(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Major Applications Planning

Public Document Pack

VIRTUAL Major To Councillors on the Committee

Applications Planning Councillor Edward Lavery (Chairman) Committee Councillor Steve Tuckwell (Vice- Chairman) Councillor Janet Duncan Councillor John Morgan Date: TUESDAY, 16 JUNE 2020 Councillor John Morse Councillor Henry Higgins Time: 6.00 PM Councillor Carol Melvin BSc (Hons) Location: THIS IS A VIRTUAL Councillor Becky Haggar MEETING Councillor Raju Sansarpuri

Watch Live Watch a live broadcast of this meeting on the Council’s YouTube channel: Hillingdon London

Important Following Government advice to Meeting avoid all but essential travel and to practice social distancing, the Advice: Council is temporarily suspending public speaking at Planning Committee Meetings during the coronavirus pandemic. Written representations will be invited and read out in lieu, as part of our established petitions process.

Published: Monday, 8 June 2020

Contact: Liz Penny Tel: 01895 250636 Email: (recommended): [email protected]

Lloyd White Head of Democratic Services Putting our residents first London Borough of Hillingdon, Phase II, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW Agenda

CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS 1 Apologies for Absence

2 Declarations of Interest in matters coming before this meeting

3 To sign and receive the minutes of the previous meeting 1 - 6

4 Matters that have been notified in advance or urgent

5 To confirm that the items marked in Part 1 will be considered inpublic and those items marked in Part 2 will be heard in private

PART I - Members, Public and Press

Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.

Major Applications without Petition

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page

6 Meadow High School - Brunel Construction of two temporary 7 - 30 3348/APP/2020/899 single storey modular classroom units. 252-256

Recommendation: Approval 7 Assembly Buildings, Botwell Section 73 application to vary 31 – 56 The Old Vinyl Factory the approved plans list - condition of application 257-267 59872/APP/2020/342 reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 dated 06/12/2018 (Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site, as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775 dated 31/07/2014).

Recommendation: Approval 8 Harmondsworth Heathrow Temporary ground improvement 57 – 90 Landfill Site, Villages trial over a 12 month period Harmondsworth Lane including the construction of a 268-273 - temporary pre-load 43155/APP/2019/2812 embankment, removal of the pre-load embankment and the installation of stone columns into the existing landfill and the construction of various types of reinforced pavements beneath sealed cell with associated works

Recommendation: Refusal 9 The Crane PH - Pinkwell Deed of Variation to amend 1.1 91 – 102 11026/APP/2020/142 and Schedule 2 of the S106 Agreement dated 08.10.2019 274-276 relating to planning application reference 11026/APP/2018/3361 at The Crane Public House.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec106 10 Eagle Point, The South Minor material amendment to 103-132 Runway - Ruislip revise Condition 2 (Approved 2342/APP/2020/930 Plans) of planning permission 277-300 ref. 2342/APP/2018/2294 dated 29/03/2019: The demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey hotel (Class C1), including ancillary restaurant/cafe/bar and associated car parking, servicing and landscaping and the provision of pedestrian access to Odyssey Business Park in order to the reconfiguration of the internal layout to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms and minor alterations to the external elevations to allow adjustment of windows.

Recommendation: Approve + Sec106 11 Land Adjoining Guru Townfield Construction of a new three- 133-222 Nanak Sikh Academy storey 4FE primary school (to - 4450/APP/2020/515 replace the existing Nanaksar 301-327 Primary School) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor sports provision, car parking and new access arrangement.

Recommendation: Approval 12 Hillingdon Court Park Uxbridge 223-250 Pavilion, Parkway - North 72929/APP/2019/3703 Proposed demolition of the 328-335 existing pavilion and erection of a detached house and all associated external works.

Recommendation: Approval

PART I - Plans for Major Applications Planning Committee – pages 251 - 336 Agenda Item 3 Minutes

MAJOR Applications Planning Committee

27 May 2020

Meeting held at VIRTUAL - Live on the Council's YouTube channel: Hillingdon London

Committee Members Present: Councillors Eddie Lavery (Chairman), Steve Tuckwell (Vice-Chairman), Janet Duncan, John Morgan, John Morse, Henry Higgins, Carol Melvin, Becky Haggar and Raju Sansarpuri

LBH Officers Present: Neil Fraser (Democratic Services Officer), James Rodger (Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration), Mandip Malhotra (Strategic and Major Applications Manager), Alan Tilly (Transport, Planning and Development Manager) and Glen Egan (Office Managing Partner - Legal Services)

4. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 1)

None.

5. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST IN MATTERS COMING BEFORE THIS MEETING (Agenda Item 2)

None.

6. TO SIGN AND RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING (Agenda Item 3)

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meetings held on 7 May and 14 May 2020 be approved as correct records.

7. MATTERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN ADVANCE OR URGENT (Agenda Item 4)

None.

8. TO CONFIRM THAT THE ITEMS MARKED IN PART 1 WILL BE CONSIDERED INPUBLIC AND THOSE ITEMS MARKED IN PART 2 WILL BE HEARD IN PRIVATE (Agenda Item 5)

It was confirmed that all items would be considered in public.

9. 20-30 BLYTH ROAD, HAYES - 1425/APP/2018/2145 (Agenda Item 6)

Section 73 application to vary Conditions 2, 7, 32 and 33 of planning application reference 1425/APP/2011/3040 dated 08-04-13 (Comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a part 11, part 9, part 5 and part 4 storey building comprising 120 residential units, office floorspace, associated car parking and hard and soft Page 1 landscaping (as amended by application reference 1425/APP/2020/166)) to amend Car Stacker A, remove Car Stacker B (reduction of car parking to 92 spaces) and increase the number of electrical vehicle charging points.

Officers introduced the application, confirming that the application to be determined was identical to a scheme previously approved, but had been brought back to the Committee due to a legal ruling which mandated further consideration. The application was therefore recommended for approval.

Members were supportive of the application, and the officer’s recommendation was moved and seconded. This was put to a vote, and unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

10. 30/32 BLYTH ROAD, HAYES - 68974/APP/2019/2774 (Agenda Item 7)

Application to modify a s.106 obligation for planning application reference 68974/APP/2018/2146 (Application for demolition of all buildings on site to enable redevelopment to provide 118 new residential units (Use Class C3) and commercial floor space (Use Class A1-A5 and B1) with a new vehicle access, associated vehicle and cycle parking, communal amenity space, child play space and associated landscaping and plant) to amend Schedule 1 'Affordable Housing' mortgagee in possession details.

Officers introduced the application, which was recommended for approval. In response to the Committee’s queries, officers clarified the report’s references to the sale to third parties and management of the site.

Members were supportive of the application, and moved the officer’s recommendation. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

11. 276 BATH ROAD, HEATHROW - 35293/APP/2018/538 (Agenda Item 8)

Minor material amendment to revise Conditions 2 (Approved Plans), and 3 (Approved Documents), alter timescales for the submission and approval of details relating to conditions 4 (Landscape works in accordance with Approved landscape scheme), 9 (Ecological Enhancement Scheme) and 18 (Details of taxi and coach drop-off area) and omit 13 (Electric charging points) and 15 (Car parking management strategy) of planning permission ref: 35293/APP/2015/3693, dated 31/10/16: Minor material amendment to planning permission ref. 35293/APP/2009/1938 dated 28/05/2010: Erection of 623-bedroom hotel with ancillary restaurant/bar facilities, landscaping, parking and associated works to allow the addition of an extra floor, internal and external alterations to the building, involving extension of the building within the internal courtyards and on the new fifth floor and alterations to the parking/landscaping layout.

Officers introduced the application and addendum, confirming that, as the building was now erected and operational, it was being requested that conditions be amended to compliance conditions. Officers also confirmed that references to electric charging points and a car parking management strategy had been moved to the legal agreement.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, Page 2 unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

12. FORMER SIPSON GARDEN CENTRE, SIPSON ROAD, SIPSON - 67666/APP/2019/1245 (Agenda Item 9)

Reinstatement of Garden Centre (Use Class A1) with replacement buildings, outdoor sales areas, hard-standing, associated car parking and landscaping

Officers introduced the application and highlighted the addendum. It was confirmed that several plans in the circulated pack had been superseded, with the new plans included within the officer’s presentation. Officers clarified that, contrary to the original proposal, the application no longer included a new community centre, and so the proposal solely related to the reinstatement of a new garden centre facility.

Members were supportive of the application, but requested that conditions be added to limit the hours of operation on Bank Holidays to 9am-5pm and to include a delivery plan to safeguard local residents, together with an informative relating to mesh fencing.

The officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the above conditions and informatives, was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to the addition of conditions and informatives relating to operating times, delivery plans and fencing.

13. 15 GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD - 68153/APP/2019/1319 (Agenda Item 10)

Redevelopment of site to erect a two storey building with a basement and accommodation at roof level to provide 12 residential units with associated works.

Officers introduced the application and addendum. In response to the Committee’s queries, it was confirmed that the proposal to be determined was no closer to the boundary line than the previously approved scheme, and that to ensure privacy for neighbours, the relevant rooms were to be non-habitable with obscuring glazed windows. The application was recommended for approval.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

14. THE LONDON SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, GREEN LANE, NORTHWOOD - 10112/APP/2019/1244 (Agenda Item 11)

Erection of a residential building comprising 15 flats with associated parking, cycle storage, motorcycle parking, disabled parking and bin storage following demolition of existing residential block and pair of semi-detached houses.

Officers introduced the application and addendum, and confirmed that the site was no longer part of the school. Actions were underway to have the name of the application changed to reflect this, and the school had been consulted on, as required. The application was recommended for approval, subject to an addition to the Heads of Page 3 Terms regarding construction training.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to an addition to the Heads of Terms regarding construction training.

15. BLOCK 14-24 HOSKINS CLOSE AND BLOCK - 75370/APP/2020/294 (Agenda Item 12)

Erection of boundary fencing measuring 1.5m (h) immediately to the south of Units 1-15 Moston Close and to the east of Units 9-24 Fuller Way.

Officers introduced the application, confirming that the proposed fence was to be used to separate private amenity space from that of the public realm, and had no impact on the Green Belt. The application was recommended for approval.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

16. PRODUCTION FACILITY, STONEFIELD CLOSE, RUISLIP - 1660/APP/2020/988 (Agenda Item 13)

Section 73 application to vary Conditions 2 (approved plans) and 3 (approved documents and plans) of planning ref: 1660/APP/2019/1018 (for the redevelopment of the existing site including the demolition of the existing building and the erection of 7 new commercial units across two separate buildings (Use Class B1(c)/B2/B8 at Units 1,2,3 6 and 7 and Use Class B1(c)/B2/B8 and Sui Generis at Units 4 and 5) including ancillary office space at first floor level at Units 01-03 (Use Class B1a) with associated car parking, landscaping and associated works; namely to allow the building to be re-position 300 mm north.

Officers introduced the application, which was confirmed not to result in a loss of parking or an increase in height, and was therefore recommended for approval.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

The meeting, which commenced at 6.00 pm, closed at 7.01 pm.

These are the minutes of the above meeting. For more information on any of the resolutions please contact Democratic Services on 01895 250636 or email (recommended): [email protected]. Circulation of these minutes is to Councillors, Officers, the Press and Members of the Public.

The public part of this meeting was filmed live on the Council's YouTube Channel to increase transparency in decision-making, however these minutes Page 4 remain the official and definitive record of proceedings.

Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address MEADOW HIGH SCHOOL ROYAL LANE HILLINGDON

Development: Construction of two temporary single storey modular classroom units

LBH Ref Nos: 3348/APP/2020/899

Drawing Nos: P12243-00-001-GIL-0101 Rev. 01 HD/DCRS/05 P12243-00-001-GIL-0100 Rev. 00 Planning Statement (Dated March 2020)

Date Plans Received:13/03/2020 Date(s) of Amendment(s): Date Application Valid: 13/03/2020 1. SUMMARY This application seeks temporary planning permission for the construction of two single storey modular classrooms on the edge of the school playing field in order to facilitate the development of a new school building. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and with regard to its impact on neighbours, character of the area, local highway network, flooding, trees, landscaping and access.

On the basis that temporary permission is granted and subject to conditions, this application is recommended for approval. 2. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL subject to the following:

1 T4 Temporary Building - Removal and Reinstatement The development hereby permitted shall be removed by the 1st August 2022 and the playing field area where the development sat shall be restored to playing field of at least equivalent quality as the rest of the playing field unaffected by the development.

REASON The buildings, by reason of their temporary design, are not considered suitable for permanent retention in compliance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). Also, the site should be restored to a condition fit for purpose to ensure there is no long-term playing field loss, in accordance with Sport England's Playing Field Policy. 2 COM4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers P12243-00-001-GIL- 0101 Rev. 01 and HD/DCRS/05 and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and the London Plan (March 2016).

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 7 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3 NONSC Ramp Access The temporary modular structures hereby approved shall provide ramped access into the buildings, in accordance with Approved Document M to the Building Regulations 2010 (2015 Edition), and must remain in place for the life of the buildings.

REASON To ensure that a good standard of Inclusive Design is achieved and maintained in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policy 7.2. The following informative should be also be attached to any approval. 4 NONSC Construction Logistics Plan Prior to the commencement of works on site, a Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

This should be in accordance with Transport for London's Construction Logistic Planning Guidance and detail the management of construction traffic, including vehicle types, frequency of visits, expected daily time frames, use of an onsite banksman (if required), on-site loading/unloading arrangements and parking of site operative vehicles.

The construction works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plan.

REASON To ensure that the construction works include appropriate efficiency and sustainability measures so as not to compromise the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network and minimises emissions, in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (March 2016). INFORMATIVES

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16th PageJune 20208 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 6 Development in Green Edge Locations DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.19 (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations NPPF- 2 NPPF-2 2018 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF- 9 NPPF-9 2018 - Promoting sustainable transport NPPF- 12 NPPF-12 2018 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF- 13 NPPF-13 2018 - Protecting Green Belt land

3 I70 LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020), Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 4 The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. 5 It is recommended that the restoration scheme is undertaken by a specialist turf consultant. The applicant should be aiming to ensure that the restored playing field is fit for its intended purpose and should have regard to Sport England's technical Design Guidance Note entitled "Natural Turf for Sport" (2011) and relevant design guidance of the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 9 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS National Governing Bodies for Sport e.g. performance quality standards produced by the relevant pitch team sports, for example the Football Association. 6 Application reference 3348/APP/2006/549 granted temporary 2-year planning permission for the retention of a single storey detached temporary building, located immediately to the north of the school's western wing. Application reference 3348/APP/2008/1544 also granted temporary 5-year planning permission for the erection of two portacabins as temporary classrooms within the northern section of the school site, adjoining the access off Benson Close/Peel Way. It is advised that all of these temporary buildings should now have been removed from the site and a formal planning application should be submitted for their retention if this is required. 7 I15 Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:-

A. Demolition and construction works which are audible at the site boundary shall only be carried out between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 hours Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturday. No works shall be carried out on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009.

C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition.

D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents.

You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 8 I47 Damage to Verge - For Council Roads: The Council will recover from the applicant the cost of highway and footway repairs, including damage to grass verges.

Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge or footpaths during construction. Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to the public footway. Any damage will require to be made good to the satisfaction of the Council and at the applicant's expense.

For further information and advice contact - Highways Maintenance Operations, Central Depot - Block K, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB3 3EU (Tel: 01895 277524).

For Private Roads: Care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to ensure no damage occurs to the verge of footpaths on private roads during construction.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 10 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Vehicles delivering materials to this development shall not override or cause damage to a private road and where possible alternative routes should be taken to avoid private roads. The applicant may be required to make good any damage caused.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality Meadow High School is a Special Needs School located on the west side of Royal Lane. The site measures approximately 2.1 hectares in area and currently comprises of a cluster of low-rise buildings, hard surface play areas and a sports field. The site is bounded by residential properties to the north, east and south, with properties located on Benson Close, Royal Lane and Clarkes Drive. The school has a substantial area of hard surfacing to the front of the site which currently facilitates car parking. Designated Green Belt land is located to the west of the sports field and the site has a low Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 2.

3.2 Proposed Scheme This application seeks temporary planning permission for the construction of two single storey modular classrooms on the edge of the school playing field. The proposed units are required to provide teaching accommodation for the school during the construction of a new school building which has not yet been granted planning permission. The accommodation is temporary and would be removed by 1st August 2022.

Each classroom unit would measure 16.78 metres in width, 9.83 metres in depth and 3.51 metres in height. Each unit would comprise two 64 square metre GIA classrooms, a lobby, accessible WCs, a store room and an access ramp to the front.

The following materials would be utilised: - white UPVC double glazed windows - steel external double glazed doors - walls, doors, columns, trim and skirting in a shade of yellow ('Honesty' nearest BS ref 10C31) - roof in white (nearest BS ref 00E55) 3.3 Relevant Planning History

3348/APP/2000/753 Meadow School Royal Lane Hillingdon ERECTION OF NEW SINGLE STOREY FITNESS CENTRE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING GARAGE AND TWO HUTS) Decision: 13-06-2000 ADH

3348/APP/2000/803 Meadow School Royal Lane Hillingdon ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY CLASSROOM Decision: 31-05-2000 ADH

3348/APP/2004/272 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 11 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS CONSTRUCTION OF FRONT EXTENSION TO CREATE NEW ENTRY/LOBBY AREA

Decision: 22-03-2004 Approved

3348/APP/2005/3041 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY PRE-CAST CONCRETE BUILDING FOR USE AS FITNES CENTRE

Decision: 28-12-2005 Approved

3348/APP/2006/549 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon RETENTION OF SINGLE-STOREY DETACHED TEMPORARY BUILDING

Decision: 17-05-2006 Approved

3348/APP/2008/1544 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon ERECTION OF TWO PORTACABINS AS TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS

Decision: 07-07-2008 Approved

3348/APP/2008/3517 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon ERECTION OF SINGLE-STOREY EXTENSION TO MAIN SCHOOL BUILDING (BLOCK A) TO PROVIDE NEW LIBRARY AND ENTRANCE LOBBY

Decision: 10-02-2009 Approved

3348/APP/2009/290 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon Single storey detached portacabin to side for use as classrooms.

Decision: 14-05-2009 Approved

3348/APP/2010/1210 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon Erection of temporary building for use as classrooms. Decision: 15-10-2010 Approved

3348/APP/2012/2433 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon Removal of existing modular units and the construction of a new two storey sixth form block with associated hard & soft landscaping Decision: 04-12-2012 Approved

3348/APP/2014/1204 Meadow High School Royal Lane Hillingdon Erection of temporary single-storey classroom unit and associated works

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 12 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Decision: 14-05-2014 Approved

Comment on Relevant Planning History Application reference 3348/APP/2006/549 granted temporary 2-year planning permission for the retention of a single storey detached temporary building, located immediately to the north of the school's western wing. Based on the Council's GIS satellite images (dated 2019), this building has not been removed.

Application reference 3348/APP/2008/1544 granted temporary 5-year planning permission for the erection of two portacabins as temporary classrooms within the northern section of the school site, adjoining the access off Benson Close/Peel Way. Based on the Council's GIS satellite images (dated 2019), these buildings have not been removed.

Application reference 3348/APP/2010/1210 granted temporary 3-year planning permission for the erection of building for use as classrooms within the northern section of the school site.

Application reference 3348/APP/2012/2433 granted permission for the removal of existing modular units and the construction of a new two storey sixth form block within the northern section of the school site. This permitted the permanent retention of the modular unit granted as part of application reference 3348/APP/2010/1210.

4. Planning Policies and Standards London Borough of Hillingdon Development Plan

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

The Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Site Allocations and Designations (2020) West London Waste Plan (2015) The London Plan - Consolidated With Alterations (2016)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 13 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019)

The GLA consulted upon a draft new London Plan between December 2017 and March 2018 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. The Plan was subject to examination hearings from February to May 2019, and a Consolidated Draft Plan with amendments was published in July 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor on 8th October 2019.

The Mayor has considered the Inspectors' recommendations and, on 9th December 2019, issued to the Secretary of State his intention to publish the London Plan along with a statement of reasons for the Inspectors' recommendations that the Mayor did not wish to accept. The Secretary of State responded on the 13th March 2020 and stated that he was exercising his powers under section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to direct that modifications are required. These are set out at Annex 1 of the response, however the letter does also state that if the Mayor can suggest alternative changes to policies that would address the concerns raised, these would also be considered.

More limited weight should be attached to draft London Plan policies where the Secretary of State has directed modifications or where they relate to concerns raised within the letter. Greater weight may be attached to policies that are not subject to modifications from the Secretary of State or that do not relate to issues raised in the letter. UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.EM2 (2012) Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains PT1.EM5 (2012) Sport and Leisure PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management

Part 2 Policies: LPP 3.16 (2016) Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure LPP 3.18 (2016) Education Facilities LPP 7.16 (2016) Green Belt DMCI 1 Retention of Existing Community Sport and Education Facilities DMCI 1A Development of New Education Floorspace DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 14 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMEI 6 Development in Green Edge Locations DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.19 (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations NPPF- 2 NPPF-2 2018 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF- 9 NPPF-9 2018 - Promoting sustainable transport NPPF- 12 NPPF-12 2018 - Achieving well-designed places NPPF- 13 NPPF-13 2018 - Protecting Green Belt land 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not24th applicable April 2020

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not applicable

6. Consultations External Consultees 113 letters were sent to neighbouring properties and all forms of consultation expired on 30/04/2020. A total of four comments were received and are summarised as follows: - The principle of development is supported. - Objection to the proposed use of the Northern entrance to the school in Benson Close as an access for construction. - Benson Close/Peel Way is a narrow residential street which is unsuited to construction traffic. - Construction access should be through the main entrance in Royal Lane. - The entrance should only be used as an access for the cutting the grass on the playing fields. - There are concerns that the road will not be kept clean.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 15 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS - Objection to more buildings within the school grounds. - There are already issues with the school without further development.

Case Officer Comment:

Material planning considerations are addressed within the main body of the report. Specifically, the proposed development is for two temporary classroom units which would not result in anymore staff or pupils attending the school. Regarding construction related issues, a Construction Logistics Plan would be secured by condition to manage the associated impact.

GREATER LONDON ARCHAEOLOGICAL ADVISORY SERVICE:

We do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be notified to Historic England's Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service.

SPORT ENGLAND:

It is understood that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.

Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (in particular Para. 97), and against its own playing fields policy, which states:

'Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the - loss of, or would prejudice the use of: - all or any part of a playing field, or - land which has been used as a playing field and remains undeveloped, or - land allocated for use as a playing field unless, in the judgement of Sport England, the development as a whole meets with one or more of five specific exceptions.'

Sport England does have concerns that application proposes two temporary classrooms on the playing field for an extensive period. Sport England is disappointed that this approach appears to be the only one considered when any loss of playing field should be the last option. Sport England, at the pre-application, did seek that other options are considered but these do not appear to have been adequately explored and demonstrated with any detail why they could not be pursued. In this respect, inconveniences of moving or separating accommodation around not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm of any loss of playing field.

It should be noted that the submitted documentation is misleading as the winter and summer markings cannot be marked if the proposed temporary units are in situ. Aerial photograph from last summer below shows the running track marked on the whole playing field but the submitted drawing show a running track of approximately half this size once the proposed temporary classrooms are in situ. As a result, notwithstanding the assertion in the submitted planning statement, the playing field markings would be affected by the proposal.

Sport England, however, has weighed its concerns and disappointment with the approach taken with confirmation by Sport National Governing Bodies that the site has no current community sports use, that the playing field lost would be reinstated in the long -term and, to a lesser extent, that the school children would benefit from newer built sports facilities in the long-term (lesser weight is attributed to the latter as there is no guarantee at this stage that the school redevelopment would be

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 16 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS implemented).

In light of the above, the application clearly fails to meet Sport England's Playing Field Policy in the short-term, i.e. when the temporary classrooms are in situ, however given the nature of this unique situation Sport England would take a pragmatic view and consider the long-term situation which would result in the existing playing field being retained and the school potentially having better sports facilities if the redevelopment is implemented. In light of this, it would be considered that the proposal broadly meets Playing Field Policy Exception E3 in that in the long-term:

'The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and does not: - reduce the size of any playing pitch; - result in the inability to use any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins and run-off areas); - reduce the sporting capacity of the playing field to accommodate playing pitches or the capability to rotate or - reposition playing pitches to maintain their quality; - result in the loss of other sporting provision or ancillary facilities on the site; or - prejudice the use of any remaining areas of playing field on the site.'

This being the case, Sport England does not wish to raise an objection to this application but only on the basis that the following condition is imposed to any approval:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be removed by the 1st August 2022 and the playing field area where the development sat shall be restored to playing field of at least equivalent quantity as the rest of the playing field unaffected by the development.

Reason: To ensure the site is restored to a condition fit for purpose thereby ensuring there is no long-term playing field loss and to accord with Development Plan Policy.

Informative: It is recommended that the restoration scheme is undertaken by a specialist turf consultant. The applicant should be aiming to ensure that the restored playing field is fit for its intended purpose and should have regard to Sport England's technical Design Guidance Note entitled "Natural Turf for Sport" (2011) and relevant design guidance of the National Governing Bodies for Sport e.g. performance quality standards produced by the relevant pitch team sports, for example the Football Association.

Should the condition advised above not be imposed on any planning consent Sport England would consider the proposal to not meet exception 3 of our playing fields policy and would therefore object to this application.

If you wish to amend the wording of the recommended condition, or use another mechanism in lieu of the condition, please discuss the details with the undersigned. Sport England does not object to amendments to conditions, provided they achieve the same outcome and we are involved in any amendments.

Should the local planning authority be minded to approve this application against the recommendation of Sport England; then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 the application should be referred to the Secretary of State via the National Planning Casework Unit. Sport England would also like to be notified of the outcome of the application through the receipt of a copy of the decision notice.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 17 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The absence of an objection to this application, in the context of the Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be taken as formal support or consent from Sport England or any National Governing Body of Sport to any related funding application, or as may be required by virtue of any pre-existing funding agreement. Internal Consultees ACCESS OFFICER:

I have considered the detail of this planning application, noting that drawing number HD/DCRS/05 refers to the ramp as an optional item that can be supplied. In view of the above, the following Condition should be attached to any grant of planning permission:

The temporary modular structures hereby approved shall provide ramped access into the buildings, in accordance with Approved Document M to the Building Regulations 2010 (2015 Edition), which must remain in place for the life of the buildings.

REASON: to ensure that a good standard of Inclusive Design is achieved and maintained in accordance with London Plan (2016) Policy 7.2.

The following informative should be also be attached to any approval:

The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people.

TREES AND LANDSCAPING OFFICER:

Meadow High School is a Special Educational Needs (SEN) school situated on the west side of Royal Lane. The area is primarily residential with a mosque situated to the south-east of the site. The school buildings are clustered in the eastern half of the site with car parking and drop off space along the front. School playing fields and a running track are located to the west of the buildings. The open land beyond the west boundary is designated Green Belt. There are trees along the western boundary and occasional trees along the southern boundary - which provide a degree of privacy and separation between the school and the adjacent houses and mosque. According to the aerial photographs (of 2008 and 2012) some boundary have been removed in the intervening period. There are no TPO's or Conservation Areas affecting the site.

COMMENT: The current submission follows pre-application meetings and landscape advice provided on 27 March 2019 and at a meeting in June 2019. The application seeks to install two temporary classrooms in the north-east corner of the open land / playing fields, to the west of the main built campus. No trees or landscape features of merit will be affected by the proposals. The classrooms are required to accommodate children pending the more substantial re-development of the site - the subject of the pre-application discussions over recent months.

RECOMMENDATION: No objection and no need for landscape conditions.

HIGHWAYS OFFICER:

Site Characteristics

The site is situated off Royal Lane in Hillingdon due west of Hillingdon hospital.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 18 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS There are two vehicular/pedestrian access points onto Royal Lane with one serving the main car park and the other allowing access to a servicing/drop off area with an element of on-plot parking provision.

Appraisal

It is proposed to install 2 temporary modular school classroom blocks on part of what is the existing school sports field for a temporary period of 24 months. Their function would be to operate as a decant facility for the forthcoming 'master-plan' proposal to provide a new permanent replacement for the main school building with associated refurbishments. There is no projected increase in pupillage (240 at present) or staffing levels. On the premise that this proposal is essentially an 'enabler' for the larger scale redevelopment of the school site and the 'rapid' construction process of the modular build, which significantly reduces imposition on the public realm, there is no in principle highway related objection to this proposal. A further highway related appraisal, incorporating advanced construction logistics, will be undertaken at the formal submission stage of the 'site-wide' planning application.

Construction Logistics Plan (CLP)

It is acknowledged that both Peel Way & Benson Close are far from conducive to accommodating construction traffic due to their physical constraints however it would appear that there may not be a suitable alternative i.e via Royal Lane due to site logistics and constraints. Notwithstanding the above, a full and detailed CLP will be a requirement at this stage given the significant aforementioned constraints and sensitivities of the local residential road network in order to avoid/minimise potential detriment to the public realm. It will need to be secured under a suitable planning condition.

Conclusion

The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan Part 2 Development Plan Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies 6.3, 6.9, and 6.13 of the London Plan (2016). 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development Policy 3.18 of the London Plan (March 2016) states that development proposals which enhance education and skills provision will be supported, including new build, expansion of existing or change of use to educational purposes. Those which address the current and projected shortage of primary school places will be particularly encouraged.

Policy CI1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that the Council will ensure that community and social infrastructure is provided in Hillingdon to cater for the needs of the existing community and future populations by: 2. Supporting the retention and enhancement of existing community facilities; 3. Supporting extensions to existing schools and the development of new schools and youth facilities;

Policy DMCI 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that proposals involving the loss of an existing community facility will be permitted if: A) the specific use is no longer required on-site. In such circumstances, the applicant must provide evidence demonstrating that:

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 19 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS i) the proposal would not lead to a shortfall in provision for the specific use within the local catchment area; ii) there is either no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site, or that the site/premises is no longer appropriate for social infrastructure uses; and iii) any replacement/relocated facilities for the specific use provides a level of accessibility and standard of provision at least equal to that of the existing facility. B) the activities carried out are inconsistent and cannot be made consistent with acceptable living conditions for nearby residents; and C) the redevelopment of the site would secure an over-riding public benefit.

Policy DMCI 1A of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that proposals for new schools and school expansions will be assessed against the following criteria: i. The size of the site, its location and suitability to accommodate a new school or school expansion taking account of compatibility with surrounding uses, and existing planning policy designations (e.g. conservation areas, MOL, Green Belt). ii. The impact on green open space, games pitches, outdoor play and amenity space, taking account of the character of the area, whether the site is within an area of open space deficiency and whether the school has sufficient outdoor space for play and games. iii. The location and accessibility of the site in relation to: - the intended catchment area of the school; - public transport; and - the local highway network and its ability to accommodate new or additional school trips without adverse impact on highway safety and convenient walking and cycling routes to schools. iv. The extent to which the building design contributes towards the government target that schools and colleges should be zero carbon from 2016.

This application seeks temporary planning permission for the construction of two single storey modular classrooms on the edge of the school playing field. The proposed units are required to provide teaching accommodation for the school during the construction of a new school building which has not yet been granted planning permission. The accommodation is temporary and would be removed by 1st August 2022.

The two proposed units would provide 4 classrooms, toilet facilities and storage. Specifically, in compliance with Policy DMCI 1 part (iii), the proposed units would be provided with suitable ramped access as well as a DDA compliant WCs.

In terms of planning policy designations, the application site is not designated as part of a Conservation Area, Metropolitan Open Land or Green Belt. The units would, however, result in the temporary loss of part of the school playing field. This is considered further in the following 'Playing Field' section.

Regarding the impact on the local highway network, the proposed development would not increase staff or pupil numbers and would not therefore measurably exacerbate congestion or parking stress or raise any highway safety concerns.

Overall, the proposed development is considered necessary to facilitate the provision of a new school building elsewhere on the site. The proposal is also for temporary permission and any associated impacts would not be permanent. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal is supported by Policy 3.18 of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy CI1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMCI 1 and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 20 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMCI 1A of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020).

PLAYING FIELD

Sport England were consulted as part of the application process, confirming that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595).

Paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) states that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use.

Sport England's Playing Field Policy states that Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of: - all or any part of a playing field, or - land which has been used as a playing field and remains undeveloped, or - land allocated for use as a playing field unless, in the judgement of Sport England, the development as a whole meets with one or more of five specific exceptions.

Playing Field Policy Exception 3 states: 'The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and does not: - reduce the size of any playing pitch; - result in the inability to use any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins and run-off areas); - reduce the sporting capacity of the playing field to accommodate playing pitches or the capability to rotate or - re-position playing pitches to maintain their quality; - result in the loss of other sporting provision or ancillary facilities on the site; or - prejudice the use of any remaining areas of playing field on the site.'

Sport England does have concerns that the application proposes two temporary classrooms on the playing field for an extensive period. Specifically, the winter and summer sports field markings cannot be marked if the proposed temporary units are in situ. Aerial photographs show the running track marked on the whole playing field but the submitted drawing shows a running track of approximately half this size once the proposed temporary classrooms are in situ. As a result, the playing field markings would be affected by the proposal.

In support of the proposal, Sport National Governing Bodies have confirmed that the site has no current community sports use. The playing field lost would also be reinstated in the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 21 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS long-term and the school would benefit from newer built sports facilities in the long-term, although this is not confirmed as planning permission has not currently been granted for this development at the school. In light of this, Sport England have confirmed that the proposal broadly meets Playing Field Policy Exception E3.

As such, Sport England have confirmed that there are no objections to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the removal of the temporary buildings by 1st August 2022. Subject to such a condition, there is no in principle objection to the proposed temporary development. 7.02 Density of the proposed development Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character The application site does not fall within an Archaeological Priority Area, Conservation Area or Area of Special Local Character. The site and surrounds also do not comprise any listed buildings. As such, the proposal is not considered to materially impact such considerations. 7.04 Airport safeguarding Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.05 Impact on the green belt The application site is not designated as part of the Green Belt but is located immediately to the east of Green Belt designated land. Policy DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) is therefore considered relevant and states that new development adjacent to the Green Belt should incorporate proposals to assimilate development into the surrounding area by the use of extensive peripheral landscaping to site boundaries.

The proposed buildings would be low-rise and sited over 30 metres to the east of this designated land. The proposed buildings also would not pose a long-term impact due to the proposal for temporary permission and their associated removal by 1st August 2022. In light of this, the proposed buildings would not be considered to adversely affect the openness and visual amenities of the Green Belt to a detrimental extent and would not be contrary to Policy DMEI 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). The Council's Trees and Landscaping Officer has also confirmed that due to the temporary nature of the proposal, there is no need for any landscaping conditions. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that: A) All development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the surrounding: - scale of development, considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; - building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; - building lines and setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; - architectural composition and quality of detailing; - local topography, views both from and to the site; and - impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment. ii) ensuring the use of high quality building materials and finishes; iii) ensuring that the internal design and layout of development maximises sustainability and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 22 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS is adaptable to different activities; iv) protecting features of positive value within and adjacent to the site, including the safeguarding of heritage assets, designated and un-designated, and their settings; and v) landscaping and tree planting to protect and enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure.

The proposed development would comprise two single storey modular units with classrooms and one access ramp each. Each unit would measure 16.78 metres in width, 9.83 metres in depth and 3.51 metres in height. Both units would also utilise yellow ('Honesty' nearest BS ref 10C31) walls, doors, columns, trim and skirting, white UPVC double glazed windows and a white (nearest BS ref 00E55) roof.

In general, the proposed building would be low rise and is screened by the existing school buildings such that it would not be easily viewed from the street scene on Benson Close/Peel Way and Royal Lane.

The temporary nature of the proposed modular classroom units means that only a temporary planning permission is considered appropriate. Based on the grant of a temporary planning permission, requiring the removal of the building at a later date, the proposed development is not considered contrary to the requirements of Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.08 Impact on neighbours Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that: B) Development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

The two proposed modular classroom units would be located within the central part of the school grounds, over 30 metres from the nearest residential property located to the north, no.58 Peel Way. The proposed development would also be sited over 80 metres from the residential properties located to the south on Clarkes Drive. As such, the proposed buildings are not considered to compromise the outlook, daylight, sunlight or general amenities of surrounding residential properties. The proposal therefore accords with part B) of Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.10 Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states: A) Development proposals will be required to meet the transport needs of the development and address its transport impacts in a sustainable manner.

Policy DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highway network is provided, schemes do not contribute to the deterioration of air quality, noise or local amenity or safety of all road users and residents. Also that impacts on local amenity and congestion are minimised and there are suitable mitigation measures to address any traffic impacts in terms of capacity and functions of existing and roads.

Policy DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 23 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (January 2020) requires that proposals comply with the Council's parking standards in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity.

These policies are supported by Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (March 2016) and Chapter 9 of the NPPF (February 2019).

The site is situated off Royal Lane in Hillingdon. Two vehicular/pedestrian access points are situated on Royal Lane with one serving the main car park and the other allowing access to a servicing/drop off area with an element of on-plot parking provision.

The two proposed temporary modular units would facilitate the construction of a new school building elsewhere on the site. The current proposal would not increase staff or pupil numbers and would not therefore measurably exacerbate congestion or parking stress or raise any highway safety concerns. As such the proposal would accord with the requirements of Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020), Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the NPPF (February 2019).

Given the constraints of the site and sensitivities of the local residential road network, a detailed Construction Logistics Plan is required. If recommended for approval, this would be secured by condition. 7.11 Urban design, access and security Please see Section 07.07 of the report for urban design considerations and please see Section 07.12 of the report for accessibility considerations. 7.12 Disabled access Policy 7.2 of the London Plan (March 2016) requires that all new development proposals provide the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design.

The submitted plan notes that the ramp shown as proposed is an optional item. As recommended by the Council's Access Officer, if recommended for approval, a condition will be attached securing the provision of ramp access in accordance with Approved Document M to the Building Regulations 2010 (2015 Edition). 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.14 Trees, landscaping and Ecology Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) also requires that new development is high quality, sustainable, adaptable, and harmonises with the local context. Landscaping and tree planting should also enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure.

Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states: A) All developments will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features of merit. B) Development proposals will be required to provide a landscape scheme that includes hard and soft landscaping appropriate to the character of the area, which supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity particularly in areas deficient in green infrastructure.

There are no TPO's or Conservation Area designations affecting the site. Based on the plans submitted, no trees or landscape features of merit will be affected by the proposals.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 24 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS As confirmed by the Council's Trees and Landscaping Officer, there are no objections to the proposal and no need for further conditions. As such, the proposed development is not considered contrary to the requirements of Policy DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.15 Sustainable waste management Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues Based on the Council's GIS, the application site is located within Flood Zone 1 and a Critical Drainage Area. Based on the Environment Agency's flood risk map, the application site is subject to surface water flooding but this is only categorised as low.

Policy 5.12 of the London Plan (March 2016) requires that development proposals must comply with the flood risk assessment and management requirements set out in the NPPF and the associated technical Guidance on flood risk over the lifetime of the development.

Policy 5.13 of the London Plan (March 2016) states that development should utilise sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) unless there are practical reasons for not doing so, and should aim to achieve greenfield run-off rates and ensure that surface water run-off is managed as close to its source as possible.

Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that applicants must demonstrate that Flood Risk can be suitably mitigated.

Policy DMEI 9 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that proposals that fail to make appropriate provision for flood risk mitigation, or which would increase the risk or consequences of flooding, will be refused.

Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that development within areas identified at risk from surface water flooding which fail to make adequate provision for the control and reduction of surface water run-off rates will be refused.

The application site is not within a flood risk area and there are no in-principle objections to the proposed construction of two temporary modular units. The construction of the units would not involve any ground works and would connect to existing foul and surface water drainage. Given that the proposed units are only temporary, it is not considered necessary or reasonable that sustainable urban drainage is installed for it to be removed again within two years of construction.

Given the above considerations, the proposal would not be contrary to Policies 5.12 and 5.13 of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy EM6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues NOISE

Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016) states that development proposals should seek to manage noise by: a. avoiding significant adverse noise impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 25 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS development; b. mitigating and minimising the existing and potential adverse impacts of noise on, from, within, as a result of, or in the vicinity of new development without placing unreasonable restrictions on development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on existing businesses; c. improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes (including Quiet Areas and spaces of relative tranquillity); d. separating new noise sensitive development from major noise sources (such as road, rail, air transport and some types of industrial development) through the use of distance, screening or internal layout - in preference to sole reliance on sound insulation; e. where it is not possible to achieve separation of noise sensitive development and noise sources, without undue impact on other sustainable development objectives, then any potential adverse effects should be controlled and mitigated through the application of good acoustic design principles; f. having particular regard to the impact of aviation noise on noise sensitive development; g. promoting new technologies and improved practices to reduce noise at source, and on the transmission path from source to receiver.

Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that the Council will seek to ensure that noise sensitive development and noise generating development are only permitted if noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated.

Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that: B) Development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

The temporary units would be located over 30 metres from the nearest residential property, no.58 Peel Way, to the south of the site and over 80 metres away to the north of residential properties located along Clarkes Drive. In light of this, the proposed units and their associated use would not be considered to pose a detrimental impact in terms of noise, particularly as the activities associated with the classrooms would be internal as opposed to the existing external use of the playing field.

It is noted that there would be noise impacts associated with the construction of the development, but this is controlled by The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation.

