.m. childcare facility (Use Class D1). The provision of 12 disabled car parking spaces and four integral cycle stores. Provision of footpath on North boundary to link Bollo Lane to Chiswick Business Park, associated public realm, landscaping and toddler play space.

The applicant The applicant is Blackstone Ltd. and the architect is BFLS.

Strategic issues The Mayor previously raised issues relating to housing, children’s playspace, design, inclusive design, climate change, biodiversity, noise air quality and transport. These matters have now been satisfactorily resolved and the proposed application is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms.

The Council’s decision

In this instance Ealing Council has resolved to grant permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106. Recommendation That Ealing Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 9 February 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Ealing Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 “Development… which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” 2 On 13 March 2012 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2857&2857a/01, and subsequently advised Ealing Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 105 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 106 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 16 May 2012 Ealing Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission and on 25 September 2012 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Ealing Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Ealing Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 9 October 2012 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4 It should be noted that Ealing Council formally adopted its Core Strategy in April 2012.

5 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update

6 A the consultation stage the Council was advised that the application complies with some London Plan polices but not with others, for the following reasons:

 Principle of development: The site is specifically identified as being suitable for a mixed- use redevelopment in both Ealing’s Employment Land Review and its draft Development site DPD and the site is being released from its current employment designation in a managed and planned way. Therefore, the loss of borough employment land is accepted and the principle of an alternative mix of uses on the site is acceptable. The principle of the application for the proposed Bridge has been established by the extant permission and it is therefore acceptable.  Mix of uses: The proposed mix of office, creche and residential units is acceptable in principle on this site.

 Affordable housing: Further information and discussion is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy.

 Density: The density complies with London Plan Policy 3.4.

 Children’s Playspace: The application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6, subject to further details of the proposed contribution. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

 Urban design: The application does not comply with London Plan design policy.

 Inclusive design: Further information is required to comply with London Plan Policy 7.2.

 Climate change: The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and the application complies with this Policy.

 Biodiversity: The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.19.

 Noise: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 7.15.

 Air quality: Further discussion and information may be required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan air quality policy.

 Transport: Further information is required to ensure the applicant complies with London Plan transport policy.

7 It was also advised that the following changes might, however, remedy the above- mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Affordable housing: The Council should send a copy of the independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal to officers when it has been received. Further discussion will be required with the Council and applicant at that stage.  Children’s Playspace: Further details of the proposed financial contribution are required. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

 Urban design: The applicant is required to address the concerns raised regarding the internal layout of some of the units and the way in which the ground floor of the development addresses the public realm.

 Inclusive design: The applicant should include typical flat layouts that demonstrate that the Lifetime Homes criteria have been addressed. It should also indicate on the plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located. The applicant should demonstrate the adaptability of homes proposed. The Council should secure the appropriate management and maintenance of the external lift associated with the Bridge through the section 106 agreement, including a clause which will ensures repairs are made as soon as is practicable possible.

 Climate change: The proposed energy strategy should be secured via condition. Furthermore, the applicant should provide roof drawings showing potential location for PV, a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided and confirm the location and floor area of the energy centre for the development.

 Biodiversity: Further discussions are required between officers, the applicant the Council and the London Wildlife Trust to determine the best approach to avoid adverse impact on the reserve and to sufficiently mitigate any impacts.

 Noise: The measured noise levels should be reviewed and clarified, especially noise from railway lines to the north boundary of the site and vibration from trains should be assessed in greater detail, preferably based on site measurements. Furthermore, balconies should be treated as private amenity spaces and that appropriate noise levels within such spaces should be maintained. The council should impose suitable conditions are to ensure reasonable or good internal acoustic conditions for residents and to ensure a reasonable or good standard of protection for the local environment due to noise arising from the development itself.

 Air quality: Further discussion and information may be required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan air quality policy.

 Transport: The applicant is required to address the lack of assessment of the pedestrian and cycle network surrounding the site and provide an updated Travel Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan. The level of parking, the Travel Plan and the Construction Logistics Plan should be secured by condition or within the Section 106 agreement. Affordable housing

8 At the consultation stage the applicant proposed 33 affordable units, 27% of the total number of units (and by habitable room) with a 70:30 intermediate to social rented split (59:41 split by habitable room). The Council was required to send a copy of the independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal to the GLA to inform further discussion with the Council and applicant regarding the affordable housing offer.

9 The independent assessment of the viability appraisal indicated that the affordable housing offer put forward by the applicant was not the maximum reasonable amount that could be sought without impacting the viability of the scheme. Ealing Council subsequently secured an off-site cash-in-lieu payment of £1.2 million for the provision of eight/ten family homes to be built by the Council through the Local Authority New build Programme.

10 Paragraph 3.74 of the London Plan states that affordable housing provision is normally required on-site and only in exceptionally circumstances should it be provided off-site or through a cash in lieu contribution ring fenced, and if appropriate ‘pooled’, to secure efficient delivery of new affordable housing on identified sites elsewhere. The revised early minor alterations to the London Plan (consultation draft June 2012) strengthens the policy position regarding off site provision for affordable housing further.

11 In the context of the current and emerging London Plan Policy, officers requested further justification for the proposed cash-in-lieu affordable housing payment and further information about how the payment will be used. The Council has now confirmed that the off-site provision of eight/ten new affordable units will be located in either the Golf Links Estate Southall or the Copley Estate Greenford or both and this has been secured through the Section 106 agreement.

12 Given that 33 units will be delivered on site, the development site is constrained and could not reasonably deliver more units, particularly more family sized units, than proposed, and that the Council has specified where and what programmes the cash-in-payment will be used, in this instance, the cash-in-lieu payment is acceptable.

13 The viability of the scheme has been tested by an independent assessment and the updated offer of 33 onsite affordable units and a cash-in-lieu payment is accepted and the application now complies with London Plan 3.12.

Children’s playspace

14 At the consultation stage, the onsite provision of 212 sq.m. of playspace for under-five was considered acceptable, subject to a further financial contribution towards offsite play provision for older children to be agreed with the Council .

15 Ealing Council and the applicant have agreed a contribution of £25,987 towards off site children’s play provision and this has been secured through the Section 106 agreement. The application now complies with London Plan Policy 3.6.

Urban design

16 Whilst the internal residential design is generally of a high quality, concerns were raised at the consultation stage regarding the size of the single bedrooms in the four bedrooms units, which were below the minimum room size set out in the Housing Design. The applicant has now reconfigured the internal layout and increased the size of these rooms to a minimum of eight sq.m in line with the Mayor’s Housing Design Guide and this is welcomed.

17 Concerns were raised regarding the quality of the route through the site and the lack of overlooking or activity. The applicant was asked to make the main entrance to each core accessible from the route in addition to the central concierge service to increase activity at ground level. Furthermore, officer sought to reduce the lack of undercroft car parking and servicing on the ground floor elevation.

18 The applicant has committed to making each core accessible from the street and this is welcomed. The applicant has explained due to the constrained nature of the site, it is unable to relocate the parking or servicing facilities and this is disappointing. However, on balance, the design is acceptable in strategic policy terms. Inclusive design

19 At the consultation stage, the applicant was asked to provide typical flat layouts that demonstrate that the Lifetime Homes criteria have been addressed. It was also required to indicate on the plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located and demonstrate the adaptability of homes proposed.

20 The applicant has provided the required information and the application now complies with London Plan Policy 3.8 and 7.2. Climate change

21 Previously, the applicant was required to provide roof drawings showing potential location for PV, a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided and confirm the location and floor area of the energy centre for the development. The Council was asked to secure the proposed energy strategy via condition.

22 The applicant has now submitted all the required information and Ealing Council have attached a number of detailed energy conditions to ensure the development complies with London Plan climate change policy. This is welcomed and the application now complies with London Plan London Plan Policy.

Biodiversity

23 The stage one report set out that whilst the Gunnersbury Triangle is a relatively small and isolated nature reserve, it is strategically important because it comprises an area of semi-natural woodland linked to habitats along the adjacent railway corridors. Therefore, whilst the development site itself is of negligible ecological and biodiversity value, and the redevelopment of this site is not a concern in principle, due to the close proximity of the development site to Gunnersbury Triangle the indirect impact must be properly addressed. Consequently, the scale and

density of the development may result in: increased use of the nature reserve due to the lack of alternative easily accessible green space; reduction in the tranquillity of the nature reserve and people’s enjoyment of it and the disturbance to wildlife due to the increased use of the site and increased activity adjacent to the site. The stage one report required further mitigation and management measures to offset the adverse impacts of the development.

24 The stage one report suggested that appropriate mitigation may be a financial contribution to address the additional management cost associated with higher numbers of users and provision of additional communal amenity space on the application site to reduce the use of the nature reserve by residents. The applicant has demonstrated that due to the constrained nature of site, it is unable to provide additional communal amenity space onsite and this is accepted. Other mitigation and management measures are discussed below.

25 London Wildlife Trust, who manages the Reserve, Hounslow Council, who own it, and a number of local groups and individuals have objected to the proposal. The majority of objections received (detailed below) regarding the application relate to the impact the proposal may have on the Nature Reserve. The main concerns raised were:

1) The negative impact the development may have on the local flora and fauna due to building itself, such as the additional noise and light pollution and the dust and noise pollution caused during the construction period, particularly bats and nesting birds

2) The negative impact the development may have on the local flora and fauna due to the increased number of local residents, such as the misuse of the Reserve by new residents as a ‘back garden’ due to the lack of onsite amenity space, rubbish being thrown into the reserve, more users disturbing sensitive wildlife e.g. nesting birds.

3) The negative impact the development may have on the atmosphere of the triangle, which is currently quiet and relatively secluded. The proposal will be significantly more visible than the existing industrial buildings, increasing the sense that the Reserve is overlooked and reducing the level of seclusion.