Given the considerations above, the proposed development would not be contrary to the requirements of Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020).

AIR QUALITY

Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) states that planning decisions should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones, and the cumulative impacts from individual sites in local areas. Opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified, such as through traffic and travel management, and green infrastructure provision and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 26 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS enhancement. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas and Clean Air Zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan.

Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that the Council will seek to safeguard and improve all land, water, air and noise quality. All development should not cause deterioration in the local air quality levels and should ensure the protection of both existing and new sensitive receptors. Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (March 2016) further supports this.

Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states: A) Development proposals should demonstrate appropriate reductions in emissions to sustain compliance with and contribute towards meeting EU limit values and national air quality objectives for pollutants. B) Development proposals should, as a minimum: i) be at least "air quality neutral"; ii) include sufficient mitigation to ensure there is no unacceptable risk from air pollution to sensitive receptors, both existing and new; and iii) actively contribute towards the improvement of air quality, especially within the Air Quality Management Area.

The application site is located within the declared Air Quality Management Area. Although it is not in an Air Quality Focus Area, the proximity of Hillingdon Hospital should be regarded as a sensitive receptor in regard to the impacts of pollution from both the demolition and construction phases, and in the operational phase, from any impacts caused by any increases in traffic generation and/or exacerbation of congestion in the local area.

The proposed development would not increase staff or pupil numbers and would not therefore measurably exacerbate congestion and associated emissions. The proposed units would be set well within the school grounds, away from Royal Lane, Benson Close, Peel Way and Clarkes Drive. The proposed development is also temporary, so that any associated impacts would not be long-term.

In terms of construction, this would be subject to a Construction Logistics Plan that would seek to minimise the impactsa of construction traffic, controlled by condition and the works, which would be limited by their scale and nature should be carried out in accordance with the Mayor of London's Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition SPG. This includes the requirement to comply with the Non Road Mobile Machinery Low Emission Zone regulations.

Given the above considerations, the proposed development would not be considered contrary to Policy DMEI 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020), Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012), Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (March 2016) and the NPPF (February 2019). 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations Please see Section 06.1 of the report. 7.20 Planning obligations Not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action Not relevant to the consideration of this application.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 27 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.22 Other Issues None.

8. Observations of the Borough Solicitor General Members must determine planning applications having due regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material to the application, any local finance considerations so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (including regional and national policy and guidance). Members must also determine applications in accordance with all relevant primary and secondary legislation.

Material considerations are those which are relevant to regulating the development and use of land in the public interest. The considerations must fairly and reasonably relate to the application concerned.

Members should also ensure that their involvement in the determination of planning applications adheres to the Members Code of Conduct as adopted by Full Council and also the guidance contained in Probity in Planning, 2009.

Planning Conditions Members may decide to grant planning consent subject to conditions. Planning consent should not be refused where planning conditions can overcome a reason for refusal. Planning conditions should only be imposed where Members are satisfied that imposing the conditions are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Where conditions are imposed, the Council is required to provide full reasons for imposing those conditions.

Planning Obligations Members must be satisfied that any planning obligations to be secured by way of an agreement or undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The obligations must be directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related to the scale and kind to the development (Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010).

Equalities and Human Rights Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010, requires the Council, in considering planning applications to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunities and foster good relations between people who have different protected characteristics. The protected characteristics are age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The requirement to have due regard to the above goals means that members should consider whether persons with particular protected characteristics would be affected by a proposal when compared to persons who do not share that protected characteristic. Where equalities issues arise, members should weigh up the equalities impact of the proposals against the other material considerations relating to the planning application. Equalities impacts are not necessarily decisive, but the objective of advancing equalities must be taken into account in weighing up the merits of an application. The weight to be given to any equalities issues is a matter for the decision maker to determine in all of the circumstances.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 28 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Members should also consider whether a planning decision would affect human rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the right to respect for private and family life, the protection of property and the prohibition of discrimination. Any decision must be proportionate and achieve a fair balance between private interests and the public interest.

9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable

10. CONCLUSION On the basis that temporary planning permission is being recommended, the proposed construction of two single storey modular classroom units is considered acceptable in principle and with regard to its impact on neighbours, character of the area, local highway network, flooding, trees, landscaping and access. Subject to conditions, this application is recommended for approval.

11. Reference Documents Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) The London Plan (March 2016) Accessible Hillingdon Supplementary Planning Document (September 2017) National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) Contact Officer:Michael Briginshaw Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 29 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

1 6

2 4

2 1 9 ´4

11 5

1 3

9 3

SE N CLO

BENSO

9 3

8 E

5 N 1

A 4

L 8

L A Tank Y O

3 8

Meadow High School

(Special Needs)

3 0

R B RYONY C CLOSE

a 1

r 2 8 D

4 4

6 1

y Ward Bd CF

3 4

7 65 66 2

53 47 1 1

54 48 4

59 55

3 60 3

5 71 72 64 6

3 2

0 9

2 8 2

8 2 Community

9 4 1

7 7

9 2 0 7 2

1 Centre

7 6 1

7 7 8

1 1 1

3 4 0

7 1

6 2

9 8 l

0 5

9 8

El Sub Sta t

Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Meadow High School OF HILLINGDON Royal Lane Residents Services For identification purposes only. Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Hillingdon Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 3348/APP/2020/899 1:1,250 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 30 June 2020 100019283 Major Agenda Item 7

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address THE OLD VINYL FACTORY BLYTH ROAD HAYES

Development: Section 73 application to vary the approved plans list condition of application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 dated 06/12/2018 (Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site, as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775 dated 31/07/2014). LBH Ref Nos: 59872/APP/2020/342

Drawing Nos: WH199/20/P/25.02a Rev A WH199/20/P/30.01d 440543/A-1000 Rev B WH199/20/P/25.03a Rev A Covering Letter dated 31st January 2020 WH190/20/P/25.04a Rev A WH190/20/P/25.05a Rev A WH190/20/P/25.06a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.01a Rev A DAS June Rev B

Date Plans Received: 31/01/2020 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 05/06/2020 Date Application Valid: 16/03/2020 31/01/2020 1. SUMMARY The application seeks to vary the approved plans list condition of application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 dated 06/12/2018 for Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site.

The purpose of the current application is to amend the internal layout of the buildings following a design review of the consented scheme. The applicant's design team have reconfigured the floor plans to create additional space, which allows for the 18 consented studio units to be increased in size to 1 bed units. Also proposed are minor amendments to the elevations, changes to the layout of the car park, the servicing and fire safety arrangements and a more dispersed location for the consented affordable housing units. The mix of accessible units is also proposed to be amended.

As set out within this report, the proposed changes are deemed to provide an increased level of residential amenity and fire safety for future residents and to improve the affordable housing offer and levels of social cohesion. The change to the mix of accessible units is policy compliant and the minor external changes to elevations through the relocation of windows is deemed acceptable. The application is therefore recommended for approval. 2. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL subject to the following:

1 COM4 Accordance with Approved Plans

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 31 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 440543_A-3304 Rev A 440543_A-3305 Rev A 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301105 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301104 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301103 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301102 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301101 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301100 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501102 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501100 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002105 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002103 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002102 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002101 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002104 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002110 440543_A-1000 Rev B WH199/20/P/25.02a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.03a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.04a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.05a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.06a Rev A 440543_A-2206 Rev A 440543_A-3201 Rev A WH199/20/P/10.01a 440543_A-3200 Rev A 440543_A-3303 Rev B WH199/20/P/25.01a Rev A 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501101 Rev 2 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501103 Rev 3 WH199/20/P/30.01d 440543_A-3301 Rev B 440543_A-3302 Rev B; and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016). 2 COM5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents: Design and Access Statement (subject to: DAS Updated page 59 'Vehicle Entrance' and DAS Updated page 87 'Bay Study 3: plinth' and in accordance with the approved floor plans). Planting Schedule 0209-SEW-ZZ-ZZ-SH-L-001000 Specification of Planting and Soft Works 0316-SEW-ZZ-ZZ-SP-L-450000 Landscape Maintenance and Management Plan 0316-SEW-ZZ-ZZ-SP-L-450001

Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 32 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016). 3 COM7 Materials (Submission) Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall take place above ground level until details of the proposed cladding and its profile/relationship with other materials within the building elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such.

Details should include information relating to make, product/type, colour and photographs/images.

REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 4 NONSC Podium Access Plan The development shall not be occupied until a Podium Access Plan, which demonstrates the access proposals, hours of access and management procedures for access to the proposed podium by non-residents of the Assembly Buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter the podium access shall be in accordance with the approved details for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure that the development provides access to the podium to non-residents of the Assembly Buildings, ensuring integration with the wider site and creating an acceptable level of social infrastructure and quality of street design to comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and London Plan Policy 3.16. 5 NONSC Traffic Management Scheme Prior to occupation of the development a traffic management scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council in order to manage the flow of vehicle traffic during the period that collections are carried out.

Thereafter the traffic shall be managed in accordance with the approved details for as long as the development remains in existence.

Reason This is to ensure that the collection vehicle can stop within 10 metres of the bin storage area and complete collections safely in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016). INFORMATIVES

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 33 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (September 2007) as incorporated into the Hillingdon Local Plan (2012) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. DMCI 3 Public Open Space Provision DMCI 4 Open Spaces in New Development DMCI 5 Childrens Play Area DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMH 1 Safeguarding Existing Housing DMH 2 Housing Mix DMH 7 DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 10 High Buildings and Structures DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 17 Residential Density DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHB 19 Play Space DMHB 3 Locally Listed Buildings DMHB 4 Conservation Areas DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports LPP 2.13 (2016) Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas LPP 2.17 (2016) Strategic Industrial Locations LPP 2.6 (2016) Outer London: vision and strategy LPP 2.8 (2016) Outer London: Transport LPP 3.1 (2016) Ensuring equal life chances for all LPP 3.9 (2016) Mixed and Balanced Communities LPP 4.4 (2016) Managing Industrial Land and Premises LPP 5.1 (2016) Climate Change Mitigation

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 34 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 5.10 (2016) Urban Greening LPP 5.11 (2016) Green roofs and development site environs LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.14 (2016) Water quality and wastewater infrastructure LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.6 (2016) Decentralised Energy in Development Proposals LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.8 (2016) Innovative energy technologies LPP 6.1 (2016) Strategic Approach LPP 6.10 (2016) Walking LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.5 (2016) Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure LPP 6.7 (2016) Better Streets and Surface Transport LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 7.1 (2016) Lifetime Neighbourhoods LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.5 (2016) Public realm LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture LPP 7.7 (2016) Location and design of tall and large buildings LPP 7.8 (2016) Heritage assets and archaeology LPP 7.9 (2016) Heritage-led regeneration LPP 8.1 (2016) Implementation LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations LPP 8.3 (2016) Community infrastructure levy

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality The whole of The Old Vinyl Factory (TOVF) site consists of approximately 6.6 hectares of land set in an irregular quadrilateral shaped site. The multi-phase site was originally

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 35 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS constructed between 1907 and 1935 by the Gramophone Company and was later the production centre of EMI Ltd, producing the majority of vinyl records for distribution worldwide. Associated record production works had ceased by the 1980s after which time the site was largely vacant with many buildings falling into disrepair.

The application site is located centrally within the wider site, directly to the south of the new University Technical College building and to the north of The Record Store which is a locally listed building that has recently been refurbished and brought back into use. The wider site is bounded by Blyth Road to the north and by the Great Western Mainline railway to the South, with Hayes and Harlington rail station 420 metres to the east of the site. Opposite the site on Blyth Road lies the Grade II Listed Enterprise House, an eight storey office building, together with a variety of industrial and office buildings. The wider area is a mixture of residential, industrial and office uses with Hayes Town Centre located to the northeast of the site.

Much of the application site, as well as The Record Store, The Cabinet Building and The Shipping Building, which lie immediately outside of the application boundary, is situated within a Developed Area and The Botwell: Thorn EMI Conservation Area.

3.2 Proposed Scheme In December 2018, reserved matters were granted planning permission under application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site, as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775 dated 31/07/2014.

The approved development is for three residential blocks, over a double height podium. 1,252m2 of commercial floorspace (A1/A2/A3/A4/A5 and B1) was approved at ground floor and first floor level across 5 units. In total 181 residential units were approved. The consented unit mix comprises 18 x studio units, 84 x 1 bedroom units, 70 x 2 bedroom units and 9 x 3 bedroom units. 18 of the units (10%) are accessible units. 175 car parking spaces were approved at ground and first floor level below the podium (at a ratio of 0.75 spaces per unit). In addition 10 motorcycle spaces and 190 cycle parking spaces were also granted consent. 40 of the approved spaces are allocated to the adjacent University Technical College (UTC) building. The disabled spaces for the UTC have already been constructed and are next to the building, which is why all of the 40 spaces are standard spaces.

Having appraised the consented floor plans, the applicant considers there to be an opportunity to rationalise the layout and alter the residential accommodation on offer within this development. Following a detailed review on both the structural and fire strategies, and the inclusion of a fully sprinkler lead approach, greater flexibility with residential floor layouts can be achieved, leading to more efficiency through the floor plans and the opportunity to enlarge studio apartments to one bedroom apartments. The average area of the consented studios was 37.3 m2, however the average area of the proposed 1 bed units is 51.9 m2, an increase of 14.6 m2 on an average per unit.

The proposed amendments can be summarised as follows: - Replace 18 x studios with 18 x 1 bed units - Inclusion of fully sprinklered scheme to enhance fire safety - Redistribute affordable housing units - Reconfigured stair/lift cores - Amend the mix of accessible units

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 36 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS - Change to the northern elevation of Block A through relocation of windows

The proposals do not include any changes to the wider development mix. The total number of affordable housing units and mix is maintained with the studios becoming 1 bed units. Under the approved scheme 6 of the studios were approved as affordable housing and thus these would now be 1 bed affordable units. Three of the 2 bed 3 person units would also be increased in scale to 2 bed 4 person units. Two of the 3 bed 6 person units would changes to 3 bed 5 person units.

The consented mix of accessible units is proposed to be amended to the following provision: 10 x 1 beds 7 x 2 beds 1 x 3 beds

The northern elevation of Block A is proposed to be amended slightly following changes proposed to the window positions. The elevation would match that of Block C.

Due to the amended ground floor arrangement, the consented refuse strategy has been reviewed and reconsidered. Accessible refuse stores have been located on all main cores, which reduces the residential travel distance for refuse and recycling in Block B. The number of proposed bins has also been increased.

Whilst changes are proposed to the layout, there is no change proposed to the car parking or cycle parking provision in terms of the number of spaces. The proposed parking for the UTC is to be partitioned for management and security purposes. No changes are proposed to the building footprint, external elevations or to the commercial elements of the consented scheme.

In order to regularise these changes it is proposed to change the wording of Condition 1 of application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 to:

'The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers: 440543_A-3304 Rev A 440543_A-3305 Rev A 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301105 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301104 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301103 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301102 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301101 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-01-DR-L-301100 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501102 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501100 Rev 01 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002105 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002103 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002102 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002101 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002104 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-002110 440543_A-1000 Rev B WH199/20/P/25.02a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.03a Rev A

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 37 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS WH199/20/P/25.04a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.05a Rev A WH199/20/P/25.06a Rev A 440543_A-2206 Rev A 440543_A-3201 Rev A WH199/20/P/10.01a 440543_A-3200 Rev A 440543_A-3303 Rev B WH199/20/P/25.01a Rev A 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501101 Rev 2 0316-SEW-ZZ-00-DR-L-501103 Rev 3 WH199/20/P/30.01d 440543_A-3301 Rev B 440543_A-3302 Rev B; and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016).' 3.3 Relevant Planning History

59872/APP/2012/1838 The Old Vinyl Factory Site Blyth Road Hayes Outline planning application for a mixed use development of the Old Vinyl Factory site including the demolition of up to 12,643 sqm of buildings and construction of up to 112,953 sqm (112,953 sqm includes the retention and re-use of 784 sqm of the Power House and 901 sqm Pressing Plant) of new floorspace. Uses to include up to 510 residential units (maximum area of 49,000 sqm GEA), up to 7,886 sqm of new B1 floorspace, up to 4,000 sqm of A class uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5), up to 4,700 sqm of D1 and D2 uses, an energy centre (up to 950 sqm), car parking, works to access and creation of new accesses and landscaping. Decision: 19-04-2013 Approved

59872/APP/2013/3640 The Old Vinyl Factory Site Blyth Road Hayes Non-Material amendment to planning permission 59872/APP/2012/1838, dated 19/04/2012, for revisions to site-wide drainage strategy, revisions to development specification, revisions to phasing of energy centre, and amendments to demolition and construction management plan. Decision: 30-01-2014 Approved

59872/APP/2013/3775 The Old Vinyl Factory Site Blyth Road Hayes Variation of Condition 4 (Phasing) of planning permission 59872/APP/2012/1838 dated 19/04/2013, to allow variations to phasing of approved development to allow the Boilerhouse an the Material Store to come forward as Phases 1 and 2, and to allow the Veneer Store and/or Record Stack carparks to come forward earlier than in the approved phasing.

Decision: 18-03-2014 Approved

59872/APP/2015/1330 The Old Vinyl Factory Blyth Road Hayes Non-material Amendment to planning permission ref: 59872/APP/2013/3775, dated 31/07/2014 (Variation of condition 4 of outline planning application for a mixed use development of the Old

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 38 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Vinyl Factory site) to amend the approved parameter plans and Development Specification (condition 31) and amend the wording of Condition 13 (acoustic buffering) in connection with the Material Store development.

Decision: 15-06-2015 Approved

59872/APP/2018/1107 The Old Vinyl Factory Blyth Road Hayes Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site, as required by Conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission ref. 59872/APP/2013/3775 dated 31/07/2014.

Decision: 04-12-2018 Approved

Comment on Relevant Planning History The application site forms part of The Old Vinyl Factory site for which outline consent was granted under application reference 59872/APP/2012/1838.

Application reference 59872/APP/2013/3640 granted permission for a non-material amendment to the scheme, due to the proposed revised phasing of the site, and some revisions to documents.

Application reference 59872/APP/2013/3775 granted a variation of the original outline permission to allow variations to phasing of the approved development.

Application reference 59872/APP/2015/1330 granted a Non-material Amendment to planning permission ref: 59872/APP/2013/3775 to amend the approved parameter plans and Development Specification (Condition 31) and amend the wording of Condition 13 (acoustic buffering) in connection with the Material Store development.

Application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 granted reserved matters consent in December 2018 relating to appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site.

Also relevant to the current application is that during the outline planning application process it was agreed that the overall scheme would provide 5% of the overall residential units as affordable housing.

Following a viability review it was agreed with the Council that the developer would provide an additional, revised quantum of 10% affordable housing. The reserved matters application when decided on 4th December 2018 confirmed the scheme would provide 52 of the 181 residential units as affordable housing, with the tenure, location and mix to be set out within the Affordable Housing Scheme as required by the site wide s106 legal agreement. A subsequent Affordable Housing statement has been submitted and approved 'Affordable housing scheme, Assembly Buildings, The Old Vinyl Factory'. The approved 52 affordable housing units are consented as all being discount market sale across the following mix: 6 x studios 33 x 1 bedroom 11 x 2 bedroom

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 39 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 x 3 bedroom

4. Planning Policies and Standards London Borough of Hillingdon Development Plan

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019)

More limited weight should be attached to draft London Plan policies where the Secretary of State has directed modifications or where they relate to concerns raised within the letter.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 40 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Greater weight may be attached to policies that are not subject to modifications from the Secretary of State or that do not relate to issues raised in the letter. UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.EM1 (2012) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation PT1.EM4 (2012) Open Space and Informal Recreation PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise PT1.H1 (2012) Housing Growth PT1.HE1 (2012) Heritage PT1.T1 (2012) Accessible Local Destinations

Part 2 Policies: DMCI 3 Public Open Space Provision DMCI 4 Open Spaces in New Development DMCI 5 Childrens Play Area DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMH 1 Safeguarding Existing Housing DMH 2 Housing Mix DMH 7 DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 10 High Buildings and Structures DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 41 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 17 Residential Density DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHB 19 Play Space DMHB 3 Locally Listed Buildings DMHB 4 Conservation Areas DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports LPP 2.13 (2016) Opportunity Areas and Intensification Areas LPP 2.17 (2016) Strategic Industrial Locations LPP 2.6 (2016) Outer London: vision and strategy LPP 2.8 (2016) Outer London: Transport LPP 3.1 (2016) Ensuring equal life chances for all LPP 3.9 (2016) Mixed and Balanced Communities LPP 4.4 (2016) Managing Industrial Land and Premises LPP 5.1 (2016) Climate Change Mitigation LPP 5.10 (2016) Urban Greening LPP 5.11 (2016) Green roofs and development site environs LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.14 (2016) Water quality and wastewater infrastructure LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.6 (2016) Decentralised Energy in Development Proposals LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.8 (2016) Innovative energy technologies LPP 6.1 (2016) Strategic Approach LPP 6.10 (2016) Walking LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.5 (2016) Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure LPP 6.7 (2016) Better Streets and Surface Transport LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 7.1 (2016) Lifetime Neighbourhoods

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 42 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.5 (2016) Public realm LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture LPP 7.7 (2016) Location and design of tall and large buildings LPP 7.8 (2016) Heritage assets and archaeology LPP 7.9 (2016) Heritage-led regeneration LPP 8.1 (2016) Implementation LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations LPP 8.3 (2016) Community infrastructure levy 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not1st Mayapplicable 2020

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not applicable

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 43 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2nd May 2020

6. Consultations External Consultees The application was advertised in the local press on 08/04/20, site notices were posted and 247 local residents were consulted on the 02-04-20. No resident responses were received.

HAYES CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL I am writing on behalf of the Hayes Conservation Area Advisory Panel. This property is in the Botwell: Thorn EMI Conservation Area. No changes to the external appearance of the building are proposed and the changes to the internal layout allow the replacement of the 18 studio apartments in the approved plans by 18 one bedroom flats, which we agree would represent an improvement in the living conditions that will be experienced by the occupants. The addition of a sprinkler system we also regard as a positive improvement. Internal Consultees POLICY Affordable Housing:

Policy H5 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London Plan (2019) outlines the following in relation to S73 applications:

For schemes where the original permission did not meet the threshold or required tenure split, including schemes determined before the threshold approach that would not have qualified for the Fast Track Route, viability information will be required where an application is submitted to vary the consent, and the borough or the Mayor where relevant, consider this would materially alter the economic circumstances of the scheme. Such cases will be assessed under the Viability Tested Route.

The key is therefore if the economic circumstances of the scheme have been materially altered. I would consider it is not reasonable for us to assume they have, as there is no increase in residential floorspace, just sensible reconfigurations. Any gain to unit sizes is offset by a loss in size elsewhere. New viability information is therefore not required.

The breakdown of affordable housing is still the same: 39 x 1 bedroom 11 x 2 bedroom 2 x 3 bedroom

The proposed design looks to distribute affordable housing dwellings more widely across the scheme. This allows for a more socially inclusive approach to the development. This is seen as an improvement to the scheme and is in line with Paragraph 4.22 of the LPP2 (2020) which outlines that affordable housing provision should be 'pepper potted' around sites to allow for a mix of tenures.

On the assumption that all the units still meet minimum space standards then I would not raise any objection.

Housing Mix

The reconfigurations also remove the studios, which are identified as the least beneficial form of C3 housing (Section 4.10.4 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London Plan (2019)) as they are the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 44 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS least flexible unit type. This is seen as an improvement.

Two of the family units are slightly smaller (from 6 person to 5 person). However again, on the assumption that all the units still meet minimum space standards, there is no policy and or guidance which requires them to be 3 bedroom 6 person rather than 3 bedroom 5 person.

Case Officer comment: 3 of the 2 bed 3 person units would increase to 2 bed 4 person units.

FLOOD AND WATER MANAGEMENT Proposals do not impact on the building footprint and therefore it is understood there are no implications on the proposed drainage strategy and therefore no comments from the flood risk team.

ACCESS OFFICER I have reviewed this Section 73 application to vary the approved plans. The proposed amendments have been included within a revised Design & Access Statement, demonstrating the provisions of accessible housing relevant at this development control stage. On the basis that the proposed substitute one-bedroom flats could satisfy the M4(2) technical standards as set out in the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Accessible Hillingdon' (adopted September 2017), no accessibility concern is raised.

CONTAMINATED LAND OFFICER All land contamination matters are covered in various conditions that were imposed previously.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT No objection

HIGHWAYS The highway authority has reviewed the proposal and found it to be in accordance with the relevant Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) Policies DMT 1: Managing Highway Impacts, DMT 2: Highway Impacts and DMT 6 : Parking. There are no highway objections to this proposal.

WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICER The proposed changes to the bin storage areas which are accessed by residents are more accessible and therefore a welcomed improvement.

However, the removal of the bin store adjacent to the loading bay and proposal that bins are placed into the loading bay area for collections is not acceptable as this area is not large enough to house all of the bins alongside the RCV and to ensure that bins can safely be manoeuvred for collection without spilling out onto the road.

Case Officer's comments: The above feedback was provided to the applicant who has responded by amending the proposals as shown on drawing number WH199/20/P/25.01a Rev A.

WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICER 2nd comments Acceptable subject to proposed condition: Prior to occupation of the development a traffic management scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council in order to manage the flow of vehicle traffic during the period that collections are carried out. Thereafter the traffic shall be managed in accordance with the approved details for as long as the development remains in existence.

Reason

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 45 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS This is to ensure that the collection vehicle can stop within 10 metres of the bin storage area and complete collections safely in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016). 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development The consented building was approved within this area of the site as part of the outline consent for the redevelopment of the wider site. Approved as part of the outline consent was a set of parameter plans, which included the parameters within which the buildings should be located. The consented building is in accordance with the parameter plans in terms of height and footprint and as such, the use and scale of the building was established the principle as acceptable.

The principle of the development was therefore already approved at outline stage and this was reinforced by the granting of planning consent reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 on 06/12/2018 for 'Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings'. 7.02 Density of the proposed development Policy DMHB 17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in the supporting Table 5.3. and that all developments will be expected to meet habitable rooms standards.

The proposed changes to the consented scheme will replace 18 studio units with 1 bedroom units. There is therefore no change proposed in the number of units per hectare. The marginal increase in the number of habitable rooms is considered acceptable subject to the proposals satisfying all over policy criteria set out in this report.

Unit Mix Policy DMH 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that the Council will require the provision of a mix of housing units of different sizes in schemes of residential development to reflect the Council's latest information on housing need.

Policy H10 of the emerging London Plan (Intend to publish version) 2019, also outlines that the nature and location of the site needs to be taken into account, with a higher proportion of one and two bed units generally being more appropriate in locations with higher public transport access and connectivity.

The 2011 Census shows a mismatch between dwelling size and household size, with 60% of households living in dwellings containing five or more habitable rooms, but only 24% of households having four or more people. 60% of households contain only one or two persons. Projections envisage that the general trend towards smaller households will continue.

The proposed changes to the consented scheme will replace 18 studio units with 1 bedroom units. This is considered to be an improvement in terms of the residential amenity provision for future occupants. Studios are identified as the least beneficial form of C3 housing within Section 4.10.4 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London Plan (2019), as they are the least flexible unit type. Three of the 2 bed 3 person units would also be increased in scale to 2 bed 4 person units and two of the 3 bed 6 person units would changes to 3 bed 5 person units. The Council's Policy team have confirmed that they support the proposed changes to the housing mix overall.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 46 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character CONSERVATION AREA AND LISTED BUILDINGS Policy HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that the Council will conserve and enhance Hillingdon's distinct and varied environment, its settings and the wider historic landscape (including locally and statutorily Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Areas of Special Local Character and Archaeological Priority Zones and Areas), and encourage the reuse, modification and regeneration of historic assets.

Policy DMHB 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states development that has an effect on heritage assets will only be supported where: i) it sustains and enhances the significance of the heritage asset and puts them into viable uses consistent with their conservation; ii) it will not lead to substantial harm or total loss of significance without providing substantial public benefit that outweighs the harm or loss; iii) it makes a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the area; iv) any extensions or alterations are designed in sympathy, without detracting from or competing with the heritage asset; v) the proposals relate appropriately in terms of siting, style, scale, massing, height, design and materials; vi) buildings and structures within the curtilage of a heritage asset, or in close proximity to it, do not compromise its setting; and vii) opportunities are taken to conserve or enhance the setting, so that the significance of the asset can be appreciated more readily.

Whilst there are statutory and locally listed buildings within the local area and the site is within The Botwell: Thorn EMI Conservation Area, the proposed minimal changes to the elevations are not considered to have any impact on the setting of the site or these buildings.

ARCHAEOLOGY Policy DMHB 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that the Council, as advised by the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service, will ensure that sites of archaeological interest within or, where appropriate, outside, designated areas are not disturbed. If that cannot be avoided, satisfactory measures must be taken to mitigate the impacts of the proposals through archaeological fieldwork to investigate and record remains in advance of development works.

The impact on archaeology was considered as part of the originally approved outline application, and was considered acceptable, subject to conditions. The proposed changes to the consented building iare not considered to impact on this previous assessment when the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) confirmed that they had no objections to the application. The proposal is therefore deemed in accordance with Policy DMHB 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.04 Airport safeguarding Policy DMAV1 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and paragraphs 95 and 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 47 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The proposed development is within the height parameters approved at outline stage. Heathrow Airport Ltd were consulted on the Reserved Matters application and raised no objection. The proposed changes will not alter the consented height of the building and the development is of a similar height and scale to the surrounding buildings. As such it is considered that the proposal would not impact on the safe operation of any airport. 7.05 Impact on the green belt The site is not located within or close to the Green Belt, as such there are no Green Belt issues relating to this application. 7.06 Environmental Impact Not relevant to the determination of the current application. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area Part 1 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan requires all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment in order to create successful and sustainable neighbourhoods.

Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that: All development, including extensions, alterations and new buildings will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design including: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the surrounding: - scale of development, considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; - building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; - building lines and setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; - architectural composition and quality of detailing; - local topography, views both from and to the site; and - impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment. ii) ensuring the use of high quality building materials and finishes; iii) ensuring that the internal design and layout of development maximises sustainability and is adaptable to different activities; iv) protecting features of positive value within and adjacent to the site, including the safeguarding of heritage assets, designated and undesignated, and their settings; and v) landscaping and tree planting to protect and enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure.

Policy 7.1 of the London Plan (March 2016) sets out a series of overarching design principles for development in London and Policy 7.6 seeks to promote world-class, high quality design and design-led change in key locations. In addition to Chapter 7, London Plan policies relating to optimising the housing potential/density of sites (Policy 3.4) and sustainable design and construction (Policy 5.3) are also relevant.

The proposals are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality. The majority of the proposed changes are to the internal layouts. Where changes are proposed to the elevations these are limited and purely relate to the position of windows following the internal layout review.

As such it is considered the proposed development accords with Part 1 Policy BE1 of the Local Plan and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.08 Impact on neighbours Policy DMHB 11 of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020)

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 48 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS requires that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

The building proposed is located adjacent to the existing refurbished Record Store and Cabinet Buildings and the new Material Store and UTC buildings within the wider TOVF site.

The minor change proposed to the external elevations would not have a detrimental impact on the level of residential privacy as the elevation affected (northern) does not overlook a residential building. The proposed internal changes are not considered to result in any detrimental impact on adjacent residential amenity.

As such it is considered the proposed development accords with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers Internal Space Standards Policy DMHB 16: 'Housing Standards' requires that all housing development should have an adequate provision of internal space in order to provide an appropriate living environment. To achieve this all residential development or conversions should meet or exceed the most up to date internal space standards.

The proposed amendments have created a more efficient internal layout that has enabled the 18 consented studios to be increased in size to 1 bed units. Three of the 2 bed 3 person units would also be increased in scale to 2 bed 4 person units. Two of the 3 bed 6 person units would changes to 3 bed 5 person units. The Council's Policy Team have confirmed that they have no objection to these changes.

All of the dwellings proposed comply with the internal space standards as set out in Table 3.3 'Minimum Space Standards for New Dwellings' of the London Plan 2016 and the Technical housing standards - nationally described space standard (2015).

Privacy As per the consented scheme, between the two 'wings' of the development the separation distance across the internal courtyard would be a minimum of 18.9m. The consented distance is below the level of separation distance required to protect residential amenity. As such the architects staggered the location of the windows so that there would be none directly opposite. The approved podium area is also to be made accessible to the public as controlled under Condition 4 of the reserved matters consent. The same condition is proposed to be attached to the current application should it be recommended for approval. Public access would give the podium a character slightly closer to a streetscene, where sub 21m privacy distances are common.

The proposed scheme will result in a reduction of the minimum privacy distance from 18.9m to 18.8m. This minimal change in overlooking distance effecting only a small number of windows is not considered to be sufficient to warrant a refusal of the current application given the wider benefits in residential amenity and safety that it would provide. The proposed privacy distances are therefore considered to be acceptable and to be consistent with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two Development Management Policies (January 2020).

Amenity Space Policy DMHB 18: 'Private Outdoor Amenity Space' of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 49 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Management Policies (2020) states that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and useable private outdoor amenity space. No amendments are proposed to the consented external amenity space within the podium areas. The shape of the balconies for the first floor units has been amended slightly and there is a minor increase in their size from 19.4m2 to 20.8m2. This change is considered to be in accordance with Policy DMHB 18: 'Private Outdoor Amenity Space' of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.10 Traffic impact, car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. Policy 6.3 of the London Plan requires development proposals to ensure that the impacts on transport capacity and the transport network are fully assessed.

Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states: A) Development proposals will be required to meet the transport needs of the development and address its transport impacts in a sustainable manner. In order for developments to be acceptable they are required to: i) be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling either from the catchment area that it is likely to draw its employees, customers or visitors from and/or the services and facilities necessary to support the development; ii) maximise safe, convenient and inclusive accessibility to, and from within developments for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users; iii) provide equal access for all people, including inclusive access for disabled people; iv) adequately address delivery, servicing and drop-off requirements; and v) have no significant adverse transport or associated air quality and noise impacts on the local and wider environment, particularly on the strategic road network. B) Development proposals will be required to undertake a satisfactory Transport Assessment and Travel Plan if they meet or exceed the appropriate thresholds. All major developments that fall below these thresholds will be required to produce a satisfactory Transport Statement and Local Level Travel Plan. All these plans should demonstrate how any potential impacts will be mitigated and how such measures will be implemented.

Policy DMT 5 of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) states that development proposals will be required to ensure that safe, direct and inclusive access for pedestrians and cyclists is provided on the site connecting it to the wider network and that cycle parking and changing facilities are provided. Cycle parking must be provided in accordance with Council Standards of one space per studio, 1 or 2 bed unit and two spaces 2 per 3 or more bed unit.

Policy DMT 6 of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires that proposals comply with the Council's parking standards in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. Parking for electric vehicles should be provided at a current minimum of 5% of car parking spaces with 5% passive provision to meet the Mayor's targets. For residential development, car parking areas must include 10% of spaces suitable for a wheelchair user.

The site is currently served by the existing internal access roads of the wider development site. The scheme proposes a revised layout for elements of the parking area but does not propose to amend the number of car or cycle parking spaces. The proposed changes to the parking layout have been considered by the Council's Highways Officer who has raised

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 50 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS no objections to the application. The proposed changes are therefore deemed to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 5 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (2016). 7.11 Urban design, access and security Policy DMHB 15 of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) requires all new development to ensure safe and attractive public and private spaces.

It is considered that there are no urban design or security issues arising from the proposed internal layout amendments.

The proposals are therefore deemed to be in accordance with Policy DMHB 15 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 7.12 Disabled access Policy DMHB 16: 'Housing Standards' requires that all housing development should have an adequate provision of internal space in order to provide an appropriate living environment. To achieve this all residential development or conversions should meet or exceed the most up to date internal space standards, and in the case of major developments, provide at least 10% of new housing to be accessible or easily adaptable for wheelchair users.

Policy 7.2 of the London Plan (March 2016) requires that the all new development provides the highest standards of accessible and inclusive design. The Intend to Publish London Plan (2019) Policy D7 Accessible housing also states that at least 10 per cent of dwellings meet Building Regulation requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings'. The supporting paragraph to this policy (3.7.3) states that to ensure that all potential residents have choice within a development, the requirement for M4(3) wheelchair user dwellings applies to all tenures. Wheelchair user dwellings should be distributed throughout a development to provide a range of aspects, floor level locations, views and unit sizes.

The Council's Accessible Hillingdon SPD (Sept 2017) also requires that 10% of units be accessible in new developments.

Condition 26 of the outline consent for the wider site also requires that all residential units within the development shall be built in accordance with 'Lifetime Homes' Standards and that 10% of the units approved shall be designed and constructed to be fully wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users, as set out in the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 'Accessible Hillingdon'.

The consented mix of accessible units was: 5 x 1 beds 9 x 2 beds 4 x 3 beds Total 18 units

The proposed mix of accessible units is: 10 x 1 beds 7 x 2 beds 1 x 3 beds Total 18 units

The consented scheme included 18 accessible units and the proposals maintain this

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 51 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS number of units, although with a different mix and a greater number of smaller units. As set out above the policy position and outline consent requires that 10% of units be accessible and spread across the development. The change to the mix of units is not considered to be a positive change to the provision of accessible units, but it remains policy compliant. The Council's Access Officer has reviewed the proposals and confirmed that they raise no objections to the amended layouts. 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing The London Plan (March 2016) sets the policy framework for affordable housing delivery in London. Policy 3.12 requires boroughs to seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed-use schemes, having regard to their affordable housing targets. Policy 3.13 sets the threshold for seeking affordable housing as schemes with 10 or more units.

The development would introduce 181 dwellings, thereby triggering the Mayor's affordable housing requirement threshold. Policy H2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies relates to Affordable Housing with the Council seeking 35% of all new units in the borough delivered as affordable housing. The Council's Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (supplementary planning guidance) states that the Council aims to achieve a tenure mix of 70% social rent and 30% intermediate housing across the Borough, however it notes at paragraph 4.16 that subject to the provision of robust evidence, it will adopt a degree of flexibility in its application of Policy H2 to take account of tenure needs in different parts of the borough as well as the viability of schemes.

The reserved matters application confirmed the scheme would provide 52 of the 181 residential units as affordable housing, either as shared ownership or Discount Market Sale (DMS) - location and mix to be set out within the Affordable Housing Scheme as required by the sitewide s106 legal agreement. A subsequent Affordable Housing statement has been submitted and approved and approved by the Council. The approved 52 affordable housing units are consented as all being DMS across the following unit mix: 39 x 1 bedroom 11 x 2 bedroom 2 x 3 bedroom

The proposed design would provide the same number and mix of units but looks to distribute affordable housing dwellings more widely across the scheme. This allows for a more socially inclusive approach to the development. This is seen as an improvement to the scheme and is in line with Paragraph 4.22 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) which outlines that affordable housing provision should be 'pepper potted' around sites to allow for a mix of tenures.

Should the application be approved then an amended Affordable Housing Statement for The Old Vinyl Factory site will need to be submitted and approved in writing by the Council in line with the s106 legal agreement attached to the sitewide planning consent. 7.14 Trees, Landscaping and Ecology The proposed amendments to the approved scheme are not considered to have any impact on landscaping or ecology. 7.15 Sustainable waste management Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that development proposals should make sufficient provision for well designed internal and external storage space for general, recycling and organic waste, with

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 52 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS suitable access for collection. External bins should be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse visual impacts to occupiers and neighbours.

London Plan Policy 5.17 also requires adequate provision to be made for refuse and recycling facilities for new development.

The Council's Waste Strategy Officer has considered the amendments and welcomed the proposed changes to the bin storage areas which are for use by residents as they would be more accessible.

However, they objected to the removal of the bin store adjacent to the loading bay and proposal that bins are placed into the loading bay area for collections. This was not acceptable as this area would not be large enough to house all of the bins alongside the refuse collection vehicle. This feedback was presented to the applicant who has amended the proposed waste storage area location and increased its size (as per drawing number WH199/20/P/25.01a Rev A). The Council's Waste Strategy Officer has considered the amended plan and deemed it to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring details of traffic management during refuse collection.

This condition is recommended to be attached to any grant of planning consent. Subject to the attachment of this condition the proposals are deemed to be in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016). 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability The proposed amendments to the approved scheme are not considered to have any impact on renewable energy or sustainability. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues The proposed amendments to the approved scheme are not considered to have any impact on flooding or drainage issues. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues Noise and air quality aspects were considered as part of the outline application. The Environmental Statement submitted as part of the outline application considered the potential noise and air quality impacts associated with the development and appropriately worded conditions of approval were imposed on the outline planning permission. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations None received 7.20 Planning Obligations The planning obligations for the development of the site were secured as part of the outline planning permission and the subsequent application to vary the phasing. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action No enforcement action is required in relation to this application. 7.22 Other Issues Fire Safety Policy D12 (Fire safety) of the draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019) says that in the interests of fire safety and to ensure the safety of all building users, development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety.

The applicant's are proposing to introduce a fully sprinklered scheme to enhance fire safety in line with Policy D12 of the draft London Plan - Intend to Publish (2019).

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 53 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 8. Observations of the Borough Solicitor General Members must determine planning applications having due regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material to the application, any local finance considerations so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (including regional and national policy and guidance). Members must also determine applications in accordance with all relevant primary and secondary legislation.

Members should also consider whether a planning decision would affect human rights, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the right to respect for private and family life, the protection of property and the prohibition of discrimination. Any decision must be proportionate and achieve a fair balance between private interests and the public interest.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 54 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable

10. CONCLUSION The application seeks to vary the approved plans list condition of application reference 59872/APP/2018/1107 dated 06/12/2018 for Reserved Matters Application regarding the appearance and landscaping for Phase 3B 'The Assembly Buildings' of The Old Vinyl Factory site.

11. Reference Documents The Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Site Allocations and Designations (2020) Council's Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations Accessible Hillingdon SPD - September 2017 The London Plan (2016) Draft London Plan - Intend to publish (2019) GLA SPG Affordable Housing & Viability (August 2017) GLA SPG Housing (March 2016) GLA SPG Play and Informal Recreation (September 2012) GLA SPG Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (October 2007) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) Contact Officer:Ed Laughton Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 55 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

6 1

5 1

8 3

´1

LB -

3 4 31.4m

Works BL YT H RO AD 13 7 t o 2 13

Works TC Bs

The Global Academy 1 33

31.7m

5 El Sub Sta

o t

2 5 2

e n a L

e n o h p o m a r G The The Boiler House Old Vinyl Factory

M ate ria l W alk

E N A L

E S U O H R

O o

P 3 8 The 8 Material Store 2

o t

Gram ophon El Sub Sta e Lane

Electricity Sub Station

77 79 75

Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary The Old Vinyl Factory OF HILLINGDON Blyth Road Residents Services For identification purposes only. Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Hayes Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 59872/APP/2020/342 1:1,350 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 56 June 2020 100019283 Major Agenda Item 8

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address HARMONDSWORTH LANDFILL SITE HARMONDSWORTH LANE HARMONDSWORTH Development: Temporary ground improvement trial over a 12 month period including the construction of a temporary pre-load embankment, removal of the pre-load embankment and the installation of stone columns into the existing landfill and the construction of various types of reinforced pavements beneath sealed cell with associated works LBH Ref Nos: 43155/APP/2019/2812

Drawing Nos: Planning Drawings Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-000-350263 Location Plan HEP73-XX-SK-900-190025 Ground Improvement Trial Covering Letter 15.8.19 Letter dated 21 January 2020 Construction Dust Assessment Rev. B HEP73-XX-RP-000-350256 Flood Risk Assessment Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-900-350260 Preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-000-350262 Letter dated 12 November 2019 Noise Assessment Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-000-350261 Construction Method Statement Rev B HEP73-XX-SY-000-350264 Desktop Heritage Assessment Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-900-350257 Ecological Appraisal Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-900-3502259 Ground Improvement Risk Assessment Rev B HEP73-XX-RP-900-350247 Planning Statement REV B HEP73-XX-RP-900-350274 Harmondsworth Landfill Environmental Permit (EPR/NP3139PK Harmondsworth Landfill Hydrogeological Risk Assessment 1994 Harmondsworth Landfill Annual Review for 2010-15 Harmondsworth Landfill Hydrogeological Risk Assessment 1999

Date Plans Received: 22/08/2019 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 05/11/2019 Date Application Valid: 22/08/2019 02/09/2019 13/11/2019 22/08/2019 1. SUMMARY Temporary planning permission is sought for a period of 12 months for undertaking of ground improvement trials on the Harmondsworth Landfill Site. The works to be undertaken include construction of a temporary pre-load embankment, a hold period, removal of the pre-load embankment, the installation of stone columns down into the existing landfill, construction of various types of reinforced pavements and then a load trial across these reinforced pavements.

The proposal includes the creation of an embankment 70m x 70m and up to 10 metres. The embankment is to be made of 'locally sourced' material and is situated on top of a closed landfill site. The embankment is effectively a large mound of inert material intended to replicate a load bearing of an operational third runway. The purpose of the mound is to assess how the landfill, one of the more sensitive areas (in terms of geological structure) in the area identified for the third runway, would respond to such future loads. In turn, the proposal would lead to an understanding of what 'ground

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 57 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS improvements' may be required to stabilise the ground to facilitate the construction and ultimately safeguard the operation of the third runway.

The applicant has failed to provide any very special circumstances that justify the development in this location, which leads to the loss of, or harm to the open character of the Green Belt in this instance. The principle of the works on this site cannot be supported, as it is contrary to local, London Plan and national policy.

It should also be noted that plans for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been ruled illegal by the court of appeal because ministers did not adequately take into account the government's commitments to tackle the climate crisis.

No navigational impact assessment study has been provided and based upon the concerns raised by the safeguarding authority (NATS), it is considered that the proposal would prejudice the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport, contrary to Policy DMAV 1 of the Local Plan: Part 2.

It is recommended that the application be refused for these reasons. 2. RECOMMENDATION REFUSAL for the following reasons:

1 NON2 Non Standard reason for refusal The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been provided or are evident which either singularly or cumulatively overcome the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of Policy EM2 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012), Local Plan Part 2 Policy BMEI14 (2020), Policy 7.16 of the London Plan (2016) and paras 133, 134 and 146 of the NPPF (2019). 2 NON2 Non Standard reason for refusal In the absence of a navigational impact assessment and based upon the objection raised by the safeguarding authority, the application fails to demonstrate that the scheme would not prejudice the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport, contrary to Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMAV 1. INFORMATIVES

1 I52 Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to REFUSE planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. DMEI 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 58 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 13 Importation of Material DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMIN 3 Extraction, Landfilling and Restoration LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 7.16 (2016) Green Belt LPP 7.19 (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP 7.21 (2016) Trees and woodlands LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.14 (2016) Water quality and wastewater infrastructure LPP 5.18 (2016) Construction, excavation and demolition waste LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 6.11 (2016) Smoothing Traffic Flow and Tackling Congestion LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.6 (2016) Aviation LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. NPPF National Planning Policy Framework

3 The Local Planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and has worked pro-actively with the applicant through extensive negotiations to address material planning issues wherever possible. Notwithstanding these discussions, the scheme was ultimately considered to fail to comply with the development plan for the reason identified above.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality The application site comprises part of a former landfill site located on the southern side of Harmondsworth Lane, west of Sipson and the A408 (Sipson Road) and south of the main carriageway of the M4 Motorway. The total area of the site is approximately 0.95 hectares.

The site is operated by Suez Recycling and Recovery UK (Suez) under a permit from the Environment Agency, with restoration of the site having been completed approximately five years ago. The landfill sites now mostly used as arable land.

The site is bounded by Harmondsworth Lane to the north. Sipson Village lies to the east and an agricultural field to the west. To the south of the site there exist a mix of different uses, including agricultural fields, residential areas, general industrial units and offices, with Heathrow Airport located further to the south.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 59 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The application site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the site does not have any other statutory landscape or ecological designations.

3.2 Proposed Scheme Temporary planning permission is sought for a period of 12 months for undertaking of ground improvement trials on the Harmondsworth Landfill Site; the operations themselves are projected to occur over a period of nine months (from start on site to restoration of the site). However, a longer period has been applied for, in order to allow for any delay that might arise due to unforeseen circumstances (such as inclement weather) or the need to discharge any planning conditions.

The works to be undertaken include construction of a temporary pre-load embankment, a hold period, removal of the pre-load embankment, the installation of stone columns down into the existing landfill, construction of various types of reinforced pavements and then a load trial across these reinforced pavements.

The stone columns are proposed to be approximately 14 metres in length and would be installed down into the landfill, stopping approximately one metre from the base of the landfill, so as not to unnecessarily risk puncture and creation of pathways to the ground beneath the sealed cell.

The pre-load embankment would have a footprint of 4,900sq.m, measuring 70 metres in both length and width. It would rise from all sides towards the centre, achieving a total height of 10 metres at the central plateau; which would be 20 metres by 20 metres. The embankment would form a pyramid type structure, constructed from locally sourced materials.

The purpose of the embankment is to pre-load the area of landfill permitting time for compaction and settlement. Following this process, the embankment would then be removed. In its place, four reinforced pavements of various composition would be installed at the centre of the area where the embankment had been in place. These four variants would be: (i) geocell (and stone column), (ii) geogrid reinforced granular layer (and stone column), (iii) geocell (only) and (iv) geogrid reinforced granular layer (only).

Each variant would occupy an area of 100sq.m

Once this phase of construction has been completed, the ground improvement trials would then commence, with heavy vehicular movement used to replicate airfield trafficking. The performance of each quadrant will be measured to determine the most suitable solution for the proposed Heathrow Expansion Project.

The applicant submits that monitoring would occur at every phase of the works, so as to ensure that the development is undertaken appropriately and that the impacts of development areadequately mitigated. The latter would follow the recommendations of the reports accompanying this planning application and would be undertaken in strict accordance with British Standards, Greater London Authority (GLA) guidance and other national guidance issued both by Central Government and other organisations, such as the Environment Agency.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 60 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The total operation is anticipated to occur over a nine-month period, with a two month period of mobilisation and construction of the pre-load embankment, a three-month settling period, three months for removal of the pre-load embankment and ground improvement trials, and one month for demobilisation and reinstatement.

It is proposed that the stone columns and pavements will remain in the ground post-trial. 3.3 Relevant Planning History Comment on Relevant Planning History The proposal would be situated on part of a landfill site, where work was completed and the land restored.

The original planning permission for the "extraction of sand and gravel and refilling with inert material and restoration to agriculture" (LBH ref: 43155/89/0520) was granted on 16/09/1991. Restoration details were agreed on 5/01/1995 (LBH ref: 43155/D/93/0932).

In 1993 an application for a variation to the phasing and restoration plans was submitted. This was approved on 20/10/1999 (LBH ref: 43155/D/93/0932) and details pursuant to the aftercare scheme for the restoration of the site approved on 10/08/2005 (LBH ref: 43155/APP/2000/2595).

Subsequently, in 2012, a further variation to enable the site to be fully restored by no later than 30 September 2017, was granted planning permission on 22/02/2013 (LBH ref: 43155/APP/2012/1903).

4. Planning Policies and Standards 1.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.2 The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents: The Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Site Allocations and Designations (2020) West London Waste Plan (2015) The London Plan - Consolidated With Alterations (2016) 1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance. Emerging Planning Policies 1.4 Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019) 1.5 The GLA consulted upon a draft new London Plan between December 2017 and March 2018 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 61 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Plan. The Plan was subject to examination hearings from February to May 2019, and a Consolidated Draft Plan with amendments was published in July 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor on 8th October. 1.6 The Mayor has considered the Inspectors' recommendations and, on the 19th December 2019, issued to the Secretary of State his intention to publish the London Plan along with a statement of reasons for any of the Inspectors' recommendations that the Mayor does not wish to accept. 1.7 Limited weight should be attached to draft London Plan policies that have not been accepted by the Mayor or that have only been accepted in part/with significant amendments. Greater weight may be attached to policies that were subject to the Inspector's recommendations and have since been accepted by the Mayor through the 'Intend to Publish' version of the Plan. The weight will then increase as unresolved issues are overcome through the completion of the outstanding statutory process. Greater weight may also be attached to policies, which have been found acceptable by the Panel (either expressly or by no comment being made). UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.EM2 (2012) Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise

Part 2 Policies: DMEI 4 Development on the Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMHB 1 Heritage Assets DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 13 Importation of Material DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMIN 3 Extraction, Landfilling and Restoration LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 7.16 (2016) Green Belt LPP 7.19 (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 62 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 7.21 (2016) Trees and woodlands LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.14 (2016) Water quality and wastewater infrastructure LPP 5.18 (2016) Construction, excavation and demolition waste LPP 5.21 (2016) Contaminated land LPP 6.11 (2016) Smoothing Traffic Flow and Tackling Congestion LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.6 (2016) Aviation LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not9th Octoberapplicable 2019

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not9th Octoberapplicable 2019

6. Consultations External Consultees ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

Thank you for consulting us on the above application. We have reviewed the following documents: · Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Ground Improvement Risk Assessment Rev. B HEP73-XX-RP-900-350247 · 350247 Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Construction Method Statement REV.B HEP73-XX-SY-000-350264

Environment Agency Position We have no objection to the proposed development as submitted for the reasons outlined below. The ground improvement trial will be located within an engineered landfill currently regulated under environmental permit NP3139PK. The proposal includes the excavation and installation of stone columns and geotechnical equipment within the waste mass. This is required to understand and assess how the site reacts to additional loading from potential future development.

The existing environmental permit will control risks to the environment posed by the proposed trial and relevant pollution control measures will be applied and enforced under the permit.

Informative Landfill leachate is generated by the breakdown of organic material within the site. This is extracted and removed from the waste mass to ensure it does not affect the surrounding groundwater. This proposal will be controlled through the environmental permit to ensure leachate continues to be managed in a safe way.

Landfill gas is produced as the waste in the landfill site degrades. The proposed development is located on a landfill site that is known to be producing low levels of landfill gas consisting of methane and carbon dioxide. Methane can present a risk of fire and explosion. Carbon dioxide can present a

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 63 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS risk of asphyxiation or suffocation. The trace constituents of landfill gas can be toxic and can give rise to long and short term health risks as well as odour nuisance. The risks associated with landfill gas will depend on the controls in place to prevent uncontrolled release of landfill gas from the landfill site. Newer sites, such as Harmondsworth Landfill Site, have modern control measures in place to contain, collect and utilise the landfill gas, therefore there is a minimal risk of lateral migration.

Under the conditions of the current environmental permit for the landfill, the operator is required to monitor for sub-surface migration of landfill gas, leachate and groundwater quality at the site. An examination of our records of this monitoring show that there is no previous evidence of landfill gas or leachate migration from the site that could affect the proposed development. This environmental monitoring data from the site is available on our public register.

The following publications provide further advice on the risks from landfill gas and ways of managing these: · Waste Management Paper No · Environment Agency LFTGN03 'Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas' · Building Research Establishment guidance - BR 414 'Protective Measures for Housing on Gas- contaminated Land' 2001 · Building Research Establishment guidance - BR 212 'Construction of new buildings on gas- contaminated land' 1991 · CIRIA Guidance - C665 'Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings' 2007

Final Comments Our comments are based on our available records and the information as submitted to us.

HISTORIC ENGLAND (GLAAS)

Having considered the proposals with reference to information held in the Greater London Historic Environment Record and/or made available in connection with this application, I conclude that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest.

Although the site lies within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone, I agree with the applicant's archaeological assessment that the land has been quarried in modern times and is now devoid of archaeological interest.

No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. This response relates solely to archaeological considerations.

NATS Safeguarding

Based on our preliminary technical findings, the proposed development does conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal, however we are in talks with Heathrow about the planned works.

HARMONDSWORTH AND SIPSON RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

No response.

HARMONDSWORTH CONSERVATION AREA ADVISORY PANEL

Our objections to this proposal are based on the proximity of the site to the Heathrow Primary School and to residential housing in Sipson. The construction and removal of the pre-load

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 64 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS embankment, the installation of stone columns down into the existing landfill, construction of various types of reinforced pavements and then a load trial across these reinforced pavements will create noise and air pollution. There are other more suitable landfill sites in the area where this work could be carried out.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON (TFL)

The site of the proposed development is in the vicinity to A4 Bath Road, which forms part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN). TfL is the highway authority for the TLRN, and is therefore concerned about any proposal which may affect the performance and/or safety of the TLRN. One of the proposed routes (Holloway Road) is also served by the 350 and U3 bus routes whose operation and reliability may be affected by the proposals.

After reviewing the case documents, TfL make the following comments on the application:

· The preliminary Transport Assessment does not provide sufficient information to fully understand the traffic impact of the proposals, and we are concerned about possible impact on local bus services.

· Once more details are known the Construction Management Plan (CMP) should be prepared so that it can provide input to an updated Transport Assessment, both documents should be resubmitted for approval. The Transport Assessment should demonstrate consideration of the Vision Zero and Healthy Streets agenda, and include the existing traffic flows and bus services on the proposed routes, so that the traffic impact of the proposals can be fully understood and mitigated if necessary.

· Guidance on CMPs can be found here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/freight/publications.aspx#logistics-plan-guidance.

In summary, TfL requests that the developer addresses the above mentioned issue satisfactorily to ensure the proposed development is acceptable in transport planning, highway and policy terms.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 16-12-19

After reviewing the case documents, TfL make the following comments on the application:

The application details proposals for a ground improvement trail at Harmondsworth Landfill located in the LB Hillingdon that will generate a number of construction movements onto the local highway network.

Two quarries have been identified to supply materials for the ground improvement work, Horton Road Quarry and Sipson Road Quarry. However the application does not make it clear which quarry is to be used during the construction programme something that may change the impact of the proposed application.

The Sipson Lane Quarry option has limited impacts on TFL as only one bus route, the 222 could be affected by the routing of constructions traffic. The routing to and from the quarry is via local borough roads therefore consideration should be given to the impact of the additional HGV movements on road safety and air quality particularly at junctions along the route and within Sipson Village.

The Horton Road Quarry is located 7.2km from Harmondsworth Landfill and the routing of construction traffic would possibly impact four bus routes (350, U3, 81 & 423). The route also includes the use of a section of TLRN, the A4 Colnbrook By- Pass, however as the road is dual carriageway at that point it is suitable to be used by construction traffic. To access the TLRN the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 65 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS local borough roads of Holloway Lane and Hatch Lane are proposed to be used therefore consideration should be given to the impact of the additional HGV movements on road safety and air quality particularly at junctions along the route and within Harmondsworth.

The application details that during the peak months the site will generate 235 movements per day which across a 8 hour working day would equate to 15 trips per hour. This would lead to a vehicle needing to enter or leave site every 4 minutes. The short headway between each vehicle would mean that any congestion on the route may lead to bunching of vehicles. Little information is given on how the site access will be managed should this occur.

Section 1.4 details measures to reduce peak hour trip generation but no measures are stated other than traffic will be monitored and dynamically risk assessed during peak hours and movements will be adjusted accordingly. Given the nature of the area surrounding the site and sensitive receptors (schools, Churches etc) it may be worth considering if a condition to limit or avoid movements in peak hours is necessary to mitigate the impact. However limiting the hours available may increase the number of movements at other times or extend the work programme.

The Preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment states that once the source of fill is confirmed a logistics management plan will be prepared providing more details on the haulage routes and truck movements. TfL would like to have visibility of this once complete and would encourage this to be prepared in line with our construction logistics plan guidance with particular attention given to some of the planned measures listed. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/transport-assessment-guide/freight

in conclusion TfL would like to see the above points addressed before the application can be fully supported.

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND COMPANY LIMITED

Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such Highways England works to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

In the case of this proposed development, Highways England is interested in the potential impact that the development might have upon the SRN, in particular, at M4 Junction 4. We are interested as to whether there would be any adverse safety implications or material increase in queues and delays on the SRN as a result of development.

Having read the applicants preliminary traffic assessment provided in their application, we are unable to assess the impact of the proposed development on the SRN. The applicant notes the location of the source material is not yet confirmed, but will be assessed in a logistics management plan upon the selection of a site. Given that the preliminary traffic assessment indicates between 200 and 250 vehicles per day servicing the site, Highways England will be interested to understand what impact this has on the SRN. The applicant has also stated that their daily working hours will be between 08:00 and 18:00 Monday to Friday, however they have not included any information on measures to reduce peak hour trip generation.

Until we have information on the location of the source material and proposed routings we are not able to assess the impact of the above application on the SRN, in particular, at M4 Junction 4. We also request information on measures to reduce peak hour trip generation for the duration of the ground improvement trials.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 66 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS I trust the above is of assistance. This email does not constitute a formal recommendation from Highways England.

Accordingly, we formally request that your authority refrains from determining this application, other than refusal, until such time as we have received and considered all the requested information. Once we are able to adequately assess the above and its potential impact on the SRN, and this has been agreed with the developer, we will provide you with our final formal response.

If, in the meantime, your authority wishes to determine the application, please let us know and we will provide you with a formal response based on the information available at that time.

We look forward to receiving the additional information in due course.

Additional Comments 28/11/2019

We have reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant concerning impacts on the SRN, in particular, at M4 Junction 4. It states that "both routes do not cross the M4 Junction 4 but utilise other roads". The proposed routes provided in Annex 1 indicate this will be the case as neither utilise the SRN. However, noting the location of the potential quarry location at Horton Road, Highways England would like to be assured that vehicles will not be routed via M4 Junction 5 and instructed to use the local road network at all times, as proposed in the management plan.

Therefore, based on the above, Highways England have no objection to this application.

HEATHROW AERODROME SAFEGUARDING

No response.

HEATHROW AIRPORT LIMITED

No response.

NATURAL ENGLAND

No Objection. Based on the plans submitted, Natural England considers that the proposed development will not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes. Internal Consultees HIGHWAY ENGINEER

Site Characteristics & Proposal

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 67 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The overall site was previously a 'sand & gravel' mineral extraction site (now landfill) located on the southern side of Harmondsworth Lane, west of Sipson and the A408 (Sipson Road) due south of the M4. It has now been restored to arable land which is designated as Green Belt. The proposal consists of undertaking 'ground improvement' trials in order to assess how certain types of foundations perform on a small segment of this landfill site. On the premise of unforeseen circumstance, this application seeks a longer trial period than the anticipated 9 month 'window' of works.

A temporary permission is therefore sought for up to a period of 12 months for a sequential test to be undertaken consisting of the construction of i) a 'pre-load' embankment (PLE) (to be placed on a small northern segment of the existing landfill site), ii) the installation of stone piles and thereafter, iii) the construction and trial loading of various reinforced pavements. Results would inform and determine the most effective ground improvement solutions related to the envisaged 3rd runway expansion of Heathrow.

Irrespective of the length of the trial period, there would be a 1 month 'mobilisation' period to prepare for the construction of the pre load embankment (PLE) with the final month dedicated for demobilisation.

After the first month, the PLE would remain for a period of 3 months to adequately compact the underlying landfill. The remaining 4 months (assuming a 9 month operation) or 7 months (if the full period extends to 12 months) would include the removal of the PLE and installation of piers (stone columns) with roadway construction (several variants) and subsequent repeated road test trafficking.

Direct traffic movement on Harmondsworth Lane linked to the proposal would be avoided as vehicular access would be achieved through the adjacent Recycling and Recovery (R & R) site (to the north) which is accessed from Holloway Lane designated as a main thoroughfare. Arriving and departing vehicles would therefore only need to cross Harmondsworth Lane at a single priority junction which links the R&R and proposal site.

Vehicular Activity

Initial first month of 'preparatory and construction works' for the PLE It is anticipated that 200-250 daily vehicle movements between 8am to 6pm would occur during this period which includes for 10-15 vehicles linked to "engineering works'. These levels also apply to the decommissioning of the PLE. However there is no further detail provided which would indicate/estimate anticipated traffic movements on an hourly i.e. peak traffic hour basis. Material supply routing and vehicle frequency is stated as an 'unknown' at this stage as suppliers for the embankment landfill and stone columns are not as yet identified. Such relevant information is considered as essential prior to conclusions being drawn on the acceptability (or otherwise) of the proposal in terms of highway impact.

3 month PLE 'hold' period

During this period of static ground loading it is anticipated that general activity would be inherently dormant comprising of limited monitoring activities only as stated by the applicant. This element of the operation does not therefore give initial rise to concern but details of the level of monitoring would be considered useful and should have been inclusive to the submission.

Subsequent months to completion

Once the PLE is removed, installation of piers (stone columns) with roadway construction (several variants) and subsequent repeated road test trafficking would follow. Again no details of what this

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 68 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS would involve in terms of vehicular activity on a daily and peak traffic hour basis have been provided. This information is required to inform this authority on whether activities are manageable (or otherwise).

Principle of Access

The utilisation of the main access and roadways affiliated with the adjacent R&R operation is, in broad terms, considered acceptable in principle as impacts on the lesser trafficked and more sensitive Harmondsworth Lane would be minimised.

Conclusion

Based on the lack of submitted information related to traffic activity, it is not possible for this Authority to make a fully informed decision of the acceptability (or otherwise) of the proposal. In the absence of full details being provided on the anticipated daily and hourly traffic levels for each phase throughout the term of the project, the application fails to demonstrate that the scheme would not result in harm to the local and strategic highway network.

Additional Comments 28/11/2019

Information with regard to items 1, 2 and 3 above has now been received. The indicative hourly frequency figures suggest that relatively manageable hourly trips would occur for each of the 3 events. There is no evidence to suggest that the presented figures overly under or overestimate future events and hence are considered realistic. Routing from either Horton Road or Sipson Road quarry had been anticipated and although precise routing information from either location is not fully demonstrated, the aforementioned predicted level of HGV/LGV movement does not give rise to specific concern given the relatively diluted and low intensity of vehicle travel frequency to and from the site. The applicant raises an assurance that traffic movements would be 'monitored and dynamically risk assessed' and, where possible, peak traffic hours would be avoided. This 'assurance' should ideally be conditioned accordingly.

It is noted that the applicant highlights that junction 4 of the M4 would be avoided which is more relevant to Highways England as this element falls under their jurisdiction. However this is likely to place more burden on LBH's local roadways but, as highlighted earlier, does not give rise to distress given the level of anticipated vehicular activity.

Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to result in material harm to the local and strategic highway network and accords with Local Plan Part 2 Saved UDP Policies AM2 and AM7 and emerging Local Plan Part 2 (2015) Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 and Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (2016)."

CONTAMINATION OFFICER

1 Position

The Council requires further information to be able to determine the acceptability of the proposals. If this information is not forthcoming or the applicant refuses to provide it then the application must be refused. In the event of this happening, further comments will be provided.

2 Summary of Comments:

I have reviewed the following report and documentation:

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 69 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS ·Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Planning Statement; Ref HEP73-XX-RP-900- 350274 ·Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Construction Method Statement Rev. B (Ref.HEP73-XX-SY-000-350264 ) ·Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Ground Improvement Risk Assessment Rev.B (Ref. HEP73-XX-RP-900-350247) ·Ground Improvement Trial Harmondsworth Landfill - Supporting Planning Drawings Rev B HEP73- XX-RP-000-350263

The information contained within the submitted documents is considered incomplete in terms of the depth of information and details which the LPA requires to fully assess the project's viability in terms of land contamination and therefore the application is considered unsuitable for a recommendation to grant planning permission.

Based on the available information submitted for the planning application, it is considered particularly difficult for the LPA to conduct a suitable review of details concerning possible land contamination issues associated with the proposed works within the boundary of the site, including assessing the likely impacts on any identified receptors present beyond the boundary.

The site was formally used for mineral extraction with backfilling with landfill material. The landfilling operations were subject to various protective measures and controls to manage contamination, leachate and gas. Full details of these measures are not known.

Based on a precautionary approach and in lieu of sufficient information, the Council considers the development presents a high risk to the previous protective measures as well as mobilising contaminants that cause harm to current sensitive receptors and future end users. Importantly the proposal:

-Is not considered to be in accordance with existing management schemes that are currently in place and applicable to the existing permitted landfilling / closure operations. The proposals could undermine existing controls to ensure protection from contamination.

-Is likely to introduce further issues relating to safety, human health, and environmental impacts relating to the introductions of new procedures and contaminants to the site and its surrounding environs.

In this case the LPA consider that the proposed trials may pose an unacceptable risk of causing a detrimental impact to land quality because the applicant has failed to provide:

-Adequate details of the source/s of materials to the site to create the surcharge and the means of introducing them on to the site.

-Details of the locations and means of disposal/storage of materials to be taken from the site.

-Adequate details and a suitable schedule / monitoring plan detailing how site monitoring and reporting of the existing and proposed site infrastructure will be dealt with during all phases of the proposed trial.

-Adequate details and method statement detailing how surface water run-off will be dealt with during the construction / surcharging phase of the proposed trial.

-Adequate information and method statement detailing how landfill leachate will be dealt with during all phases of the proposed trial.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 70 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS -Adequate information and method statement detailing how landfill gas and condensate will be dealt with during all phases of the proposed trial.

-Adequate details of how the Dangerous Substances and Explosive atmospheres Regulations (DSEAR) will be implemented at site during all phases of the proposed trial.

-Adequate details of relevant conceptual site modelling.

-Sufficient details of restoration.

TREE AND LANDSCAPE OFFICER

This site is occupied by a former landfill site on the south side of Harmondsworth Lane, situated to the west of Sipson Village and north of Bath Road / Newbury Road. The approved restoration plan required the land to be restored to agricultural land in the form of two large fields separated by a hedgerow, with hedgerow and trees around the perimeter. Each field was due to be domed in the middle rising some 5-6 metres to between 30 and 31 metres at the centre, from approximately 26 metres at the edges.

These comments are made without the benefit of a site inspection and it is not known to what stage, if any, the land has been restored. According to the Ecological Appraisal the landfill site was restored approximately 5 years ago. )

COMMENT The proposal involves the installation of 500mm diameter deep stone piles / columns which will support geocell and geogrid blankets of compacted granular fill which, together with a drainage layer will be approximately 1.5 -2.5 metres deep. Above this will be a truncated pyramid of fill material <10 metres high with steep sides of 1:2.5. The method statement refers to the recent (existing) land restoration which includes the creation of a 1000mm deep engineered clay cap, above which is a 1000mm mineral capping topped with 1000mm topsoil. The method statement also refers to the land take occupied by the pyramid, some 100m x 80m in the centre of the site, spanning the location occupied by a new/proposed field boundary hedge.

RECOMMENDATIONS Landscape considerations include the following: 1. The landscape and visual impact of the temporary pyramid structure and the time frame. 2. The potential damage to existing soils and sub soils caused by inappropriate handling and storage. Handling and storage should be guided by the DEFRA Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009). 3. It is stated that some of the 'temporary' structures (the stone columns will not be removed at the end of the trial) will be left in situ prior to restoration of the landfill site. What will be the effect on local soils, hydrology and future land use of leaving this infrastructure in situ?

FLOOD OFFICER

The proposals will alter the topography of the land which will alter the drainage of the site and may increase the speed at which water reaches the edge of the site. The size of the ditches and arrangement therefore should be detailed.

Ground water levels are indicated to be high in this area and there is no detailed information submitted to indicate that these ditches will not already be full of groundwater. Groundwater investigations on the site should be undertaken in advance of any permission given, to inform a drainage proposal. These must be agreed and details provided in a format to the satisfaction of the Council which is then used to inform drainage proposals on the site.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 71 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The groundwater observations indicated to be undertaken just before and during and after the construction as well as the information collected from any monitoring must be shared with the Council in a format which can be imported and added to our interactive web based system.

To confirm assumptions of the landfill lining and capping disconnecting the site from groundwater tables, groundwater levels should be monitored weekly, for 2 weeks prior to construction, during construction, and for 1 month following construction.

Additional Comments 02-03-20 :

A letter dated 12th nov confirms that the understanding of the existing site surface water drainage is based on a review of the Environmental Permit (Permit number EPR/NP3139PK) which details the proposed landfill surface water drainage. The current assumption is that these proposals were constructed and are operational.

Surface water control measures, as presented in drawing no. HSP-PPCB-0610-01, comprise ditches surrounding the site perimeter, with soakaways periodically located along the alignment of the ditches.

It is noted that as-built details of surface water drainage measures, including ditch size and soakaway capacity will be confirmed during design development.

Following the meeting on the 8th Jan., a subsequent letter was submitted on the 21st Jan 2020. Schedule 7 appears to show two SW monitoring points to the west of the site and none to the east where the soakaways are mainly located.

In the event of an aproval, the following condition/s should be imposed:

Condition: These as built details of the SW drainage including new transfer pathway in CAD format should be provided to the Local Authority for approval, along with calculations demonstrating the the overall scheme will meet the 2020 current standards of control and managed to the 1 in 100 year plus appropriate level of climate change.

It is noted in the EP that "The Operator shall submit a revised Surface Water Monitoring Plan, HAR/06, to the Environment Agency, to include the monitoring pointsinstalled under Improvement Condition 1.4.1.3 specified in the original permit NP3139PK.

Condition: The Operator shall review and submit proposals to the Environment Agency for revised groundwater quality triggerlevels for individual or groups of monitoring boreholes. The Monitoring undertaken should be provided to the Lead Local Flood Authority for understanding andassessment of the management of the groundwater andsurface water flood risks.

POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING (PEP)

The applicant has put forward the view that the proposed works meet the definition of 'engineering operations' which para. 145 of the NPPF states are not inappropriate in the Green Belt. There is no formal definition of engineering works in planning policy. However planning case law has established that it generally covers works that would need to be supervised by an engineer due to its level of complexity. Works that would not require the ongoing input of engineers such as the creation of hardstanding should be regarded as building operations as set out in the Town and Country Planning

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 72 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Act 1990 (asamended).

The Planning Statement outlines that the work to be undertaken includes: 'a temporary pre-load embankment, a hold period, removal of the pre-load embankment, the installation of stone columns down into the existing landfill, construction of various types of reinforced pavements and then a load trial across these reinforced pavements.'

The elements to be constructed include: The stone columns are proposed to be approximately 14 metres in length and would be installed down into the landfill. A pre-load embankment with a footprint of 4,900sq.m, measuring 70 metres in both length and width. It would rise from all sides towards the centre, achieving a total height of 10 metres at the central plateau; which would be 20 metres by 20 metres. The purpose of the embankment is to pre-load the area of landfill permitting time for compaction and settlement.

Following this process, the embankment would then be removed. In its place, four composition variants of reinforced pavements would be installed at the centre of the area where the embankment had been in place.

These four variants would be: (i) geocell (and stone column), (ii) geogrid reinforced granular layer (and stone column), (iii) geocell (only) and (iv) geogrid reinforced granular layer (only). Each variant would occupy an area of 100sq.m. Once this phase of construction has been completed, the ground improvement trials would then commence, with heavy vehicular movement used to replicate airfield trafficking. The performance of each quadrant will be measured to determine the most suitable solution for the proposed Heathrow Expansion Project.

The total operation is anticipated to occur over a nine month period, with a two month period of mobilisation and construction of the pre-load embankment, a three-month settling period, three months for removal of the pre-load embankment and ground improvement trials, and one month for demobilisation and reinstatement. It is proposed that the stone columns will remain in the ground post-trial, providing greater rigidity to the landfillsite moving forward.

The Planing statement concludes that these would constitute engineering works as they would 'alter the profile of land by excavation, embanking or tipping, or alternatively, those which change the character of the surface of land by the laying down of hard standing'. As stated above, case law demonstrates that evidence should be provided that these works are of sufficient complexity to require the ongoing supervision of an engineer. Without the demonstration of this additional complexity, such works could also be classed as building operations that would be inappropriate within the Green Belt.

The Planning Statement does not currently provide any evidence on the complexity of the works or the involvement of engineers. On this basis, it is not clear that they would fall within the exception in para 145. More evidence in this regard should therefore be sought from the applicant. Furthermore, it is not agreed that the provision of hard standing would fall within the definition of engineering works given that this would materially change the function of the Green Belt even if temporary. Very special circumstances should therefore be provided to justify the inclusion of these elements in the proposal.

ACCESS OFFICER

No accessibility observations are deemed necessary in respect of this proposal. 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 73 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The whole of the application site is designated as Green Belt. The main policy issue in relation to this development is considered to be the principle of additional development within the Green Belt and its impact on the openness, character and appearance of the Green Belt.

The application seeks a temporary consent for a period of twelve months, with the operations anticipated as lasting for nine of those months. Of this time period, it is proposed that the pre-load embankment is to be in situ for a maximum period of six months prior to the main trial works, and a trial pavement.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is relevant. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Nevertheless, the document states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 143 of the revised NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances'.

According to paragraph 144 of the revised NPPF, when determining applications, LPAs should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt; 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

However, paragraph 146 sets out types of development that are not inappropriate within the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are: a) Mineral extraction; b) Engineering operations; c) Local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; d) The re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are permanent and substantial construction; e) Material changes in use of land; and f) Development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order or Neighbourhood Development Order.

As set out elsewhere in this report, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the exemptions as set out in Para 146 of the NPPF do not apply in this case.

London Plan Policy 7.16: Green Belt - Emphasises the importance of the Green Belt and its protection from inappropriate development, noting that applications should be considered in accordance with national guidance and that inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. The Policy states that 'development will be supported if it is appropriate and helps secure the objectives of improving the Green Belt as set out in national guidance';

Policies in the Hillingdon Local Plan endorse national and London Plan guidance. The London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 Policy EM2: (Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and Green Chains) states that the Council will seek to maintain the current

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 74 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS functions of the Green Belt and that any development proposed within the Green Belt will be considered against national and London Plan policies.

Local Plan: Part 2 Policy DMEI 4 (Development in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open land) reiterates that inappropriate development will not be permitted unless there are very exceptional circumstances, while noting that redevelopment on sites will be permitted only where they would not harm openness or conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

The proposal seeks a temporary consent for the undertaking of what the applicant describes as engineering operations for a period of 12 months. As stated within the NPPF, engineering operations are one of the forms of development that are considered to be not inappropriate within the Green Belt, provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. However, officers consider that the creation of a pre-load embankment, together with the the main trial works, and the construction of the trial pavements will significantly impact upon the openness of the Green Belt during the works, totally affecting its character.

In addition, it should be noted that there is no formal definition of engineering works in planning policy. Planning case law has established that it generally covers works that would need to be supervised by an engineer due to its level of complexity. Works that would not require the ongoing input of engineers such as the creation of hard standing should be regarded as building operations as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

The Planning Statement outlines that the work to be undertaken would constitute engineering works as they would 'alter the profile of land by excavation, embanking or tipping, or alternatively, those which change the character of the surface of land by the laying down of hard standing'. As stated above, case law demonstrates that evidence should be provided that these works are of sufficient complexity to require the ongoing supervision of an engineer. Without the demonstration of this additional complexity, officers consider that such works should be classed as building operations that would be inappropriate within the Green Belt. Para145 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The Planning Statement does not currently provide any evidence on the complexity of the works or the involvement of engineers. On this basis, it is not clear that the works would fall within the exception in para 145 of the NPPF. Furthermore, it is not agreed that the provision of hard standing would fall within the definition of engineering works, given that this would materially change the function of the Green Belt even on a if temporary basis. In addition, as stated previously, it is considered that the proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the exemptions as set out in Para 146 of the NPPF do not apply in this case. Very special circumstances would therefore need to be provided to justify the inclusion of these elements in the proposal.

The Applicant has failed to put forward any very special circumstances, having solely taken the view that the proposals are appropriate development in the Green Belt, on the basis that it involves engineering operations. The applicant has therefore put forward the argument that there is no requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances. However, for the reasons stated above, officers do not share the view that the works

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 75 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS constitute appropriate development in the Green Belt, as this is not in accordance with paragraphs 145 and 146 of the NPPF. Furthermore the proposed development significantly harms the openness of the Green Belt which is contrary to local, London Plan and national policies as set out above.

It should also be noted that the policy support for the expansion of Heathrow Airport have been deemed illegal by the Appeals Court. This policy, the Airports National Policy Statement, was the sole policy justification for Heathrow expansion. Without this policy support there is no justification of Heathrow expansion and consequently no weight can be given to the need for this proposal to serve Heathrow expansion. Notwithstanding the officer conclusion on engineering works set out above; the applicant's position is that their 'engineering works' are required to determine how best to deliver a future proposal that is no longer deliverable.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and very special circumstances therefore need to be demonstrated. As no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, the application should be refused on the basis that it significantly harms the openness of the Green Belt. 7.02 Density of the proposed development Not applicable. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character The site does not fall within a, conservation area, or area of special character.

Policy HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1 aims to conserve and enhance Hillingdon's distinct and varied environment, its settings and the wider historic landscape. Policy DMHB 11 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design. It should take into account aspects including the scale of the development considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and established street patterns; building lines and streetscape rhythm and landscaping. It should also not adversary impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

The application is supported by a desktop heritage assessment, which is principally concerned with the impact of the operations upon archaeological remains that may be present on the site. The report indicates that, while it is known that human activity did occur through pre-history in this location, previous excavation projects and the use of the site as landfill have resulted in the removal of all archaeological material. Although the site lies within the Heathrow Archaeological Priority Zone, Historic Englad (GLAAS) agrees with the applicant's archaeological assessment that the land has been quarried in modern times and is now devoid of archaeological interest. Consequently, it is not anticipated that any archaeological remains exist at the application site.

Protected heritage assets, such as the Harmondsworth Conservation Area, were not identified as being materially affected by the development in the study. The proposals relate to operations to be undertaken over a temporary period of time, at which point the land to which the operations relate would be reinstated. No substantial harm would, therefor occur. Consequently, it is considered that there are no significant heritage implications arising from the proposed development. 7.04 Airport safeguarding

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 76 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policy T4: Heathrow Airport of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (Adopted 2012) recognises the economic importance of the airport to the Borough. The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1-Strategic Policies support the sustainable operation of Heathrow within its present boundaries and growth in the Heathrow Opportunity Area, by facilitating improvements to public transport and cycle links, enhancing the public transport interchange to provide the opportunity for a modal shift from the use of private cars and from short haul air to sustainable transport modes and providing transport infrastructure to accommodate economic and housing growth, whilst improving environmental conditions, for example noise and local air quality for local communities

Local Plan: Part 2 Policy DMAV 1: (Safe Operation of Airports) states inter alia that the Council will support the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport and that proposals that may be a hazard to aircraft safety will not be permitted.

National Air Traffic Services (NATS) has submitted that based on its preliminary technical findings, the proposed development conflicts with its safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) plc objects to the proposal. Although NATS has advised that it is in talks with Heathrow about the planned works, no further submissions have been received and it has not withdrawn its objection.