4) The cumulative impact of several new developments in the area and the increased number of people in the are associated with these new developments, including the Chiswick Business Park and, in particular the mixed-use residential led building which has recently been built next to the proposal site. (discussed below)

26 In assessing points 1) and 2), the impact of the building and the additional people who use the Reserve, it is relevant to consider the Inspector’s decisions regarding the neighbouring site which also backs onto the Reserve. This involved a recently built five/six-storey residential-led mixed use development comprising 57 residential flats and 1,100 sq.m. of commercial floorspace (B1) which was subject to two appeal decisions, one in June 2008 (APP/A5270/A008/2069286) and one in July 2010 (APP/A5270/A/10/2124329).

The June 2010 decision states:

“It is likely that the appeal project would cause disturbance at the nature reserve, and that this would affect the habitats and animals present. That being said, many and perhaps the worst of these impacts would be restricted to the construction period, and not long-lived. The unilateral undertaking includes a financial contribution to the nature reserve which will help to protect the habitats and mitigate the effects of the scheme. I consider this to be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances. In addition, benefiting local wildlife in the longer term, the proposed building would include a ‘green roof’, and the inclusion of bat and bird boxes has been suggested, which I shall secure through a condition. Measures to limit the spillage of light from the development to the reserve would be included, and I

shall also impose a condition requiring this. Furthermore, while the scheme would result in some noise reaching the reserve, I consider it improbable that this would add substantially to existing levels, given the proximity of the railway line and houses and gardens beyond it. As the building would be to the north of the reserve, it would not overshadow it. That children from the new homes would cause a problem on the reserve is not inevitable. Overall, in my view, both the short and long term impacts would be sufficiently limited and having regard to the benefits in this respect are insufficient to prevent the scheme.”

27 Whilst the application site extends further along the boundary, is larger and the proposal is, in places, two-storeys higher than the 2 Bollo Lane, the Inspector’s comments regarding noise overshadowing and the misuse of the reserve are relevant to this application. Also similarly to the 2 Bollo Lane development, the worst impact of this development is likely to be during the construction phase, a relatively limited period of time and will be managed in accordance with the construction environment management plan, which is secured by condition.

28 Since the application was submitted the applicant has met with the Council, GLA officers, Natural England and the London Wildlife Trust and has provided additional information assessing the impact of the development.It has committed to a range of mitigation measures to reduce the impact of the development on the Reserve. These measures include: providing a dense vegetation buffer along the southern boundary of the application site to create a visual screen and to help maintain a dark strip along the boundary where some bats are known to forage; providing bird and bat boxes specifically designed for local species; providing a green roof; onsite planting will consider of native plant species; and a comprehensive sustainable urban drainage strategy to prevent polluted run-off entering the reserve and also to improve the water supply to the reserve to maintain the water levels within the ponds. A lighting strategy has also been secured by condition to minimise light spill and the impact on wildlife in the Reserve.

29 Furthermore, to mitigate the impact of point 2), the impact of additional visitors to the Reserve and the potential for misuse, officers have also secured a £245,000 financial contribution from the applicant, comprising £20,000 for education and engagement initiatives and £225,000 to fund a warden at the Nature Reserve (a full time position for 9 years or as appropriate) together with the appropriate management strategy to address these impacts. Hounslow Council, who own the site and oversee its management, has stated that it has no intention of providing a full time warden and therefore the contribution does not mitigate the harm to the Reserve and may not comply with Section 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010.

30 However, if after the development is built, there is evidence of significant harm caused to the reserve by misuse or by an increase of users, an issue raised by GLA officers, a number of local groups and the London Wildlife Trust who manage the site on behalf of Hounslow Council, which can only be resolved by a full time presence of a warden on the site, Hounslow Council/ the London Wildlife Trust will require funds to manage and mitigate these issues. Therefore officers are content that the financial contribution proposed as a mitigation measure is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development and as such is a suitable measure to mitigate this potential harm to the Reserve.

31 In consideration of point 3) above, that the proposal will spoil the secluded and quiet atmosphere of the triangle and enjoyment of the space by users, the application site is a site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation and therefore it has a level of protection from direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity from nearby development. However, its visual setting is not accorded the same level of protection in planning policy, as for example, a listed park or Green Belt land. Furthermore, the site is located within an urban area and visitors are well aware that they are in a dense urban environment and therefore cannot expect to be completely secluded from the built development or being overlooked.

32 Whilst the proposed development will be more visible than the 2 Bollo Lane development because it is larger and there is less vegetation along this part of the boundary of the Reserve, the following passage from the June 2008 Inspector’s decision is relevant:

“…The proposed building would be plainly visible to visitors approaching and entering the reserve. However, such visitors would, in any event, be well aware that they were within a dense urban area. Moreover, once inside the reserve views of the building would quickly be lost, for much of the year at least, given the density of the vegetation, and helped by the site’s location towards one corner. In any event, in respect of this issue, it is the effect on wildlife, not visitors, that seems to me more significant. It is not clear that a building of lower height would have markedly less impact in that respect….”

33 In response to concerns raised by local groups and Natural England regarding the cumulative impact of a number of new developments in the area on the Triangle, the applicant has prepared a Cumulative Impact Assessment. This report indicates that there may be short-term minor cumulative effects on the Triangle during the construction and demolition phase in terms of lighting, noise and vibration, air quality and ecology which have been addressed in the paragraphs above. The report also indicated that the increase footfall may have a small cumulative effect on the Triangle. However, this impact can be mitigated through the provision of a full time warden as proposed. Natural England has considered the report and has no objection to the proposal.

34 In conclusion, officers are content that sufficient mitigation and management measures have been secured to minimise any adverse impacts on the Gunnersbury Triangle and the application complies with London Plan Policy 7.19. Noise

35 At the consultation stage, the applicant was required to review and clarify the measured noise levels, especially noise from railway lines to the north boundary of the site and vibration from trains should be assessed in greater detail, preferably based on site measurements. The applicant was advised that balconies should be treated as private amenity spaces and that appropriate noise levels within such spaces should be maintained and the Council should impose suitable conditions are to ensure reasonable or good internal acoustic conditions for residents and to ensure a reasonable or good standard of protection for the local environment due to noise arising from the development itself.

36 The applicant has submitted additional information to address the noise concerns raised previously. The Council has also attached three comprehensive conditions regarding external noise mitigation, external plant and machinery noise mitigation and ceiling/floor details. The application now complies with London Plan Policy 7.15.

Air quality

37 The applicant’s air quality assessment was assessed by officers after the consultation stage in line with London Plan Policy 7.14. The assessment identifies that there are unlikely to be any significant adverse effects on existing local receptors or those that would form part of the proposed development.

38 The development is unlikely to expose new residents to poor air quality. Whilst the development broadly complies with the principles of an ‘air quality neutral’ development, the assessment does not consider this directly. Furthermore, traffic movements associated with the development are unlikely to lead to an increase in concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter at sensitive receptor locations.

39 The application therefore complies with London Plan air quality policy 7.15.

Transport

40 At Stage one concerns were raised with regard to the lack of assessment of pedestrian or cycle routes around the site. However, the applicant has continued discussions with Ealing Council on this matter, and a contribution of £48,500 towards local transport improvements has been secured as part of the application, to include footway improvements around the site. This is considered satisfactory to address TfL’s previous concerns and as such, the application can be considered compliant with London Plan Policies 6.9 Walking and 6.10 Cycling.

41 Revisions to the Travel Plan have been made and it has subsequently been secured through the Section 106 agreement for the site. This is supported by TfL and subsequently ensures the application is compliant with London Plan Policy 6.3 Assessing Effects of Development on Transport Capacity.

42 In addition to the above a clause inserted into the Section 106 agreement to ensure that future residents of the development cannot apply for parking permits in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and a condition has been placed on the consent requiring submission of a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP), which is acceptable.

43 Given the above, the application can be considered to be compliant with the transport policies of the London Plan. Response to consultation

44 Ealing Council consulted more then 350 surrounding residents and businesses by letter. In additional a press notice was placed in the local paper and seven site notices were put up around the site.

45 The Council received more than 400 letters of objection, many of which contain multiple signatures and petitions. Approximately half of these representations were in template form. Four letters of support and one letter for comment were also received.

46 The Mayor directly received 258 representations objecting to the scheme and no letters of support. Reasons for objection/support are summarised below.

Support

47 Four letters of support were received by the Council. The reasons for support include better pedestrian links from the business park to the Reserve and Chiswick Park Station, increased support and use of the nature reserve, aesthetic improvement to the area and the economic benefits for the local community and businesses.

Comment

48 One letter of comment which supports the additional affordable housing and improved links between the station and the Business Park. It also states that additional visitors to the nature reserve would be a good thing in the long term. However, the individual feels the height is excessive and the development should be limited to five storeys.