NATS has not provided specific technical details to support its grounds of objection. However, a new building, structure or extension (because of its size, shape, location or construction materials) can affect navigational and radio aids and telecommunications systems equipment. No navigational impact assessment study has been provided in spport of this application and based upon the concerns raised by the safeguarding authority, it is considered that the proposal would prejudice the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport, contrary to Policy DMAV 1 of the Local Plan: Part 2. It is recommended that the application be refused on this basis. 7.05 Impact on the green belt Paragraph 133 of the NPPF says that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

London Plan Policy 7.16 says that the strongest protection should be given to London's Green Belt, in accordance with national guidance. Inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. This is reiterated in Local Plan (Part 1) Policy EM2 and Draft Local Plan (Part 2) Policy BMEI 4

The applicant submits that the temporary works would not create permanent development within the Green Belt that will significantly impact upon its openness during the works or irrevocably affect its character after their completion.

It is acknowledged that the proposal would not materially affect the openness of the Green Belt in the long term, as the application seeks a temporary consent for a period of twelve months. However, in the short to medium term, the creation of a pre-load embankment, together with the the main trial works, and the construction of the trial pavements will significantly impact upon the openness of the Green Belt during the works, totally affecting its character.

It is considered that the proposed wks would result in an industrial/commercial appearance, which effectively extends into open land. The finished effect of developing this

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 77 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS open, rural site would project industrial development into the surrounding Green Belt. In effect, the development would result in commercial sprawl encroaching into the surrounding open land and would be alien to the Green Belt character of the wider area. It is therefore considered that the proposed use would result in a significant increase in the built up appearance of the site, and result in a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt. The proposals are not considered acceptable on this basis. The proposal therefore conflicts with Green Belt Paragraphs 133 and 134 of the NPPF.

In conclusion, the proposal would diminish the intrinsic character of this Green Belt land, by transforming the open rural nature of the area to a harder, industrial character, encroaching into the spacious green landscape and influencing views and vistas to and from the Green Belt. Should the proposed development be allowed, part of this Green Belt land would no longer effectively fulfil its function of checking unrestricted urban sprawl, or assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated, contrary to Local Plan (Part 1) Policy EM2, Local Plan (Part 2) Policy BMEI 4 and London Plan Policy 7.16 and the provisions of the NPPF. 7.06 Environmental Impact The site is known to have a history of contaminative uses including mineral extraction and subsequent landfilling operations which, as outlined in the Councils Contaminated Land Strategy and aligned site prioritisations, are ranked as high priority activities.

However, it is understood that, despite early operations being controlled by less onerous regulatory regimes, the more recent waste management processes (for the landfilling operations and subsequent monitoring of the closed site) were and continue to be managed by prescribed modern controls and procedures that are regulated by the Environment Agency (EA), all in accordance with European Waste Management Regulations, including the Landfill Directive, as enacted by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales Regulations) (2010).

It has therefore not been required for the Council to oversee or scrutinise the routine management operations at the site whilst an Environmental Permit is in place, to which the EA are operating as primary regulators.

However, for the LPA to consider the submitted documents in terms of a planning application, and notwithstanding the information already submitted, officers consider that additional and more detailed site-specific information is required for review.

The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposed development as submitted, on the basis that the ground improvement trial will be located within an engineered landfill currently regulated under environmental permit NP3139PK; the existing environmental permit will control risks to the environment posed by the proposed trial and relevant pollution control measures will be applied and enforced under the permit.

However, officers consider that the Environment Agency has been unable to satisfy the Council that the existing permitting arrangements will adequately serve the change to the working profile on the landfill site. The proposals subject to this application were never intended within the existing permitting arrangement, which essentially covers a closed site. The temporary works on the site to store vast quantities of material has unknown implications for impacts to ground, surface water and landfill gas.

Furthermore, the monitoring and reporting arrangements in the existing permit do not appear to be comprehensive or reactive enough to respond to the siting of material on the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 78 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS landfill site. The Agency has confirmed no changes to the permit will be carried out and has not allayed the Council's concerns.

Consequently this leaves a significant gap in environmental protection. Had the proposal been acceptable in other respects and approval recommended, a condition would be necessary to make up for the apparent shortfall in the monitoring and reporting regime of the existing permit.

Such a condition would require the submission of a scheme for the monitoring and reporting of impacts of the development on controlled waters (including ground and surface), drainage, and landfill gas. The scheme shall detail the monitoring measures (including type and location of monitoring points) and how the results will be regularly reported to the Council and the Environment Agency. The scheme would also set the safe working parameters for controlled waters and human health which must be maintained. Finally, the scheme would need to outline the mechanisms and measures to be undertaken should the parameters be exceeded. The development would need to proceed in accordance with the approved scheme.

In addition, a condition would be required to ensure that no contaminated soils or other materials be imported to the site. All imported materials for surcharging purposes and gravels for piled columns would need to be clean and free of contamination. All imported materials would need to be independently tested for chemical contamination, and the results of this testing submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All soils used for future landscaping purposes would also need to be clean and free of contamination.

The reason for imposing such conditions would be to ensure that risks from land contamination to the site and its neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, and ecological systems and so that the trials can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area The impact on the character and apearance of the area has been dealt with elsewhere in this report. 7.08 Impact on neighbours Policy DMHB 11 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that proposals should not have an adversary impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. Policy DMHD 1 also requires that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers.

There are no immediate neighbours within the vicinity of the proposed development. The works would be sufficiently remote from surrounding residents so that their amenities would not be adversely affected. As the development would be sited a sufficient distance away from adjoining properties, it is not considered that there would be any loss of amenity to surrounding occupiers, in compliance with relevant Local Plan Policies and standards. 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers Not applicable to this application. . 7.10 Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety ACCESS

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 79 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS An existing site access is present at Harmondsworth landfill off Harmondsworth Lane. It is understood that construction / delivery equipment did not travel directly along Harmondsworth Lane during the operation of Harmondsworth Landfill, to avoid trafficking through local villages, but an access track through an existing recycling and recovery site operated by Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, accessed from Holloway Lane was previously used. It is proposed that the delivery of equipment and materials will use the same traffic route through the recycling and recovery site from Holloway Lane as during the historical operation of Harmondsworth Landfill, to avoid trafficking through the local villages.

The existing site entrance to Harmondsworth landfill site is located off Harmondsworth Lane in a 20 mph speed zone. The road is a single carriageway with a pedestrian footpath on the northern carriageway only. Dense vegetation boarders both sides of the road. Overhead street lighting appears absent. At the location of the entrance existing pelican crossing lights are present, associated with the landfill operation. The entrance of the site is currently gated with a level access from Harmondsworth Lane

The existing access will be utilised with no modifications envisaged. Access arrangements to travel through the existing recycling and recovery site, operated by Suez Recycling and Recovery UK Ltd, will be agreed prior to mobilisation.

The Highway Engineer considers that the utilisation of the main access and roadways affiliated with the adjacent SUEZ operation is, in broad terms acceptable in principle, as impacts on the lesser trafficked and more sensitive Harmondsworth Lane would be minimised.

TRAFFIC GENERATION

Daily working hours for both the ground improvement trial are envisaged between 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday. All trial works are estimated to be completed over a 9 months period, albeit site activities reducing during period of testing and monitoring. It is envisaged that the majority of traffic impact will affect the initial 2 month mobilisation and construction period and the final 1 month during demobilisation.

It is anticipated that 200-250 daily vehicle movements between 8am to 6pm would occur during this period which includes for 10-15 vehicles linked to "engineering works'. These levels also apply to the decommissioning of the PLE.

During this period of static ground loading it is anticipated that general activity would be inherently dormant, comprising of limited monitoring activities only. This element of the operation does not therefore give initial rise to concern. Once the PLE is removed, installation of piers (stone columns) with roadway construction (several variants) and subsequent repeated road test trafficking would follow.

However there no details were initially provided which would indicate/estimate anticipated traffic movements on an hourly i.e. peak traffic hour basis. Material supply routing and vehicle frequency was stated as an 'unknown' at this stage, as suppliers for the embankment landfill and stone columns had not as yet identified. The Highway Engineer connsidered that such relevant information was essential prior to conclusions being drawn on the acceptability (or otherwise) of the proposal in terms of highway impact.

In response to the above mentioned concerns, the applicant has provided further

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 80 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Information. The Highway Engineer considers that the indicative hourly frequency figures suggest that relatively manageable hourly trips would occur for each of the stages of development. The predicted level of HGV/LGV movement does not give rise to specific concern, given the relatively diluted and low intensity of vehicle travel frequency to and from the site. The applicant raises an assurance that traffic movements would be 'monitored and dynamically risk assessed' and, where possible, peak traffic hours would be avoided. The Preliminary Traffic Impact Assessment states that once the source of fill is confirmed a logistics management plan will be prepared providing more details. Had the application been acceptable in other respects, this 'assurance' could be conditioned accordingly.

It is noted that the applicant highlights that junction 4 of the M4 would be avoided which is likely to place more burden on LBH's local roadways . However, the Highway Engineer does not consider that this gives rise to concerns, given the level of anticipated vehicular activity. Highways England has reviewed the additional information provided by the applicant concerning impacts on the strategic road network (SRN) in particular, at M4 Junction 4. Based on the above, Highways England have no objection to this application.

Given the nature of the area surrounding the site and sensitive receptors (schools, Churches etc.),TfL has suggested a condition to limit or avoid movements in peak hours to mitigate the impact. althogh acknowledging that limiting the hours available may increase the number of movements at other times or extend the work programme.

In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in material harm to the local and strategic highway network and accords with Local Plan Part 2 (2020) Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 and Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (2016). 7.11 Urban design, access and security Urban design issues have been addressed elsewhere in this report. 7.12 Disabled access Not applicable. 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing Not applicable: 7.14 Trees, landscaping and Ecology Policy 5.10 of the London Plan (2016) states that development proposals should integrate green infrastructure to contribute to urban greening, including the public realm.

Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) also requires that new development is high quality, sustainable, adaptable,and harmonises with the local context. Landscaping and tree planting should also enhance amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure.

Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies(January 2020) states: A) All developments will be expected to retain or enhance existing landscaping, trees, biodiversity or other natural features of merit. B) Development proposals will be required to provide a landscape scheme that includes hard and soft landscaping appropriate to the character of the area, which supports and enhances biodiversity and amenity particularly in areas deficient in green infrastructure.

The Tree and Landsape Officer raises no objections to the proposed development but

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 81 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS notes that there will be landscape and visual impact of the temporary pyramid structure and there is potential for damage to existing soils and sub soils caused by inappropriate handling and storage. As such, handling and storage should be guided by the DEFRA Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009). This could be secured by condition, in the event of an approval.

It is also stated that some of the 'temporary' structures (the stone columns) will not be removed at the end of the trial, but will be left in situ prior to restoration of the landfill site. However, once works are complete and the site demobilised, site restoration will comprise the construction of a new capping system. Although fnal details of the land restoration have not been provided, these could be secured by condition in the event of an approval, in order to comply with the above mentioned policies.

ECOLOGY

The application is supported by an appraisal of local ecology. The ecological appraisal concluded that the likely impact upon the ecology of the area from the development was: loss of habitat, disturbance (noise, vibration, light and visual), pollution (drainage and surface water run off) and construction site hazard. The report concludes that all identified impacts can be appropriately mitigated.

A summary of the proposed mitigation is provided below. > An Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW) will oversee and guide the implementation of the ecological tasks undertaken and advise when and where it is appropriate to apply the measures > All site operatives will be briefed on the relevant mitigation by a suitably qualified ecologist. > Where ecological supervision is not required, because the risk to ecological features is negligible, the general principles of mitigation should be adhered to > The site supports habitats that could be used by nesting birds including scrub and arable. It is recommended that vegetation is cleared over winter to avoid damaging or destroying nests or killing animals, which would otherwise be an offence under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). > If this is not possible (e.g. vegetation could be used by hibernating reptiles and can't be cleared overwinter), a nesting bird check should take place 48 hours before clearance is due to start. If nests are found they must be left until the young have fledged, with a suitable no-work buffer to avoid disturbance. > For key specially protected species, appropriate protection zones based upon industry standard guidance will be established. The Project Ornithologist will carry out a Protected Species Risk Assessment to assess whether disturbance can be avoided during the works. > A badger survey within 30 m of the proposed works will be undertaken prior to construction to check for any changes in the distribution of badger activity. > All excavations will be filled or covered overnight. If this is not possible a suitable ramp will be installed to allow animals to escape. > The site provides suitable habitat for common reptiles. Immediately prior to works starting on site, all suitable habitats within the working area will be checked for the presence of reptiles. Work will not be permitted to start at the site until hand searching of the working areas has been completed. Any suitable refugia (eg piles of rubble etc) within the working area will be dismantled by hand and immediately removed by site operatives.

Natural England raises no objections to the proposed works on ecological grounds and it is

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 82 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS considered that the proposed mitigation is satisfactory. Had the application been acceptable in other respects the proposed mitigation could be secured by condition. Subject to compliance with this condition, it is considered that the proposed development would not have significant adverse impacts on statutorily or locally protected nature conservation sites or landscapes, in compliance with Local Plan Part 1 Policy EM7 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation), Policy DMEI 7 Biodiversity (Protection and Enhancement) Development Management Policies - Local Plan Part 2 (2020), The London Plan Policy 7.19 (Biodiversity and access to nature) and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): Biodiversity and geological conservation (updated 2019). 7.15 Sustainable waste management Not applicable. 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability Not applicable. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues Policy EM6 (Flood Risk Management) of the Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies (Adopted Nov. 2012) states that applicants must demonstrate that Flood Risk can be suitably mitigated. London Plan policies 5.12 and 5.13 require development proposals to use sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) unless there are good reasons for not doing so.

A flood risk assessment (FRA), has been submitted in support of the application. The FRA notes that the application site is not located in an area at risk of flooding and is within Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk of flooding, which, in line with NPPF guidance, is compatible with any development, including the ground improvement works.

The assessment concludes that as the site is located entirely within Flood Zone 1, there is no requirement for the sequential test or the exception test to be enacted. All flood risks to the proposed development are considered to be low, including fluvial, tidal, surface water, groundwater, sewer and reservoir flood risk. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to mitigate any flood risk. The report further states that a drainage assessment has not been deemed necessary, due to the site being a minor development, not changing the use or permeability of the site, and not disrupting or changing any existing surface water flow routes. Finally, the assessment states that to confirm assumptions made regarding disconnect between the ground water table and the site, groundwater will be monitored before, during and after the ground improvement trial through boreholes.

THe Flood and Drainage Officer raised a number of concerns, as set out in the consultee section of this report, primarily relating to lack of sufficient information. The applicant submitted further documentation, stating that the existing site surface water drainage is based on the Environmental Permit (Permit number EPR/NP3139PK), which details the proposed landfill surface water drainage.The current assumption is that these proposals were constructed and are operational. Surface water control measures comprise ditches surrounding the site perimeter, with soakaways periodically located along the alignment of the ditches.

It is noted that as-built details of surface water drainage measures, including ditch size and soakaway capacity,will be confirmed during design development. Two surface water monitoring points are proposed to the west of the site.

In the event of an approval, the Flood and Drainage Officer recommends a condition requiring as built details of the surface water drainage, including the new transfer pathway,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 83 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS along with calculations demonstrating the the overall scheme will meet the 2020 current standards of control and managed to the 1 in 100 year, plus appropriate level of climate change. A condition is further recommended requiring details of any monitoring to be provided to the Lead Local Flood Authority for understanding and assessment of the management of the groundwater and surface water flood risks.

Had the development been acceptable in other respects, it is considered that subject to compliance with these conditions, the scheme could satisfactorily address drainage and flood related issues, in compliance with Policies DMEI 9 and DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development ManagementPolicies , Policies 5.13 and 5.15 of the London Plan and the aspirations of the NPPF. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues NOISE

The NPPF requires new development to 'mitigate and reduce to a minimum' potential adverse impacts resulting from noise - and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life. The NPPF also seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

London Plan Policy 5.3 requires that proposals meet the minimum standards in the Mayor's supplementary planning guidance, which includes minimising noise pollution. Policy 7.15 requires that proposals manage noise by mitigating and minimising the potential adverse impacts of noise from new development.

LPP1 Policy EM8 promotes the maximum possible reduction in noise levels and seeks to ensure that noise impacts can be adequately controlled and mitigated.

A noise risk assessment has been submitted in support of the application.

The closest noise sensitive receptor to the application site is situated on Harmondsworth Lane, approximately 80 metres northeast of the site boundary. To determine the risk that construction from this site will result in noise impacts, a risk assessment has been undertaken according to the 'London Good Practice Guide: Noise and vibration Control for Demolition and Construction' (LANAF). The document sets out the further work that will be employed and agreed with the Council prior to undertaking the works.

Where property is within the calculated screening distance of a works site, a Section 61 Consent Application is issued to the Council as a means to manage the noise from the ground investigations work. Section 61 Consent applications as set out in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are made at least 28 days in advance of the commencement of any works.

The contents of the Section 61 Consent Applications include: 1. Details of the address and location of the works site 2. The main contractors name and address 3. Description of the construction works to be undertaken 4. The working hours of the construction site 5. The methods that will be used to complete the works 6. Number, type and make of equipment and machinery stating sound power levels 7. Detailed predictions of noise from the works 8. Proposed steps to minimise noise and vibration 9. Details of any planned noise and vibration monitoring

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 84 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10. The approximate duration of works 11. Details of Community Liaison activities- to be completed at least 2 weeks before the construction works begin by posting leaflets through all properties likely to be impacted by noise 12. Key site contacts.

For Harmondsworth Landfill Site the LANAF risk assessment determined a "low risk" from the construction activities. LANAF states that, for low risk, "a formal Section 61 consent application would not typically be necessary". However, the applicant states that a Section 61 Application will be submitted in support of the planning application for the Harmondsworth Landfill site. This in order to ensure consistency with the noise management measures used for the ground investigation works.

AIR QUALITY

The NPPF seeks to sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants and states that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impacts should be identified.

London Plan Policy 7.14 requires that development proposals minimise increased exposure to poor air quality and are at least 'air quality neutral'. Policy 5.3 requires that proposals meet the minimum standards in the Mayor's supplementary planning guidance, which includes minimising air pollution.

LPP1 Policy EM8 also stipulates that development should not cause deterioration in the local air quality levels and Policy EM1 seeks to address climate change mitigation by targeting areas of poor air quality for additional emissions reductions.

The site is located in an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) due to exceedances of the annual mean Air Quality Objective for nitrogen dioxide.

The application is supported by a construction dust assessment, which acknowledges that given the nature of the works proposed, there could be dust implications associated with the operations. Findings indicate that there could be a dust impact throughout the course of the development. However, the report identifies the appropriate measures for mitigation.

The main pollutants anticipated are dust and PM10s. Dust will arise from earthworks, involving excavation, haulage, tipping and stockpiling, construction, through the construction of the pre-load embankment, and trackout, arising from 10-15 earthmoving vehicles resulting in around 200-250 daily movements.

There are twelve residential properties situated within 200m of the Harmondsworth Landfill. However, the study concludes that effects from dust soiling would be of 'low' sensitivity at this distance. There is also a school on Harmondsworth Lane, however the assessment indicates that this is at a sufficient distance so as to not be affected by the works. Further, the assessment noted that, in view of prevailing PM10 levels, there would only be 'low' sensitivity to human health effects.

Earthworks associated with dust soiling and human health were found to be 'low risk', while trackout resulted in 'high risk' to dust soiling and 'medium risk' to human health. It is suggested that mitigation be implemented in accordance with the recommendations within

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 85 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS the report. Mitigation processes begin with appropriate site management, with responsible persons present and contactable in relation to matters of air quality. Management processes are furthered by the tracking of complaints, the undertaking of site inspections correlated positively with the intensity of works and the recording of any exceptional instances of emission generating activity.

Further best practice measures will be implemented in relation to the preparation and maintenance of the application site and the management and operation of vehicles and machinery . Lastly, measures specific to trackout, such as wheel-washing, the avoidance of sweeping large areas of dry dust and the utilisation of dust suppressants, are also ecommended.

It is concluded that the impacts of the operations wll be 'not significant' although some short term dust annoyance may occur as a consequence of development. However, overall, residual impacts of construction works can be appropriately mitigated, with these measures in place.

It is considered that the dust implications of development have been robustly tested and that they could be appropriately mitigated in line with prevailing guidance. In the event of an approval, a package of mitigation measures will be necessary and these could be secured by condition. Subject to an appropriately worded condition, the proposed development would be consistent with policy objectives to prevent unacceptable levels of air pollution, in compliance with LPP1 Policy EM1 and EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1 Strategic Policies, and London Plan Policies 5.3 and 7.14. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations At the time of writing the report other than objections from Harmondsworth Conservation Area Advisory Panel, no responses to the public consultation have been received. 7.20 Planning obligations Not applicable. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action Not applicable. 7.22 Other Issues None.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 86 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Planning Conditions Members may decide to grant planning consent subject to conditions. Planning consent should not be refused where planning conditions can overcome a reason for refusal. Planning conditions should only be imposed where Members are satisfied that imposing the conditions are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Where conditions are imposed, the Council is required to provide full reasons for imposing those conditions.

9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable.

10. CONCLUSION The proposed development is inappropriate development within the Green Belt and very special circumstances therefore need to be demonstrated. As no very special circumstances have been demonstrated, the application should be refused on the basis that it significantly harms the openness of the Green Belt

The proposal would diminish the intrinsic character of this Green Belt land, by transforming the open rural nature of the area to a harder, industrial character, encroaching into the spacious green landscape and influencing views and vistas to and from the Green Belt. Should the proposed development be allowed, part of this Green Belt land would no longer effectively fulfil its function of checking unrestricted urban sprawl, or assist in safeguarding

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 87 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS the countryside from encroachment.

No navigational impact assessment study has been provided in spport of this application, and based upon the concerns raised by the relevant safeguarding authority, it is considered that the proposal would prejudice the continued safe operation of Heathrow Airport, contrary to Policy DMAV 1 of the Local Plan: Part 2. It is recommended that the application be refused on this basis

11. Reference Documents · European Waste Management Regulations · Landfill Directive as enacted by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales Regulations) (2010). · DEFRA Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites (2009). · Waste Management Paper No 27 · Environment Agency LFTGN03 'Guidance on the Management of Landfill Gas' · Building Research Establishment guidance - BR 414 'Protective Measures for Housing on Gas-contaminated Land' 2001 · Building Research Establishment guidance - BR 212 'Construction of new buildings on gas-contaminated land' 1991 · CIRIA Guidance - C665 'Assessing risks posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings' 2007 · National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) · The London Plan (March 2016) · Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) · Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) · Accessible Hillingdon Supplementary Planning Document (September 2017) · Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (July 2014 Contact Officer:Karl Dafe Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 88 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS ´El Sub Sta

27.4m

LANE HARMONDSWORTH

Gravel Pit

Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary OF HILLINGDON Harmondsworth Landfill Site Residents Services For identification purposes only. Harmondsworth Lane Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 43155/APP/2019/2812 1:1,350 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 89 June 2020 100019283 Major This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address THE CRANE PH WATERSPLASH LANE HAYES

Development: Deed of Variation to amend 1.1 and Schedule 2 of the S106 Agreement dated 08.10.2019 relating to planning application reference 11026/APP/2018/3361 a The Crane Public House. LBH Ref Nos: 11026/APP/2020/142

Drawing Nos: 17.2316.109 Rev. P3 Covering Letter dated January 2020

Date Plans Received:15/01/2020 Date(s) of Amendment(s): Date Application Valid: 26/02/2020 1. SUMMARY The proposal is for a Deed of Variation to amend Clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Affordable Housing) of the Section 106 associated with planning permission ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19 for the redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing buildings (Use Class A3/A4) and replacement with a part 4-storey, part 3-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 27 (10 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) self-contained units (Use Class C3) access and car parking with associated works.

The proposal seeks to provide a fully affordable scheme with all units being delivered as London Affordable Rent. The proposed amendment is supported as there is an evidenced need for the proposed tenure within the Borough. For the reasons set out within this report, the proposed Deed of Variation to Clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Affordable Housing) of the Section 106 associated with planning permission ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19, is recommended for approval. 2. RECOMMENDATION That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to grant permission, subject to the following:

1. That the Council enter a Deed of Variation with the applicants under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or other appropriate legislation to secure:

(i) Amendment Clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Affordable Housing) to amend the tenure mix from 9 units to 27 London Affordable Rented units.

2. That the applicant meets the council's reasonable costs in the preparation of the deed of variation and any abortive work as a result of the deed not being completed.

3. That Officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the amended terms for the Affordable Housing Schedule in the Deed of Variation.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 91 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality The site was formerly occupied by the Yellow Chilli Lounge Restaurant which included a pub element (Use Class A3/A4). and before then, the premise traded as the Crane public house until 2015. The site demise extends to an area of approximately 0.225 of a hectare. It is rectangular in shape, although it widens towards its southern end, having a length of approximately 64m and a width of approximately 30m widening to approximately 40m.

The site is orientated north / south. The majority of the existing restaurant / pub building sits in the northern half of the site, although a single storey addition is located within the southern part of the site. The front part of the existing building is two-storey painted brickwork beneath a concrete tiled, pitched roof. Single and two storey flat-roof additions have been constructed to the rear of the premises. The existing structures on site have a footprint of approximately 375 sq.m.

Bitumen surfaced parking areas are provided to the north, west and east / south-east of the property. An enclosed garden area is situated to the south and south-west. The site currently has vehicular access points off Watersplash Lane to the east and Roseville Road to the west.

The boundary with North Hyde Road consists of a low brick wall with piers, painted white. North Hyde Road is a busy thoroughfare consisting of a mix of commercial and residential properties.

To the east, Watersplash Lane is a short cul-de-sac comprising 5 terraced residential properties. Watersplash Lane leads to an extensive area of public open space and woodland to the south of the site, through which runs the River Crane and the London Loop which connects with Cranford Countryside Park to the south a pedestrian link beneath the M4.

Other than some 2/3 storey commercial properties at the North Hyde Road junction, Rosville Road to the west of the site is entirely residential. The boundary with Rosville Road consists partly of the painted low brick wall, reverting to a 1.8 metre high timber panel fence to the rear of the site.

3.2 Proposed Scheme Since permission was granted under ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. The application site has been acquired by a Housing Association who seeks to increase the affordable provision on the site from 9 units to 27 units resulting in 100% affordable development. All dwellings are proposed to be London Affordable Rented. 3.3 Relevant Planning History

11026/APP/2018/3361 The Crane Ph Watersplash Lane Hayes Redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing buildings (Use Class A3/A4) and replacement with a part 4-storey, part 3-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 27 (10 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) self-contained units (Use Class C3) access and car parking with associated works (Re-consultation on amended site location plan)

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 92 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Decision: 17-07-2019 Approved

11026/APP/2020/1208 The Crane Ph Watersplash Lane Hayes Details pursuant to Condition no.19 (SUDS) of planning ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 (09-10-19) fo redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing buildings (Use Class A3/A4) and replacement with a part 4-storey, part 3-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 27 (10 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) self-contained units (Use Class C3) access and car parking with associated works

Decision:

11026/APP/2020/846 The Crane Ph Watersplash Lane Hayes Details pursuant to Condition 14 (Contaminated Land) of planning ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 (0 10-19) for redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing buildings (Use Class A3/A4) and replacement with a part 4-storey, part 3-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 27 (10 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) self-contained units (Use Class C3) access and car parking with associated works Decision:

Comment on Relevant Planning History The most relevant planning history is referenced above.

4. Planning Policies and Standards London Borough of Hillingdon Development Plan

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 93 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019) The GLA consulted upon a draft new London Plan between December 2017 and March 2018 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. The Plan was subject to examination hearings from February to May 2019, and a Consolidated Draft Plan with amendments was published in July 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor on 8th October 2019.

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.EM1 (2012) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM8 (2012) Land, Water, Air and Noise PT1.EM11 (2012) Sustainable Waste Management PT1.T1 (2012) Accessible Local Destinations

Part 2 Policies: LPP 5.1 (2016) Climate Change Mitigation LPP 5.11 (2016) Green roofs and development site environs LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 94 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 7.13 (2016) Safety, security and resilience to emergency LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.5 (2016) Public realm LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations LPP 8.3 (2016) Community infrastructure levy DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 8 Waterside Development DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMH 2 Housing Mix DMH 4 Residential Conversions and Redevelopment DMH 7 DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMHB 16 Housing Standards DMHB 17 Residential Density DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not11th applicable April 2020

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not applicable

6. Consultations External Consultees The application was consulted upon between 20-03-20 and 11-04-20. No comments or objections were received to this application. Internal Consultees Section 106 Officer

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 95 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS No objection to the changes proposed.

Planning Policy Officer

The deed of variation is to change the tenure of all dwellings to London Affordable Rent, resulting in a 100% affordable scheme. This is supported in planning policy terms. London Affordable Rent (LAR) is an affordable rent product for households on low incomes were the rent levels are based on the formulas in the Social Housing Regulator's Rent Standard Guidance. They rent levels are capped at benchmark levels published by the GLA. Rents are significantly less than 80 per cent of market rents, which is the maximum for Affordable Rent permitted in the NPPF.

Both the Mayor's Affordable Housing SPG (2017) and Policy H5 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London (2019) outlines that any proposal that include 75% or more affordable housing as defined by the NPPF may be considered under the Fast Track Route, as long as the tenure and other relevant standards are supported by the LPA. This tenure is supported and needed in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

Housing Officer

This planning application will deliver 27 much needed new homes to contribute to the boroughs housing targets. The scheme is a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed flats and the development is being delivered by SBHG a respected Registered Provider who are seeking to change the tenure of the flats and make it 100% rented units. This is over and above the councils policy requirement for only 35% of the units to be affordable housing and within that 70% rented and 30% shared ownership. On this site 100% rented tenure is supported as it will help to meet the high local demand for decent affordable rented accommodation. Given the very high number of shared ownership units that are under construction on large sites nearby for example the Nestle site that will deliver over 400 shared ownership homes, this development providing 27 rented homes will help to balance the local community. 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development The principle of development has been accepted through the granting of planning permission for the scheme (application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19). 7.02 Density of the proposed development The density of development has been accepted through the granting of planning permission for the scheme application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character The design of the development and its impact on heritage assets has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.04 Airport safeguarding Airport safeguarding has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.05 Impact on the green belt Not applicable to this application. 7.06 Environmental Impact Environmental impact has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area The application proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the area has been

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 96 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.08 Impact on neighbours The application proposal's impact on neighbouring amenity has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers The living conditions for future occupiers has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.10 Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety Traffic impact, car and cycle parking and pedestrian safety has been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.11 Urban design, access and security The matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.12 Disabled access Accessibility matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing Policy 3.12 of the London Plan (2016) states that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing should be sought when negotiating on individual private residential and mixed use schemes.

Policy H5 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London Plan (2019) notes that developments which provide 75 per cent or more affordable housing may follow the Fast Track Route where the tenure mix is acceptable to the borough or the Mayor where relevant.

Policy H2 of the Local Plan: Part One (2012) requires sites with a capacity of 10 or more units, to provide an affordable housing mix to reflect the housing needs in the borough, particularly the need for larger family units.

Policy DMH 7 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires major residential developments to maximise the delivery of affordable housing on site. A minimum of 35% of all new homes should be delivered as affordable housing with a tenure split of 70% Social/Affordable Rent and 30% Intermediate.

The deed of variation seeks a change to the tenure of all dwellings to London Affordable Rent (LAR), resulting in a 100% affordable scheme. LAR is an affordable rent product for households on low incomes were the rent levels are based on the formulas in the Social Housing Regulator's Rent Standard Guidance. The rent levels are capped at benchmark levels published by the GLA. Rents are significantly less than 80 per cent of market rents, which is the maximum for Affordable Rent permitted in the NPPF.

The Mayor's Affordable Housing SPG (2017) and Policy H5 of the Intend to Publish Version of the London (2019) outline that any proposal that include 75% or more affordable housing as defined by the NPPF may be considered under the Fast Track Route, as long as the tenure and other relevant standards are supported by the Local Planning Authority. Both the Planning Policy and Housing officers have provided comments supporting the proposal noting there is a need for this tenure of housing within the Borough. The proposal is considered to comply with Policy DMH 7 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020), Policy H2 of the Local Plan: Part One (2012), and Policy H5 of the Intend to Publish Version of the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 97 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS London Plan (2019).

. 7.14 Trees, landscaping and Ecology Trees and landscaping matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.15 Sustainable waste management Waste Management matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability Sustainability matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues Flooding and drainage matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues Noise and air quality matters have been assessed and approved under application ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations No comments were made on this application and therefore it is not applicable to this application. 7.20 Planning obligations The alteration proposed to the Affordable Housing planning obligation secured under the ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19, has been discussed in Section 7.13 of this report. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action Not applicable to this application. 7.22 Other Issues No other issues identified.

Planning Conditions Members may decide to grant planning consent subject to conditions. Planning consent

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 98 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS should not be refused where planning conditions can overcome a reason for refusal. Planning conditions should only be imposed where Members are satisfied that imposing the conditions are necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Where conditions are imposed, the Council is required to provide full reasons for imposing those conditions.

9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable.

10. CONCLUSION The proposal is for a Deed of Variation to Clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Affordable Housing) of the Section 106 associated with planning permission ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10-19 for the redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing buildings (Use Class A3/A4) and replacement with a part 4-storey, part 3-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 27 (10 x 1 bedroom, 13 x 2 bedroom and 4 x 3 bedroom) self- contained units (Use Class C3) access and car parking with associated works.

The proposal would provide a fully affordable scheme. The proposed amendment is supported as there is a demonstrable need for the proposed tenure of affordable units. The proposed Deed of Variation to Clause 1.1 and Schedule 2 (Affordable Housing) of the Section 106 associated with planning permission ref: 11026/APP/2018/3361 dated 09-10- 19, is recommended for approval.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 99 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 11. Reference Documents Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) The London Plan (2016) The Housing Standards Minor Alterations to The London Plan (March 2016) Mayor of London's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance - Housing (March 2016) Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standard Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement: Accessible Hillingdon National Planning Policy Framework Contact Officer:Zenab Haji-Ismail Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 100 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS

8 0 2

8 1 2

8 ´

8 N

T 1 E H U

N H

E Y

2 D A

N G

A A

L R R Mast D E E H

T N

U S

El Sub Sta 26.5m a 1 4 62 6

164 1 178 27.7m Wa rd Bdy CR NORTH H 29.3m TCB YDE ROAD

TCB

1 5 Shelter

1 LB 5 1 6 1

1 7 1

c The Crane W

1 7 1 b T (PH) E R 1

L A

L AN

6 E

a 1

2 1 9

BLA 3 IR

CLO

4 1

6 2

8 1

5 W 1

a t e r s p l a s h

L a

R 2 n

3 O e

S ( P

E a V t h

I 3 L )

D Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary The Crane PH OF HILLINGDON Watersplash Lane Residents Services For identification purposes only. Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Hayes Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address EAGLE POINT THE RUNWAY RUISLIP

Development: Minor material amendment to revise Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref. 2342/APP/2018/2294 dated 29/03/2019: The demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey hotel (Class C1), including ancillary restaurant/cafe/bar and associated car parking, servicing and landscaping and the provision of pedestrian access to Odyssey Business Park in order to the reconfiguration of the internal layout to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms and minor alterations to the external elevations to allow adjustment of windows. LBH Ref Nos: 2342/APP/2020/930

Drawing Nos: J9216 - 10 Rev. C J9216 - 11 Rev. A J9216 - 12 Rev. A. J9216 - 13 Rev. A J9216 - 14 Rev. A. J9216 - 15 Rev. C J9216 - 18 J9216 - 16 Rev. C J9216 - 17 Rev. C Rapleys Covering Letter dated 16/3/20 Design and Access Statement Update, March 2020 (PL)001 Rev. D (PL)002 Rev. A (PL)003 Rev. A (PL)004 Rev. A (PL)005 Rev. A Transport Statement, dated 13/6/18 Travel Plan, dated 30/5/18 Car Park Management Plan, Ref. SKP\RD 17346-04B prepared by David Tucker Associates Energy Statement, Issue Two, dated 21/5/18 Drainage Strategy prepared by Gyoury Self Partnership Waste & Delivery and Servicing Management Plan, Ref. SKP/RD17346-05B prepared by David Tucker Associates Preliminary Construction Logistics Plan, June 2018tement Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment prepared by Sharps Redmore Air Quality Assessment, dated 21/5/18 prepared by Redmore Environmental Bird Hazard Appraisal Report, June 2018 Geo-Environmental Data and Historical Maps, July 2017 Land Contamination Statement, Rev. A, dated 21/05/18 Planning Statement Transport Technical Addendum Note, dated 16/3/20 Design and Access Statement 3D Visual Images A to E (with image reference site plan)

Date Plans Received:17/03/2020 Date(s) of Amendment(s):

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 103 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Date Application Valid: 17/03/2020

1. SUMMARY Members may recall the original scheme for the hotel on this site which was presented to the Majors Committee on 4/12/18. This S73 application is for a minor material amendment to revise Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref. 2342/APP/2018/2294 granted on 29/3/19 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey hotel (Class C1), including ancillary restaurant/cafe/bar and associated car parking, servicing and landscaping and the provision of pedestrian access to Odyssey Business Park in order to allow bedroom numbers to increase from 79 to 87 through the reconfiguration of the approved internal layout of the hotel to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms and minor alterations to the external elevations to allow adjustment of the windows. The proposed plans also show an uplift in the proposed cycle parking from 6 to 12 spaces and there is also a very minor change to internal floor level heights, but no change in the overall height of the building.

The proposal involves offering a 'budget' hotel which is to be operated by Travelodge who have identified the appropriate need for such a development in this area and the site is ideally located adjacent to the existing Odyssey Business Park.

The increase in bedroom numbers involves a minor reconfiguration of the internal layout, with no alteration proposed to the footprint, floor area, height and overall layout of the consented scheme, including the 21 vehicle parking space numbers. Externally, there would be very minor alterations to the external facade, mainly in order to add a new column of windows on the south elevation and adjust the consented window positions to align with the internal reconfiguration on this and the north elevation.

The Council's Highway Engineer has assessed the revised highway information and raises no objections to the uplift in bedroom accommodation. The Council's Access Officer also raises no objections on accessibility grounds. Furthermore, the changes to the external facades are considered minor alterations to the approved scheme and are acceptable in design terms and the reconfigured internal layout provides suitable accommodation for hotel guests.

The proposed minor amendment does not change the principle of the proposed development, as consented and is recommended for approval, subject to a DoV/ S106 Legal Agreement and the recommended conditions. 2. RECOMMENDATION

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 104 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS That delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to GRANT planning permission, subject to the following:

A) That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following:

i. Highways: S278/S38 agreement to secure highway works.

ii. Construction Training: either a contribution equal to the formula (£2,500 for every £1m build + coordinator costs) or an in-kind training scheme equal to the financial contribution delivered during the construction period of the development with the preference being for an in-kind scheme to be delivered.

iii. Hospitality Training contributions or in kind scheme to provide apprenticeships and on the-job training for young people interested in pursuing a career in the hospitality industry.

iv. Travel Plan: Prior to occupation a full Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. A £20,000 Travel Plan bond is also to be secured.

v. Project Management & Monitoring Fee: a contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions secured from the scheme to enable the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

B) That in respect of the application for planning permission, the applicant meets the Council's reasonable costs in preparation of the Section 106 Agreement and any abortive work as a result of the agreement not being completed.

C) That officers be authorised to negotiate and agree the detailed terms of the proposed agreement and conditions of approval.

D) That, if the Legal Agreement has not been finalised within 6 months (or such other time frame as may be agreed by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration), delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to refuse planning permission for the following reason:

'The applicant has failed to provide measures to mitigate the impacts of the development through enhancements to services and the environment necessary as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of highways, construction training, travel plan). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and the Council's Planning Obligations SPD and the London Plan (2016).'

E) That if the application is approved, the following conditions be imposed:

1 COM3 Time Limit

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 105 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of the original planning permission, 28th March 2022.

REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2 COM4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans:

J9216 - 10 Rev. C J9216 - 11 Rev. A J9216 - 12 Rev. A. J9216 - 13 Rev. A J9216 - 14 Rev. A. J9216 - 15 Rev. C J9216 - 16 Rev. C J9216 - 17 Rev. C, and J9216 - 18

and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Local Plan: Part Two (November 2012) and the London Plan (2016). 3 NONSC Pedestrian Access to the Business Park The pedestrian access-way and stairflift linking the hotel site to the Odyssey Business park shall be provided and operational before the hotel use hereby permitted is brought into use. An access-way between the hotel and adjoining business park shall be maintained at all times so long as the hotel use and business park uses remain in existence.

REASON: The hotel development at this location was only considered acceptable because of the economic development benefits of the proposals. The benefits will be severely diminished if the hotel is not able to have linkages with the adjoining business park. To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Local Plan: Part Two (November 2012) and the London Plan (2016). 4 COM5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following have been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents:

Planning Statement, prepared by Rapleys LLP; Design and Access Statement, prepared by CDA - Amended on 18.10.2018; Design & Access Statement Update, March 2020; Transport Statement, prepared by David Tucker Associates (DTA); Transport Technical Addendum Note, dated 16/3/20; Travel Plan, prepared by DTA; Car Park Management Plan, prepared by DTA; Energy Statement, prepared by MRB;

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 106 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Drainage Strategy, prepared by Gyoury Self Partnership; Servicing and Waste Management Plan, prepared by DTA; Preliminary Construction Logistics Plan, prepared by Bourne Wood Partnership; Land Contamination Statement, prepared by Gyoury Self Partnership; Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, prepared by Sharps Redmore; Air Quality Assessment, prepared by Redmore Environmental, and Bird Hazard Appraisal Report, prepared by Denny Ecology.

Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence

REASON To ensure that the development complies with the objectives of the Local Plan: Part Two (January 2020). 5 COM7 Materials (Submission) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of all materials and external surfaces submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19 and thereafter be retained as such.

REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 6 COM9 Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of the landscaping, car parking and refuse/ cycle parking (as now revised to include 12 cycle spaces) submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19 and thereafter be retained as such.

REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policies 5.11 (living walls and roofs) and 5.17 (refuse storage) of the London Plan (2016). 7 NONSC Air Quality Prior to the occupation of the development a detailed air quality action plan shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The action plan shall set out the measures to be utilised to further reduce the adverse impacts of the development on air quality; such measures could include but not limited to, incentivising electric vehicles; promotion of public transportation for guests and staff; sustainable transportation modes to key destinations. The development should be operated in accordance with the approved action plan.

REASON To ensure the development reduces its adverse impacts on air quality in accordance with Policy EM8 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012). 8 NONSC Energy The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved energy details submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 107 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 12/9/19 and thereafter be retained as such.

REASON To ensure the development contributes to a reduction in CO2 in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2. 9 NONSC PV Panels The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved PV panel details submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19 and thereafter be retained as such.

REASON To ensure the development contributes at least a 35% reduction in CO2 emissions in accordance with London Plan (March 2016) Policy 5.2. 10 NONSC Accessible Rooms The development hereby approved shall ensure the quantity of accessible bedrooms is no less than 8 rooms (10%) with an additional 4 rooms (5%) capable of being adapted in the future to accessibility standards (i.e. with more space to allow the use of a mobile hoist, wider doors, provision for services and with enclosing walls capable of supporting adaptations e.g. handrails). In addition, 50% of en-suite bathrooms within the required accessible bedroom shall have a level access shower.

Reason To ensure that London's visitor infrastructure is accessible and welcoming to all sections of the population, including older and disabled people in accordance with policy DME 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policies 3.1, 4.5 and 7.2 of the London Plan (2016). 11 NONSC Noise - External from machinery etc. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of the siting and location of all plant, machinery and equipment submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19 and thereafter be adherred to as such.

Prior to the occupation of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, of the external noise level emitted from plant/ machinery/ equipment and mitigation measures as appropriate. The measures shall ensure that the external noise level emitted from plant, machinery/ equipment will be lower than the lowest existing background noise level by at least 5dBA, by 10 dBA where the source is tonal, as assessed according to BS4142:2014 at the nearest and/or most affected noise sensitive premises, with all machinery operating together at maximum capacity.

REASON To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016). 12 NONSC Noise - Internal The noise level in rooms at the development hereby approved shall meet the following standards:

Bedrooms: to meet NR30 between 23:00-07:00hrs Bathrooms: to meet NR 45

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 108 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Corridors: to meet NR 40 Hotel Restaurent /cafe/bar: to meet NR 40

REASON To ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of the proposed development is not adversely affected by rail traffic, air traffic and other noise in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016). 13 NONSC CEMP The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19 and thereafter be adherred to as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON - To safeguard the amenity of surrounding areas in accordance with Policy 7.15 of the London Plan (March 2016); - To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016); and - To ensure that construction work and construction equipment on the site and adjoining land does not obstruct air traffic movements or otherwise impede the effective operation of air traffic navigation transmitter/receiver systems. In compliance with Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 14 NONSC MoD - Bird Hazard Management Plan The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Bird Hazard Management Plan submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19.

The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved upon completion of the roofs and shall remain in force for the life of the building. No subsequent alterations to the plan are to take place unless first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To comply with Policy DMAV 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020), and to manage the roof areas in order to minimise its attractiveness to birds which could endanger the safe movement of aircraft and the operation of RAF Northolt. 15 NONSC Contaminated Land In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with a methodology previously approved by the Local Planning Authority. Where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 109 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Policy DMEI 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 16 NONSC Imported Soils Before any part of the development is occupied, site derived soils and imported soils shall be independently tested for chemical contamination, and the results, along with independent analysis of this testing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All soils used for gardens and/or landscaping purposes shall be clean and free of contamination and the results of the soil testing shall demonstrate this.

REASON To ensure that the occupants of the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Policy DMEI 13 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 17 NONSC Sustainable Water Management The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Sustainable Water Management details submitted as part of the discharge of condition application ref. 2342/APP/2019/1633 dated 12/9/19.

Thereafter the development shall be implemented and retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development does not increase the risk of flooding in accordance with Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and policy 5.12 of the London Plan (2016). 18 NONSC No Floodlighting No floodlighting or other form of external lighting shall be installed unless it is in accordance with details which have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include location, height, type and direction of light sources and intensity of illumination. Any lighting that is so installed shall not thereafter be altered without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority other than for routine maintenance which does not change its details.

REASON To safeguard the amenity of surrounding properties in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and to protect the ecological value of the area in accordance with Policy DMEI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 19 COM31 Secured by Design Prior to first use of the building as a hotel, the building shall achieve 'Secured by Design' accreditation awarded by the Metropolitan Police Designing Out Crime Officer (DOCO) on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

REASON

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 110 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in excising its planning functions; to promote the well being of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 to ensure the development provides a safe and secure environment in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 policy DMHB 15 and London Plan (2016) Policies 7.1 and 7.3. 20 NONSC Car parking use only for duration of guests staying at hotel The car parking facilities provided at the hotel shall be used by guests only and strictly for the duration of their stay at the hotel. Prior to occupation of the hotel, a car parking management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in order to demonstrate how this will be managed and to ensure the efficient operation of the car park, especially at peak demand periods. The approved strategy shall be implemented as soon as the hotel is brought into use and the strategy shall remain in place thereafter. Any changes to the strategy shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON The use of the site for long or short stay parking for RAF Northolt passengers is directly related to the operation of RAF Northolt but is located outside the airport boundary, contrary to Policy DMAV 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 21 NONSC Servicing and Delivery Plan Prior to occupation, a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP), as referred to in the London Freight Plan, which identifies efficiency and sustainability measures to be undertaken once developments are operational shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with TfL.

The approved details shall be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the demolition and construction process.

REASON To to minimise congestion impacts and improve safety in accordance with Policies 6.13 and 6.14 of the London Plan (2016). 22 NONSC No Conferencing/Banqueting use etc. The proposed hotel development hereby permitted shall not be used for conferencing/banqueting, wedding or any other large scale organised gathering.

REASON To safeguard the amenity of the site and surrounding areas in accordance with Policies DMHB 11, DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 23 NONSC Car Park Management Plan Prior to occupation, a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan should include an internal site management regime that will enforce and oversee overall parking control on a site wide basis and mutual coexistence/interplay of the parking bay and drop off /pick up facilities for patrons of the hotel including delivery and servicing arrangements.

The Car Park Management Plan and Travel Plan shall manage arrival of coaches to the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 111 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS site or deter them if they cannot be adequately accommodated with the application site. Coach Parking is not permitted to drop off on The Runway.

REASON To ensure the proposed development and associated highway movements are in accordance with Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). and policies 6.3, 6.9, and 6.13 of the London Plan (2016). INFORMATIVES

1 I52 Compulsory Informative (1) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies, including The Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA 1998) which makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights, specifically Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. NPPF- 2 NPPF-2 2018 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF- 9 NPPF-9 2018 - Promoting sustainable transport NPPF- 12 NPPF-12 2018 - Achieving well-designed places LPP 3.1 (2016) Ensuring equal life chances for all LPP 3.2 (2016) Improving health and addressing health inequalities LPP 4.5 (2016) London's Visitor Infrastructure LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.10 (2016) Urban Greening LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.5 (2016) Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 6.10 (2016) Walking LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.5 (2016) Public realm LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 112 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 7.19 LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations DME 5 Hotels and Visitor Accommodation DME 6 Accessible Hotels and Visitor Accommodation DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 13 Importation of Material DMEI 14 Air Quality DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking

3 I28 Food Hygiene The Council's Commercial Premises Section should be consulted prior to the use of the premises so as to ensure compliance with the Food Safety Registration Regulations 1990, Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970, The Food Act 1984, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and any other relevant legislation. Contact: - Commercial Premises Section, 4W/04, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW (Telephone 01895 250190). 4 I3 Building Regulations - Demolition and Building Works Your attention is drawn to the need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Building Regulations, the Building Acts and other related legislation. These cover such works as - the demolition of existing buildings, the erection of a new building or structure, the extension or alteration to a building, change of use of buildings, installation of services, underpinning works, and fire safety/means of escape works. Notice of intention to demolish existing buildings must be given to the Council's Building Control Service at least 6 weeks before work starts. A completed application form together with detailed plans must be submitted for approval before any building work is commenced. For further information and advice, contact - Residents Services, Building Control, 3N/01 Civic Centre, Uxbridge (Telephone 01895 250804 / 805 / 808). 5 I23 Works affecting the Public Highway - Vehicle Crossover The development requires the formation of a vehicular crossover, which will be constructed by the Council. This work is also subject to the issuing of a separate licence to obstruct or open up the public highway. For further information and advice contact: - Highways Maintenance Operations, 4W/07, Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW. 6 I23B Heavy Duty Vehicle Crossover Prior to work commencing, you are advised to submit an application for a Heavy Duty Vehicle Crossover to Highways Maintenance, 4W/07, Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW to prevent damage to the highway from construction vehicles entering and leaving the site.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 113 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 7 I24 Works affecting the Public Highway - General A licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the public highway. This includes the erection of temporary scaffolding, hoarding or other apparatus in connection with the development for which planning permission is hereby granted. For further information and advice contact: - Highways Maintenance Operations, 4W/07, Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW 8 I43 Keeping Highways and Pavements free from mud etc You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Act 1980. 9 I48 Refuse/Storage Areas The proposed refuse and recycling storage areas meet the requirements of the Council's amenity and accessibility standards only. The proposed storage area must also comply with Part H of the Building Regulations. Should design amendments be required to comply with Building Regulations, these should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. For further information and advice contact - Residents Services, Civic Centre, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW (Tel: 01895 250400). 10 The Council's Waste Service should be consulted about refuse storage and collection arrangements. For further information and advice, contact - the Waste Service Manager, Central Depot - Block A, Harlington Road Depot, 128 Harlington Road, Hillingdon, Middlesex, UB8 3EU (Tel. 01895 277505 / 506). 11 The onus is on the service provider to ensure the safety and evacuation of disabled people. It is not the responsibility of the fire service to enable routine evacuation of disabled people. 12 I60 Cranes Given the nature of the proposed development it is possible that a crane may be required during its construction. The applicant's attention is drawn to the requirement within the British Standard Code of Practice for the safe use of Cranes, for crane operators to consult the aerodrome before erecting a crane in close proximity to an aerodrome. This is explained further in Advice Note 4, 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues' (available at www.aoa.org.uk/publications/safeguarding.asp) 13 The proposed facility would be the subject of the Equality Act 2010 The applicant is advised to take the following into consideration with regard to this application:

a. The accessible car-parking bays should be a minimum of 4.8m x 2.4m and marked and signed in accordance with BS 8300:2009+A1:2010.

b. A suitable access route to the building should be provided from the car parking areas. Paths forming access routes should be a minimum of 1.2m clear wide, no steeper than 1:20 (unless designed as a suitable ramp), non-slip, well lit and clearly defined using

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 114 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS texture and visual contrasts. Paths should include suitably dropped kerbs at key crossing points.

c. Level access and adequate front door width are assumed. If this is not the case, level access should be provided and a minimum door width of 1000m for a single door or 1800mm for a double door.

d. The principal entrance door should be provided with a glazed panel giving a zone of visibility, in accordance with BS 8300:2009+A1:2010.

e. Part of the reception/concierge desk should be provided at a height of 750-800mm. An assisted listening device, i.e. infra-red or induction loop system, should be fitted to serve all reception areas.

f. Seating of varying heights should be provided and sited close to reception.

g. All signage for directions, services or facilities should be provided in a colour contrasting with the background. Signage and lighting levels should be consistent throughout the building and care taken to avoid sudden changes in levels.

h. Toilets should be designed in accordance with the guidance given in Approved Document M to the Buildings Regulations 2004 (2013 edition). A combination of both left and right hand transfer spaces should be provided, as more than one unisex provision is likely to be required within the communal areas of the Hotel.

i. The accessible toilet proposed on the ground floor should be signed either "Accessible WC" or "Unisex". Alternatively, the use of a "wheelchair" symbol with the words "Ladies" and "Gentlemen" or "Unisex" would be acceptable.

j. Corridors should be a minimum of 1500mm wide and internal doors across circulation routes should incorporate a suitable zone of visibility.

k. The accessible bedrooms should be designed to BS 8300:2009. In addition to the 10% provision of accessible rooms,

l. 50% of the ensuite bathrooms within the required accessible bedrooms should have level access showering facilities.

m. Plans should detail room dimensions, particularly for the en suite bathrooms and confirm within the Design and Access Statement, that bath and shower rooms will accord with the design guidance in BS 8300:2009+A1:2010. As the majority of wheelchair users prefer showers, a larger proportion of the 10 accessible rooms should feature shower rooms. The Design and Access Statement should confirm the proportion of accessible shower and bath rooms with the detailed specification shown on plan.

n. Signs indicating the location of an accessible lift should be provided in a location that is clearly visible from the building entrance.

o. Lifts should accord with BS 8300:2009+A1:2010.

p. Internal doors, across circulation routes, should be held open using fire alarm activated magnetic closers.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 115 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS q. Details of where Hearing Enhancement Systems (e.g. induction loops) should form part of the scheme. Consideration should also be given to the type of system(s) that will be suitable for different areas of the hotel.

r. Alarm system should be designed to allow deaf people to be aware of its activation. (Such provisions could include visual fire alarm activation devices, and/or a vibrating pager system. A technical audit should be considered at this stage to ensure that mobile phone and emergency paging system signals can transmit throughout the building.)

s. Advice from an appropriate fire safety officer or agency should be sought at an early stage to ensure that adequate and appropriate refuge areas are incorporated into the scheme as a whole. Refuge areas provided should be sized and arranged to facilitate manoeuvrability by wheelchair users (Refer to BS 9999: 2008). Refuge areas must be adequately signed and accessible communication points should also be provided in the refuge area. Such detail should be fully documented in the Design & Access Statement and submitted. 14 I70 LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting) In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 15 I73 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (Granting Consent) Under the terms of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), this development is liable to pay the London Borough of Hillingdon Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the Mayor of London's Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This will be calculated in accordance with the London Borough of Hillingdon CIL Charging Schedule 2014 and the Mayor of London's CIL Charging Schedule 2012. Before commencement of works the development parties must notify the London Borough of Hillingdon of the commencement date for the construction works (by submitting a Commencement Notice) and assume liability to pay CIL (by submitting an Assumption of Liability Notice) to the Council at [email protected]. The Council will then issue a Demand Notice setting out the date and the amount of CIL that is payable. Failure to submit a valid Assumption of Liability Notice and Commencement Notice prior to commencement of the development may result in surcharges being imposed.

The above forms can be found on the planning portal at: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil

Pre-Commencement Conditions: These conditions are important from a CIL liability perspective as a scheme will not become CIL liable until all of the pre-commencement conditions have been discharged/complied with. 16 In accordance with the provisions of the NPPF, the Local Planning Authority has actively engaged with the applicant both at the pre application and application stage of the planning process, in order to achieve an acceptable outcome. The Local Planning Authority has

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 116 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS worked proactively with the applicants to secure a development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. In assessing and determining the development proposal, the Local Planning Authority has applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development Accordingly, the planning application has been recommended for approval. 17 The development shall install a fat trap on all catering establishments and a non return valve shall be provided to avoid the risk of backflow during stormy conditions. 18 a. Details of where Hearing Enhancement Systems (e.g. induction loops) will be provided should form part of the scheme. Consideration should also be given, at this stage, to the type of system(s) that will be suitable for different areas of the hotel. (It is important to consider such detail at an early stage, as the design of a building and the material from which it is constructed, contribute to good acoustic travel and stability. A technical audit should form part of the Design & Access Statement, as the reliability of systems in proximity to other electrical equipment or materials can be adversely affected, e.g. fluorescent lighting and steelwork.)

b. Alarm system should be designed to allow deaf people to be aware of its activation. (Such provisions could include visual fire alarm activation devices, and/or a vibrating pager system. A technical audit should be considered at an early stage to ensure that mobile phone and emergency paging system signals can transmit throughout the building.)

c. Advice from a suitably qualified Fire Safety Officer concerning emergency egress for disabled people should be sought at an early stage. It is, however, unacceptable to provide only a refuge in development of this type and scale. It is not the responsibility of the fire service to evacuate disabled people, and therefore, inherent in the design must be facilities that permit disabled people to leave the building independently during an 'all-out' evacuation. 19 I15 Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:-

B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009.

C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition.

D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents.

You are advised to consult the Council's Environmental Protection Unit

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 117 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (www.hillingdon.gov.uk/noise Tel. 01895 250155) or to seek prior approval under Section 61 of the Control of Pollution Act if you anticipate any difficulty in carrying out construction other than within the normal working hours set out in (A) above, and by means that would minimise disturbance to adjoining premises. 20 In relation to Condition 23, the proposal does not include a coach parking space as required, however there is adequate space for a large delivery vehicle on site which could possibly accommodate occasional coaches during non-operational times. Therefore this condition requires the submission of a car park management plan to confirm if this is possible. 21 The applicant is advised that where the conditions requiring the submission of details have been discharged in connection with the original permission, the Local Planning Authority will not require these details to be re-submitted as part of this new planning permission where those details would remain the same.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality The application site comprises Eagle House, a 3 storey office block and associated car park for 46 vehicles, with limited landscaping to the perimeter of the site, which has been vacant since 2015.

The site itself is approximately 0.22 hectares in area and adjoins Odyssey Business Park to the immediate west and the railway line to the north and north east. Odyssey Business Park is currently occupied by national and international firms. There is a circa 1.2m level difference between the site and Odyssey Business Park, and the existing pedestrian access from the Runway to Odyssey Business Park is provided via steps located in the south west corner of the site.

The application site is accessed via The Runway, a short cul-de-sac with a mix of offices, commercial and residential uses (including those converted from the office to residential via permitted development rights) with this site at its termination. The wider surrounding area comprises of a mix of commercial and residential properties and includes the retail and leisure complex development on the Old Arla Dairy Site beyond the railway line. In addition the RAF Northolt airfield is to the far west of the site.

The application site has a PTAL rating of 3 (moderate) and is located within the 'developed area' as designated by the Hillingdon Local Plan (November 2012).

3.2 Proposed Scheme This S73 application for minor material amendment seeks to revise Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref. 2342/APP/2018/2294 granted on 29/3/19 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey hotel (Class C1), including ancillary restaurant/cafe/bar and associated car parking, servicing and landscaping and the provision of pedestrian access to Odyssey Business Park in order to allow bedroom numbers to increase from 79 to 87 through the reconfiguration of the approved internal layout of the hotel to accommodate 8 additional bedrooms and minor

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 118 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS alterations to the external elevations to allow adjustment of the windows. The proposed plans also show an uplift in cycle parking spaces from 6 (2 short stay, 4 long stay) to 12 (8 short stay, 4 long stay).

The proposal would provide a 'budget' hotel which is to be operated by Travelodge who have identified the appropriate need for such a development in this area and the site is ideally located adjacent to the existing Odyssey Business Park.

The number of proposed bedrooms would change from 10 to 12 on the ground floor and from 23 to 25 on the first, second and third floors which would be achieved with minor reconfiguration of linen, staff, kitchen areas and slight reduction in restaurant area on the ground floor and linen room and size of double rooms on the floors above.

As regards the elevations, there would be an increase in the number of window columns on the south elevation from 12 to 13 and a re-alignment of the existing number of window columns on the north elevation (but no change in the number) to align with the revised internal room positions. There would be no changes to the east and west elevations.

There would also be a very minor change to internal floor levels height but no change to the overall height of the building. 3.3 Relevant Planning History Comment on Relevant Planning History The original planning permission (2342/APP/2018/2294) for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a four storey hotel (Class C1), including ancillary restaurant/cafe/bar and associated car parking, servicing and landscaping and the provision of pedestrian access to Odyssey Business Park was granted on 29/03/19.

All pre-commencement conditions were approved and discharged on 12 September 2019 (2342/APP/2019/1633).

The existing building on site has been granted Prior Approval consent for conversion from Office Use to 24 Residential Units under application reference 2342/APP/2015/624. This has not been implemented.

4. Planning Policies and Standards London Borough of Hillingdon Development Plan (from 6th April 2020)

1.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.2 The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 119 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

1.4 Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

1.6 The Mayor has considered the Inspectors' recommendations and, on 9th December 2019, issued to the Secretary of State his intention to publish the London Plan along with a statement of reasons for the Inspectors' recommendations that the Mayor did not wish to accept. The Secretary of State responded on the 13th March 2020 and stated that he was exercising his powers under section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to direct that modifications are required. These are set out at Annex 1 of the response, however the letter does also state that if the Mayor can suggest alternative changes to policies that would address the concerns raised, these would also be considered.

1.7 More limited weight should be attached to draft London Plan policies where the Secretary of State has directed modifications or where they relate to concerns raised within the letter. Greater weight may be attached to policies that are not subject to modifications from the Secretary of State or that do not relate to issues raised in the letter. UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.EM1 (2012) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.CI2 (2012) Leisure and Recreation

Part 2 Policies: NPPF- 2 NPPF-2 2018 - Achieving sustainable development NPPF- 9 NPPF-9 2018 - Promoting sustainable transport

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 120 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS NPPF- 12 NPPF-12 2018 - Achieving well-designed places LPP 3.1 (2016) Ensuring equal life chances for all LPP 3.2 (2016) Improving health and addressing health inequalities LPP 4.5 (2016) London's Visitor Infrastructure LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.10 (2016) Urban Greening LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.5 (2016) Funding Crossrail and other strategically important transport infrastructure LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 6.10 (2016) Walking LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.5 (2016) Public realm LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. LPP 7.19 (2016) Biodiversity and access to nature LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations DME 5 Hotels and Visitor Accommodation DME 6 Accessible Hotels and Visitor Accommodation DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 12 Streets and Public Realm DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 13 Importation of Material DMEI 14 Air Quality DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 121 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- Not21st applicable May 2020

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not16th applicable May 2020

6. Consultations External Consultees No neighbour letters of comment have been received. The application was advertised in the press, neigbour letters were sent to residents and a site notice was displayed at the site,

NATS: The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only reflects the position of NATS (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide any indication of the position of any other party, whether they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted.

If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NATS in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted.

MoD Safeguarding: This S73 application for minor material amendments relates to the demolition of Eagle House in Ruislip and the erection of a four storey Travelodge hotel. The hotel building will be 49.290m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) with a lift overrun on the roof at 50.200m AOD. The building will feature a green roof and there will also be solar panels on the roof. The hotel will be erected on a different part of the site to the existing Eagle House further to the west.

The application site is approximately 0.50km from the end of the main runway at RAF Northolt and occupies the aerodrome height, technical and birdstrike statutory safeguarding zones surrounding the aerodrome.

The redesign is to allow for further accessible rooms providing the hotel with accessible bedrooms and future accessible bedrooms in line with relevant planning policy requirements. The planning consented site layout will remain as submitted with the additional bedrooms having no effect on the site plan in relation to the building size or the car parking. The approved landscaping scheme as withthe site layout, is not affected by the design amendment to include for additional bedrooms and the details submitted will be retained as the approved.

After review of the revised plans and documents, the MOD can confirm we have no objections to this application, subject to the conditional requirements we previously requested in our response

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 122 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS letter to application 2342/APP/2018/2294 dated 26th September 2018, remain and are carried over to any revised scheme for this development.

Heathrow: We have now assessed the above application against safeguarding criteria and can confirm that we have no safeguarding objections to the Minor Amendments to Condition 2. Internal Consultees HIGHWAY ENGINEER: Appraisal & Background The site is currently a B1(a) office use class building located at the end of a commercially dominant cul-de-sac off Station Approach (designated as a Classified road in the Council's hierarchy of roads) in South Ruislip. It is situated within easy reach of South Ruislip LU station and exhibits a PTAL rating of 3 which is considered as moderate but is not reflective of the 'real world' exemplary public transport provision which is exampled by the proximity of the adjacent LU station located within 5 minutes walking distance. The road exhibits a mix of double and single yellow line waiting restrictions operating 24/7 and between 11am and 12 noon Monday to Friday respectively. Parking stress in the locality, outside of the 11am to 12noon period, is high owing to the generated demands of local businesses. Further afield, there is a mix of an all day Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) coupled with pay and display facilities operating for the same period encompassing a high proportion of the surrounding road network. This is mainly in place to remove commuter related parking by patrons of South Ruislip LU station.

The site benefits from an existing 2019 permission for a 79 bedroom 'Travel Lodge' hotel (2342/APP/2018/2294) with 21/12 car/cycle parking spaces respectively. It is now proposed to increase the number of bedrooms to 87 by reconfiguring the internal building layout. There are no changes proposed to the above parking quantums and site access arrangements.

Parking Provision Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMT 6 requires that new development will only be permitted where it accords with the Council's adopted parking standards unless it can be demonstrated that a deviation from the standard would not result in a deleterious impact on the surrounding road network.

In accord with the above there is no set standard other than by assessment of a proposal on an individual basis. 21 parking spaces were provided for the extant permission for 79 bedrooms and no additional spaces are provided for the extra 8 bedrooms.

For guidance purposes, it is highlighted that the original permission was granted under the Council's previously adopted Saved UDP parking standard which recommended a level of 1 space per 5 hotel bedrooms. The 79 bedrooms would therefore have demanded approximately 16 spaces and 21 were accepted and consented. This indicated an over-provision of 5 spaces. On this basis, if 8 additional rooms are added, the requirement would then rise to 17.

Based on the above reasoning and assessment methodology applied under Policy DMT6, the absence of additional parking provision is considered appropriate for this proposal.

Cycle Parking Policy DMT 6 indicates a requirement for 1 space per 10 staff. The additional bedrooms would not demand additional staff to a level that would trigger a requirement for an increase to the consented provision of 12 spaces. There are no further observations.

Vehicular Trip Generation Local Plan Part 2 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 require the Council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 123 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety.

Given the small scale of the proposal, there will be no discernible difference in vehicle bound activity as compared to the consented scheme hence any generated activity can therefore be absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety.

Conclusion The application for a minor material amendment to revise Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref. 2342/APP/2018/2294 has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the amendment would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan Part 2 Development Plan Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies 6.3, 6.9, and 6.13 of the London Plan (2016).

ACCESS OFFICER: The proposed Minor Material Amendment to the approved plans (dated 29/3/19) does not raise any accessibility concerns.

The proposed amendment includes the provision of 10 fully accessible bedrooms capable of compliance with BS8300:2018 and meets the requirements of London Plan Policy 4.5.

Conclusion: Acceptable.

TREE / LANDSCAPE OFFICER: Condition 2: Approved Plans (Minor material amendment)

The approved plans under application re. 2018/2294 were consented for the provision of a 79 bed / 4-storey building.

The current amendment seeks permission to accommodate 87 beds within the same the same site layout and building envelope (footprint, floor area and height). According to the plans and D&AS, there will be no difference to site layout and landscape.

Recommendation No objection subject to previous conditions. 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development The principle of siting a hotel on this site has been previously considered and found to be acceptable as part of the officer's committee report on the original hotel permission which is still extant. Although the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies has since been adopted, the emerging policies and site designations were previously taken into account and there has been no change in site circumstance to suggest that this assessment is no longer appropriate. 7.02 Density of the proposed development Not applicable to this development. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character Not applicable as the site does not fall within an archaeological priority area, conservation area or area of special local character and there are no listed buildings within its vicinity. 7.04 Airport safeguarding This S73 application does not alter the height of the previously consented hotel building. No objections have been received from the airport safeguarding authorities and the previously

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 124 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS requested conditions form part of the officer's recommendation. 7.05 Impact on the green belt Not applicable to this development. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area The consented hotel building was previously assessed within the officer's report to committee which advised:-

'The Runway is flanked by buildings of a variety of designs and scales, with two and three storey flat roof structures being the most common presence. The majority of buildings are office blocks that either continue to accommodate office use or have been converted to residential dwellings with minimal external alterations made, due to the works being carried out under Change of Use Prior Approval rights.

Whilst the proposal seeks to provide a 'budget' hotel it is clear that this has not diminished from the quality of the proposed building.The materials are of high quality, albeit consist of a simple pallet which will be finished in detailed brickwork. The development provides an efficient building within a suitable massing for this location, the layout is simple in form, combining a palette of a few quality materials to create an attractive and elegant appearance. The building perimeter is pulled back from the neighbouring buildings at the end of The Runway and creates a more desirable setting for the hotel on approach.The south east elevation creates a stronger frontage onto The Runway by use of architectural detailing, glazing and appropriate materials.

The ground level is lowered by approximately 0.37m and floor to floor levels are kept to a minimum of 2.625m to achieve this and ensure the building's stature is respectful of the surrounding properties.

Furthermore the current scheme has been designed following discussions with the council and the council's principal urban design and conservation officer has raised no objections. However the officer has requested that materials and details will need to be conditioned in order to maintain the proposed quality of the scheme.'

This proposed building of this S73 application only differs from the consented scheme in that the number of window columns increases from 12 to 13 on the south elevation and the remaining windows on this elevation and those on the north elevation would be re-sited to reflect the revised internal room positions.

The addition of a further window column on the southern elevation of the building does not result in a cluttered appearance and the revised spacing of the windows on the southern and northern elevations results in a closer spacing of windows at the building's south - eastern end, with a wider spacing towards its north western end which helps to break up and provide visual interest to the long elevations of the building.

The revised fenestration detail is considered to be acceptable and complies with Policies DMHB 11 and 12 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.08 Impact on neighbours The consented scheme was considered to achieve an acceptable impact on its neighbours as the building is set back towards the tip of the triangular plot so that it sits further away from the neighbouring buildings on The Runway than the existing building, with the new layout achieving a distance to the nearest buildings on The Runway of over 21

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 125 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS metres.

The officer's report also advised that the bar and restaurant sit to the rear of the building at ground floor, with the back of house areas and lift core placed on the south west side of the building which faces towards the Odyssey Business Park, which is approximately 30 metres away. There would be no bedroom windows facing south along The Runway, with all the proposed bedroom windows looking out over the railway line and the business park.

Therefore, given the scale and nature of the development, the report concluded on this issue that the proposal is not considered to raise concern with regards to residential amenity. In addition, the proposal is not considered to give rise to any concern to immediately adjacent commercial properties given the type of development sought.

This assessment remains valid for the current S73 application with the new window column being added to the southern elevation which overlooks the business park with the other minor re-siting of the windows being in this elevation and on the northern elevation which overlooks the railway.

Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers The previous commitee report noted that there are no adopted planning standards in respect of privacy / overlooking between hotel guest bedrooms and the quality of accommodation is a matter for the hotel operator.

The revised layout affords a similar standard of accommodation as compared to the majority of the previously approved bedrooms which were previously considered acceptable and the layout ensures that adequate daylight and sunlight can reach each bedroom with their windows providing outlook for future occupants. 7.10 Traffic impact, car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety Policy DMT 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) states that development proposals will be required to meet the transport needs of the development and address its transport impacts in a sustainable manner and to be acceptable, schemes are required to i) be accessible by public transport, walking and cycling; ii) maximise safe, convenient and inclusive accessibility; iii) provide equal access for all people; iv) adequately address servicing requirements and v) have no significant adverse transport or associated air quality and noise impacts on the local and wider environment. Policy DMT 2 seeks to minimise the impact of development on the surrounding highway with regards to traffic, air quality, noise, local amenity and safety.

Policy DMT 6 sets maximum parking standards for new development as outlined in Appendix C Table 1 to facilitate sustainable development and a variation from these standards will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that a deviation from the standard would not result in a deleterious impact on the surrounding road network. It is requires that all car parks provided for new development will provide conveniently located parking spaces for wheelchair users and those with restricted mobility.

Policy 6.3 of the London Plan (2016) requires development proposals to ensure that the impacts on transport capacity and the transport network are fully assessed, Policy 6.9 that needs of cyclists are fully considered and Policy 6.13 that development accords with parking standards.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 126 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Vehicular Trip Generation The Council's Highway Engineer has reviewed the S73 application and advises that as regards to Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2, given the small scale of the proposal, there will be no discernible difference in vehicle bound activity as compared to the consented scheme hence any generated activity can therefore be absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety.

Parking Provision In terms of parking, the Highway Engineer advises that with regard to Policy DMT 6, there is no set standard for hotels other than by assessment of a proposal on an individual basis. The engineer notes that 21 parking spaces were provided for the extant permission for 79 hotel bedrooms and no additional spaces are provided for the current extra 8 bedrooms. As regards the original assessment, the 21 spaces proposed was considered acceptable under the Council's previously adopted Saved UDP parking standard which recommended a level of 1 space per 5 hotel bedrooms. The 79 bedrooms would therefore have demanded approximately 16 spaces and 21 were accepted and consented. This indicated an over-provision of 5 spaces. On this basis, if 8 additional rooms are added, the requirement would then rise to 17.

Based on the above reasoning and assessment methodology applied under Policy DMT6, the absence of additional parking provision is considered appropriate for this proposal.

Cycle Parking As regards cycle parking, the Highway Engineer advises that Policy DMT 6 indicates a requirement for 1 space per 10 staff. The additional bedrooms would not demand additional staff to a level that would trigger a requirement for an increase in the consented provision. The consented provision was for 11 cycle spaces which was controlled by condition, whereas this scheme proposes 12 cycle spaces (8 short stay and 4 long stay) which is considered acceptable.

Conclusion The proposed amendment would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan Part 2 Development Plan Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies 6.3, 6.9, and 6.13 of the London Plan (2016). 7.11 Urban design, access and security As regards urban design and security issues, this S73 application does not raise any additional considerations that have not already been considered in officer's report on the original consented scheme and controlled by condition. 7.12 Disabled access The Council's Access Officer advises that the proposed amendments to the approved plans do not raise any accessibility concerns as the proposed amendment incorporates provision for 10 fully accessible bedrooms capable of compliance with BS8300:2018 and meets the requirements of London Plan Policy 4.5. The scheme is therefore acceptable in terms of accessibility issues, subject to a suitable condition to ensure the development complies with relevant Building Regulations. . 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing The proposal relates to a hotel, accordingly considerations relating to affordable or special needs housing are not relevant to the application. 7.14 Trees, Landscaping and Ecology

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 127 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The S73 application does not alter the previously consented landscape scheme. The Council's Tree / Landscape Officer raises no objections subject to the previously recommended conditions which form part of the officer's recommendation. 7.15 Sustainable waste management This scheme does not alter the previously consented refuse storage and collection arrangements which ultimately are at the discretion of the hotel. As such, it is considered to comply with Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (March 2016). 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability This scheme does not alter the previously consented energy efficiency measures. Subject to the same conditions, the scheme is considered acceptable. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues The Council's Flood and Water Management Officer previously advised on the consented scheme that the proposed development has no implications for flooding or drainage. Accordingly, there are no flooding or drainage issues raised by this S73 application which does not alter the building footprint or the previously consented site layout. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues This S73 application with no additional parking being proposed has no material implications for noise generation or air quality issues. Subject to the previously recommended conditions, the scheme is considered acceptable. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations No comments from neighbouring properties have been received. 7.20 Planning Obligations Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) is concerned with securing planning benefits related to the scale and type of development. The policy is supported by more specific supplementary planning guidance.

The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010 (Regulations issued Pursuant to the 2008 Act) and the NPPF have put three tests on the use of planning obligations into law. It is unlawful (since 6th April 2010) to request planning obligations that do not meet the following tests: i. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms ii. directly related to the development, and iii. fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development

The effect of the Regulations is that the Council must apply the tests much more strictly and is only to ask for planning obligations that are genuinely necessary and directly related to a development. Should planning obligations be requested that do not meet the policy tests the Council would have acted unlawfully and could be subject to a High Court challenge. On the basis of the NPPF and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 2010, it is only considered reasonable to request contributions towards the following: 1. S278/S38 for highways works. 2. Construction Training: either a contribution equal to the formula (£2,500 for every £1m build + coordinator costs) or an in-kind training scheme equal to the financial contribution delivered during the construction period of the development with the preference being for an in-kind scheme to be delivered. 3. Hospitality Training contributions or in kind scheme to provide apprenticeships and on the-job training for young people interested in pursuing a career in the hospitality industry. 4. Travel Plan: Prior to occupation a full Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 128 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS writing by the Local Planning Authority. A £20,000 Travel Plan bond is also to be secured. 5. Project Management & Monitoring Fee: a contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions secured from the scheme to enable the management and monitoring of the resulting agreement.

The applicant has agreed to the above heads of terms. As such, the scheme complies with Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020).

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL): The scheme would also be liable for payments under the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Council adopted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on August 1st 2014 and the Hillingdon CIL charge for hotel developments is £40 per square metre of additional floorspace.

In addition, on the 1st April 2012 the Mayoral Community Structure Levy came into force. The London Borough of Hillingdon falls within Charging Zone 2, therefore, a flat rate fee of £60 per square metre would be required for each net additional square metre added to the site as part of the development.

Therefore the Hillingdon & Mayoral CIL Charges for the proposed development are currently calculated as follows: Hillingdon CIL = £85,177.05 London Mayoral MCIL = £95,221.51 Total = £180,398.56 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action No enforcement issues are raised by this application. 7.22 Other Issues There are no other issues raised by this application.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 129 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Where conditions are imposed, the Council is required to provide full reasons for imposing those conditions.

9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable.

10. CONCLUSION The proposed increase in the number of hotel bedrooms and the minor alterations to the fenestration detail of the building are considered acceptable, subject to a DoV/ S106 Agreement and the recommended conditions.

11. Reference Documents The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management policies (January 2020) London Plan (March 2016) National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Council's Supplementary Planning Document - Accessible Hillingdon Council's Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations Contact Officer:Richard Phillips Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 130 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS ´

Tank

Works S G an try

El Su b El Sub Sta Sta

MP 6.25

Eagle Office Centre FB

Spendale House

Works 6

Astral House S t M a rt Odyssey Business Park in s H o u s e Charlwood House

Runway House

Works

T H E R U N W A ESS Howard Y 3 2 House

5 4 2 2 9 5

Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Eagle Point OF HILLINGDON The Runway Residents Services For identification purposes only. Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Ruislip Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address LAND ADJOINING GURU NANAK SIKH ACADEMY SPRINGFIELD ROAD HAYES Development: Construction of a new three-storey 4FE primary school (to replace the existing Nanaksar Primary School) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor sports provision, car parking and new access arrangement LBH Ref Nos: 4450/APP/2020/515

Drawing Nos: FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0023 P01 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0022 P01 FS0128-CPM-01-03-DR-A-2004 P05 FS0128-CPM-01-ZZ-DR-A-2010 P03 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0001 P03 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00002-V03_Travel Plan FS0128-CPM-01-02-DR-A-2003 P08 FS0128-CPM-01-01-DR-A-2002 P08 FS0128-CPM-01-00-DR-A-2001 P08 UK18.4283c - Phase II Geo Environmental Investigation UK18.4283 Phase I Geo Environmental Study Initial planning statement R003 V4 Sequential assessment R002 V4 Ligting plan D38481/LC/A Carbon emissions spreadsheet FS0128-CPM-01-ZZ-DR-A-2015 P05 Topographical Survey (ref: 001 Rev A) Agronomy Condition Assessment Audit 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00001 V03 Transport assessment Biodiversity Phase 1 Habitat Survey (ref: 6726 J001039 Acoustic Strategy 19-1650.02_REP Site investigation and remediation report (CL) 19-1650.01_REP Geo Environmental report J3980 Rev D Revised air quality assessment 200213 CDB 0045317 Noise impact assessment FS0128_DAS Rev P11 FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002-V01 Micro drainage details FS0128-CPW-00-XX-RP-N-0007 P04 Energy report 74867-CUR-00-XX-DR-TP-05005-P1 74867-CUR-00-XX-DR-TP-05004-P1 Draft community use agreement Planning statement addendum FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0003-V03 revised FRA FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0001-V03 revised drainage layou FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0029 P04 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0028 04 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0027 P04 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00003-V01 transport assessment adendum 20191129_135425 visual impact assessment view 5 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Survey

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 133 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Method Statemen 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment TX135263 NPS - Fire safety report Trenton FS0128_D&AS_Nanaksar_P13 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-RP-L-0001 P04 visual impact assessment FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0024 P03 building comparison FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0021 P04 net loss/ gain FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0013 P09 sheet 3 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0012 P11 sheet 2 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0011 P09 sheet 1 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0004 P08 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0003 P07 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0002 P13 Revised CEMP Rev C 20 05 28 8749 Nanaksar Visuals Sheets_Planning_P4

Date Plans Received: 14/02/2020 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 14/02/2020 Date Application Valid: 21/02/2020 21/02/2020 06/03/2020 04/05/2020 28/05/2020 30/04/2020 17/04/2020 29/04/2020 31/03/2020 1. SUMMARY The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a new 3-storey 4FE primary school (to replace an existing temporary primary school) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor sports provision, and new access arrangement.