Petitions

Two petitions objecting to the proposal have been submitted to Ealing Council. The Acton Green save our skyline group petition is signed by 447 individuals and it objects to the proposal on the grounds that out of character, it damages the skyline, the enlargement of the local population, the lack of parking provision, the encroachment of office and how the development will compromise the Gunnersbury Triangle. The other petition was submitted by Hands off our Triangle (HOOT) and is signed by 1,287 individuals. HOOT object to the proposal, which it feels will damage the reserve and it is seeking a more sensitive development, which respects the Triangle. It also seeks an EIA and a minimum 15 metre planted buffer zone between the development and the

Objections

 The proposal will ruin the atmosphere of the Reserve and deter the enjoyment of the space by local people.  The proposal will damage the unique character of the Reserve and its social value, which is what the local community value.  The tranquillity of the triangle will be reduced.  The acid grassland which provides an important habitat is vulnerable to erosion and dog fouling which the development is likely to increase as it is high density with little amenity space.  The Reserve will be a de facto garden for the residents.  People may throw rubbish into the reserve.  The new residents may use the reserve for dog walking which would disturb the wildlife.  The proposal will disturb nocturnal wildlife and predation on/by diurnal species from noise and light pollution.  Flight routes in and out of the reserve for birds will be hampered.  The developer should donate the site to the nature reserve as a gesture of the there concern for the environment and for the local people.  The development will have an adverse impact on green corridors as the building will hem in animals preventing their movement between green spaces.  The proposal will increase flash flooding of the triangle and Bollo Lane, which flooded several times last year.  The housing offered does not match Ealing social housing targets and it is not genuinely affordable.  The building is too tall.  The proximity of tall building to the reserve will make it less attractive to birds.  It will negatively affect the local area, with cars being parked on local streets.  The development should provide its own car club space and not use the two Bollo Lane facility.  The Creche should be available to the whole community not just the Chiswick Business Park workers.  The lack of open space on the site is not acceptable.  There are insufficient CGI images to demonstrate the significant impact of the development.  The additional light and noise will have a negative impact on birds, bats and insects.  The new residents may you the reserve as a back garden, where they light fires and barbeques, which will ruin the area for others.  The proposal will replace a light industrial area with a large residential led development, which will permanently change the mixed-use character of the area.

 The architectural quality of the proposal is poor. The site should have world-class architecture with a eco-friendly emphasis.  The building will dominate the surrounding area, including the Reserve and surrounding houses.  The large number of new residents will put pressure on Chiswick Park underground station.  The proposal will create a windy micro-climate.  The proposed buildings are too bulky.  The proposal is not in character with the local area.  The area is already deficient in open space and new residents will only increase pressure.  The current plans benefit the developer at the expense of the community. A more sensitive, less intensive scheme which integrates with the local environment should be put forward.  The developer has not sufficiently consulted the local community.  The proposal is too dense, squeezing too many people on to a small site.  There is not enough recreational space within the development.  Concerns over the loss of wildness of the Reserve and impact on the wildlife.  The application will add to the traffic on Chiswick High Road, the area is saturated and the traffic infrastructure should be addressed before further development takes place.  Local schools are oversubscribed and this will add to the pressure.  The proposed change of use of the site is inappropriate.  There is empty office space in Chiswick Park and therefore there is no demand for additional space on this site.  The proposal will have a negative impact on the local skyline.  The proposal will put additional pressure on local services such as schools, doctors, police, and social services.  There will be additional pressure on sewerage and water supply.  The height should be limited to six-storeys.  Cumulative impact of development is causing overcrowding and ruining the skyline.  The office space is not required as Chiswick Business Park provides enough space.  No communal play space or gardens are proposed.  Nuisance and noise for local residents and users of the reserve during the construction phase.  Tall buildings lead to wind eddying, hence less sheltered conditions which are preferred by butterflies and dragonflies.  Light from windows and external lights will impact on flight routes and foraging habitats for pipstrelle bats, a priority species in UK BAP and other nocturnal animals.  Dust and disturbance will make area unsuitable for nesting in the short-term. The building works may damage the hedgerow and tree roots.  The erosion of locally uncommon acid grassland is expected.  Devastating impact on the use of the reserve for quiet recreation.  Will reduce breeding numbers and could affect summer visitors such as the Willow Warbler, a species on the RSPB amber list.  Light level in the nature reserve will be adversely affected.  The buildings are too close to the reserve and should be set back 100 yards.  The development does not support Ealing’s Biodiversity Action Plan.

 Substantial change views inside neighbouring properties.  Overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring properties.  Overshadowing of the reserve.  Too little affordable housing.  The development will deprive future generations of the tranquillity of the reserve.  The development is likely to effect the drainage for the Reserve and affect access to underground water for plants and trees.  The design quality is poor and should be of a better architectural and environmental quality.  The scale is out of keeping with the local area.  A proper ecological and bat survey should be carried out by an independent body.  Some neighbouring residents were not notified of the application.  The proposal will change the feel and function of the reserve.  The cumulative effect of development in the area will have a negative affect on the flora and fauna of the reserve.  Natural England should be consulted due to the historical record of uncommon bat species recorded on the site, in line with PPS9.  The attempts to constrain the intensity of lighting by the developer are not guaranteed in the future.

49 Theses issues have been considered within reports PDU/2857/01 and PDU/2857a/ or within the Borough’s committee report.

Local/ Regional groups

50 Acton Green Residents’ Association- AGRA object to the proposal on the grounds that the development will have a negative impact on the surrounding area because the buildings are too high and bulky; it will lead to unacceptable pressure of residents parking; and it will lead to unacceptable pressure on local infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors, and parks.

51 Campaign to Protect Rural England- CPRE object to the application because the Reserve is particularly sensitive to nearby development due to its shape and relatively small size. It states that the reserve would badly affected nature conservation on the site and tranquillity for the benefit of the public.

52 It states that CPRE is conscious of the great value to the community of areas like this, particularly where there is a deficiency of open space accessible to the public. It feels that gratuitously damaging the reserve with an over-large, and too close, development would seem insensitive, wrong and poor planning.

53 Ealing Civic Society- The Society objects to the proposal. It states that the proposal will replace low level industrial buildings that are part of the South Acton Major Employment Location and the policies protecting employment land for local jobs should be respected. It states that the Core Strategy Map limits the potential housing site adjacent to Chiswick Park Station to 49 Units i.e. the part that has already been released.

54 The Society is concerned that the overdevelopment of the site will have an unacceptable impact on the adjoining Gunnersbury Triangle. It states that the proposal will not protect the reserve as required by London Plan Policy 7.19 and Ealing UDP policy 3.8 and Ealing draft development strategy Policy 5.4. It states that Acton contributes a limited number of sites to the

Borough network and therefore it is particularly important that the movement of specifies including birds and bats is not prevented by adjoining development.

55 It states that the impact of intrusive light and noise late into the evening from the windows rising as a wall 6-8 storeys high at the boundary would be likely to reduce the quality of the habitat for a range of species. The Society is concerned regarding the cumulative impact of the neighbouring residential development, which it states will add to light, noise and downdrafts, loss of birds dues to window strikes and human intrusion from such tall residential buildings and such a large increase in population.

56 The Society states that the embankment to the north of the site, along the railway embankment is proposed SMI/SINC in the Development Strategy. Although the proposed scheme provides a corridor of play space between the reserve and the embankment, the width is inadequate to overcome the harm outline above.

57 The Society states the twelve spaces for disabled residents is inadequate for a site with 124 flats. The Society questions the PTAL stating it is shown as four on map 12 (Schedule of Further Proposed Minor Changes Final Version Jan.24 2012) despite the applicant stating it is five.

58 The Society states that if the Council is minded to allow the loss of this section of employment land, then the residential floorspace and height of the blocks should be significantly reduced and the buildings should be set back from the boundary with landscaping to reduce their impact on the reserve and the enjoyment of people visiting for recreational enjoyment of the wildlife and important quiet relaxation. It states the application is an overdevelopment of the site and using the reserve as space to accommodate problems of overlooking is unacceptable because it would damage the value of the reserve.

59 London Wildlife Trust- London Wildlife Trust has submitted several representations, to the Council and Mayor. The London Wildlife Trust manages the Gunnersbury Triangle and object to the proposal because it believes the development will have significant impacts on the ecology and the character of the Gunnersbury Triangle. The Trust’s main concerns are set out below:

 It believes that whilst the Phase I Survey and Bat Survey have been undertaken, a more robust Environmental Impact Assessment should be required.  The high density of the proposal will significantly increase indirect human impact in close proximity to the reserve, with implications from on-going occupancy with disturbance to breeding and foraging of bats, birds and other species.  The buildings will loom over the reserve, increasing lighting from both the building and paths/roads are likely to influence the reserve, which currently enjoys little direct light pollution close to its boundaries.  The likely impact of pets, noise and potential desires to use the reserve as an ‘ad hoc’ extended garden with associated buggies, scooters, bicycles, footballs, barbeques etc. are likely to have an adverse impact on the ecology of the Triangle.  The Trust object to the height which is significantly higher than the existing building and is insensitive to the triangle. It also objects to the massing which is significantly bulkier than the existing buildings, effectively closing in on the reserve and it objects to the proximity to the reserve boundary and the overlooking onto the reserve which makes the intrusion even greater. It states that these issues collectively serve to encroach upon the Reserve and reduce the feeling of tranquillity to its users.  It states that the proposal will significantly increase visitors without means to effectively manage this, putting pressure upon the triangle and the Trusts ability to manage this effectively to retain both its ecological interest but also its secluded and tranquil feel.

 The Trust feels that unless these issues are addressed, the Reserve’s nature conservation statues may be vulnerable to decline.  It is concerned that the collectively impact of the neighbouring development and the proposal will significantly reduce the open character of the nature reserve and its rural character.  The ambience and visual landscape of the reserve will be irrevocably damaged by the proposal. The height and scale is insensitive to the Triangle and will be dominate the northern edge. It will feel like the back garden of the new development if it goes ahead.  The scale of the proposal will destroy the soul of what the Triangle is all about, with the legacies of past efforts to conserve it brought into question.  Increased human activity will cause disturbance, particularly to breeding birds.  The new local audience could provide additional support and volunteer resources for managing the Triangle but the Trust is not yet convinced that the large increase in population can be effectively mitigated against in the interests of conserving the unique ecological environment.  Whilst the Trust acknowledges that the impact of external lighting on bats has been taken into account, the large number of windows overlooking the reserve has the potential to cause excessive light disturbance which the applicant cannot resolve.  There is a potential for polluted water runoff from the site to damage the reserve.  The Trust is concerned the landscaping proposal and the lack of play space for older children who may use the Reserve for play.  The Trust would like to see further detail regarding security provision on how direct access from the site will be managed.  Whilst the trust welcomes the principal of a green roof, it does not feel the ecological performance has been maximised.  The country woodland feel of the Reserve will be substantially lost if the proposal is built.  It is not clear how the buildings can be constructed without intrusion into the nature reserve.  The dismissal of Hounslow Council’s concerns regarding the Reserve is a poor example of cross- borough working as required by the London Plan.  The Trust is concerned by the flawed handling of the application by Ealing Council.  There should be provision for outdoor recreation for residents on the site given that the area is deficient in public open space.