Currently, there is temporary classroom accommodation for a 2 Form Entry (2FE) primary school on site with a floor space of approximately 400 square metres, which was opened in 2009. Adjacent to the site on the western boundary, there is a 5-FE secondary school with 750 pupils and a 2-FE primary school with 420 pupils, both operating as Sikh Community Nanaksar Schools. The proposed new building would replace the existing temporary huts as well as adding and additional 2-FE to create capacity for a 4-FE primary school for up to 840 pupils.

The Education Act 1996 states that Local Authorities have a duty to educate children within their administrative area. In the main metropolitan areas throughout the country there has been a significant increase in the need for school places and this holds true for London. This increase reflects rising birth rates, migration changes and housing development. Many primary schools in the borough have already expanded and planning consent has been issued for a number of new primary schools in the last 5 years. The Hillingdon Primary Capital Schools Programme is part of the Council's legal requirement to meet the educational needs of the borough.

The Council has already invested significantly in additional school places in the primary

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 134 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS sector. Overall, at primary school level, the need for additional school places has largely been met by the successful school places expansion programme mentioned above. The Council's latest Strategic Infrastructure Plan (SIP) contains an up to date assessment of school place needs over the period of the Local Plan. Nine new forms of entry are expected to be needed in the south of the Borough by 2023/24, with 6 of these being needed in the Hayes. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the need for further places within this area and this is supported by the comments from the Council's School Place Planning Manager.

The proposal is consistent with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)219, London Plan policy 3.18 and Local Plan Policy DMCI 1A, which seek to encourage the provision of new and/or enhanced educational facilities. Furthermore, whilst it would inevitably impact on the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt in this location, the applicant has demonstrated a case of very special circumstances sufficient to justify an exception to current policy, which seeks to protect such land from unacceptable development. Notably, the Greater London Authority (GLA) have confirmed that they accept the very special circumstances presented such that they have raised no objections on Green Belt grounds.

It is recognised that the proposal includes the partial loss of the existing school playing field which has been met with objection by Sport England. Notwithstanding this the applicant has worked with the Local Authority and Sport England to ensure that the scheme includes and acceptable level of sports re-provision. Revised plans have been submitted demonstrating compliance with Sport England's sports facility standards however the proposal fails to adhere to the request for sports lighting which has been raised by Sport England directly. For reasons explained in greater detail within the principle section of this report the Local Planning Authority is unable to agree to the sports lighting within this location. The level of sports provision accompanied by the strong policy support for the enhancement of educational facilities is considered to outweigh the harm caused by the partial loss of the playing field.

The proposal is supported by a detailed Transport Assessment, which following much negotiation with the applicant, provides for mitigation measures to reduce its impact on the local highway network. The Council's Highway Engineer has reviewed this information in detail and confirmed that, subject to appropriate conditions and a S106 agreement to secure off-site mitigation measures, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of traffic impact, pedestrian and highway safety.

The proposal is considered to comply with relevant Local Plan Policies and London Plan policies and, accordingly, it is recommended that delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning and Enforcement to approve the scheme, subject to the appropriate referrals to the GLA. 2. RECOMMENDATION That delegated powers be given to APPROVE this application by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration to grant planning permission, subject to the following:

A. That the application be referred to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The application shall also be referred to the Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

B. That should the Secretary of State and or GLA not call in the application, the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 135 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS application be deferred for determination by the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration for an approval.

C. That the Council enter into a legal agreement with the applicant under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) or any other legislation to secure the following:

1. A contribution to the sum of £176,847 to secure all necessary highway works including written agreement from the Local Planning Authority on the final proposed public realm improvements to the pedestrian environment which comprise: (1) £26,000 - Shared use footpaths linking the subways at Minet Drive and Abbotswood Drive with the school and Springfield Road. (2) £15,000 - Installation of a 'School Keep Clear' markings CCTV camera to enforce illegal parking. (3) £1,370.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Traffic management. (4) £6,682.00 - Preliminary design works (5) £53,375.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Carriageway surfacing. (6) £29,420.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Footway & kerb. (7) £25,000.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Street lighting. (8) £20,000 for Uxbridge Road/Springfield Road junction improvements.

2. The provision of a Green School Travel Plan: Prior to first occupation a full travel plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the council. Thereafter, the Travel Plan is required to be reviewed at regular intervals to monitor its impact and, if required, it shall be updated and/or amended in order that its aims and objectives are achieved. Therefore, a travel plan review should be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% occupation of pupils and staff. The Travel Plan shall demonstrate a commitment to the ongoing provision and expansion of the existing school bus service to cater for the growing number of pupils and also a commitment to the ongoing review of and provision of additional cycle parking provision should demand dictate. A Travel Plan bond in the sum of £20,000 is also to be secured.

3. Community Use Agreement: Prior to occupation of the development a Community Use Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of hours of use, access to the grass pitches, all weather pitch, MUGA and sports hall (including WCs and changing rooms) by non-school users, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review. The approved scheme shall be implemented upon commencement of use of the development.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 136 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 4. Employment Strategy and Construction Training - either a contribution equal to the formula within the Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2014, or an in-kind training scheme equal to the financial contribution delivered during the construction period of the development. Details shall be in accordance with the Council Planning Obligations SPD with the preference being for an in-kind scheme to be delivered.

5. Carbon off-set contribution as required by an approved Energy Assessment

6. Staggered Start and finish times for the Guru Nanak Academy Trust Schools on Springfield Road;

7. Project Management & Monitoring Contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions. Details shall be in accordance with the Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2014.

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

E. That the officers be authorised to negotiate the terms of the proposed agreement and conditions.

F. That, if the S106 agreement has not been finalised within 31-08-2020, under the discretion of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration, the application is refused under delegated powers on the basis that the applicant has refused to address planning obligation requirements.

'The applicant has failed to provide contributions towards the improvement of services and facilities as a consequence of demands created by the proposed development (in respect of affordable, vehicle, pedestrian and cycle improvements, carbon offset, travel plan, construction training and highway works). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy H2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1, Policies DMCI 7, DMT1 and DMT 2 contained with the adopted Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2019) and Policies 3.12 and 5.2 of the London Plan (2016).'

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

1 COM3 Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0023 P01

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 137 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS FS0128-CPM-01-03-DR-A-2004 P05 FS0128-CPM-01-ZZ-DR-A-2010 P03 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0001 P03 FS0128-CPM-01-02-DR-A-2003 P08 FS0128-CPM-01-01-DR-A-2002 P08 FS0128-CPM-01-00-DR-A-2001 P08 Lighting plan D38481/LC/A FS0128-CPM-01-ZZ-DR-A-2015 P05 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0003 P07 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0004 P08 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0011 P09 sheet 1 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0012 P11 sheet 2 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0013 P09 sheet 3 of 3 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0021 P04 net loss/ gain FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0024 P03 building comparison FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0027 P04 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0028 P04 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0029 P04 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-DR-L-0002 P13

and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016). 3 COM5 General compliance with supporting documentation The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the following has been completed in accordance with the specified supporting plans and/or documents:

UK18.4283c - Phase II Geo Environmental Investigation UK18.4283 Phase I Geo Environmental Study Sequential assessment R002 V4 Agronomy Condition Assessment Audit 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00001 V03 Transport assessment 19-1650.02_REP Site investigation and remediation report (CL) 19-1650.01_REP Geo Environmental report 200213 CDB 0045317 Noise impact assessment Micro drainage details FS0128-CPW-00-XX-RP-N-0007 P04 Energy report 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00003-V01 transport assessment addendum 20191129_135425 visual impact assessment view 5 FS0128-ALA-XX-XX-RP-L-0001 P04 visual impact assessment TX135263 NPS - Fire safety report Trenton 20 05 28 8749 Nanaksar Visuals Sheets_Planning_P4 Revised CEMP Rev C FS0128_D&AS_Nanaksar_P13 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Impact Assessment 2020-04-29 Issue 2 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Method Statement 2020-04-29 Issue 2 19-2290.01 Revised Arboricultural Survey 2020-04-29 Issue 2 J3980A/1/F2 air quality assessment FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0003-V03 revised FRA

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 138 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Planning statement R003 V4 74867-CUR-00-XX-RP-TP-00002-V03_Travel Plan Topographical Survey (ref: 001 Rev A) Biodiversity Phase 1 Habitat Survey (ref: 6726 J001039) FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0001 V03 FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002-V01

Thereafter the development shall be retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions Hillingdon Local Plan Parts 1 (November 2012) and 2 (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016). 4 COM9 Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) No works above ground level shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: -

2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Cycle Storage for 112 number of bicycles including 12 short-stay spaces located adjacent to the visitor entrance 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layouts for 50 vehicles (including demonstration that 5 spaces are served by active and 5 are served by passive electrical charging points and 3 dedicated blue badge spaces) 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials 2.f External Lighting 2.g Other structures (such as play equipment and furniture)

3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of surfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased.

4. Schedule for Implementation

5. Other 5.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground 5.b Proposed finishing levels or contours

6. An Urban Greening Factor Assessment for the proposed development

Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 139 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS approved details.

REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policies 5.11 (living walls and roofs) and 5.17 (refuse storage) of the London Plan (2016) and policy G5 of the Mayors London Plan (intend to publish) 2019. 5 NONSC Servicing and delivery plan Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved a Delivery and Servicing Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall: i) rationalise the number of delivery and servicing trips, particularly during peak traffic periods; ii) ensure there is provision of adequate loading facilities; iii) ensure that the delivery space and time is actively controlled through a site booking plan; and iv) Provide details of measures which will be implemented to reduce neighbourhood impacts.

Operators should also be able to demonstrate their sustainability through membership of the Freight Operators Recognition Scheme (FORS) or similar.

REASON To encourage out of hours/off peak servicing to help mitigate the site's contribution to local congestion levels in compliance with Policy DMT1 and DMT2 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 6 NONSC Fire evacuation plan No development shall proceed beyond the steel/timber/concrete superstructure (including roof structure) of any building proposed until a comprehensive fire emergency plan that demonstrates how disabled people will be safeguarded from fire and enabled to evacuate the building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

REASON To ensure that adequate facilities are provided for people with disabilities in accordance with Policy D12 of the emerging London Plan (Intend to Publish version 2019). 7 RES7 Materials (Submission) Prior to above ground works detailed drawings or samples of all materials and external surfaces are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so approved and shall thereafter be so maintained:

1. (a) Samples of materials (b) Details of parapets, cills, reveals, spandrel panels, safety railings (c) Detailed design of front and rear canopies (d) Details of railings and fencing (e) Details of substation

2. Sample panels of facing brickwork Sample panels of facing brickwork showing the proposed colour, texture, facebond and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 140 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS pointing shall be provided on site, and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant parts of the approved works are commenced, and the sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed in accordance with the panel (s) so approved.

3. Elevational drawings at a scale of 1:20 and plan and vertical sectional drawings at a scale of 1:2 of the proposed windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Details should include information relating to make, product/type, colour and photographs/images.

REASON To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 8 NONSC Energy Prior to above ground works, full specifications of the amount, type and location of the roof mounted PV array shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specifications shall detail the PVs to be used and correspond with the savings set out in the energy strategy (Couch Perry Wilkes, April 2020). The specifications shall also include full details of the fixing mechanisms, orientation, pitch and maintenance regime.

Reason To ensure the development contributes to a reduction in CO2 emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 9 NONSC Energy Prior to occupation, a detailed monitoring and reporting plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall provide full details of how the carbon savings set out in the energy strategy shall be monitored with details of how and when these will be reported to Local Authority. The submitted report shall demonstrate the carbon reduction proposals have been implemented and that the development is compliant with the savings set out in the energy strategy. Measures to remedy any shortfall in carbon savings will be required. The development must be operated in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason To ensure the development contributes to a reduction in CO2 emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2 10 NONSC Ecology Prior to above ground works,the following shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

(i) an ecological enhancement plan shall be submitted. The plan shall show dedicated area(s) (including the southern area bordering Minet Country Park) for the management of wildlife that can double as an outdoor learning space. The plan shall show the inclusion of a pond area for wildlife and educational purposes unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall also include a diverse range of planting through an updated landscaping plan that has been developed to improve biodiversity.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 141 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Finally, the plan shall also show the inclusion of wildlife enhancement features (i.e. bat and bird boxes as well log piles) throughout the landscaped areas and within the fabric of the buildings. The development must proceed in accordance with the approved plan.

(ii) a plan showing the incorporation of living walls, screens and/or roofs in the new development (main building) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The living walls, screens and/or roofs shall incorporate native nectar rich planting. The development must proceed in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason To ensure the development incorporates measures to improve biodiversity in accordance with Policy EM7 of the Local Plan Part 1. 11 COM10 Tree to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plan shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS 3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier.

REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 12 RES26 Contaminated Land (1) All works which form part of the remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied or brought into use unless the Local Planning Authority (LPA) dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing. The scheme shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing:

(i) No deviation shall be made from the proposed remediation scheme without the express agreement of the LPA .

(ii) Any required addendum to the proposed remediation scheme shall be agreed with the LPA, prior to implementation; and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 142 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (iii) Upon completion of the approved remedial works, this condition will not be discharged until a comprehensive verification report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The report shall include the details of the final remediation works and their verification to show that the works for each phase have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology.

(iv) The results from chemical testing of imported soils shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

REASON To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Ground Water Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination. 13 NONSC Crane operation plan Prior to above ground works a Crane Operation Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Ministry of Defence (RAF Northolt) and Heathrow Airport Limited. The submitted plan shall include details of:

- cranes and other tall construction equipment (including the details of obstacle lighting) - Such schemes shall comply with Advice Note 4 'Cranes and Other Construction Issues'(available at www.aoa.org.uk/policy-campaigns/operations-safety).

The approved Crane Operation Plan (or any variation approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) shall be implemented for the duration of the construction period.

REASON

In the interests of aircraft safety in compliance with Policy DMAV 1 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 14 NONSC Bird hazard management plan Prior to above ground works, a Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Heathrow Airport Limited and the Ministry of Defence. The submitted plan shall include details of:

- management of any flat roofs within the site which may be attractive to nesting, roosting and "loafing" birds. The management plan shall comply with Advice Note 8 'Potential Bird Hazards from Building Design'

The Bird Hazard Management Plan shall be implemented as approved and shall remain in force for the life of the building.

REASON In the interests of aircraft safety in compliance with Policy DMAV 1 of the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 15 RES24 Secured by Design The buildings and car parks alongside the associated play areas and sports facilities shall achieve 'Secured by Design' accreditation awarded by the Hillingdon Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser (CPDA) on behalf of the Association of Chief Police

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 143 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Officers (ACPO). No part of the development shall be occupied until accreditation has been achieved.

REASON In pursuance of the Council's duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider crime and disorder implications in excising its planning functions; to promote the well being of the area in pursuance of the Council's powers under section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, to ensure the development provides a safe and secure environment in accordance with policy DMHB 15 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and London Plan (2016) Policies 7.1 and 7.3. 16 NONSC Imported soils No contaminated soils or other materials shall be imported to the site. All imported soils for landscaping purposes shall be clean and free of contamination. All imported soils shall be tested for chemical contamination, and the results of this testing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To ensure that the occupants of the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Policy DMEI 12 and DMEI 13 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 17 NONSC Sport England Use of the development shall not commence until details of community use agreement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreement shall apply to the pitches, MUGAs, sports halls, studio space, changing and parking and include details of pricing policy, hours of use, access by non-educational establishment, management responsibilities and a mechanism for review, and anything else which the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Sport England considers necessary in order to secure the effective community use of the facilities. The development shall not be used at any time other than in strict compliance with the approved agreement.

REASON To secure well managed safe community access to the sports facility/facilities, to ensure sufficient benefit to the development of sport in accordance with policy DMCI 3 of the Hillingdon Local Plan : Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 18 NONSC Noise 1 The rating level of noise emitted from any plant and/or machinery installed shall be at least 5 dB below the existing background sound level. The noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise sensitive receptors (i.e. the existing school). The measurements and assessment shall be made following the methodology of British Standard 4142:2014+A1:2019.

REASON To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area in accordance with policies DMHB11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012). 19 NONSC Noise 2 The scheme shall meet acceptable internal noise design criteria and design guidance within BS 8233: 2014 - Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings and the Institute of Acoustics & Association of Noise Consultants: Acoustics of Schools: a

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 144 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS design guide. The design and internal noise levels must take into account requirements for ventilation and cooling.

REASON To safeguard the amenity of the surrounding area in accordance with policies DMHB11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and policy EM8 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012). 20 NONSC Air Quality 1 All Non-Road Mobile machinery (NRMM) of net power of 37kW and up to and including 560kW used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases shall comply with the emissions standards set out in chapter 4, proposal 4.3.3.a of the London Environment Strategy. Unless it complies with the standard set out in the London Environment Strategy, no NRMM shall be onsite, at any time, whether in use or not, without the prior written consent of the LPA. The developer shall keep an up to date list of all NRMM used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases of the development on the online register https://nrmm.london/

REASON Compliance with the London's Low Emission Zone for non-road mobile machinery as per requirements of the London Environment Strategy 21 NONSC Air Quality 2 No works above ground-level works shall commence until details have been submitted to the LPA, in writing, demonstrating that any CHP or gas boilers used conform with the London Ultra Low NOx requirements as set out in the Mayor of London Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (or successor document).

REASON Compliance with London Plan Policy 7.14 , Local Plan Part 1, Policy EM8, LB Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, Policy DMEI 14, Hillingdon AQAP 2019-2024, 22 NONSC Non Standard Condition No development shall commence until a Reducing Emissions from Demolition and Construction Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. This must demonstrate compliance (drawn up accordance with) the GLA Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition SPG (or any successor document).

REASON To ensure compliance with London Plan 2016 Policy 7.14 and in accordance with Mayor of London "The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition (or any successor document). 23 RES22 Parking Management Prior to first occupation of the premises a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Transport for London. The submitted plan shall set out how parking for staff, visitors and set down and pick up activities at the site will be safely and effectively managed.

The approved plan shall remain in place for perpetuity.

REASON To help mitigate the site's contribution to local congestion levels in compliance with Policy DMT 1, DMT 2 and DMT 6 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 145 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policies (2020). 24 NONSC Waste Management Prior to first occupation of the premises a Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include means of managing the movement of the bins from the bin store to within 10 metres of the refuse and recycling vehicle stopping point as indicated on the approved plans.

REASON To ensure that the proposed development complies with Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016). 25 NONSC No additional floodlighting There shall be no additional external lighting beyond that which is included within the approved plans.

REASON In order to protect the wildlife and ecological habitats within close proximity to the site in accordance with Policy EM7 of the Local Plan Part 1 (2012). 26 NONSC Fire Strategy The principles of the submitted Fire Strategy Report shall be implemented on site in conjunction with a suitably qualified consultant. Thereafter the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.

REASON To ensure that adequate facilities are provided for people with disabilities in accordance with Policy D12 of the emerging London Plan (Intend to Publish version 2019). 27 NONSC Staggered Start and Finish times The development hereby aproved shall strictly operate and enforce the following staggered start and finish times fo rthe lifetime of the development:

Reception - Year 2 9:15am-3:00pm Year 3-4 9:00am- 3:15pm Year 5-6 8:45am-3:30pm

At any time during the lifetime of the development, there must be a minimum of 3 start times with no less than 15 minute intervals.

REASON To manage traffic flows and mitigate against congestion on the local highways netowrk in accordance with Policy DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and policy 6.12 of the London Plan (2016). INFORMATIVES

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 146 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination). 2 I53 Compulsory Informative (2) The decision to GRANT planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 (2012) and Part 2 (2020) set out below, including Supplementary Planning Guidance, and to all relevant material considerations, including The London Plan - The Spatial Development Strategy for London consolidated with alterations since 2011 (2016) and national guidance. LPP 5.1 (2016) Climate Change Mitigation LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.11 (2016) Green roofs and development site environs LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 6.1 (2016) Strategic Approach LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 6.11 (2016) Smoothing Traffic Flow and Tackling Congestion LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. LPP 7.21 (2016) Trees and woodlands LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations NPPF National Planning Policy Framework DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMCI 1A Development of New Education Floorspace DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists DMT 6 Vehicle Parking

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 147 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 3.18 (2016) Education Facilities LPP 3.6 (2016) Children and young people's play and informal recreation facilities LPP 3.9 (2016) Mixed and Balanced Communities LPP 7.18 (2016) Protecting open space and addressing deficiency LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture

The development must comply with the guidance in Building Bulletin 93: Acoustic Design in Schools. 5 The proposed development shall have regard for:

a) The Equality Act 2010 seeks to protect people accessing goods, facilities and services from discrimination on the basis of a 'protected characteristic', which includes those with a disability. As part of the Act, service providers are obliged to improve access to and within the structure of their building, particularly in situations where reasonable adjustment can be incorporated with relative ease. The Act states that service providers should think ahead to take steps to address barriers that impede disabled people. b) Fixtures, fittings and furnishings, particularly hard materials should be selected to ensure that sound is not adversely reflected. The design of all learning areas should be considerate to the needs of people who are hard of hearing or deaf. Reference should be made to BS 8300:2009+A1:2010, Section 9.1.2, and, BS 223 in selecting an appropriate acoustic absorbency for each surface. c) Care should be taken to ensure that the internal decoration achieves a Light Reflectance Value (LRV) difference of at least 30 points between floor and walls, ceiling and walls, Including appropriate d cor to ensure that doors and door furniture can be easily located by people with reduced vision. d) Induction loops should be specified to comply with BS 7594 and BS EN 60118-4, and a term contract planned for their maintenance. e) Care must be taken to ensure that overspill and/or other interference from induction loops in different/adjacent areas does not occur. f) Flashing beacons/strobe lights linked to the fire alarm should be carefully selected and installed to ensure they remain within the technical thresholds not to adversely affect people with epilepsy.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 148 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 3.1 Site and Locality Guru Nanak Sikh Academy occupies an approximately 5 hectare irregularly shaped plot located on the southern side of Beaconsfield Road in Hayes. The main school buildings, which vary in height from single-storey to three-storeys, are located towards the north west of the site. A Multi-Use Games Area and playgrounds are located towards the south of the site and playgrounds are also located to the east of the main school building. Parking is provided along the western boundary. A drop off/pick up point for parents, accessed via Beaconsfield Road, and the school playing field occupy the eastern part of the site.

The school site is bounded to the north by Beaconsfield Road, beyond which are industrial buildings; to the east by Yeading Football Club; and to the south and west by Minet Country Park.

The part of the site the subject of these proposals comprises an approximately 1.52 hectare irregularly shaped plot, which currently comprises a large part of the existing school's playing fields and the existing drop-off/pick-up area. Planning permission was granted for the temporary provision of mobile classroom units and ancillary facilities on a part of this site, for a period of not more than three years, and these have been installed.

The entire school site falls within the Green Belt as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. Adjoining land to the east, west and south, including the adjoining football club, also falls within the Green Belt.

There is an oak tree in the north-east corner of the site which is protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO) number 722.

Beaconsfield Road and the area beyond to the north fall within the Springfield Road Industrial and Business Area. The site and surrounding area also falls within the Hayes and West Drayton Corridor. The entire site falls within an Air Quality Management Area and Council records show the land to be contaminated.

3.2 Proposed Scheme This application seeks full planning permission for the redevelopment of the existing temporary school to provide a new 3 storey, 4 forms of entry primary school with associated facilities.

The existing temporary huts would be demolished in the term, but for the interim construction period the existing students accommodated within designated areas of the Guru Nanak school building adjacent. Notwithstanding this it should be noted that the school has demonstrated a plan to open the new school in september for 2 new forms of entry (reception class) by submitting a seperate application for new temporary huts in a separate location to the south of the Guru Nanak site.

It must be noted that despite sharing a wider site the application site and adjoining secondary schools currently operate entirely independently of one another and will continue to do so.

Pupil and staff numbers:

At present, the school currently has a maximum capacity of 420 pupils (2FE) and it is understood that the school is currently oversubscribed each year meaning that they receive more applications in comparison to the number of places available. The proposal

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 149 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS seeks to increase the school's maximum capacity to 840 pupils (4FE).

In terms of staff numbers, post development completion and occupation, it is anticipated that there would be up to 70 full time equivalent (FTE) staff. This represents an increase of 40 staff members over existing numbers.

The proposed new building would continue to occupy the northern end of the site which currently accommodates the existing temporary huts and the school pick up and drop off point. The building would be a T shape with the bulk of the width extending east to west and the smaller depth which would run along the boundary shared with the Hayes and Yeading Football Club car park. The different sides of the T are also signified by the alteration in height as the section which tunnels along the boundary with the football club car park would be two stories and the proportion which extends east to west would be 3 stories.

At ground floor level this would accommodate various reception and year 1 classrooms; flexible halls & dining cluster with associated kitchen & servery; paired reception rooms with external terraces; a reading corner; dedicated halls and outdoor WC core and the school main entrance suite. At first floor level it would accommodate shared practical & resource cluster; food tech resource; ICT suite; central staff room; Years 2 & 3 classrooms; plant provision and server room. The third floor would accommodate the classrooms for Years 4, 5 & 6; a staff work room and a sedum roof over the main hall.

Externally, playgrounds and social interaction areas would adjoin the building to the south, beyond which are a number of Multi-Use Game Area's (MUGA), an artificial grass pitch and further south is the remaining portion of the existing school playing field.

Given that there is an existing primary school on site accommodated within the temporary huts fronting Beaconsfield Road there is existing vehicular access from Beaconsfield Road. The access is designed to permit vehicles into the front car park at the eastern end of the frontage and vehicles will exit via the western end of the frontage. This would provide direct access to the staff only car park (27 bays) and a drop off only area (23 bays).

A bin store has been sited close to the loading bay on the eastern edge of the site for easy access by refuse collectors and would be bound by solid timber fencing to ensure the bin area remains discrete. This would also be located near the main covered cycle parking for which there is a total of 72 spaces proposed.

Existing boundary fencing, which it was observed on site comprises 2.1m high galvanised steel blunt-topped palisade fence which is in good condition, would be retained. A variety of different fencing would be used across various locations within the site and these comprise of 2m height timber closeboard fencing, 2.4m height weldmesh fencing, 3m rebound height weldmesh fencing (AGP), 1.2m height bow top fencing (MUGA).

A proportion of the existing playing field would be removed in order to accomodate the playground space, MUGA and AGP associated with the primary school. The quantum and quality of the replacement sports areas (MUGA & AGP) combined with the proportion of the playing field which will remain, is considered to be acceptable.

Detailed landscaping plans have been provided and the landscape masterplan indicates that sufficient levels of tree planting will be provided across the site including fruit trees in the front area to break up an area which is dominated by hard surfacing. It also indicates that planting would be provided within the car park, around the building and within the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 150 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS playground/social areas.

Community Use:

The submission includes a draft Community Use Agreement which outlines the intention to make the sports pitches/areas available for public use outside of the core school hours. The Planning Statement & Design and Access Statement confirms that external sports facilities will also be made available outside of school core time during evenings, weekends and holiday periods. Whilst it is noted that Sport England have raised concerns regarding the time frame for which these areas will be made available the operating hours will be restricted to daylight hours and this is due to floodlighting restrictions resultant of the ecological impacts that would be brought forward given the close distance to the ecological and river corridor within close distance to the southern boundary of the site.

Sports Use:

The site currently comprises extensive playing fields. Where playing fields and pitches would be lost as a result of the development proposals a proportion would be replaced by the multi use games pitches and the artificial grass pitch which are indicated on the proposed site plan. The applicant has submitted a document which outlines the net loss of the playing field and whilst this is regrettable the re-provision is considered to balance the harm of this loss. 3.3 Relevant Planning History

4450/APP/2013/1227 Land Adjoining Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Beaconsfield Road Hayes Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development (Amended Plan).

Decision: 28-06-2013 Approved

4450/APP/2014/1427 Land Adjoining Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Beaconsfield Road Hayes Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development on existing school site.

Decision: 16-06-2014 Approved

4450/APP/2014/2725 Guru Nanak Sikh College Springfield Road Hayes Details pursuant to conditions 7 (parking and cycle storage), 8 (drop-off/pick-up facility) and 10 (noise levels) of planning permission ref. 4450/APP/2014/1427 (Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangement and ancillary development on existing school site) Decision: 02-10-2014 Approved

4450/APP/2016/1928 Nanaksar Primary School Springfield Road Hayes Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 4450/APP/2014/1427 dated 16/06/14 (Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development on existing school site) to extend the use until 31st August 2017.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 151 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Decision: 20-07-2016 Approved

4450/APP/2016/2277 Guru Nanak Sikh Academy Springfield Road Hayes Perimeter security fencing and gates

Decision:

4450/APP/2017/1318 Nanaksar Primary School Springfield Road Hayes Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 4450/APP/2016/1928 dated 28/07/20 (Provision of three temporary modular classroom/administration units, substation, car/cycle parking, new access arrangements and ancillary development on existing school site) to extend the temporary use.

Decision: 07-06-2017 Approved

Comment on Relevant Planning History The site has an extensive planning history which is interlinked with the Guru Nanak senior school. Most relevant to this scheme is a set of applications which were submitted between 2013 and 2016 for the construction of 3 temporary buildings (modular units) which accommodate the existing 2FE school. Consent was originally granted in 2013 for a temporary 1 year period as the intention was that a full application would be submitted for the construction of a permanent building. Further consent was agreed to extend this date via various s73 applications since this 2013 and most recently 2017 where the expiry of the temporary permission was extended to 30/09/20.

The application site has also been subject to extensive pre-application discussions.

4. Planning Policies and Standards London Borough of Hillingdon Development Plan (from 6th April 2020)

1.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.2 The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 152 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 1.4 Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: (a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019)

1.5 The GLA consulted upon a draft new London Plan between December 2017 and March 2018 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. The Plan was subject to examination hearings from February to May 2019, and a Consolidated Draft Plan with amendments was published in July 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor on 8th October 2019.

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment PT1.CI1 (2012) Community Infrastructure Provision PT1.EM1 (2012) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation PT1.EM5 (2012) Sport and Leisure PT1.EM6 (2012) Flood Risk Management PT1.EM7 (2012) Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Part 2 Policies: LPP 5.1 (2016) Climate Change Mitigation LPP 5.2 (2016) Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 153 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS LPP 5.3 (2016) Sustainable design and construction LPP 5.7 (2016) Renewable energy LPP 5.11 (2016) Green roofs and development site environs LPP 5.12 (2016) Flood risk management LPP 5.13 (2016) Sustainable drainage LPP 5.15 (2016) Water use and supplies LPP 6.1 (2016) Strategic Approach LPP 6.3 (2016) Assessing effects of development on transport capacity LPP 6.9 (2016) Cycling LPP 6.11 (2016) Smoothing Traffic Flow and Tackling Congestion LPP 6.13 (2016) Parking LPP 7.2 (2016) An inclusive environment LPP 7.3 (2016) Designing out crime LPP 7.4 (2016) Local character LPP 7.14 (2016) Improving air quality LPP 7.15 (2016) Reducing and managing noise, improving and enhancing the acoustic environment and promoting appropriate soundscapes. LPP 7.21 (2016) Trees and woodlands LPP 8.2 (2016) Planning obligations NPPF National Planning Policy Framework DMAV 1 Safe Operation of Airports DMCI 1A Development of New Education Floorspace DMCI 2 New Community Infrastructure DMCI 7 Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy DMEI 1 Living Walls and Roofs and Onsite Vegetation DMEI 10 Water Management, Efficiency and Quality DMEI 11 Protection of Ground Water Resources DMEI 12 Development of Land Affected by Contamination DMEI 14 Air Quality DMEI 2 Reducing Carbon Emissions DMEI 3 Decentralised Energy DMEI 7 Biodiversity Protection and Enhancement DMEI 9 Management of Flood Risk DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 15 Planning for Safer Places DMT 1 Managing Transport Impacts DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 4 Public Transport DMT 5 Pedestrians and Cyclists

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 154 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP 3.18 (2016) Education Facilities LPP 3.6 (2016) Children and young people's play and informal recreation facilities LPP 3.9 (2016) Mixed and Balanced Communities LPP 7.18 (2016) Protecting open space and addressing deficiency LPP 7.6 (2016) Architecture 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- 18thNot applicable March 2020

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not applicable

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 155 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 18th March 2020

6. Consultations External Consultees 42 letters were sent to local neighbouring properties and a press advert placed to advertise the development. Both methods of consultation expired 19-05-20.

1 comment was received raising concerns with the lack of parking control within drop off and pick up times. These comments are addressed in the Highways section of the report.

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY

Strategic issues summary:

Principle of development: The nature and scale of the proposal would make it inappropriate development in the Green Belt given that it is materially larger than the existing temporary school building and does not meet any of the NPPF exception tests. However, the very special circumstances put forward including: educational need, co-location, and enhanced provision of sports facilities and community uses could outweigh the potential harm that would be caused to the Green Belt, but further information is needed on these matters and lack of alternative sites. The loss of part of the playing field must be robustly justified and mitigated. A community use agreement, which robustly secures the use of the school's facilities outside core hours must also be submitted (paragraphs 14 to 29). Urban design and inclusive access: Further design work is required related to architectural quality, massing and elevations, amenity space and soft play areas (paragraphs 30 to 34). Sustainable development: Further clarification is required on carbon emission and the factors used, maximising PV, heat pumps and overheating risk (paragraphs 35 to 37).

Noise and air quality: A robust assessment and further mitigation measures must be submitted prior to any stage 2 referral (paragraph 38). Transport: There are significant concerns over the safety of pupils, as well as increased congestion caused by the car centric proposal. An approach that looks to manage and reduce parking and vehicle movements across all three schools is therefore strongly recommended. Significant further work is required on several matters including impact assessment, mode share, Vision Zero, Healthy Streets, and increasing cycle parking (paragraphs 39 to 52).

Recommendation That Hillingdon Council be advised that the application does not fully comply with the London Plan and the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 56 but that the possible remedies set out in that paragraph could address these deficiencies. The application does not need to be referred back to the Mayor if the Council resolves to refuse permission, but it must be referred back if the Council resolves to grant permission

Context 1. On 27 February 2020, the Mayor of London received documents from Hillingdon Council notifying him of a planning application 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 must provide the Council with a statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan and the Mayor's intend to publish 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 consideration in deciding what decision to make.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 156 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2. The application is referable under Category 3D of the Schedule to the Order 2008: · "Development - (a) on land allocated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land in the development plan, in proposals for such a plan, or in proposals for the alteration or replacement of such a plan; and (b) which would involve the construction of a building with a floor space of more than 1,000 square metres or a material change in the use of such building." 3 Once Hillingdon Council has resolved to determine the application, it would normally be required to refer it back to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal or allow the Council to determine it itself. In this instance, the Council does not need to refer the application back to the Mayor. 4. The Mayor of London's statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk.

Site description 5. The application site is entirely located within Green Belt, and part of the site is a playing field. The site is also located within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). The site is not located in a Conservation Area, nor is it constrained by designated heritage assets. The site is part-located in Flood Zone 2 as a result of being located in close proximity to the Grand Union Canal. 6. Currently, there is a temporary accommodation for a Sikh Community Nanaksar primary school on site with a floor space of approximately 400 square metres, which was opened in 2009. Adjacent to the site on the western boundary, there is a 5-FE secondary school with 750 pupils and a 2-FE primary school with 420 pupils, both operating as Sikh Community Nanaksar Schools. 7. The development site is located on Beaconsfield Road which forms the northern boundary, with Hayes & Yeading United Football Club, Minet Country Park and the existing schools forming the remaining site boundaries. Beaconsfield Road connects with Springfield Road and the A4020 Uxbridge Road, approximately 250 metres east of its junction with the TLRN (A312 The Parkway). Uxbridge Road is served by bus routes 207 and 407 during the day and overnight by the N207. Consequently, the site has a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 0 on a scale of 0-6b, where 6b is highest. Pedestrian facilities near the site includes footways on either side of Springfield and Beaconsfield Road, and recently installed zebra crossings on Beaconsfield Road and Springfield Road. The local cycle network includes a dedicated on-footway cycle path along the southern side of Uxbridge Road (A4020).

Details of the proposal 8. Full planning permission is being sought for construction of a new 3-storey 4FE primary school (to replace an existing temporary primary school) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor sports provision, and new access arrangement.

Case history 9. A pre-application meeting was held at City Hall involving GLA officers and theapplicant team on the above proposed development on 30 January 2020, and subsequently advised the applicant to fully demonstrate the need for such a large-sized permanent school in this location and to address other strategic issues related to urban design, sustainable development, noise and air quality, and transport in the forthcoming statutory planning application. 10. In June 2014, planning permission was granted for construction of the existing temporary primary school involving three temporary modular classroom/administration units, which due to its scale and size, was not referable to the Mayor. Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance 11. For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the development plan in force for the area comprises the 2012 Hillingdon Local plan: Part 1: Strategic Policies, and the 2016 London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2011). 12. The following are also relevant material considerations: · The National Planning Policy Framework 2019 and National Planning Practice Guidance. · The Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan (December 2019), which should be taken into account on the basis set out in the NPPF.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 157 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS On 13 March 2020, the Secretary of State issued a set of Directions under Section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended) and, to the extent that they are relevant to this particular application, have been taken into account by the Mayor as a material consideration when considering this report and the officer's recommendation. · Hillingdon emerging Local Plan: Part 2, the public examination hearings were closed on 9 August 2018. 13. The relevant strategic issues and corresponding policies are as follows: · Green Belt/playing fields London Plan; Intend to Publish London Plan; · Urban and inclusive design London Plan; Intend to Publish London Plan; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive environment SPG; · Sustainable development London Plan; Intend to Publish London Plan; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG; Mayor's Environment Strategy; · Noise and air quality London Plan; Intend to Publish London Plan; Mayor's Environment Strategy;

Principle of development 14. The Policy 7.16 of the London Plan, Policy G2 of the Intend to Publish London Plan, and the NPPF stress that the strongest protection should be given to Green Belt and that inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances' (VSCs). Paragraph 144 of the NPPF sets out that, when determining applications, LPAs ''should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt and states that 'very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations''. 15. The nature and scale of the proposed development would make it inappropriate development in the Green Belt given that it is materially larger than the existing temporary school building and does not meet any of the NPPF exception tests, and itshould therefore not be approved except in very special circumstances. The applicant is therefore required to set out the very special circumstances that would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Officer Note: There is no para 16 in the GLA response. Impact on openness 17. As shown in the table below, the proposed development is much larger than the existing built form in terms of height, footprint, floor space, massing and extent of development on site. This is principally due to the applicant's aim to accommodate more pupils than the existing temporary school accommodates. This inappropriate development would have impact on the openness of the Green Belt, therefore very special circumstances case must be demonstrated to justify its development.

Other harm associated with the inappropriate development on Green Belt 18. Part of the proposed development will be located on the southern side of the site which is a playing field. The proposal would cause a loss of 19% (1,920 square metres) of the existing playing field area. Therefore, it is essential that the harm associated with the loss of the playing field is minimised as far as possible, with any residual impact mitigated fully through appropriate measures.

Very special circumstances 19. The applicant has acknowledged that the proposal is inappropriate development and has set out its case for very special circumstances (VSCs) that might justify the inappropriate development. These are: · Educational need, · Lack of alternative sites, · Co-location, and · Enhanced provision of sports facilities and community benefits

Table of built-form comparison: existing vs proposed

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 158 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Development Footprint (sq.m.) Floor space (sq.m.) Height (m.) - Proposed 1,793 3,795 12.3 - Existing 409 380 3.7 - Difference (%) 1,384 +(338%) 3,415 +(899%) 8.6 +(232%)

GLA officers' assessment regarding principle of development and VSCs case

Educational need 20. Given that the proposal to increase the number of pupils is the main driver for the significantly increased size of the proposed primary school within Green Belt, a robust justification in terms of need is key to the applicant's very special circumstancescase. Given that the proposed school would be a faith-school, the applicant has submitted a detailed educational need assessment report for a Sikh-faith primary school places in the school's catchment area. The report has demonstrated that there is a compelling educational need for pupils from the Sikh community in the catchment area (within a 3-mile radius). Therefore, this is accepted as a very special circumstance.

Lack of alternative sites 21. The applicant submitted an assessment of potential alternative sites which were assessed against a range of criteria; including size (minimum area of 0.65 hectares), site suitability, availability, planning constraints, and location (within a 3-mile radius), which includes sites in Hillingdon and Ealing. Over sixty potential sites (28 of them brownfield) were assessed and the reasons why the current application site was selected and the rest of the potential sites were rejected were set out. Whilst the submitted report is comprehensive, GLA officers have not been able to verify its conclusions and would welcome further discussion with the applicant and Hillingdon Council prior to any stage 2 referral regarding the scope of the site selection process,and the assumptions underpinning the shortlisting process that was undertaken. The views of Hillingdon Council planning officers on the adequacy of the site search should also be provided.

Co-location 22. A number of potential sites have been considered as mixed-use and/or colocation with other schools and discussed with the respective owners and developers. However, no agreement was reached to enable a co-location solution on those potential sites. 23. Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has successfully demonstrated the enefits of co- location with the existing Nanaksar Sikh Community schools on the adjacent site, which include the sharing of educational and sports facilities. It is also noted that the instances where there has been a successful free school delivered as part of a mixed-use and/or co-location scheme have been mostly primary school situations. Therefore, the benefit of co-location with the existing Sikh-faith schools is accepted as a very special circumstance.

Provision of enhanced sports facilities and community benefits 24. Whilst there is strong strategic support for the provision of enhanced sports facilities, in the first instance, the loss of part of the playing field must be justified and support from Sport England should be sought. Although it is noted that there will be apartial access to the new facilities, as the sports hall would be used for income generation by renting the hall for wedding events, full details of the proposed community benefits package should be submitted. In addition, Sport England should beinvolved in the drafting of the community use agreement. 25. Notwithstanding the above, the case for enhanced sports facilities and community benefits could be a very special circumstance, if the applicant were to clearly set out how the enhanced sport facilities would be accessible and affordable to the local community, and to other schools and sport clubs in a draft community use agreement, which should be submitted prior to any stage 2 referral.

Conclusion 26. The nature and scale of the proposal would make it inappropriate development in the Green Belt given that it is materially larger than the existing temporary primary school building and does not

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 159 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS meet any of the NPPF exception tests. However, the very special circumstances put forward including: educational need, co-location, and enhanced provision of sports facilities and community uses could outweigh the potential harm that could be caused to the Green Belt, but further information is needed on these matters and lack of alternative sites. A community use agreement, which secures the use of the school's facilities outside core hours must be submitted. 27. The applicant's lack of alternative sites conclusion should be verified by the council planning officers, and any other harm resulting from the proposed inappropriate development within Green Belt (in this case the loss of part of the playing field) must be robustly justified and mitigated, and accepted by Sport England.

Equal opportunities for all 28. Paragraph 3.5 of the London Plan Policy 3.1 'Ensuring equal life chances for all' states that, 'It is important that the needs of all in society, such as faith groups, are addressed - if necessary through co-ordinated action with neighbouring boroughs'. Likewise, Paragraph 3.88 of Policy 3.16 'Protection and enhancement of social infrastructure' of the London Plan sets out that, 'Boroughs and local strategic partnerships have a key role in bringing together the different parts of the public, private, community and voluntary sectors to tackle priority issues including health, education, lifelong learning, community safety, housing and transport infrastructure, and access to social, leisure and cultural activities through community strategies, local strategies and agreements and other policy tools.' 29. In light of the above, the proposed Sikh-faith school, would address the needs of a faith group and promote London Plan's equal opportunity objectives. Therefore, the provision of a new school is supported in the context of Policy 3.1 of the London Plan.

Urban design 30. Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by the policies contained within chapter seven which address both general design principles and specific design issues. London Plan Policy 7.1 and the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Policy D1 set out a series of overarching design principles for development in London. The applicant's design and access statement has been assessed as follows. 31. The design is not high-quality and does not demonstrate mitigation measures are utilised in relation to impact on the openness of a Green Belt site. Whilst the proposed internal layout is functional, massing and materiality do not recognisably acknowledge the site's Green Belt context. South facing classrooms have canopies as mitigation against overheating and to provide shading, which is welcomed. The main entrance block is located some way from the street entrance which is not ideal, and the scheme's car dominant design should be revisited. Car parking and waiting areas also dominate the public realm of the site in terms of area and proportions and it is not clear whether this is a permanent design approach or would be reduced over time. Further clarification is therefore required in this respect. 32. An informal landscape is proposed, with incidental planting which is welcomed. However, the applicant should consider incorporating formal soft standing play areas as the landscape strategy is currently dominated by wide areas of hardstanding. The proposed orchard planting is a positive move and could be expanded upon to run throughout the application site.

Fire safety and resilience 33. In accordance with Policy D12 'Fire safety' of the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan, all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Safety Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor. The Council should ensure this statement is submitted, shared with GLA officers and secured through appropriate planning conditions and/or S106 clauses.

Inclusive access 34. The applicant has submitted a design and access statement as part of the planning application,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 160 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS demonstrating that the development complies with inclusive access Policy 7.2 of the London Plan and Policy D5 of the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan, Accessible London SPG and Approved Document M of the Building Regulations and BS8300:2009. The statement demonstrates that inclusiveness is incorporated into all elements of the proposed development including the provision of three blue badge parking spaces, which is welcomed.

Sustainable development

Energy 35. The London Plan's Energy Hierarchy has been followed, and the proposed energy strategy is generally supported. However, the applicant should submit additional information to ensure compliance with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan and Policy SI.2 of the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan. For the purposes of this assessment, the applicant should work out the CO2 emission performance against London Plan policies using the SAP 10 emissions factors and advise which one ischosen. 36. The applicant has submitted the GLA's Carbon Emission Reporting spreadsheet, which is welcomed. However, under the lean, clean and green scenarios, the reported Building Energy Rating (BER) does not match the calculated one and therefore the figures provided cannot be verified at this stage. Therefore, the applicant should ensure that the spreadsheet is updated and that the correct version is submitted for further assessment. The carbon emissions reduction estimates should be updated accordingly, though currently it is estimated as a 46% carbon reduction. 37. Detailed comments have been provided separately to the applicant and the Council, and includes the following matters: · The reported carbon emissions are not accurate. · There is no clarity on which carbon factors are used. · PV should be maximised. · Be lean performance is very low and must be revisited. · Further information is required on the proposed Heat Pumps as a means of low carbon heat supply. · Further measures should be considered to reduce the overheating risk.

Noise and air quality 38. Given the site is within an AQMA, the air quality assessment report is essential to allow officers to assess the planning application in this context. The submitted reports regarding noise and air quality do not demonstrate the development is Air Quality Neutral, and further work is required to assess the air quality and noise impacts. A robust assessment and further mitigation measures must be submitted for further assessment prior to any stage 2 referral.

Transport

Access, Active Travel Zone and Healthy Streets 39. A dedicated pedestrian gate in Beaconsfield Road serves as the primary pedestrian access. This is the most suitable location in terms of minimising conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the car park. However, an increase in vehicle trips and drop-off/pick-up activity in Beaconsfield Road is likely to increase exposure to poor air quality and is contrary to the Mayor's target of 80% of trips by active and public transport modes (Intend to Publish London Plan Policy T1). Complementary safety measures for pedestrians should include a school crossing patrol at the zebra crossing during drop-off and pick-up periods. 40. Cycle access is via a dedicated gate and path at the eastern boundary of the site. The location is the most convenient for access to the cycle store, however, there is no formal (existing or proposed) crossing facility for cyclists and the absence of parking controls on the north side of Beaconsfield Road is likely to contribute to reduced intravisibility between cyclists and vehicles and thus increase road danger. This is contrary to the Mayor's Vision Zero ambition.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 161 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 41. The Hillingdon Highway Improvement scheme at Appendix C of the Transport Assessment is noted and may offer some improvements to the quality of the pedestrian and cyclist environment but clarity is needed as to whether this scheme will include the removal of parking on the northern side of Beaconsfield Road. 42. The existing one-way system through the car park will be retained. The applicant has demonstrated through a swept path analysis that the access points can accommodate the largest vehicles expected to access the site.

Vision Zero 43. According to the accident analysis, a total of 41 accidents were recorded between 2016 and 2018 in the area. Most of these accidents involved collisions of vehicles, except for a collision involving a pedal cyclist and light goods vehicle at Uxbridge Road junction with Springfield Road. It is noted that that since these accidents Hillingdon Council has implemented new zebra crossings in Springfield Road and Beaconsfield Road. However, these recent improvements sought to address existing safety issues and the proposal will create new road dangers such as the potential for increased conflict between active modes and vehicles in Beaconsfield Road which needs to be mitigated. As it stands, the proposal is not compliant with the Mayor's Vision Zero.

Car parking 44. Twenty-seven car parking spaces (including three Blue Badge spaces) are proposed for staff - equating to 38% of staff. This is considerably lower than the percentage of staff who currently travel by car - 93% according to the 2019 Travel Survey. However, given the availability of unrestricted on- street parking and the lack of public transport options, it is unlikely that travel behaviour will change. The submitted parking beat survey appears to reinforce this - demonstrating that the current on- street capacity can absorb an uplift in demand. 45. An additional twenty-three parking spaces are provided exclusively for dropoff/ pick-up, except for three Blue Badge spaces and delivery and servicing outside of drop-off/pick-up periods. In theory, the provision of off-street drop-off/pick-up facilities should ease the current traffic congestion in Beaconsfield Road, but TfL is concerned that the forecasted increase in vehicle trips will lead to an increase in on-street dropoff/ pick-up and thus exacerbate the current unsatisfactory situation. An approach that looks to manage and reduce parking and vehicle movements across all three schools is therefore strongly recommended. 46. Final arrangements for managing, monitoring and enforcing the car park should be detailed in Car Park Management Plan (CPMP), secured by legal agreement. The provision of 10% active and 10% passive EVCP is welcomed.

Cycle parking 47. Sixty sheltered cycle parking spaces and twelve Sheffield stands are included. Visitor cycle parking spaces accords with the Intend to Publish London Plan Policy T5. However, a total of 112 long-stay cycle parking spaces are required (Table 10.2 recommends 1 space per 8 FTE staff and 1 space per 8 students). The applicant must therefore clarify how the cycle parking spaces will be accommodated.

Impact assessment 48. The trip generation analysis calculates an uplift of 352 and 282 two-way vehicle trips in the AM and PM peaks, respectively. The uplift in vehicle trips is more than double the baseline and the Transport Assessment (at Table 7.5) finds that development traffic will account for a 24% and 22% increase in traffic in Springfield Road. However, a junction capacity assessment has not been undertaken and as such the conclusion that the development will have no significant network impacts is premature. As a minimum, an assessment of Springfield Road/Uxbridge Road junction should be undertaken. Furthermore, the application site is part of a wider site that accommodates a secondary school with a pupil population of circa 1,243, the majority of whom travel by car. A large proportion of trips are likely to be shared by the primary and secondary school, and as such a

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 162 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS combined assessment should be undertaken. TfL will await an updated assessment to further comment on the transport impacts of the proposal. 49. Given that the site records a PTAL of 0 and has very poor access to public transport, TfL expects that improvements to public transport services should form part of the mitigation package for this development, if a significant shift away from cars is to be achieved. It is noted that the applicant will investigate the feasibility of a school bus. However, given that this is being considered as a measure to reduce car trips, the details must be presented for inspection by TfL and the Council prior to any planning consent; and this will need to be secured through legal agreement.

Delivery and Servicing and Construction Logistics Plans 50. A delivery and servicing plan (DSP) and construction logistics plan (CLP) will need to be secured by legal agreement.

Travel Plan 51. The mode share targets for car and car share indicate that cars will remain the dominant mode of travel to the site. A greater reduction in the mode share for cars should therefore be pursued to minimise the traffic and safety impacts of the development. The travel plan should therefore be revised to include more stringent measures to reduce car travel. Should the proposal be granted planning consent, TfL officers will expect the school to apply for STARS accreditation as stated. The final travel plan should be secured by legal agreement.

Summary 52. There are significant concerns over the safety of pupils, as well as the increased congestion caused by the car centric proposal. Significant further work is required on several matters including impact assessment, mode share, Vision Zero, Healthy Streets, and increasing cycle parking. An approach that looks to manage and reduce parking and vehicle movements across all three schools is therefore strongly recommended. Local planning authority's position 53. Hillingdon Council's planning officers are reviewing the scheme, and it will likely go to the Council's planning committee meeting in May 2020.

Legal considerations 54 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. 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 55. There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion 56. London Plan and the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan policies on Green Belt, education, sports facilities, community use, urban design, inclusive access, noise and air quality, sustainable development, and transport are relevant to this application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others as set out below: · Principle of development: The nature and scale of the proposal would make it inappropriate development in the Green Belt given that it is materially larger than the existing temporary school building and does not meet any of the NPPF exception tests. However, the very special

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 163 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS circumstances put forward including: educational need, co-location, and enhanced provision of sports facilities and community uses could outweigh the potential harm that would be caused to the Green Belt, but further information is needed on these matters and lack of alternative sites. The loss of part of the playing field must be robustly justified and mitigated. A community use agreement, which robustly secures the use of the school's facilities outside core hours must also be submitted. · Urban design and inclusive access: Further design work is required related to architectural quality, massing and elevations, amenity space and soft play areas. · Noise and air quality: A robust assessment and further mitigation measures must be submitted prior to any stage 2 referral. · Sustainable development: Further clarification required on carbon emission and the factors used, maximising PV, heat pumps and overheating risk. · Transport: There are significant concerns over the safety of pupils, as well as the increased congestion caused by the car centric proposal. An approach that looks to manage and reduce parking and vehicle movements across all three schools is therefore strongly recommended. Significant further work is required on several matters including impact assessment, mode share, Vision Zero, Healthy Streets, and increasing cycle parking.

TRANSPORT FOR LONDON

Site Description

The application site is located in Hayes and is bound by Beaconsfield Road to its north, Minet Country Park to its south, Yeading United Football Club to the east and Guru Nanasak primary and secondary schools to the west.

The application site records a public transport access level (PTAL) of 0, on a scale of 0 to 6b, where 6b is the greatest. There are two bus routes (207 and 427) operating in the vicinity with the nearest bus stop at approximately 650m on Uxbridge Road, to the north of the site, accessed via Springfield Road. There are no rail services within walking distance of the site, but it is noted that Hayes & Harlington and Southall stations are approximately 1.5kms "as the crow flies" distance to the southwest and southeast of the site, respectively.

The nearest part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) is A312 The Parkway, approximately 900m from the site, accessed via Uxbridge Road to the north. Uxbridge Road (A4020) forms part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). Uxbridge Road is a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 40mph. Beaconsfield Road and Springfield Road are part of the Local Road Network (LRN) and are single carriageway roads with a speed limit of 30mph.

Pedestrian facilities near the site includes footways on either side of Springfield and Beaconsfield Road, recently installed zebra crossings on Beaconsfield Road and Springfield Road. The local cycle network includes a dedicated on-footway cycle path along the southern side of Uxbridge Road (A4020).

Access, Active Travel Zone and Healthy Streets

A dedicated pedestrian gate in Beaconsfield Road serves as the primary pedestrian access. This is the most suitable location in terms of minimising conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the car park. However, an increase in vehicle trips and drop-off/pick-up activity in Beaconsfield Road is likely to increase exposure to poor air quality, which is contrary to the Mayor's target of 80% of trips by active and public transport modes (Intend to Publish London Plan Policy T1). Complementary safety measures for pedestrians should include a school crossing patrol at the zebra crossing during drop- off and pick-up periods.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 164 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The deployment of a drop-off/pick-up warden is welcomed. However, it should be clarified that the school crossing patrol and the drop-off/pick-up warden are separate entities and it is assumed that the school (working collaboratively with the Council regarding the school crossing patrol) will deploy both. These measures will contribute to mitigating the road safety and air quality impacts envisaged, but we expect these measures to be articulated with travel plan targets and measures to reduce car travel and secured by legal agreement.

Cycle access is via a dedicated gate and path at the eastern boundary of the site. The location is the most convenient for access to the cycle store, however, there is no formal (existing or proposed) crossing facility for cyclists and the absence of parking controls on the north side of Beaconsfield Road is likely to contribute to reduced inter-visibility between cyclists and vehicles and thus increase road danger. This is contrary to the Mayor's Vision Zero ambition.

The Hillingdon Highway Improvement scheme at Appendix C of the Transport Assessment is noted and may offer some improvements to the quality of the pedestrian and cyclist environment but clarity is needed as to whether this scheme will include the removal of parking on the northern side of Beaconsfield Road. This will at least demonstrate some compliance with TfL Healthy Streets approach (Intend to Publish London Plan Policy T2).

TfL will comment further when we are informed of the outcome of the discussion with the Highway Authority.

Vehicular access is afforded via the existing access points in Beaconsfield Road and the existing one-way system through the car park will be retained. The applicant has demonstrated through a swept path analysis that the access points can accommodate the largest vehicles expected to access the site.

Vision Zero

According to the accident analysis, a total of 41 accidents were recorded between 2016 and 2018. Most of these accidents involved collisions of vehicles, except for a collision involving a pedal cyclist and light goods vehicle at Uxbridge Road junction with Springfield Road. It is noted that that since these accidents Hillingdon Council has implemented new zebra crossings in Springfield Road and Beaconsfield Road. However, these recent improvements sought to address existing safety issues. The proposal will create new road dangers such as the potential for increased conflict between active modes and vehicles in Beaconsfield Road, and this needs to be mitigated. As it stands, the proposal is not compliant with the Mayor's Vision Zero.

We will await the outcome of the discussions with the Highway Authority to comment further but to be clear TfL is expressing concern that the predicted increase in vehicles trips to the school and consequently the increased levels of vehicle drop-off/pick-ups in Beaconsfield Road may create additional road safety issues, such as vehicle-pedestrian conflicts near the main entrance. We would like appropriate mitigation to be identified and implemented. The deployment of a school crossing patrol, drop-off/pick-up warden and school bus/es could form part of the mitigation.

Car Parking

27 car parking spaces (including 3 Blue Badge spaces) are provided for staff - equating to 38% of staff. This is considerably lower than the percentage of staff who currently travel by car - 93% according to the 2019 Travel Survey. However, given the availability of unrestricted on-street parking and the lack of public transport options, it is unlikely that travel behaviour will change. The parking beat survey appears to reinforce this - demonstrating that the current on-street capacity can absorb an uplift in demand.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 165 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS An additional 23 parking spaces are provided exclusively for drop-off/pick-up, except for 3 Blue Badge spaces and delivery and servicing outside of drop-off/pick-up periods. In theory, the provision of off-street drop-off/pick-up facilities should ease the current traffic congestion in Beaconsfield Road, but TfL is concerned that the forecasted increase in vehicle trips will increase on-street drop- off/pick-up and thus exacerbate the current situation.

The arrangements for managing, monitoring and enforcing the car park should be detailed in Car Park Management Plan (CPMP), secured by legal agreement.

TfL is pleased that the applicant accepts a planning condition that secures a CPMP. Should the Council be minded to grant planning consent, we expect the condition to be secured.

We welcome the provision of 10% active and 10% passive EVCP.

[TfL's Comments] The proposed EVCP provision is acceptable. We require this to be secured by legal agreement and expect that the detailed and management of EVCPs would be contained in the CPMP.

Cycle Parking

60 sheltered cycle parking spaces and 12 Sheffield stands are included. Visitor cycle parking spaces accords with the Intend to Publish London Plan Policy T5. However, a total of 112 long-stay cycle parking spaces are required (Table 10.2 recommends 1 space per 8 FTE staff and 1 space per 8 students). The applicant must therefore clarify how the cycle parking spaces will be accommodated.

We are pleased that the applicant will increase the level of long-stay cycle parking spaces to policy- compliant levels. We will await a revised plan demonstrating how these spaces will be accommodated. Alternatively, a planning condition that requires approval of details of cycle parking prior to implementation would be accepted.

Impacts

The trip generation analysis calculates an uplift of 352 and 282 two-way vehicle trips in the AM and PM peaks, respectively. The uplift in vehicle trips is more than double the baseline and the Transport Assessment (at Table 7.5) finds that development traffic will account for a 24% and 22% increase in traffic in Springfield Road. However, a junction capacity assessment has not been undertaken and as such the conclusion that the development will have no significant network impacts is premature. As a minimum, an assessment of Springfield Road/Uxbridge Road junction should be undertaken. Furthermore, the application site is part of a wider site that accommodates a secondary school with a pupil population of circa 1,243, the majority of whom travel by car. A large proportion of trips are likely to be shared by the primary and secondary school, and as such a combined assessment should be undertaken. TfL will await an updated assessment to further comment on the transport impacts of the proposal.

We are pleased that the applicant is progressing the junction capacity assessment and will submit this assessment in updated TA. We await this updated TA.

Given that the site records a PTAL 0 and has very poor access to public transport, TfL expects that improvements to public transport services should form part of the mitigation package for this development, if a significant shift away from cars is to be achieved. It is noted that the applicant will investigate the feasibility of a school bus. However, given that this is being considered as a measure to reduce car trips, the details must be presented for inspection by TfL and the Council prior to any planning consent; and this will need to be secured through legal agreement.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 166 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS We will await the outcome of discussion with the school regarding the feasibility of deploying a school bus. In TfL's opinion, operating a school bus would be quite effective in reducing vehicle trips by parents dropping off and picking up pupils. Examples of primary schools in London operating a school bus service in London includes: Faraday Prep School, which can be found on the following link https://www.faradayschool.co.uk/School-Bus/index.asp. Additionally, the applicant could consider operating a before and after school club, which could spread demand and thus mitigate the impacts arising from parents dropping off and picking up pupils.

Delivery and Servicing and Construction Logistics Plan

A Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) will need to be secured by legal agreement.

The CLP (Section 6 of the submitted CEMP) contains useful information such as the construction site setup, the proposed logistics route, construction trip generation etc. However, whilst we have not identified any issues, CLPs are treated as an outline/framework document at the planning stage as the contractor would not have been appointed at this stage and thus the construction programme and arrangements are yet to be fixed. The DSP will need to be secured by legal agreement.

Travel Plan

The mode share targets for car and car share indicate that cars will remain the dominant mode of travel to the site. A greater reduction in the mode share for cars should therefore be pursued to minimise the traffic and safety impacts of the development. The Travel Plan should therefore be revised to include more stringent measures to reduce car travel. Should the proposal be granted planning consent, we will expect the school to apply for STARS accreditation as stated. The final Travel Plan should be secured by legal agreement.

This was not a point of objection but considering the issues that arises from additional vehicle trips to the site - potentially increased road safety issues and air quality impacts - we expected the travel plan to be more ambitious in terms of measures to reduce car travel. The deployment of a school bus/school buses could be a major contributor, potentially the principle travel plan measure, and could be very effective in reducing travel by car. It is welcomed that the school will apply for STARS accreditation.

Community Infrastructure Levy

The development will be liable to Mayoral Community Infrastructure Levy 2 (MCIL2) which came into force on 1st April 2019, as well as borough CIL. The rate for the London Borough of Hillingdon is £60 per square metre of floorspace. The applicant should ensure they are fully aware of the regulations.

Summary

TfL raises significant concerns over the safety of pupils using this site, as well as the increased congestion and air pollution caused by this car centric proposal. Extensive further work is required on several areas including assessment, mode share, Vision Zero, Healthy Streets, cycle parking.

I trust that the enclosed response provides you with an understanding TfL's current position on this application. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

REVISED TFL COMMENTS:

Cycle Parking - the applicant has stated that the cycle parking provision will be increased to 112 long-stay spaces to comply with the Intend to Publish London Plan. It is noted that the cycle parking

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 167 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 5% provision for wider bicycles. 12 short-stay spaces located adjacent to the visitor entrance. Figure 2.1 in the TA Addendum shows the location of cycle parking but this plan is not sufficiently detailed to confirm the provision of the quantum stated; and the quality of cycle parking. However, the details of cycle parking can be secured by condition. Noted.

TfL had no real concerns about the suitability of the vehicle access points for coaches or large servicing and delivery type vehicles that would access the site. Nevertheless, the swept path analysis of coaches demonstrates that access and egress suitably accommodates the typical servicing/delivery vehicles that will access the site. The detailed arrangements for deliveries and servicing can be secured through a Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP). Noted.

The option to use TEMPRO - which is generally not supported by TfL - to estimate background traffic growth. TEMPRO assumes a higher background traffic growth than TfL's strategic models. So the outcome of an assessment using either approach could be very different. The use of TEMPRO, although discouraged by TfL can sometimes be viewed as the worst case in terms of background traffic growth and the traffic impacts of the development. The TA applies the following peak periods: AM (0730 - 0830) and PM (1445 - 1545) whereas TfL recognises AM and PM peaks (or the peak hour within the AM and PM peaks) as AM (0800 - 0900) and PM (1700 - 1800). We need to understand why the applicant has used these peak hours rather than the TfL peak periods. These questions do not necessarily mean that the junction assessment is unreliable. In any scenario, the overall conclusion is unlikely to change i.e. that the junction, which is already congested, will be worsened with the development traffic. Our real concern is that a junction that is shown to be experiencing congestion currently and will worsen in the future without the development, and even further with the development traffic, raises questions regarding the suitability of the junction for pedestrians and cyclists. Surely, the assessment highlights that the current and future congestion issues and affiliated problems at this junction needs to be addressed. It is not a helpful argument to say that this junction is awful and will continue to be awful and the development will worsen this situation but nothing needs to be done about it. Therefore, all mitigation measures including those as suggested in our stage 1 report must be explored and conditioned.

SPORT ENGLAND

It is understood that the proposal prejudices the use, or leads to the loss of use, of land being used as a playing field or has been used as a playing field in the last five years, as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (Statutory Instrument 2015 No. 595). The consultation with Sport England is therefore a statutory requirement.

Sport England has considered the application in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (particularly Para 97) and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy, which is presented within its 'Playing Fields Policy and Guidance Document': https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can- help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for-sport#playing_fields_policy

Sport England's policy is to oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or prejudice the use of, all/part of a playing field, unless one or more of the five exceptions stated in its policy apply.

The Proposal and Impact on Playing Field

The application proposes a three-storey primary school and associated facilities that would result in a substantial loss of playing field at the site. The proposal, however, does intend to provide some sports facilities.

Assessment against Sport England Policy/NPPF

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 168 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The application proposes a significant loss of playing field which the submitted agronomy assessment does indicate has some negatives but these negatives relate more to the management and maintenance regimes of the playing field rather than matters that are core to the usability of the site, such as ground conditions and drainage issues which may be difficult to address. Although the proposed school building, a non-sports facility, would be responsible for some of this loss, the proposal also does propose an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) and what is claimed to be a Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) on the playing field. Sport England questions whether the proposed MUGA's would actually be MUGA's as the drawings suggests these would merely be playground with some court markings which is a considerably lower standard than a MUGA. More details on MUGA's can be found in Sport England's design and cost guidance at https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can- help/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance

In relation to the proposed AGP, its actual size and specification is unclear from the documentation seen by Sport England but it is stated to be appropriate for U11 football in the submitted documentation. The immediate area, however, appears well served for football AGP's therefore Sport England has doubts whether the proposed AGP is needed in this particular location to meet local community needs. Furthermore, the Design and Access Statement confirms that community users have not been identified as yet which further highlights doubts whether the proposed AGP is needed in this location. Sport England is concerned that the proposed AGP would not meet community need, be unsustainable as it would not have sufficient community use or attract community use from the other local sites thereby rendering those sites unsustainable. It is in important that all sites have a community use to enable the ongoing maintenance and management costs of ensuring that an AGP is fit for purpose, including creating a sink fund and replacing the carpet at the end of its natural life. If a facility is not needed is more beneficial to keep playing field land which is more flexible to accommodate a range of sports compared to fix built structures.

Sport England do, however, acknowledge that the facilities would be available to the community but the extent of community use would appear to be limited as the proposed outdoor facilities would not appear to have sports lighting therefore any community use would be limited to the weekend and early evening during the summer, thereby not being available during the entire weekday peak period for community sport (6:30/7pm to 10pm) throughout the whole year.

In light of the above, Sport England does not consider that the benefits of the scheme stated in the submitted documentation is sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the partial loss of playing field in an area where there is no clearly strategically identified surplus of playing field. As a result, Sport England does not consider that the application meets any of its Playing Field Policy Exceptions nor the NPPF, paragraph 97. Sport England, therefore, advises that the scheme is reconsidered to significantly reduce the playing field loss or consider an offsite replacement sports facility.

Conclusion

In light of the above, Sport England objects to the application because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England's Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

Should the local planning authority be minded to grant planning permission for the proposal, contrary to Sport England's objection then in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, via the National Planning Casework Unit.

If this application is to be presented to a Planning Committee, we would like to be notified in advance of the publication of any committee agendas, report(s) and committee date(s). We would be grateful if you would advise us of the outcome of the application by sending us a copy of the decision notice.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 169 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS SPORT ENGLAND ADDITIONAL COMMENT:

Although amending the scheme so that the proposed playground area with sport markings are changed into Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGA'S) could be explored (i.e so there will be 2/3 courts that have appropriate fencing and a porous macadam surface to reflect Sport England guidance) Sport England would expect these to have sport lighting for these to be considered an overall benefit to mitigate the harm caused by the loss of playing field the MUGA's would cause, namely reducing the size of the playing field which is far more flexible to provide for a range of sport than fixed structures such as MUGAs. In this respect Sport England does note that other local facilities such as the Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) and stadium pitch at Hayes & Yeading FC and the Goals facility, appear to have sports lighting but if there are ecological considerations that prevent sports lighting then alternatives would have to be considered to mitigate the loss to overcome this aspect of Sport England's objection.

In relation to AGP need, there are football facilities close to the application site that have community use. These offer a range of pitch sizes, with the AGP at Hayes & Yeading being full size therefore able to accommodate all football pitch sizes. Sport England have also liaised with the Football Foundation and Middlesex FA who have indicated that football provision within this area is sufficient. This, therefore, raises questions for need and whether the facility is sustainable, not only terms of ensuring it can have generate the appropriate funds for the considerable management and maintenance costs but also the effect it could have on other facilities in the area. As a result, Sport England are unable to concluded that there is sufficient benefit of a small AGP in this area to mitigate the loss of playing field which could be used for a number of sports beyond football.

Finally, thank you for amending the Community Use Agreement, it appears that most points previously raised have been considered although the elements relating to the management (which should include the Council), membership of the review committee and that the income should be re- invested into the sports facilities at the site should be addressed. Once these are addressed and the CUA is signed by the parties then Sport England would be content that this would adequately secure community use of the site.

Overall, if the scheme can include MUGA's that align with Sport England guidance then that element could be considered meet Exception 5 of our policy however the school building and AGP (the need of which is questionable) still result in playing field loss which is unmitigated. As a result, Sport England would be unable to change its position on this scheme.

GLAAS

Although not within an Archaeological Priority Area, the Guru Nanak School site was the subject of an archaeological assessment carried out in 2009 and has useful geotechnical information supplied as part of this application. The school lies on alongside the floodplain of the Yeading, Brook, which is known to be a prolific source of prehistoric finds, indicating that the valley was a favoured location for prehistoric settlement. Very few findspots of any period are recorded in the vicinity of the site, and the details for some of these are sketchy, as they derive from 19th-century finds, but they are potentially significant. During construction of the gasworks site to the south-east, Palaeolithic implements were found, apparently in association with mammoth bones.

Most Palaeolithic artefacts derive from secondary deposits, that is, they are not found where they were originally lost, but any that occur in association with animal bones can be regarded as of especial significance, since in situ evidence of human interaction with the environment at this period is so rare. The archaeologically relevant levels can be considered to be the brickearth and its interface with the very top of the gravel, for the Palaeolithic period, and above this for all later periods

However, tThe geotechnical observations suggest that the brickearth has been wholly removed

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 170 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS within the area of the proposed built development indicating low negligible potential for significant discoveries. London Historic Environment Record and/or made available in connection with this application, I conclude that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on heritage assets of archaeological interest.

No further assessment or conditions are therefore necessary. This response relates solely to archaeological considerations. If necessary, Historic England's Development Advice Team should be consulted separately regarding statutory matters. Internal Consultees EDUCATION

Nanaksar school is part of the Guru Nanak Multi Academy Trust and is located on the same site as the Guru Nanak Sikh Academy, an all-through school with 60 pupils in each primary year group feeding into the secondary phase which has 180 pupils in each year. Nanaksar Primary school opened in September 2013 with 120 places in temporary accommodation. After two years it ceased intakes, pending a new permanent building, and subsequently DfE agreed to provide this as a new Free School building.

The January 2020 school census return reports 216 pupils on Nanaksar roll; 99 now in Year 5 and 117 in Year 6. In September 2020 the school plans to reopen Reception for a reduced intake of 60 pupils, in temporary accommodation until the building is complete when the full 120 intake will restart. Therefore the new building will house almost a new school.

The need for these extra places is evidenced by the council's education planning projections. The school is in Hayes, an area of growing demand for more primary places, and with substantial new housing developments. Also, the school is likely to recruit some pupils from a wider area of the borough and beyond, as it has done previously along with Guru Nanak school, due to their admissions criteria giving some priority to those of the Sikh faith and location by the boundary with Ealing. Both schools are very popular with parents and have consistently high levels of pupil achievement and active local social and community engagement. Pupils from Nanaksar are a priority in the admission criteria to the secondary phase of Guru Nanak Sikh Academy. Ofsted has inspected and graded both schools 'Good' with some 'Outstanding' aspects at Nanaksar

POLICY

Please see the following as comments relating to planning application 4450/APP/2020/515 on behalf of the Planning Policy Team.

Construction of a new three-storey 4FE primary school (to replace the existing Nanaksar Primary School) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor sports provision, car parking and new access arrangement

Development Plan

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents:

The Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Site Allocations and Designations (2020)

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 171 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The London Plan - Consolidated With Alterations (2016) The West London Waste Plan (2015)

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance.

Emerging Planning Policies

Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

(a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);

(b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and

(c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version December 2019)

The Mayor considered the Inspectors' recommendations and, on 9th December 2019, issued to the Secretary of State his intention to publish the London Plan along with a statement of reasons for the Inspectors' recommendations that the Mayor did not wish to accept. The Secretary of State responded on the 13th March 2020 and stated that he was exercising his powers under section 337 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to direct that modifications are required. These are set out at Annex 1 of the response, however the letter does also state that if the Mayor can suggest alternative changes to policies that would address the concerns raised, these would also be considered.

More limited weight should be attached to parts of draft London Plan policies where the Secretary of State has directed modifications or where they relate to concerns raised within the letter. Greater weight may be attached to policies that are not subject to modifications from the Secretary of State or that do not relate to issues raised in the letter.

Green Belt

In accordance with London Plan (2016) Policy 7.16 and Local Plan: Part 1 (2012) Policy EM2, proposals for development in the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and guidance. It is not considered that the scheme would meet any of the exceptions test outlined within Paragraph 145 of the NPPF (2019) and therefore it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The scheme should therefore only be approved in very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal.

Paragraph 133 of the NPPF (2019) outlines that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 172 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. In order to consider the harm to the Green Belt, it is important to outline the existing built form of the site. The site currently comprises the existing temporary accommodation with its ancillary space (outdoor space, drop-off area, car parking etc.) which is focused and contained in the most northern part of the site, along Beaconsfield Road. The existing accommodation is relatively small in scale compared to the proposed development, as it is single storey (3.7m) and has a floorspace of just 380m2. Importantly, the existing development has been permitted on a temporary basis until 30th September 2020 and therefore its impact on the Green Belt is also only temporary.

It is clear that, in order to achieve the applicant's aim of accommodating more pupils than the existing temporary school, the proposal would result in harm to the Green Belt. The height of the school would increase to three storeys (12.3m) and the floorspace would increase to 3795m2. The school buildings have also had to move further south, away from Beaconsfield Road and slightly further into the Green Belt, in order to accommodate the introduction of more hard standing for ancillary space at the front of the site (drop-off area, car parking etc.). To the south of the new school building, there would also be in the introduction of more hard standing in the Green Belt, which would include a 4g pitch with its own fencing. In terms of mass and sprawl, the proposal would therefore undoubtedly have a moderate adverse impact on the Green Belt.

It is also important to consider the visual dimension of openness and whether any views would be affected by the proposal. In terms of the existing context of the site, it is located between the significantly larger Guru Nanak School to the west, strategic industrial land to the north, a football stand to the east and formalised 3g/4g playing pitches to the south east and south west. The applicant has prepared a Visual Impact Assessment, which has established seven key views from which the proposal is likely to be visible. The assessment concludes that there is a minor adverse impact from views 1, 2 and 6. This is defined as where the proposed scheme would cause a slight deterioration in the existing view. I would note that the assessment for View 5 does not appear to be correct, as the viewpoint established on the map and photo that has been taken are not at the same place. The photo appears to have been taken from a location substantially further south and the view is therefore obscured by the FM Conway - Heathrow Asphalt & Recycling Plant. The more logical view would be one further north, as if you were walking or cycling along the A312, from which you can see the existing Guru Nanak Sikh Academy. I would conclude that, subject to clarification on View 5, there is only likely to be a minor adverse visual impact in addition to the previously outlined spatial impact on the Green Belt.

(OFFICER COMMENT- View 5 was amended by the applicants)

In terms of the very special circumstances that have been put forward by the applicant, it is considered that the primary justification is the need for new primary school places to address projected unmet need. The Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) (2017) concluded that demand for primary places in the south of the borough is still forecast to grow, particularly in the Hayes area due to the scale of new housing development. Nine new forms of entry were expected to be needed in the south of the Borough by 2023/24, with 6 of these being needed in the Hayes area. It is worth noting however that these projections were taken from consultation with the School Place Planning Team and it is important that any more recent updates to these projections are taken into account. The Quarterly School Place Planning Update (Feb 2020) provides an updated picture of the need for new primary school places. In relation to PPA 11, where the proposed primary school would be, it is clear that the reopening of Nanaksar Primary is already expected and is being planned to ensure sufficient primary school places in PPA 11 and a wider area. It should also be noted that the school was identified by the Council's School Place Planning Project Manager as being necessary at the pre-application stage, with the planned reopening of the reception classes on temporary buildings in 2020 already receiving applications for almost all its capacity. It would therefore appear that there is an evidenced need for a new primary school of this magnitude in this

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 173 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS part of the Borough. This should be confirmed by the School Place Planning Project Manager prior to making your final recommendation.

The applicant has undertaken a sequential test to demonstrate that there are no sequentially preferable sites available to accommodate this need which would be in greater conformity with the Development Plan. The sequential test has been undertaken on a number of agreed assumptions between the local planning authority and the applicant. The catchment area is a 3 mile radius from the site. This covers PPA 11, as well as the majority if not all of the area contained within neighbouring PPAs and is therefore considered appropriate. The test has also been undertaken on the need for a site of at least 0.65 ha, which is below the typical minimum size of 0.8ha that is usually used by the EFA in London Boroughs and therefore the applicant has demonstrated flexibility in terms of format. In terms of availability, the sequential test has discounted sites that would not be available in the near future. This is considered to be pragmatic noting that the need for new primary school places is already growing and time will be required after the planning process to construct the school. Whilst I do not agree with all of the justifications for discounting some sites, I would still agree with them being discounted on other grounds and therefore I agree with the overall conclusion that there are no sequentially preferable sites.

Noting that the applicant has demonstrated a need for this proposal to be developed on this site, it is necessary to look at how the proposal has been designed to minimise the harm to the Green Belt. It is considered that the majority of the built form has been concentrated to the north of the site, in order to limit the sprawl into the Green Belt. The parts of the scheme that are more sympathetic to maintaining the openness of the Green Belt, notably the grass playing pitch, have been appropriately located to the south of the scheme. Whilst the volume of development has increased above the baseline scenario, noting that this scale of development has been demonstrated to be needed, it is considered that a taller building with a smaller footprint is preferential to trying to accommodate this floorspace over one storey. The latter would inevitably have led to a scheme that sprawls further into the Green Belt. I would note that there appears to be a 'grass mound' identified on the southernmost part of the site with the aim of 'offering a visual buffer', which does not appear to be in keeping with the aim of Green Belt policy. This should be amended or justified.

(OFFICER COMMENT: The 'mound referred to has been removed and replaced with an ecological garden to serve the pupils of the school)

In terms of other very special circumstances, the proposed co-location within an existing community of schools and the ability to share facilities has also been put forward as a benefit of the scheme. It should be noted however that, considering the importance that government attaches to Green Belt in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF (2019), when taken in isolation this should not amount to the very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm of this development. However it should be considered as part of the cumulative set of very special circumstances.

Furthermore, comments should be sought on the provision of sports facilities directly from Sport England. If the re-provision of sports and recreation facilities did not lead to an overall enhancement, this should not amount to very special circumstances as the re-provision alone would be expected under Policy 3.19 of the London Plan (2016). If this re-provision leads to an enhancement above the existing baseline scenario, then this should be considered as part of the cumulative set of very special circumstances.

HIGHWAYS

Planning permission is sought to redevelop the Nanaksar Primary School thereby allowing it to increase the school roll from two forms of entry (2FE), or 420 pupils to four forms of entry or 840 pupils. The developer however reports that only 240 pupils currently attend the school. With the new development the net uplift in pupil numbers would be 600. The number teachers at the school

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 174 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS would increase from 20 to 55.

The application site is accessed from Beaconsfield Road, a two-way single carriageway road which forms the southern boundary of the Springfield Road Industrial Estate. Beaconsfield Road intersects with Springfield Road at a mini-roundabout adjacent to the north-west corner of the site. Springfield Road functions as a spine road for the Springfield Road Industrial Estate, connecting Beaconsfield Road in the south, to Uxbridge Road (A4020) in the north.

Sprinfield Road is an adopted public highway leading off the busy A4020 Uxbridge Road, it benefits from a 30 mph speed limit, street lighting and footways on both sides of the road. Along the southbound carriageway that boarders the site, there is a mix of single yellow lines operational Monday to Friday 07:00 to 09:00 and 14:30 to 16:30 hours, double yellow lines and no parking restrictions at all. On the opposite side of the road there are double yellow lines only.