60 Thornton- Mayfield Residents’ Association- The Association objects to the proposal and it supports the HOOT campaign to prevent this inappropriate, high-density development which it feels will irrevocably and permanently damage the right of residents of Ealing and Chiswick peaceably to enjoy the oasis of natural tranquillity and wildlife provided by our by the reserve in its busy setting.

61 It states that HOOT provides many excellent wildlife reasons to challenge this development, and the Association endorses all these. In particularly it supports the campaign is the need of local urban resident to have a green, tranquil natural oasis full of birds and tiny animals, with small pathways leading to delightful surprises that change each month nearby.

62 It states that if the development goes ahead, anyone using the space will be overlooked by the proposal, with all its accompanying noise and busyness. It states it will never get back the peaceful atmosphere that individuals, families, children and school groups have enjoyed.

63 The Association feel that no amount of Section 106 money can compensate for this indefinable, unquantifiable loss.

Assembly Members/ Members of Parliament and local Councillors

64 Cllr Nigel Sumner (Hanger Hill Ward)- Cllr Sumner objects to the planning application because the proposal will blight the nature reserve, which is part of his upbringing and nature training.

65 Cllr Gary Malcolm (Southfields Ward) - Cllr Malcolm suggests that due to the size of the proposal, the planning committee should visit the site and receive a presentation from local people.

66 Cllr Harvey Rose (Southfields Ward) - in Ealing, Cllr Rose objects to the proposal and states that the surrounding area is high-density, residential and few buildings are over three-storeys. He quotes Hounslow planning officer (below) who states “the excessive height, length and bulk of the development, combined with the close proximity to the boundary shared with the triangle would result in a development which would have an overbearing impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle, significantly detracting from the amenity, value and open character of the nature reserve.” He continues that the Head of Planning Services was given a disproportionate amount of the time to speak at the committee meeting.

67 Darren Johnson Assembly Member- Darren Johnson states that a concerned resident contacted him about the scale and location of the proposal and its adverse impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle. He states that the constituent is specifically concerned about the light and noise pollution arising from the proposed development and its potential impact on the diverse species that inhabit the nature reserve, which includes species that are on the conservation amber list. Darren Johnson strongly urges the Mayor to consider these points.

68 Murad Qureshi Assembly Member- Murad Qureshi urges the Mayor to refuse the application or take over the application and determine it himself because of the impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle. He is concerned that the proposal will impact upon an area of outstanding beauty which has unique environmental qualities and which benefits Londoners beyond the boundaries of Ealing. He believes the application fails to comply with London Plan Policy 7.19. Furthermore, he states that it is not clear from Ealing’s Committee Report whether the concerns raised by Natural England have been properly addressed or whether Natural England has been given the opportunity to fully consider the impact on the Reserve. He also highlights Hounslow Council’s objection to the scheme.

69 Mary Macleod MP for Brentford and Isleworth- Mary Macleod MP has sent in a copy of correspondence from two concerned constituents and she would be grateful if these views could be taken into consideration. The points raised are included in the reason for objection section above.

70 Jenny Jones Assembly Member - Jenny Jones states that a number of concerned constituents have contacted her about the application and they are concerned that it will have a detrimental impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle. Jenny Jones wishes to echo their concerns and urges the Mayor to refuse the application for the following reasons: Ealing Council has ignored the concerns expressed by Hounslow Council to consider the impact on the nature reserve whereas the London Plan asks Boroughs to work together; part of the reserve closest to the development lies within Ealing and was declared a Local Nature Reserve by the Borough so it has a legal duty to protect its biological interest but there are concerns that it has not made sufficient effort to study the flora and fauna; Ealing Council has not responded to a letter by Natural England which raises a number of queries about the impact on the nature reserve and recommended a full Environmental Impact Assessment and raises concerns that its failing in its duty to conserve biodiversity; and in the view of many who attended the planning committee, the Planning Officer’s report and presentation was deeply biased and did not have regard to the biggest concern of local people, that the development will seriously detract from the tranquil atmosphere of the Triangle which is highly valued.

71 Angela Bray MP for Ealing Central and Acton- Angela Bray MP objects to the proposal because it will over hang the nature reserve and detract from the experience of thought visiting the Triangle. She also objects to the height, which she states will have an impact on the flora and fauna because it will change the light quite considerably. Angela Bray is concerned that the development is very close to the boundary and pushing it back even slightly may alleviate some of these problems.

Statutory consultees

72 Hounslow Council- The triangle is owned by Hounslow Council and managed by the London Wildlife Trust. The Council quote Policy ENV-N1.11 and London Plan Policy 7.19. and state that the Triangle is identified as a SINC and as a Site of Metropolitan Important in Hounslow Council’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP). It is disappointed that the applicant’s habitat study does not make any assessment of the BAP. It notes that whilst the application site is in Ealing, it immediately adjoins the Nature Reserve which is in Hounslow

73 It describes the application and states that the proposal would directly overlook the reserve and states that the excessive height, length and bulk of the proposed development, combined with the close proximity to the boundary shared with the triangle would result in a development that has an overbearing impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle.

74 It states that the proposed hedge planting between the site and reserve to create a barrier is insufficient in width and will not provide sufficient mitigation and separation between the site and the nature reserve. It does not consider the setback of the development from the boundary to be sufficient and it should be increased. The Council question the applicant’s justification for the proposed width of the boundary treatment, which is based on the relationship between the Chiswick Business Park and the residential development of Silver Crescent and states that whilst Silver Crescent is within a conservation area, it is not a Local Nature Reserve and does not require the same consideration of impacts on biodiversity as this application.

75 The Council also question the justification for the height of the development which focuses on its relationship with the Chiswick Business Park and 2 Bollo Lane. Hounslow Council states that the Business Park is 65 metres from the Reserve, and, therefore, whilst it is still visible, it is not dominant and does not significantly detract from the existing semi-natural character of the reserve. With regard to 2 Bollo Lane, it states that this new development is apparent on the walkway into the reserve but it is not immediately apparent once within the reserve itself.

76 Hounslow Council states that in comparison, the proposed development would be located on the north-eastern boundary of the site for almost the entire length of the boundary and when combined with the lower level of the reserve and the height of the proposed development, the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the existing open outlook from within the reserve. The Council states that this would significantly detract from the sense of place within the reserve and the existing character. It states that policies recognise that the nature reserve provides an essential visual break within built up areas and the proposed development would have an overbearing impact on the nature reserve, harmful to the open outlook and setting of the existing nature reserve.

77 It recognised that the proposed density is within the range specified within the London Plan for an urban setting but states the insufficient consideration has been given to the setting of the site adjacent to a local nature reserve and the impact that such a high density development will have on the character and sense of place within the reserve. The Council also states that for the number of units (124 units ), the is no communal amenity space on the site, apart from a small area between the buildings for play space and that no assessment has been provided regarding the quality of the playspace, particularly in regards to a wind assessment.

78 The Council quotes London Plan Policy 7.6 and raises concerns that no wind assessment has been provided with the application and therefore the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact as a result of change in wind patterns.

79 Hounslow Council believe that a section 106 contribution towards the long term maintenance and management of the reserve will not be able to mitigate the loss of tranquillity, increased overlooking and overbearing nature of the development on the Gunnersbury Triangle. It states that Hounslow Council already has a planned maintenance programme for the Gunnersbury Triangle until 2022. The Council states that as it owns the Triangle, it would need to agree to any Section 106 contributions or planned works to the nature reserve.

80 The Council does not object to the inclusion of a creche on the site but does not feel this justifies the size and scale of the proposed development. It also states that the application for a footbridge between the Chiswick Business Park and the site should be considered separately from this application.

81 The Council appreciate that some development may occur at the Colonial Drive site but it does not consider that a development of the size and scale is appropriate in this location given the significant adverse impacts on the local nature reserve

82 Hounslow Council therefore raises a strong objection to this application.

83 Hounslow Council provided another representation stating that officers have given further consideration to the proposed contribution for a full time warden on the Gunnersbury Triangle and considers that a full time warden is not justifiable within the Gunnersbury Triangle, given the small size of the site and the planned maintenance works that are already programmed until 2022. It quotes the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (Section 122(2)) that a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting permission form the development if the obligation is (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development.

84 It states that Ealing Council has not provided any justification to explain how these tests are met for this proposed obligation. It states that as the landowner, it has not been provided with any justification for such a warden and how it makes the development acceptable in planning terms, and has not been party to discussion regarding the provision, and it does not consider there is any justification for a full time warden at the Triangle and this will not be accepted. Therefore, it does not consider the obligation to comply with Section 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations 2010.

85 Hounslow Council therefore request that the application is refused in accordance with Paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

Officer’s comments: These issues are addressed within the biodiversity section of the report.

86 Natural England- Natural England welcome that a Phase 1 extended Habitat Survey has been undertaken for the site and it is also pleased to see discussion with the London Wildlife Trust.

87 It states that this development and those under consideration and construction in the area have the potential to provide a cumulative impact on the Reserve. Increased building heights, increased usage and footfall could have an impact on the site and its nature conservation value through increased pressure. It states that it is not clear from the documentation whether a cumulative impact assessment has been undertaken.

88 It states that it is not clear whether or not the development will harm the nature conservation of the SINC. Natural England state the height and massing of the development, and adjacent schemes have the potential to enclose areas/ aspect of the Reserve, with the potential for

air and light pollution impacting on species. It acknowledges that a landscape strip/buffer zone of between 6-8 metres is proposed but it states these impacts do not seem to be fully explored in the application. Natural England request further clarification on these issues and the potential for mitigation or enhancement of the reserve.

89 Subsequently, the applicant produced an addendum to the Habit Survey and a cumulative impact assessment. In response Natural England has provided an updated representation. It states the cumulative impact assessment covers the issues that Natural England would wish to see considered and that the approach and methodology is acceptable and it has been assessed against appropriate developments within and adjacent to the proposal site.

90 Natural England welcomes and encourages the proposals to enhance and increase the ecological and biodiversity potential of the site. It states that whilst it may not be possible to mitigate for human presence, the applicant has taken into account issues relating to the site and offered mitigation, including support for a full time warden at the Gunnersbury Triangle.

91 Natural England does not object to the proposal, subject to appropriate conditions from the local planning authority. It states however, that other bodies and individuals may make comments that will help the Council to further take account of the environmental value of the site in the decision making process.

92 It also provided more general advice on protected species and biodiversity enhancements.

93 Thames Water- Thames Water requested that a suitable device be used to prevent backflow at a later date, on the assumption that the sewerage network may surcharge to ground level during storm conditions. It also recommended that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage to ensure water discharge is not detrimental to the existing sewerage system. The applicant should undertake a piling method statement prior to any impact piling taking place. It states that where the applicant proposes to discharge groundwater, a groundwater discharge permit will be required. It recommends petrol/oil interceptors be fitter to all car parking facilities. Thames Water has requested a condition requiring impact studies of the existing water supply infrastructure. It states that its preferred option would be for all surface water to be disposed of on site.

94 Ealing Council has attached the proposed conditions and informative to the draft planning permission. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

95 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations

96 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor

may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. Financial considerations

97 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and Other Planning Proceedings’) emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

98 Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy.

99 Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so). Conclusion

100 At the consultation stage, outstanding issues were raised in relation to housing, children’s playspace, design, inclusive design, climate change, biodiversity, noise air quality and transport. As described in this report, these issues have now been addressed by the applicant. The application now complies with the London Plan.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager – Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 6592 email [email protected]

planning report PDU/2857 & 2857a/01 13 March 2012 Colonial Drive and Chiswick Park Footbridge, Chiswick Park in the London Borough of Ealing planning application no. P/2012/0338 & P/2012/0145

Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal P/2012/0338 (PDU reference: 2857) Demolition of the existing warehouses and the erection of a mixed-use development of up to eight storeys comprising 124 residential units (33 x affordable and 91 market units), 589sq.m of office space (Use Class B1) and a 478 sq.m. childcare facility (Use Class D1). The provision of 12 disabled car parking spaces and four integral cycle stores. Provision of footpath on North boundary to link Bollo Lane to Chiswick Business Park, associated public realm, landscaping and toddler play space.

P/2012/0145 (PDU reference: 2857a) Construction of a pedestrian footbridge between Chiswick Business Park and Bollo Lane/Colonial Drive.

The applicant The applicant is Blackstone Ltd. and the architect is BFLS.

Strategic issues The main strategic issue is whether the principle of the redevelopment of the site, including the loss of employment land and a residential led-mixed use scheme is acceptable in strategic planning policy terms. The application also raises significant concerns with regard to the impact on the Gunnersbury Triangle site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation and the design of the proposal. Further information is also required regarding affordable housing, inclusive design, climate change, noise, air quality and transport. Recommendation

That Ealing Council be advised that the applications do not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 105 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 106 of this report could address these deficiencies.

Context

101 On 9 February 2012 the Mayor of London received documents from Ealing Council notifying him of two planning applications of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 21 March 2012 to provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.

102 The application is referable under Category 1B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

 “Development… which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.”  And Paragraph 2 of the order “If the local planning authority receive an application for planning permission for development, which they consider forms part of more substantial proposed development, on the same land or adjoining land, they must for the purposes of this Schedule treat that application as an application for planning permission for the more substantial development.” 103 Once Ealing Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

104 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Site description

105 The 0.7 hectare site is located between Chiswick Business Park to the west and Chiswick Park station to the east. It is accessed from Colonial Drive, off Bollo Lane. The site is designated as a major employment location within the Ealing UDP. However, Ealing’s emerging LDF Site Specific Allocations Document (2010) identifies the site for residential-led mixed-use development.

106 The site is bound by 2 Bollo Lane, a new residential development of 56 units and 1,000 sq.m. of office space to the east; the Gunnersbury Triangle nature reserve (a site of Metropolitan importance for nature conservation) to the south and railway lines bound the site to the west and north. The applicant owns both this site and Chiswick Business Park, to the west of the nature reserve. The sites are separated by a railway line, which the applicant has extant permission to install a pedestrian footbridge that will improve access from Chiswick Park station, through the site to Chiswick Business Park. The applicant has submitted a new application for the bridge which is also being considered in this report along with the mixed-use proposal.

107 The site is currently used for a mixture of B2 and B8 uses and is occupied by five industrial buildings, of which two are vacant.

108 The nearest strategic road network route is the A315 Chiswick High Road, located approximately 300 metres south of the site. There is no part of the Transport for London road network within the immediate vicinity of the site. Chiswick Park Underground station is located approximately 100 metres east of the site, equivalent to approximately a one minute walk; this is served by the District Line (Ealing Broadway branch). South Acton overground station is located approximately 650 metres north of the site. A total of nine bus routes operate within the vicinity of the site and the two nearest bus stops are Montgomery Road and Chiswick Park Station, both within a one minute walk of the site. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of the site is

page 22 five (from a scale of one to six where one is low and six is high). This equates to a very good level of access to public transport. Details of the proposal

P/2012/0338 (PDU reference: 2857)

109 The applicant is seeking detailed permission for the demolition of the existing industrial units on the site and the erection of the warehouses for a mixed-use development comprising 124 residential units (30 x 1-bed, 73 x 2-bed, 16 x 3-beds, five x 4-beds), 589 sq.m. of office space (B1) and a creche (478 sq.m.).

110 The proposal is for two separate buildings, the larger building to the south of the site varies between six and eight storeys. The ground floor comprises the office, crèche and a central ‘concierge’ access to the residential units, as well as separate access to each of the six residential cores to the upper floors, which comprise 91 market residential units. The smaller building to the north of the site is five/six storeys in height and comprises 33 affordable units, including ten social rent units and 23 intermediate units and an estate office. The units are accessed from three separate entrances at ground level.

111 The proposal also includes:

 a pedestrian route through the site from Chiswick Park station, over the proposed bridge to Chiswick Business Park. Cyclists will be required to dismount to use the bridge;  12 parking spaces for disabled users of which seven are incorporated into the ground floor of the private residential building.  140 cycle parking spaces and an additional 16 visitor spaces.  Landscaping along the southern boundary adjacent to the nature reserve.  212 sq.m. of children’s playspace and 1727 sq.m. of private residential amenity space.

P/2012/0145 (PDU reference: 2857a) The applicant is seeking detailed permission to construct a pedestrian footbridge across the railway line between Chiswick Business Park and Bollo Lane / Colonial Drive. The applicant has an extant permission for a bridge in this location granted in 2007 (and initially in 2003) by both Ealing Council (00248/D/P58) and Hounslow Council (2006/4263-ST) as the bridge spans the borough boundary.

The podium of the Bridge has already been constructed on the Chiswick Park side but the applicant has recognised that there have been significant advancements in the engineering and building technology since the original application and is seeking a new permission so a more sustainable and efficient design can be achieved. Case history

112 A pre application meeting was held on 1 November 2011.

113 Permission was granted by both Ealing Council and Hounslow Council in 2003 and again in 2007 for the construction of a pedestrian footbridge between Chiswick Business Park and Colonial Drive. The podium of the Bridge has already been constructed on the Chiswick Business Park side.

page 23 Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance

114 The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Employment London Plan; PPS4; Industrial Capacity SPG  Mix of uses London Plan  Housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG  Affordable housing London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG, Housing Strategy; draft Revised Housing Strategy; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG; Affordable Rent draft SPG; draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan  Density London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Interim Housing SPG; draft Housing SPG  Urban design London Plan; PPS1  Inclusive design London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; Planning and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)  Sustainable development London Plan; PPS1, PPS1 supplement; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; draft PPS Planning for a Low Carbon Future in a Changing Climate; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation Strategy; Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy; Mayor’s Water Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG  Biodiversity/Geodiversity London Plan; the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy; PPS9; draft PPS Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment; draft London’s Foundations (Geodiversity) SPG  Ambient noise London Plan; the Mayor’s Ambient Noise Strategy; PPG24  Air quality London Plan; Assembly draft Early Minor Alteration to the London Plan; the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy; PPS23  Transport London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13; Land for Transport Functions SPG

115 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area is the 2004 Ealing Unitary Development Plan and the London Plan (2011).

116 The Ealing Core Strategy (Submission Stage) is also relevant material considerations. Principle of development

117 The site is designated as a major employment location in Ealing’s UDP. However, Ealing’s emerging LDF Site Specific Allocations Document (2010) identifies the site for residential-led mixed-use development. The London Plan identifies Ealing as having a limited amount of industrial land to transfer to other uses. Ealing’s Employment Land Review (2010) also identifies the site for release and states that it would be appropriate for a mixed-use development with an office element.

118 London Plan Policy 4.4 ‘Managing industrial land and premises’ seeks to ensure there is a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial uses

page 24 across London and it supports the managed release of surplus industrial land where it is compatible with strategic and local planning objectives, especially the provision of additional housing.

119 The site is specifically identified as being suitable for a mixed-use redevelopment in both Ealing’s Employment Land Review and its draft Development site DPD and the site is being released from its current employment designation in a managed and planned way. Therefore, the loss of borough employment land is accepted and the principle of an alternative mix of uses on the site is acceptable. The principle for the proposed bridge has been established by the extant permission and it is therefore acceptable. Mix of uses

Office

120 The applicant is proposing 589 sq.m. of B1 office space on the ground floor of the building to the south of the site. The applicant indicates that the office space would be managed as part the wider Chiswick Business Park, offering smaller, more affordable units in comparison with the business park.

121 The site is highly accessible by public transport and the applicant’s desire to deliver a different type of office space than is available within Chiswick Business Park is in line with the aspirations of London Plan Policy 4.2 ‘Offices’ to enhance the variety of office space available, especially space which is suitable for small and medium sized business. The applicant states that the existing industrial units would expect to provide between 55 and 60 full time jobs when fully let. However, two of the units are currently vacant. In comparison, it expects the proposed office space to provide 49 full time positions and the creche to provide a further 16 positions, a total of 63 full time jobs. The proposal is therefore may lead to a small increase in full time jobs and this is welcomed.

122 The proposed office use complies with London Plan Policy 4.2.

Creche

123 The applicant is proposing a 478 sq.m. creche, adjacent to the office which has been designed to accommodate up to 72 children and it will be available to employees of Chiswick Business Park and local residents. The applicant is seeking to deliver a creche on this site as a stipulation of the S106 agreement for block seven of Chiswick Business Park. London Plan Policy 3.16 supports the provision of high quality social infrastructure and the creche element of the scheme is welcomed.

124 The proposed childcare facility complies with London Plan Policy 3.16.

Housing

Proposed housing mix

Tenure 1- bed 2- bed 3-bed 4- Bed Total

Private 20 56 15 - 91

Social Rent 4 1 5 10

Intermediate 10 13 - 23

page 25 Total 30 73 16 5 124

125 The London Plan recognises the pressing need for additional housing in London and supports development which delivers new homes on suitable sites. Therefore, the provision of residential accommodation on the site is supported in principle.

Affordable housing

126 London Plan Policy 3.12 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes. In doing so each council should have regard to it’s own overall target for the amount of affordable housing provision. This target should take account of the requirements of London Plan Policy 3.11, which include the strategic target that 60% of new affordable housing should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale. The Mayor has published an early minor alteration to the London Plan to address the introduction of affordable rent, with further guidance set out in a draft Affordable Rent SPG. With regard to tenure split the Mayor’s position is that both social rent and affordable rent should be included within the 60%.

127 While the Mayor has set a strategic investment benchmark that across the affordable rent programme as a whole rents should average 65% of market rents, this is an average investment output benchmark for this spending round and not a planning policy target to be applied to negotiations on individual schemes.

128 Policy 3.12 is supported by paragraph 3.71, which urges borough councils to take account of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit or other recognised appraisal methodology is recommended for this purpose. The results of a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified. Paragraph 3.75 highlights the potential need for re-appraising the viability of schemes prior to implementation.

129 Where borough councils have not yet set overall targets as required by Policy 3.11, they should have regard to the overall London Plan targets. It may be appropriate to consider emerging policies, but the weight that can be attached to these will depend on the extent to which they have been consulted on or tested by public examination.

130 London Plan Policy 3.12 seeks the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing whilst Ealing Council seeks 50% of housing to be affordable. London Plan Policy 3.11 seeks a mixture of affordable tenures and proposes a 60:40 split between social rent and intermediate.

Policy 3.11 states that priority should be accorded to provision of affordable family housing. London Plan policy 3.11 accords priority to family housing within provision. In addition, policy 3.8 requires developments to provide a range of housing sizes and types to encourage a full range of housing choice. This is supported by the London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance, which seeks to secure family accommodation within residential schemes, particularly within the social rented sector, and sets strategic guidance for councils in assessing their local needs. Also relevant is Policy 1.1C of the London Housing Strategy, which sets a strategic target for 42% of social rented homes, and 16% of intermediate homes, to have three or more bedrooms.

131 Ealing Council’s 2009 Housing Needs Survey identifies an indicative ‘unit mix target’ for affordable housing as set out in the table below:

page 26 1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4-bed

Small/large unit 50% 50% Split % Social rented 20 30 25 25 Intermediate 35 50 15

132 The applicant is proposing 33 affordable units, 27% of the total number of units (and by habitable room) with a 70:30 intermediate to social rented split. As set out in the table above the applicant is proposing that six of the 23 affordable units will be family-sized (26%), all of which are socially-rented and 14% of all units will be family-sized units.

133 Neither the level of affordable housing proposed or the proposed tenure split complies with London Plan Policy. In addition the level of proposed family-sized affordable housing as a proportion of the affordable housing is significantly below the 50% target set out in Ealing’s Housing Needs Survey.

134 The applicant states that the proposed level of affordable housing and the tenure mix has been informed by discussions with affordable housing providers and its affordable housing viability statement. Ealing Council intend to have the statement assessed independently and the findings of this assessment are required to determine whether the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing is being delivered in line with London Plan Policy and whether the proposed tenure mix is acceptable. The Council should send a copy of the independent assessment to officers when it has been received.

135 Further information and discussion is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy. The Council should send a copy of the independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal to officers when it has been received. Further discussion will be required with the Council and applicant at that stage.

Density

136 London Plan Policy 3.4 ‘Optimising housing potential’ states that taking into account of context and character, design, public transport accessibility, developments should optimise housing output for the site in line with density matrix (Table 3.2) in the London Plan. The density matrix indicates that an appropriate density for an urban site with a PTAL of five would be between 55- 260 units per hectare or 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare.

137 The applicant has calculated the residential density to be 177 units per hectare or 526 habitable rooms per hectare and this complies with London Plan Policy 3.4. Children’s Playspace

138 London Plan Policy 3.6 sets out that “The Mayor and appropriate organisations should ensure that all children and young people have safe access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation provision.” It continues that developments proposals that include housing school make provision for plan and informal recreation, based on the expected child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.

139 The applicant has calculated the expected child yield to be 32.77, of which 13.6 are expected to be under five. It is therefore required to provide 327 sq.m. of playspace. The applicant

page 27 states that due to the constrained nature of the site it intends to deliver 212 sq.m. of under five play space on site and provide a financial contribution to the Council towards new or improved facilities nearby for older children. This is acceptable, subject to further details of the proposed contribution. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

140 The application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6, subject to further details of the proposed contribution. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement. Urban design

141 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan, in particular the objective to create a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods to which Londoners feel attached whatever their origin, background, age or status. Policies contained within chapter seven specifically look to promote development that reinforces or enhances the character, legibility, permeability and accessibility of neighbourhoods. It sets out a series of overarching principles and specific design policies related to site layout, scale, height and massing, internal layout and visual impact as ways of achieving this.

142 The design of the proposed development has been previously commented on at pre- application stage and comments were provided to the applicant. It is disappointing that the key issues have not been addressed and the design of the scheme remains a significant concern.

143 Whilst the applicant has rightly identified the strategic opportunity of the site to create a new link between Chiswick Business Park and Chiswick Park Station, the design of the proposed development does not respond to this. Instead the scheme is designed so that this new strategic route is flanked by car ports, cycle parking, fire exits and refuse storage. This provides little overlooking or activity to ensure that this route is safe, well used or attractive which is disappointing.

144 An alternative layout where the parking spaces are located at a different location and replaced instead by more active uses needs to be considered. A maisonette typology with entrances from this space would work well in this location and should be considered here instead of the parking bays.

145 Improvements can also be achieved by having each the main entrances to each of the cores accessed directly from this route. A concierge service can be provided on one core, with access control over the others, but main entrances need to be designed and articulated on the external elevation.

146 Of particular relevance to this proposal are London Plan Policy 7.1, that sets out the requirement for developments to reinforce or enhance the permeability and legibility of neighbourhoods, so that communities can easily access community infrastructure, commercial services and public transport; and London Plan Policy 7.3 that sets out a series of overarching principals to ensure that the design of a development should look to reduce the opportunities for criminal behaviour by maximising activity throughout the day and night, clearly articulating public and private spaces, enabling passive surveillance over public spaces and promoting a sense of ownership and respect. For reasons outlined above the scheme does not comply with the London Plan.

147 The London Housing Design Guide (LHDG) sets out a number of aspirations that would ensure the design and layout of residential developments will be of the highest quality both in their internal design and the impact they will have on the surrounding area. London Plan policy 3.5 sets

page 28 out requirements for the quality and design of housing developments including minimum space standards for new development.

148 Whilst the design and layout of the individual residential units is of a high quality, with a good amount of dual aspect units and a low number of units accessed from each individual core, there is some concern with the size of some of the rooms in the development. Although all of the units meet overall minimum space standards there is concern that some rooms are too small to be considered bedrooms. This is particularly apparent in the four bedroom units in the affordable housing block, which are being regarded as four bedroom units but the fourth room is so small (6.9 sq.m.) that it is labelled as a study on the plans. The applicant is required to ensure that no single room is less than 8 sq.m.

149 In conclusion, the application does not comply with London Plan design policy. The applicant is required to address the concerns raised regarding the internal layout of some of the units and the way in which the ground floor of the development addresses the public realm. Inclusive design

150 Inclusive design principles if embedded into the development and design process from the outset help to ensure that all of us, including older people, disabled and deaf people, children and young people, can use the places and spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The aim of London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing Choice’ and 7.2 is to ensure that proposals achieve the highest standards of accessibility and inclusion, not just the minimum. The applicant should therefore seek to design a scheme that is exemplary in terms of inclusive access. The design and access statement submitted with the application should explain the design rationale behind the application and demonstrate how the principles of inclusive design, including the specific access needs of disabled people, have been integrated into the proposed development from the outset and how inclusion will be maintained and managed.

151 The applicant’s commitment to provide 12 wheelchair accessible units (10%) and 12 disabled parking spaces is welcomed. The applicant’s commitment that all units will meet Lifetime Homes standards is also welcome. However, the design and access statement and design code should include typical flat layouts that demonstrate that the Lifetime Homes criteria have been addressed. It should be clear on plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located. The Mayor’s Best Practice Guidance on wheelchair accessible housing provides a useful checklist that should be used in the access statement and design code to demonstrate the adaptability of homes proposed.

152 In relation to the Bridge application, the applicant has worked with an access consultant throughout the process to ensure the bridge is inclusive and this is welcomed. The applicant states that the Bridge will have level access on the Chiswick Business Park side but stairs and a lift will be required on the Colonial Drive end of the Bridge. The applicant states that the lift will be suitable for wheelchair users and users of small motorised buggies and it will be managed as part of the Chiswick Business Park. It states that the management will ensure that if the lift is out of order signs will be put in place to notify users immediately. The Council should secure the appropriate management and maintenance of the lift through the section 106 agreement, including a clause which will ensures repairs are made as soon as is practicable possible.

153 Further information is required to comply with London Plan Policy 7.2. The applicant should include typical flat layouts that demonstrate that the Lifetime Homes criteria have been addressed. It should also indicate on the plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located. The applicant should demonstrate the adaptability of homes proposed. The Council should secure the appropriate management and maintenance of the external lift associated with the

page 29 Bridge through the section 106 agreement, including a clause which will ensures repairs are made as soon as is practicable possible.

Climate change

Energy efficiency standards

154 A range of passive design features and demand reduction measures are proposed to reduce the carbon emissions of the proposed development. Both air permeability and heat loss parameters will be improved beyond the minimum backstop values required by building regulations. Other features include the use of low energy lighting and natural ventilation. The demand for cooling will be minimised through the use of high performance glazing.

155 Based on the information provided, the proposed development will just meet 2010 Building Regulations compliance through energy efficiency alone.

District heating

156 The applicant has carried out an investigation and there are no existing or planned district heating networks within the vicinity of the proposed development. The applicant should, however, provide a clear commitment to ensuring that the development is designed to allow future connection to a district heating network should one become available e.g. space for heat connection equipment.

157 The applicant is proposing to install a site heat network to serve the residential element. The applicant should ensure that both domestic and non-domestic building uses will be connected to the site heat network. A drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided.

158 The energy centre will be located on the ground floor. The applicant should confirm the location and floor area of the energy centre for the development.

Combined Heat and Power

159 The applicant is proposing to install a CHP unit as the lead heat source for the site heat network. Further information on the CHP size proposed as well as the electricity sales strategy should be provided.

160 The CHP is sized to provide the domestic hot water load, as well as a proportion of the space heating. A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 36 tonnes per annum (22%) will be achieved through this second part of the energy hierarchy.

Renewable energy technologies

161 The applicant has investigated the feasibility of a range of renewable energy technologies and is proposing to install 200 sq.m. of roof mounted PV on the residential blocks. A roof drawing showing potential location for PV should be provided.

162 A reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions of 12 tonnes per annum (9%) will be achieved through this third element of the energy hierarchy.

page 30 Summary

163 The estimated regulated carbon emissions of the development are 117 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year after the cumulative effect of energy efficiency measures, CHP and renewable energy has been taken into account. This equates to a reduction of 49 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2010 Building Regulations compliant development, equivalent to an overall saving of 29%.

164 The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and the application complies with this Policy. The proposed energy strategy should be secured via condition. Furthermore, the applicant should provide roof drawings showing potential location for PV, a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided and confirm the location and floor area of the energy centre for the development. Biodiversity

165 London Plan Policy 7.19 states that developments should wherever possible make a positive contribution to the protection, enhancement, creation and management of biodiversity. The site is adjacent to the Gunnersbury Triangle nature reserve, which is designated as site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation. It is owned by Hounslow Council and managed by the London Wildlife Trust.

166 Policy 7.19 states that on Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation development proposals should give strong protection to sites of metropolitan importance for nature conservation. These are sites are jointly identified by the Mayor and boroughs as having strategic nature conservation importance and when considering proposals that would affect directly, indirectly or cumulatively a site of recognised nature conservation interest, the following hierarchy will apply:

1. Avoid adverse impact to the biodiversity interest; 2. Minimize impact and seek mitigation 3. Only in exceptional cases where the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the biodiversity impacts, seek appropriate compensation.

167 Gunnersbury Triangle is a relatively small and isolated nature reserve, but it is strategically important because it comprises an area of semi-natural linked to habitats along the adjacent railway corridors. Although it lies within a relatively suburban part of London with a typical residential layout of semi-detached housing with gardens it is one of the few areas of semi-natural habitat in the locality.

168 The development site itself is of negligible ecological and biodiversity value and therefore the principle of redevelopment of this site is not a concern in principle. However, the close proximity of the development site to Gunnersbury Triangle requires the indirect impacts to be properly addressed.

169 The existing development on the site is light industrial units of one or two storeys with relatively low levels of activity. The proposed development of two blocks of six and eight storeys significantly increases the density and scale of the built development adjacent to the nature reserve and will considerably increase the activity on the site.

170 Consequently, the scale and density of the development is likely to result in:

page 31  increased use of the nature reserve due to the lack of alternative easily accessible green space  reduction in the tranquillity of the nature reserve and people’s enjoyment of it  disturbance to wildlife due to the increased use of the site and increased activity adjacent to the site

171 In combination these indirect impacts are likely to compromise the site of metropolitan important status of Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve.

Mitigation

172 The applicants have proposed landscaping around the proposed development and the installation of green roofs to increase the amount of green cover associated with the development. However, although welcome, neither of these proposals are likely to offset the likely adverse impacts resulting from the scale and density of the proposed development.

173 Further mitigation and management measures are required to offset the adverse impacts of the development. Further discussion is required with the applicant, the Council and the London Wildlife Trust with regard to the nature of these measures but they may include a management fund which provides an annual sum in perpetuity to address the additional management cost associated with higher numbers of users and provision of additional communal amenity space on the application site to reduce the use of the nature reserve by residents.

Conclusions

174 The proposed development would be likely to have an adverse impact on the site of metropolitan importance for nature conservation due to the scale and density of the proposed development and the concomitant activity on the development site and likely increased use of the nature reserve as recreational space. Mitigation, in the form of on-site landscaping and green roofs, would not appropriately offset the adverse impacts outlined above and further mitigation measures are required.

175 The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.19. Further discussions are required between officers, the applicant the Council and the London Wildlife Trust to determine the best approach to avoid adverse impact on the reserve and to sufficiently mitigate any impacts. Ambient noise

176 London Plan Policy 7.15 ‘Reducing noise and enhancing soundscapes’ states developments should seek to reduce noise by minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from within, or in the vicinity of, development proposals and should separate noise sensitive development from major noise source wherever practicable through design in preference to sole reliance on sound insulation.

177 A Noise and Vibration Assessment Report was submitted to support the planning application. The noise survey was carried out by the deployment of two noise monitors for about three days along with attended noise measurements at three locations. The report identifies that the relevant guidance is contained within PPG 24, Ealing Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 10 'Noise and Vibration', BS 8233, BS 4142 and other standards and guidance.

178 Section 2.1 of the report state that “With the transient nature of the use of balcony areas. these spaces are not considered as private amenity spaces in terms of WHO criteria for external ambient noise levels.” However, the balcony areas should be treated as private amenity spaces in

page 32 noise terms and appropriate noise levels within such spaces should be maintained as far as reasonably practicable and in accordance with any relevant wider policies on the provision of amenity space.

179 Table 5 of the report describes the noise monitoring locations and site observations, and Table 6 &7 present the measurement results. It is noted that all the measurements were made at a height of 1.5m under free field conditions. The section drawing submitted shows that the elevated railway lines to the north of the site are about 8m above ground level. Considering the relative positions of the monitoring locations and railway lines, it is unlikely that the measurement positions would have a direct line of sight to the railway noise sources, i.e. noise levels from railway lines could be higher at upper floor levels of the proposed buildings, which have a direct line of sight to the railway lines. There appears to be no discussions on how this has been dealt with in the assessment. The report should be amended to consider variations in noise levels due to the elevated railway lines across north elevations of the proposed buildings and make a statement of the appropriateness of the adopted methodology.

180 Section 3.2 of the report states that “Elevated noise levels in terms of LAmax were recorded at locations ST1 and ST3 as a result of individual train pass-bys. Consideration has therefore been given to elevated maximum noise levels during assessment and mitigation design as presented in the relevant section below.” It is noted that the highest LAmax measured is 93.1dB. Although such a statement is made, the report does not appear to have taken elevated LAmax levels due to train pass-bys into account. Table 9 quotes noise levels directly from Table 6&7 when determining glazing specification. The LAmax levels due to train pass-bys should be considered in conjunction with comments made in 2.6 above as it is very likely the LAmax levels will dictate the performance requirements of external building fabric.

181 The report also addresses the impact of vibration from the trains affecting the amenities of the prospective occupants. Section 3.3 of the report states that “A subjective assessment of vibration levels was undertaken at each noise monitoring location. No perceptible vibration was noted at any of the monitoring locations during multiple pass-bys of trains on each rail line. Furthermore, the closest existing source of vibration to the development is the London Overground railway line, located approximately 30m from the closest facade. As such, it was not considered necessary to undertake vibration monitoring and vibration is not considered further in this assessment.”

182 Given the high sensitivity of the site location, i.e. surrounded by three railway lines, a subjective assessment maybe not be sufficiently robust to determine vibration levels affecting the proposed development. The vibration from trains affecting the development should be assessed in greater detail, preferably based on site measurements.

183 It is recommended that further information is provided in the report, including existing background noise levels at NSRs, noise emission limits and mitigation measures if required.

184 The report has also considered how noise from the creche use can be addressed and it states that the facade insulation should than adequate to attenuate internally generated noise to below the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Site and that the noise from the external children’s play will be managed through the use of appropriate noise condition, detailed assessment and mitigation measures to address this issue should be provided. It should be noted, enhanced sound insulation between the proposed Creche and residential units above may also be required to prevent disturbance.

185 The report discusses mitigation measures for the residential units and Table 9 provides indicative glazing specification based on 16 hour and 8 hour LAeq. A note to Table 9 states that

page 33 the facade noise level are LAeq,T noise levels in Table 6 &7 including 3dB facade correction. The glazing specification in Table 9 is based on is based on daytime (07:00-23:00) and night time (23:00-07:00) LAeq noise levels. However, the noise levels in Table 9 are not consistent with Table 6 & 7. Clarification is required on the validity of the data.

186 In summary, further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 7.15. The measured noise levels should be reviewed and clarified, especially noise from railway lines to the north boundary of the site and vibration from trains should be assessed in greater detail, preferably based on site measurements. Furthermore, balconies should be treated as private amenity spaces and that appropriate noise levels within such spaces should be maintained. The council should impose suitable conditions are to ensure reasonable or good internal acoustic conditions for residents and to ensure a reasonable or good standard of protection for the local environment due to noise arising from the development itself. Air quality

187 London Plan policy 7.14 ‘Improving air quality’ seeks to ensure that development proposals aim to be air quality neutral and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality; that offsetting should be used to ameliorate negative impacts associated with development proposals, and that increased exposure to existing poor air quality should be minimised.

188 The Mayor's Air Quality Strategy (Dec 2010) and the London Plan aims to ensure that new developments shall as a minimum be 'air quality neutral' through the adoption of best practice in the management and mitigation of emissions. Mitigation measures could include, but is not limited to: best available technologies in managing emissions to air, local air quality management support (financial contribution to borough local air quality management activities), travel plan, vehicle retrofits/alternative fuel use. Low and zero carbon energy supply for London should not be significant in terms of local air quality impact and should create opportunities to improve local air quality.

189 The applicant has submitted an air quality assessment which is being assessed. Comments will be provided directly to the Council and applicant on this matter.

190 Further discussion and information may be required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan air quality policy. Transport

191 With the exception of 12 car parking spaces dedicated for blue badge use associated with the residential development, the site is intended to be car free with residents of the scheme prevented from applying for on-street parking permits in the surrounding Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Given the high accessibility of the site, this is supported and in line with London Plan Policy 6.13 Parking. This should be secured by condition.

192 Trip generation has been carried out using sites from the TRAVL database, with mode share obtained using local census data and adjusted to take account of the low level of parking proposed on site. This is broadly acceptable and it is accepted that the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on either public transport or highway capacity.

193 However, very little information on existing walking or cycling routes around the site has been provided and the applicant has not made any suggestions as to how these may be improved. More information on the pedestrian and cycle environment including conditions at public transport waiting points is therefore required, along with the identification of potential improvements as

page 34 necessary before the application can be considered to be in accordance with London Plan Policies 6.9 Cycling and 6.10 Walking.

194 Notwithstanding the above, the provision of the footbridge providing enhanced links between the wider Chiswick Business Park site and Chiswick Park underground station is fully supported. The railway lines that the proposed new footbridge passes over are the responsibility of Network Rail, and it is accepted that sufficient infrastructure protection considerations have been taken into account by the developer through early discussions with Network Rail.

195 Cycle parking is provided in accordance with the London Plan standards for all uses on site, and this is welcomed.

196 A Travel Plan has been submitted as an appendix to the transport assessment and it is of a reasonable quality. However, the main omission is the lack of targets which should be set at this stage based on the trip generation identified in the Transport Assessment, even if this will be subsequently refined following initial site surveys. These revisions are required for the application to be compliant with London Plan Policy 6.3 ‘Assessing effects of development on transport capacity’. The Travel Plan should be secured as part of the s106 agreement.

197 Similarly, measures to minimise the impact of construction should be addressed through a Construction Logistics Plan, to be secured by an appropriate condition on any consent. This is required in order to comply with London Plan policy 6.3 (C).

198 Further information is required to ensure the applicant complies with London Plan transport policy. The applicant is required to address the lack of assessment of the pedestrian and cycle network surrounding the site and provide an updated Travel Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan. The level of parking, the Travel Plan and the Construction Logistics Plan should be secured by condition or within the Section 106 agreement. Community Infrastructure Levy

199 In accordance with London Plan policy 8.3, the Mayor of London proposes to introduce a London-wide Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that will be paid by most new development in Greater London. Following consultation on both a Preliminary Draft, and then a Draft Charging Schedule, the Mayor has formally submitted the charging schedule and supporting evidence to the examiner in advance of an examination in public. Subject to the legal process, the Mayor intends to start charging on 1 April 2012. Any development that receives planning permission after that date will have to pay, including:

 Cases where a planning application was submitted before 1 April 2012, but not approved by then.  Cases where a borough makes a resolution to grant planning permission before 1 April 2012 but does not formally issue the decision notice until after that date (to allow a section 106 agreement to be signed or referral to the Secretary of State or the Mayor, for example),.

200 The Mayor is proposing to arrange boroughs into three charging bands with rates of £50 / £35 / £20 per square metre of net increase in floor space respectively (see table, below). The proposed development is within the London Borough of Ealing where the proposed Mayoral charge is £35 per square metre. More details are available via the GLA website http://london.gov.uk/ .

201 Within London both the Mayor and boroughs are able to introduce CIL charges and therefore two distinct CIL charges may be applied to development in future. At the present time,

page 35 borough CIL charges for Redbridge and Wandsworth are the most advanced. The Mayor’s CIL will contribute towards the funding of Crossrail.

Mayoral CIL London boroughs Rates charging zones (£/sq. m.) Zone 1 Camden, City of London, City of Westminster, Hammersmith £50 and Fulham, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond- upon-Thames, Wandsworth

2 Barnet, Brent, Bromley, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, £35 Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Redbridge, Southwark, Tower Hamlets

3 Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Croydon, Enfield, Havering, £20 Newham, Sutton, Waltham Forest

Local planning authority’s position

202 Ealing Council’s position is unknown. Legal considerations

203 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan, and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the Mayor’s statement and comments. Financial considerations

204 There are no financial considerations at this stage. Conclusion

205 London Plan policies on employment, social infrastructure, housing, affordable housing, density, children’s playspace, urban design, inclusive design, climate change, noise, air quality and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the following reasons:

page 36  Principle of development: The site is specifically identified as being suitable for a mixed- use redevelopment in both Ealing’s Employment Land Review and its draft Development site DPD and the site is being released from its current employment designation in a managed and planned way. Therefore, the loss of borough employment land is accepted and the principle of an alternative mix of uses on the site is acceptable. The principle of the application for the proposed Bridge has been established by the extant permission and it is therefore acceptable.  Mix of uses: The proposed mix of office, creche and residential units is acceptable in principle on this site.

 Affordable housing: Further information and discussion is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan affordable housing policy.

 Density: The density complies with London Plan Policy 3.4.

 Children’s Playspace: The application complies with London Plan Policy 3.6, subject to further details of the proposed contribution. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

 Urban design: The application does not comply with London Plan design policy.

 Inclusive design: Further information is required to comply with London Plan Policy 7.2.

 Climate change: The carbon dioxide savings exceed the targets set within Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and the application complies with this Policy.

 Biodiversity: The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 7.19.

 Noise: Further information is required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan Policy 7.15.

 Air quality: Further discussion and information may be required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan air quality policy.

 Transport: Further information is required to ensure the applicant complies with London Plan transport policy.

206 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the application becoming compliant with the London Plan:

 Affordable housing: The Council should send a copy of the independent assessment of the applicant’s viability appraisal to officers when it has been received. Further discussion will be required with the Council and applicant at that stage.  Children’s Playspace: Further details of the proposed financial contribution are required. The contribution should be secured through the section 106 agreement.

 Urban design: The applicant is required to address the concerns raised regarding the internal layout of some of the units and the way in which the ground floor of the development addresses the public realm.

page 37  Inclusive design: The applicant should include typical flat layouts that demonstrate that the Lifetime Homes criteria have been addressed. It should also indicate on the plans where the wheelchair accessible flats are located. The applicant should demonstrate the adaptability of homes proposed. The Council should secure the appropriate management and maintenance of the external lift associated with the Bridge through the section 106 agreement, including a clause which will ensures repairs are made as soon as is practicable possible.

 Climate change: The proposed energy strategy should be secured via condition. Furthermore, the applicant should provide roof drawings showing potential location for PV, a drawing showing the route of the heat network linking all buildings on the site should be provided and confirm the location and floor area of the energy centre for the development.

 Biodiversity: Further discussions are required between officers, the applicant the Council and the London Wildlife Trust to determine the best approach to avoid adverse impact on the reserve and to sufficient mitigate any impacts.

 Noise: The measured noise levels should be reviewed and clarified, especially noise from railway lines to the north boundary of the site and vibration from trains should be assessed in greater detail, preferably based on site measurements. Furthermore, balconies should be treated as private amenity spaces and that appropriate noise levels within such spaces should be maintained. The council should impose suitable conditions are to ensure reasonable or good internal acoustic conditions for residents and to ensure a reasonable or good standard of protection for the local environment due to noise arising from the development itself.

 Air quality: Further discussion and information may be required to determine whether the application complies with London Plan air quality policy.

 Transport: The applicant is required address the lack of assessment of the pedestrian and cycle network surrounding the site and provide an updated Travel Plan and a Construction Logistics Plan. The level of parking, the Travel Plan and the Construction Logistics Plan should be secured by condition or within the Section 106 agreement.

for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit: Colin Wilson, Senior Manager - Planning Decisions 020 7983 4783 email [email protected] Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions) 020 7983 4895 email [email protected] Gemma Kendall, Case Officer 020 7983 6592 email [email protected]

page 38