Springfield Road provides access to a range of uses including a hotel, a small retail park, wholesale retailers, small medium enterprises as well as Minet Country Park open space, the Guru Nanak Sikh Academy, Goals 5-a-side football pitches and Hayes and Yeading Football Club. The road is characterised by heavy good vehicles making deliveries/parking on-street, cars parked on-street and school traffic generated by the Sikh Academy.

Uxbridge Road (A4020) is a dual carriageway which connects to Shepherds Bush in the east and Uxbridge in the west. Uxbridge Road (A4020) intersects with The Parkway (A312) approximately 300m west of the Springfield Road junction at a large signalised roundabout known locally as the Ossie Garvin Roundabout.

The site is located opposite Springfield Road Industrial Estate. There are three pedestrian routes into the site area; one via Springfield Road and two via Minet Country Park. One access through Minet Country Park is via a underpass from a shared pedestrian/cycle route at Abbotswood Way to the west of the site. The other Minet Country Park route connects to the Ossie Garvin Roundabout and the segregated pedestrian and cycleway routes provided across the roundabout.

Transport for London use as system called PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Level) to measure access the public transport network. PTAL assesses walk times to the nearest public transport location taking into account service frequency. The location is then scored between 0 and 6b where 0 is the worst and 6b the best. According to the Transport for London WebCAT service the application site has a PTAL ranking of 0 indicating access to public transport is poor compared to London as a whole. This suggests that trips to the application site will be made by private car.

The development site is a 30-minute walk (1.6 miles) from both the Southall and the Hayes and Harlington train stations and a 10-minute walk (0.5 miles) to the Uxbridge Road (A4020) bus stop.

The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) Policy DMT 6: Vehicle Parking requires that development proposals must comply with the relevant parking standards. For a development of this type the maximum number of parking spaces permitted is to be determined on 'an individual basis using a transport assessment and where applicable school travel plan/travel plan'. The Local Plan mentions that where relevant, provision should be made for coach/bus access and parking.

The new Primary School would have 27 staff car parking spaces, three of which would be blue badge/wheelchair accessible.

The site will provide a drop-off area for 23 vehicles. This consists of a parallel area at the southern edge of the access road and with perpendicular spaces adjacent to the staff car parking spaces. Outside of the drop off/pick-up periods, three accessible car parking spaces will be available for

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 175 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS visitors. The staff car park has been designed so it is separate from the drop-off/pick-up area so as not to not interfere with the flow of drivers arriving to drop-off/pick up pupils.

To be in accordance with Policy DMT 6: Parking it is necessary that the development makes provision for coach parking. From the drawings provided it is not clear how coaches taking pupils on school trips etc would park to pick up and set down passengers. This matter needs to be clarified or if not included the plans must be revised.

The cycle store will be located in the north-east corner of the site. This will provide 60 sheltered and secure cycle parking spaces. In addition, 12 Sheffield stands will be provided adjacent to the visitor entrance. The bin store is located at the north-eastern corner of the site, adjacent to the cycle store. This enables refuse vehicles to use the one-way vehicle access/egress system and stop adjacent to the bin store for collection. The refuse collections will be scheduled to occur outside of the drop- off/pick-up periods.

In support of the planning application the developer has provided a Transport Assessment. This discusses the number of trips the development would generate and the impact these would have on the surrounding transport network. As to be expected with a school, the AM peak is when the greatest number of trips are generated. The school currently has 240 on its roll, a travel survey undertake in 2019 established that 41% arrive by car, the developer then reports that as 35% of pupils car share, this equates to 64 cars arrive each morning to drop students off and then leave. Of the 20 teachers working at the school, the same travel survey found that 93% commute by car. Adding the number of car trips generated by pupils and teachers together, the developer reports that the development currently generates 83 car trips in AM peak. The new development would have 840 pupils, assuming the mode share remains the same and 35% of pupils car share then the new school would generate 224 pupil and 51 teacher car trips in the AM peak, 275 in total, an increase of 192 car trips. However, not all of these pupils arrive at the same time, over a third of pupils, 38% attend a breakfast club and are already at the school before most children arrive. Taking this into account it is forecast that 140 cars would arrive just before the school day begins.

This increase in car trips is not insignificant, the developer in their Transport Assessment goes on to explain how these additional car trips would be accommodated. The new school would have a drop off area with 23 car parking spaces. The school would spread the demand for these car parking spaces by staggering the arrival time over a 30 minute period. Reception to Year 2 would arrive in the first 15 minutes followed by Years 3 to 6 in the last 15 minutes. Based on it taking just over 3 minutes to arrive and park, let the pupil out of the car and leave over the course of 30 minutes the 23 car parking spaces could accommodate up to 197 cars arriving. As it is estimated that 140 cars would arrive just before the school day begins, the developer points out that the drop off zone has an ample supply of car parking spaces.

As mentioned above, 51 teachers would drive to work and need somewhere to park upon their arrival, however the staff car park would only have 27 car parking spaces. As such the remaining 24 teachers would have to park on-street. The developer has carried out parking beat surveys to determine the quantum of on-street car parking freely available. The results of this survey showed that of the 188 on-street parking spaces available, at the busiest time 68 or 58% were occupied leaving 50 vacant, even if the teachers were to take 24 of these, there would still be 26 spaces for others to use.

Using the results of the trip generation anaylsis, the developer has gone on to assess the vehicular impact the development will have on the Springfield Road/Uxbridge Road/Brookside Road junction. The developer has taken the results of the 2019 traffic surveys and using the industry standard future traffic forecasting tool TEMPro to determine growth rates for the future year of assessment 2027. To these figures the developer has added the net uplift in vehicular trips generated by the new development. Traffic has been assigned to each arm of the junction as is currently the case. The

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 176 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS results of this work shows that Springfield Road will experience an increase in traffic flows of around 23%. The developer contends that there will be a 12% increase in traffic flows along Uxbridge Road attributable to the development, this is described as being 'modest' taking into account that traffic flows can vary by as much as 10% day to day.

Whilst the car is the means by which the majority of pupils currently travel to school a reasonable proportion, 24% walk to school in the morning. This is equivalent to over 200 pupils walking to the new school if it is built. Again based on the 2019 journey to school traffic survey around 25 pupils are expected to cycle to school.

The developer has demonstrated in the Transport Assessment that despite the growth in pupil numbers that the new school would not give rise to parking stress, this is on the basis that 35% of pupils arriving by car are car sharing, 38% of pupils attend breakfast club with the remainder of arrival being spread equally over a 30 minute period. A further assumption is that it will take just over 3 minutes to stop, let the pupil out of the car and pull away again. The Highway Authority accepts the reasoning behind the trip generation workings presented but seeks firm assurances that the management arrangements proposed will work in practice, not least the proposal that the school day is staggered.

A Travel Plan has been submitted alongside the planning application, this has been assessed and the targets for the mode share for pupils are considered satisfactory, the mode share targets for teachers however could be more stretching. The Transport Assessment refers to a 'drop-off/pick- up' warden being deployed by the school to ensure vehicles do not dwell on-site longer than necessary and traffic keeps moving along. It also mentions that children will be escorted for their cars to the school entrance by teachers/staff to 'speed up the process'. Both of these measures are key to the efficient management of traffic. As surety that the Travel Plan will be delivered and the targets attained, the Highway Authority requires the developer to pay to the Council a £20,000 bond, in the event of the targets not being met, the Highway Authority will use this money and deliver the Travel Plan itself.

The Highway Authority requires that applicant prepares and submits a Construction Logistics Plan and Service and Delivery Plan. These should be produced based on the guidance produced by TfL tailored to the development and local circumstances. This guidance is available at:-

Construction Logistic Plans:- http://content.tfl.gov.uk/construction-logistics-plan-guidance.pdf

Service and Delivery Plans:- http://content.tfl.gov.uk/delivery-and-servicing-plans.pdf

The Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) Policy DMT 2: Highway Impacts requires that development proposals must ensure that they do not contribute to the deterioration of air quality, noise, local amenity or safety of all road users and residents. Without carefull and diligent ongoing managent the proposed new school will generate volumes of vehicular traffic that may increase the risk to road safety, hinder the free flow of traffic and lead to parking stress. The delivery of the School Travel Plan is key to making the development acceptable in highway terms.

The Highway Authority considers that the Travel Plan should be complemented with investment in a shared use footway along the full length of Springfield Road on its western side. Sections of this shared use footway have already been built. The shared use footway would include features that allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross the many access points along the route without risk to their personal safety. As part of this work the developer is also required to fund a review of parking restrictions along Springfield Road and the implementation of any changes required. This shared

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 177 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS use footway would cater for the forecast 200 pupils that will walk to school and the 25 that will cycle as well as encouraging and enabling more pupils to do so in turn reducing the amount of children being driven to school. This shared use footway should be characterised by the 10 Healthy Street indicators such as street trees, benches and street lighting

The Highway Authority supports the emerging Hillingdon Santander Bike Hire Scheme. The Nanaksar Primary School provides an opportunity for expanding this scheme. It is envisaged that a docking station could be provided both at the Uxbridge Road end of Springfield Road and also adjacent to the school itself. School children and all others with business along Springfield Road could use these bicycle to travel in between the Uxbridge Road, the new school as well as the many other destinations en-route using the newly build shared use footway. By providing a cycle route separated from road traffic the risk to cyclists would be reduced, this measure would contribute towards the Mayor of London Vision Zero, whereby there are zero fatal and serious road safety casualties in London by 2041.

There are no highway objections to this development subject to the receipt and delivery of a car parking management plan setting out the staggered school arrival times, the role of the traffic warden, details regarding where coaches would park and the provision of a shared use footway along the full length of Springfield Road.

HIGHWAYS COMMENTS FOLLOWING TA ADDENDUM 06-04-20

The expanded school will be in new purpose-built facilities and the existing school's temporary buildings will be removed. A Transport Assessment has been provided in support of this application, highway comments on this Transport Assessment have been provided to the applicant by LB Hillingdon as well as Transport for London and the Greater London Assembly. In response to these comments the applicant has provided a Transport Assessment Addendum.

The Transport Assessment Addendum describes how the development will be changed to include 112 long-stay cycle parking spaces of which 5% will be suitable for use by larger bicycles. The 12 short-stay cycle parking spaces originally included will still be provided. In response to comments made by LB Hillingdon, the Transport Assessment Addendum provides further details regarding coach access and passenger drop-off/pick-up arrangements. A swept path drawing has been provided showing how a coach would enter and leave the drop-off/pick-up area in front of the school. The geometry of the drop-off/pick-up area is able to cater for a coach but the Highway Authority is concerned that there could be a risk to road safety if a coach were to arrive at the same time as the drop-off/pick-up area was being used by car drivers. The Highway Authority requires assurances that such instances will not occur and if they do how will they be managed, for example where would the coach wait until the area becomes free?

As requested by the Greater London Assembly, the applicant has carried out an assessment of the Uxbridge Road/Springfield Road junction to determine whether it has the capacity to cater for any uplift in car trips generated by the school expansion as well as background traffic growth. From the information provided it is unclear whether committed developments along Springfield Road have been taken into account, if the junction modelling is to produce accurate results committed development must be included as they will also place extra trips on the network. Notwithstanding this issue, the applicant reports that the junction is shown to experience capacity issues in the future assessment year 2027 regardless of whether the school is expanded or not. The Transport Addendum suggests that capacity issues at this junction may even deter parents/guardians from driving to school supporting a mode shift in favour of active and sustainable travel.

Since submitting the first set of comments, the Highway Authority has been made aware that the GLA require that a school bus is provided to be secured by a legal agreement; this is something the Highway Authority supports. The school may wish to consider whether a demand responsive

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 178 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS school bus could be provided. Such a bus would operate along a specific 'corridor' and pupils would book a ride using an app. Similar to LB Hillingdon the GLA also require that on-street parking around the school is reviewed with a view to minimising the risk to road safety arising from pupils crossing the road hidden in between parked cars.

The earlier comments made by the Highway Authority suggested the provision of a Santander bike hire scheme to operate along Springfield Road in between the school and Uxbridge Road. This is an idea that has now been developed further, the Highway Authority require a contribution from the school to support a Santander bike hire scheme to operate between Hayes and Harlington Railway station along Coldharbour Lane, Minet Drive then into Minet County Park and onwards to the school and employment sites along Springfield Road. This would be a facility for members of staff and pupils to use as well as older pupils attending the adjacent Academy. As already mentioned in the earlier comments the School Travel Plan pays little regard to reducing car trips by members of staff. This must be addressed. The Highway Authority is aware that Transport for London requires changing rooms with showers and lockers are provided for staff that cycle to work to use. Again this is something that the Highway Authority also supports.

The Highway Authority has now developed further the measure it requires the school to support as outlined in the earlier set of comments. These are as follows:- 1. Shared use footpaths linking the subways at Minet Drive and Abbotswood Drive with the school and Springfield Road. Budget estimate £26k 2. Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment. This will include a review of on-street car parking, crossing facilities, footway and carriageway works and street lighting. Budget estimate £89k 3. Installation of a 'School Keep Clear' markings CCTV camera to enforce illegal parking. Budget estimate £15k 4. Provision of a School Bus to be secured by a legal agreement 5. Payment of a £20,000 bond as surety that the School Travel Plan will be delivered to be secured by legal agreement 6. Contribution to a Hayes town centre to Springfield Road Santander cycle hire scheme to be secured by legal agreement £30k 7. Production and implementation of a Car Park Management Plan (CPMP) setting out arrangements for managing, monitoring and enforcing the car park to be secured by legal agreement. 8. A Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) and Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) to be secured by legal agreement.

(OFFICER COMMENT: Further dialogue was held with the applicants and a more detailed cost estimates resulted in the final planning obligations as set out within the 'Recommendation'.)

FLOODING

There are no objection to this proposal following the submission of this additional information. It is noted that the area to the south easting corner will not be raised within Flood zone 2 and a revised landscaping plan and FRA will be submitted in due course.

An FRA FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0003-V03 and Drainage Strategy FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C- 0001-V03 Revised drainage strategy have now been submitted. FS0128-CUR-00-XX-RP-C-0002- V01 Suds operations maintenance manual has now been submitted.

Further information on the green walls has been submitted on p.53 of the Design & Access Statement (revision P11). The GNSA ultimately felt that the operational and maintenance costs of a specialist green wall installation were not practical; and as a result the proposals incorporate a

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 179 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS planted arrangement of pleached trees along the feature wall, establishing an element of 'green wall' visual impact without the associated maintenance requirements.

The scheme does not specifically include measures to collect and reuse rain/grey water. However it does seek to minimise water consumption and thus be more water efficient. The scheme is aiming for BREEAM Excellent in the water category by firstly, installing a BREEAM compliant leak detection system between the utility providers meter at the site boundary and the incoming main meter at point of building entry in order to monitor below ground mains for leaks on site, to ensure a signal is present should any water leakage/wastage occur below ground on site. Both of these meters shall be linked back to BMS system for monitoring via a pulsed output. This both ensures the security of the supply, achieves a BREEAM credit and ensures wastage does not go unnoticed.

Secondly, a cold-water tank is proposed to provide 2-hour storage of 5l/person providing resilience against the mains water supply and ensure security of the supply. This also reduces the strain on the mains cold water infrastructure as refill rates of the tank drastically reduces flow required were the building to be served directly from the mains under mains pressure, putting less water volume requirements directly onto the system. A booster set shall be provided along with the cold-water storage tank to ensure sufficient pressure throughout the building at all outlets. This booster set shall be selected to be highly energy efficient in order to minimise energy usage and shall be variable speed to ensure pumps are only in use when there is water demand on the system.

Thirdly, areas with large water usage that is greater than 10% of the overall building load shall be sub-metered (in this case the catering water usage) with sub meter providing a pulsed output to BMS to monitor water consumption of the kitchen domain. BMS will also monitor general water usage and any metered elements will warn for out of range values where irregular usage is picked up for a member of staff to review at the panel and assess where excessive water usage is occurring. In addition to the above strategy, flow restrictors/low flow outlets are proposed to reduce water consumption of the building by decreasing water flow at outlets. For example, a handwash basin under BS8542 will use 9L/min, whereas proposed handwash basin outlets for Nanaksar Primary school shall provide 2L/min therefore offering a 77% reduction in water consumption from handwash basins with flow restrictors/low flow outlets proposed to all outlets. This will drastically reduce the water consumption of the school itself and reduce the litres per day per person usage significantly in line with intend to publish London Plan Policy SI5.

Additional microdrainage calculations have also been submitted to show that the modelling Curtins have advised that the proposed drainage network was modelled for surcharged outfall and that this does not affect the proposed private network.

ACCESS This proposal has been assessed with reference to the 2016 London Plan and its contained policy 3.1 (Equal Life Chances for All) and 7.2 (Inclusive Design). Whilst the proposal demonstrates some to commitment to the principles of Accessibility and Inclusion, the following issues should be addressed under development control:

1. It is noted that a small hygiene room is shown on plan. However, this should be increased in size to support those with complex personal care requirements. Whilst changing areas in the traditional sense may generally not be provided, the principle of inclusion is about young people with special educational needs being placed in mainstream provision, where there is a commitment to removing all barriers to allow full participation. The room should be sized 12 m2 (3m by 4m) and fitted out in accordance with 'Changing Places' specifications. Plans should be amended accordingly.

2. An emergency evacuation plan/fire strategy that is specific to the evacuation of persons unable to escape by stairs should be submitted and reviewed prior to any grant of planning permission. Provisions could include:

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 180 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS a) a stay-put policy within a large fire compartment(e.g. within a classroom at first floor with suitable fire resisting compartmentalisation); b) provisions to allow the lift to be used during a fire emergency (e.g. uninterrupted power supply attached to the lift); c) contingency plans to permit the manual evacuation of disabled people should other methods fail. Conclusion: Unacceptable at present.

The following informatives should be attached to any grant of planning permission.

FURTHER ACCESS OFFICER COMMENTS 24.04.20

Thanks for following up on my comments Chris.

With regard to the 'Changing Places' cubicle, this, unfortunately, at the moment is only best practice and not a requirement.

With regard to proper and appropriate means of escape for the evacuation of people unable to use the stairs, we should require a Evacuation Plan.The agent should refer to the emerging 2020 London Plan and its contained policy D11 for further information and guidance.

URBAN DESIGN The proposals had been subject to pre-application advice the design aspects of which have been positively reflected in this formal submission.

The proposed design and layout is considered acceptable and not to significantly affect the openness of the Green Belt due to it being seen against the back drop of pre-existing light industrial and school buildings. The scheme could be improved with greater planting particularly at the front of the school and the areas of blank brickwork having a green wall to help soften the development. Should the application be minded for approval then a number of conditions are recommended to be attached to ensure the design quality of the scheme.

2 Observations The application seeks planning permission to construct a new three-storey 4FE primary school (to replace the existing Nanaksar Primary School) with associated hard and soft landscaping, outdoor

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 181 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS sports provision, car parking and new access arrangement. Prior to the submission of this application there had been a number of pre-application discussions (see app: 4450/PRC/2019/206).

The application site is located within the Green Belt on the south side of Beaconsfield Road. Land to the north of the site consists of mainly industrial, retail and business uses including West London Film Studios and Hayes Bridge Retail Park. To the east of the site is Hayes and Yeading United Football Club consisting of two playing pitches, a seated stand and associated car parking. To the west of the site are numerous buildings and several playgrounds associated with Guru Nanak All- through School. South of the site is an all-weather sports pitch and the Minet Country Park. The site is currently located within the grounds of the existing Guru Nanak All-through School.

The proposed development will see the replacement of the existing temporary modular class room structures on site for the provision of the new 4 Form of Entry (FE) Primary School - Nanaksar Primary School for 840 pupils.

If planning officers consider that a special circumstance case can be made to develop land within the Green Belt for additional school buildings then any new development should be designed in a way that protects the visual amenity of the Green Belt as much as possible. The proposed location of the building close to Beaconsfield Road is appropriate as it would help to keep development close to already developed areas. The impact on the Green Belt would, therefore, be less as it will be seen in the silhouette of pre-existing buildings particularly from views looking north within the Green Belt towards the Industrial Estate and adjacent school buildings.

The submitted scheme has taken into consideration previous design advice provided during pre- application discussions. The proposed school appears less as a linear block and the bulk and mass of the building has been broken up more with a combination of 1, 2 and 3 storeys and as a consequence has helped to reduce its visual impact. The elevational treatment of the building has now been drawn up in more detail. It is considered that the use of brick as a primary building material will allow the school to sit more quietly within its context and will provide a clearer reference to the already established school buildings. The use of render has now been removed from the proposals and visual interest has been provided, more appropriately through brick detailing in the form of banding and expressed brick courses and the introduction of decorative spandrel panels.

The addition of green roofs appears minimal and restricted to the single storey roof at the southern end of the building. Could the green roof coverage be extended to cover more of the roofs? The larger expanses of plain brickwork to the elevations of the school would also benefit from the inclusion of green walls to help soften the development. It is noted that there is to be additional fencing provided around the school grounds (details of which are not shown within the submission). This would need to be discreet and if possible involve the provision of hedging to provide a softer appearance and sit more comfortably within the Green Belt. The existing front boundary comprises open black railings and hedging/trees which provide a soft and verdant edge to the site. These currently make a positive contribution and clarification should be sought on whether these are to be retained or replaced. If they are to be replaced then details should be provided.

Opportunities should also be taken to provide additional planting to the front of the school to prevent large areas of unbroken hard standing and provide further softening to the site.

3. Conclusion The proposed design and layout is considered acceptable and not to significantly affect the openness of the Green Belt due to it being seen against the back drop of pre-existing light industrial and school buildings. The scheme could be improved with greater planting particularly at the front of the building and the larger expanses of plain brickwork to the elevations of the school would benefit from the inclusion of

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 182 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS green walls to help soften the development.

Should the application be minded for approval then it is suggested that the following conditions be attached: Submission of Details

Detailed drawings or samples of materials as appropriate, in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant part of the works is begun, and the works shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the details so approved and shall thereafter be so maintained: (a) Samples of materials (b) Details of parapets, cills, reveals, spandrel panels, safety railings (c) Detailed design of front and rear canopies (d) Details of railings and fencing (e) Details of substation

Sample panels of facing brickwork Sample panels of facing brickwork showing the proposed colour, texture, facebond and pointing shall be provided on site, and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the relevant parts of the approved works are commenced, and the sample panels shall be retained on site until the work is completed in accordance with the panel (s) so approved.

Elevational drawings at a scale of 1:20 and plan and vertical sectional drawings at a scale of 1:2 of the proposed windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

SUSTAINABILITY OFFICER:

I have no objections to the proposed development. There is a need for a detailed energy condition. I am also concerned about the current status of the school and what appears to be a vacuum of any outdoor educational space dedicated to wildlife learning. Outside the site's boundary is Minet Country park which encompasses two rivers and some high quality ecological habitat. The school site by contrast appears to be free of any ecological value with limited if any outdoor educational space dedicated to biodiversity learning. It is noted that there is an intention for a 'grass mound' to prevent pupils using the southern corner of the site. Whilst this might be of practical purposes for managing pupil behaviour it is a wasted opportunity; a more carefully thought through planting plan could contribute to wildlife improvements as well discouraging the loafing of pupils (for example through thorny berry producing planting) - a condition which addresses this concern is essential.

Energy

The energy strategy is acceptable and has been updated to include a response to SAP10 requirement of the GLA Intend to Publish London Plan. The strategy centres around the use of PVs of which further details are required the following condition is necessary:

Condition Prior to above ground works, full specifications of the amount, type and location of the roof mounted PV array shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The specifications shall detail the PVs to be used and correspond with the savings set out in the energy strategy (Couch Perry Wilkes, April 2020). The specifications shall also include full details of the fixing mechanisms, orientation, pitch and maintenance regime.

Condition Prior to occupation, a detailed monitoring and reporting plan shall be submitted to and approved in

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 183 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall provide full details of how the carbon savings set out in the energy strategy shall be monitored with details of how and when these will be reported to Local Authority. The submitted report shall demonstrate the carbon reduction proposals have been implemented and that the development is compliant with the savings set out in the energy strategy. Measures to remedy any shortfall in carbon savings will be required. The development must be operated in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason To ensure the development contributes to a reduction in CO2 emissions in accordance with London Plan Policy 5.2

Ecology

Condition Prior to above ground works, a plan showing the incorporation of living walls, screens and/or roofs in the new development (main building) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The living walls, screens and/or roofs shall incorporate native nectar rich planting. The development must proceed in accordance with the approved plan.

Condition Prior to above ground works, an ecological enhancement plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall show dedicated area(s) (including the southern area bordering Minet Country Park) for the management of wildlife that can double as an outdoor learning space. The plan shall show the inclusion of a pond area for wildlife and educational purposes unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall also include a diverse range of planting through an updated landscaping plan that has been developed to improve biodiversity. Finally, the plan shall also show the inclusion of wildlife enhancement features (i.e. bat and bird boxes as well log piles) throughout the landscaped areas and within the fabric of the buildings. The development must proceed in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason To ensure the development incorporates measures to improve biodiversity in accordance with Policy EM7 of the Local Plan Part 1.

LANDSCAPING

This site is occupied by part of the campus, in the north-east corner, of the Guru Nanak School campus, on Beaconsfield Road. The site lies within the area covered by TPO 722, which protects an oak (T1 on the schedule) in the north-east corner of the plot. Regionally the area falls within the National Landscape Character Area 115 (Thames Valley). The site also lies within the Green Belt whereby there is a presumption against development except in exceptional circumstances.

RELEVANT POLICIES DMHB 11, DMHB14 , DMEI1, DMEI4, DMEI 7. COMMENT The proposal has been the subject of pre-application discussions, with landscape proposals last discussed at a meeting on 17 January 2020. The following comments re-iterate landscape issues discussed and any subsequent changes to the plan. The layout of the open spaces appears to be logical, functional,attractive and controllable (to facilitate out of hours access to restricted areas).

There remain some missed opportunities which would greatly enhance the scheme and contribute towards its Urban Greening Factor assessment: 1.The school have resisted the installation of green walls despite the fact that robust / low tech solutions exist. 2.The only area of green roof is a relatively modest area of sedum roof over the hall. Sedum roofs

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 184 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS are the simplest and least beneficial type of green roof. The main roof with PV's presents additional space / opportunity for a green roof . 3.The front edge of the school presents a bland setting dominated by hard surfacing and parking. Tree planting along the front boundary and / or within the car park could be introduced. No additional tree planting has been introduced in the front car park or along the front boundary. According to the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan, ref. 0003 Rev P04, dated 22/01/2020, pleached trees have been added to the front area, although these do not appear to be shown, or annotated, on plan? 4.Tree planting is indicated close to the rear of the building which will need to be restricted to small / fastigiate trees. Following pre-application discussions additional tree planting has been provided between the tarmac play area and formal. The tarmac play area will be very hot and exposed and could accommodate a few large growing / shade-providing specimen trees without interfering with the available play / circulation space. According to the Illustrative Landscape Masterplan, ref. 0003 Rev P04, dated 22/01/2020, additional tree planting is indicated between the play area / circulation space and the formal sports areas.

SUMMARY In spite of some missed opportunities, in terms of green infrastructure. the landscape layout has much to commend it with regard to the environmental enhancement and a sense of place that will contribute to the children's well-being. The layout incorporates robust and attractive spaces which preserve and protect the TPO'd oak in the north-east corner of the site. Approximately 45 new trees will be planted to enhance the setting of the building and external spaces, together with an additional 17 trees in a new school orchard.

Further enhancements will be provided by areas of ornamental and native shrub planting. A site assessment should be made applying the GLA's Urban Greening Factor to the site, in order to qualify and quantify the contribution the scheme makes to local green infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION No objection subject to conditions COM9 (parts 1,2,3,4,5 and 6) and COM10. An Urban Greening Factor Assessment should also be submitted.

ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING COMMENTS

Further to my comments of 8 April 2020, a number of amended landscape plans were submitted on 4 May 2020. The key states that the revisions were made 'in response to planning comments' - without documenting (or highlighting on plan) the nature of the amendments. One feature which is noted is the proposed grass seeding of, what appears to be, the footway along Beaconsfield Road, which lies within the site boundary. The surfacing with grass in this location will mean that there is no southern footway available for pedestrians walking along Beaconsfield Road. While additional greening has been recommended along the site frontage, the place for additional planting is within the car park, not in the footway. No landscape amendments have been spotted. Please let mke know if these have been scheduled somewhere?

RECOMMENDATION No objection subject to conditions COM9 (parts 1,2,3,4,5 and 6) and COM10. An Urban Greening Factor Assessment should also be submitted.

CONTAMINATED LAND

1 Summary of Comments:

Subsequent to my earlier response to the above mentioned application, an email dated 16/04/2020 from DPP Ltd (the applicants agent) suggests that my earlier comments do not appear to have reviewed a further document which was submitted with the application; the email also requested that the previously recommended conditions be revised in the light of information provided in the additional report document.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 185 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS I can now confirm that I had previously inadvertently failed to detect the additional report, referred to as:

· Additional Site Investigation Remediation Method Statement, Nanaksar Primary School, Springfield Road, Hayes; Ref: 19-1650.02; Dated: January 2020; Prepared by: Delta-Simons

The submissions within the application also include the following reports to outline land conditions at the site:

· Geo-Environmental Report Nanaksar Primary School, Springfield Road Hayes; Reference: 19- 1650.01; Issue Date: October 2019; Prepared by: Delta-Simons.

The above report provides an account of phase 1 and phase 2 works conducted by Delta-Simons in order to obtain additional primary data from the site. The findings were to supplement earlier works conducted by a third party.

Copies of the third party reports are also included in the application as follows:

· Phase I Geo-Environmental Desk Study, Guru Nanak School Site, Springfield Road, Hayes, UB4 0LT; Reference UK18.4283, dated December 2018; Prepared by Environmental Protection Services Ltd (EPS) : and

· Phase II Geo-Environmental Investigation, Guru Nanak School Site, Springfield Road, Hayes, UB4 0LT, by EPS, Reference UK18.4283c, dated March 2019; Prepared by Environmental Protection Services Ltd.

I have now reviewed each of the four reports submitted with the application, and my revised comments are as follows:

The Geo-Environmental details within all of the reviewed reports are in accordance with authoritative guidance, including the Environment Agency document CLR11 (Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination).

The three earlier dated reports provide suitable and sufficient information in terms of meeting the requirements for Phase 1 and 2 works conducted at site.

The subsequent report (Additional Site Investigation Remediation Method Statement dated January 2020) also provides suitable and sufficient information, in the form of supplementary details to satisfactorily address all issues and requirements outlined in the previous report documents, including but not limited to:

1. Provision of an acceptable method statement for remedial works, along with suitable and satisfactory proposals for how completion of the works will be verified.

2. Inclusion of suitable and satisfactory details covering a watching brief to identify/address undiscovered contamination.

3. Outline proposals to achieve the required 2.5 gas protection score in accordance with the relevant guidance and standards for mitigating risks associated with CS2 ground gas characterisation.

4. Provision of suitable soil quality Generic Assessment Criteria for Imported Materials, including requirements for any testing for asbestos which must be from a UKAS accredited laboratory and the only acceptable criteria for asbestos is 'Not Detected'; The criteria are considered acceptable as

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 186 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS absolute limits for all soils imported for re-use as clean cover at the subject site.

Following the above review/s of all submitted details concerning land conditions at the site, I now consider it necessary to recommend that the following amended conditions should be imposed to any planning permission that may be granted:

Recommended conditions for remediation of land affected by contamination.

(i) No deviation shall be made from the proposed remediation scheme without the express agreement of the LPA .

(ii) Any required addendum to the proposed remediation scheme shall be agreed with the LPA, prior to implementation; and

(iii) Upon completion of the approved remedial works, this condition will not be discharged until a comprehensive verification report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The report shall include the details of the final remediation works and their verification to show that the works for each phase have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology.

(iv) The results from chemical testing of imported soils shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

3 Observations:

The Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) and Conceptual Site Model (CSM) identified the following principal contaminants of concern at the site: Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); Poly- cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); Volatile organic compounds (VOC) Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB); Metals; Asbestos containing materials (ACM) and Ground Gas. Plausible contaminant linkages were subsequently identified.

Following results from Phase 2 site investigations, the revised conceptual site model and updated risk assessment indicate that, subject to the proposed introduction of hardstanding and clean cover materials, the residual risks would be reduced to low and very low risk, with the exception of hazardous ground gas (carbon dioxide), which represents a low to moderate risk.

The Delta-Simons supplementary report (Dated: October 2019) includes a summary of details relating to impacts of the contamination on human health and controlled waters, with particular reference to previously identified principal contaminants of concern, including ground gas, detected within soils at the site.

The ground gas regime at the site has been classified as CS2 in accordance with BS8485:2015,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 187 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS therefore ground gas protection measures are required. It is noted that measures outlined in the Delta Simons report are provided for guidance only; the report states "The final design of the measures and responsibility sits with the Contractor / Designer". Therefore, if planning permission is awarded, the LPA shall require full details confirming final selection/specification of the gas protection measures to be installed, validated and verified accordingly.

WASTE STRATEGY

The bin storage area is located further than 10 metres from the vehicle stopping point and therefore on site care taking / facilities staff may be required to assist with collections. Otherwise suitable for waste and recycling requirements.

(OFFICER COMMENT: In order to ensure that an approved arrangement is put in place for the lifetime of the development, a refuse management plan will be required by condition.)

AIR QUALITY The application site is located within the declared Air Quality Management Area and approximately 460 m to the south of the Ossie Garvin Air Quality Focus Area. The proposal is for expansion of the school to accommodate additional pupils from 240 to 900 pupils along with 55 additional staff. The impacts of the school are felt beyond the site boundary in terms of the associated increases in road traffic from the school users accessing the site. Although the site itself is on the margins of an Air Quality Focus Area, the road in and out of the site connects directly, via a junction, to the Uxbridge Road which is within the Ossie Garvin Air Quality Focus Area. Air Quality Focus Areas are identified where the pollution levels are already elevated, there is relevant public exposure and where improvements in air quality are to be prioritised.

A junction assessment analysis provided by the developer confirms that with the proposal Springfield Road will experience an increase in traffic flows of around 23% and an increase in traffic flows on the Uxbridge Road of around 12%. From the information provided it is unclear whether committed developments along Springfield Road have been taken into account, therefore this could be an under-estimate. In addition the junction is shown to experience capacity issues in the future assessment year 2027. The Transport Addendum suggests that capacity issues at this junction may deter parents/guardians from driving to school supporting a mode shift in favour of active and sustainable travel. There is no evidence provided to demonstrate this will be the case, if this does not occur it simply confirms that the junction and surrounding area could be subject to increasing levels of congestion.

The assessment accompanying the application concluded that the scheme was air quality neutral and therefore no mitigation was required. This approach is not supported. The council has taken a more precautionary approach in terms of the assessment of air quality neutrality and concluded that from the information provided and from the concerns raised above in regards to the traffic increases and level of local congestion, that the development is not air quality neutral and will bring additional traffic into an already pollution-sensitive area. Using a more conservative assessment for the determination of air quality neutrality, the pollution damage costs arising from the emissions were calculated as £187, 866. Under such conditions mitigation is required. The Council requires the developer to provide a suitable mitigation strategy to allow the Council to be able to assess compliance with London Plan Policy 7.14, Local Plan Part 1 and Part 2 and the objectives of the Air Quality Action Plan.

Mitigation required Whilst the developer has offered a number of highways improvements which will incentivise more active travel with an aim to reduce the number of trips by private car, there is little quantification given to assess the effectiveness in terms of trips reduced. Given the sensitivity of the area in regards to the impacts on the Air Quality Focus Area and that the development is a school which is

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 188 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS a sensitive receptor in itself, it is recommended that further mitigation is required to be provided by the developer. This is detailed below:

1 Whilst a Travel Plan will be provided it must be effective and be quantifiable in terms of reducing traffic. In addition to the mitigation sought to promote and enhance active travel, it is recommended that there is an additional requirement within the Travel Plan for a School Bus Service to be provided with quantifiable targets set for patronage and a quantified assessment of the reduction in the number of trips by private car. As the bus service will operate within an Air Quality Focus area consideration should be given for the associated vehicles to be low/zero emission technology. 2 The associated traffic from the development impacts upon an already congested junction in an Air Quality Focus Area. It is recommended that an appropriate additional highways contribution is sought to enable an effective scheme for alleviating congestion at this junction. 3 As the school is itself a sensitive receptor in terms of air quality, the landscaping scheme and active travel zone should include the use of green infrastructure specifically designed to protect the pupils from exposure on the routes to and from school.

Conditions required: 1 Reducing Emissions from Demolition and Construction No development shall commence until a Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. This must demonstrate compliance (drawn up accordance with) the GLA Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition SPG (or any successor document). Reason: Compliance with London Plan Policy 7.14 and in accordance with Mayor of London "The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and demolition (or any successor document).

2 Non-road mobile machinery (standard condition recommended by Mayor of London, London Local Air Quality Management Policy Guidance 2019) All Non-Road Mobile machinery (NRMM) of net power of 37kW and up to and including 560kW used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases shall comply with the emissions standards set out in chapter 4, proposal 4.3.3.a of the London Environment Strategy. Unless it complies with the standard set out in the London Environment Strategy, no NRMM shall be onsite, at any time, whether in use or not, without the prior written consent of the LPA. The developer shall keep an up to date list of all NRMM used during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases of the development on the online register https://nrmm.london/ Reason: Compliance with the London's Low Emission Zone for non-road mobile machinery as per requirements of the London Environment Strategy

3 Condition - Low Emission Energy Provision No building shall commence until details are supplied to the LPA, in writing, demonstrating that any CHP or gas boilers used conform with the London Ultra Low NOx requirements as set out on the Mayor of London Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (or successor document). Reason: Compliance with London Plan Policy 7.14 , Local Plan Part 1, Policy EM8, LB Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2, Policy DMEI 14, Hillingdon AQAP 2019-2024,

BUILDING CONTROL

1. This fire risk assessment has been reviewed as submitted, however it is not considered the final fire risk assessment. Design for means of escape, active/passive fire measures and access for the fire services will be subject to change as the scheme progresses and therefore a final risk assessment will be required to be submitted along with the Building Control application for review. 2. This fire risk assessment appears to have been produced by a suitably qualified assessor who have attempted to address the standards of Paragraph B within the London Plan Policy D12 (Fire Safety) 3. These comments do not prejudice any formal comments made by the London Fire Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA). A consultation to the LFEPA will be made as part of the Building Control

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 189 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS application process. 4. The final Fire Risk Assessment will need to be checked by a suitably qualified Fire Safety Specialist in order to discharge the Policy D12 planning condition and any costs to be recovered. 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development The site accommodates an existing (Nanaksar 2FE temporary school) educational facility and is bounded by a further education facility (Guru Nanak Secondary School). It also comprises of a large playing field and falls within the Green Belt as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. It has no other specific designations. Accordingly, the key issues pertaining to the principle of development relate to the permanent nature and intensification of the educational use of the site, the impact of the development on the Green Belt and impact on the playing fields.

NEW EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES:

In respect of new developments for educational facilities there is strong support for this at local, regional and national level.

At local level the supporting text of DMCI 1A of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) states the Councils commitment to continuing to meet the required number of primary school places.

The policy itself sets a specific assessment criteria for new schools. It states that the local planning authority will take into account the size of the site, its location and suitability to accommodate a new school or school expansion taking account of compatibility with surrounding uses, and the local highway network and its ability to accommodate new or additional school trips without adverse impact on highway safety and convenient walking and cycling routes to schools.

This is reiterated in the London Plan, 2016, Policy 3.18 which states:

"Development proposals which enhance education and skills provision will be supported, including new build, expansion of existing facilities or change of use to educational purposes. Those which address the current projected shortage of primary school places will be particularly encouraged."

Furthermore on 15/08/11 the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (formerly knows as DCLG), published a policy statement on planning for schools development, which is designed to facilitate the delivery and expansion of state-funded schools. It states:

"The Government is firmly committed to ensuring there is sufficient provision to meet growing demand for state-funded school places, increasing choice and opportunity in state-funded education and raising educational standards. State-funded schools - which include Academies and free schools, as well as local authority maintained schools (community, foundation and voluntary aided and controlled schools) - educate the vast majority of children in England. The Government wants to enable new schools to open, good schools to expand and all schools to adapt and improve their facilities. This will allow for more provision and greater diversity in the state-funded school sector to meet both demographic needs and the drive for increased choice and higher standards."

It goes on to say that;

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 190 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS "it is the Government's view that the creation and development of state-funded schools is strongly in the national interest and that planning decision-makers can and should support that objective, in a manner consistent with their statutory obligations. We expect all parties to work together pro actively from an early stage to help plan for state-school development and to shape strong planning applications. This collaborative working would help to ensure that the answer to proposals for the development of state-funded schools should be, wherever possible, "yes".

The statement clearly emphasises that there should be a presumption in favour of the development of schools and that "Local Planning Authorities (LPA) should make full use of their planning powers to support state-funded schools applications."

Paragraph 72 of the NPPF 2019 reiterates the objectives set out in the Ministerial Statement on Planning for Schools Development. It clearly confirms that the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places are available to meet existing and future demand.

The proposal is considered to fully comply with this strong local, regional and national policy support for new, enhanced and expanded educational facilities.

GREEN BELT

Notwithstanding the above, the development nevertheless represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

Policy EM2 of the Local Plan: Part 1(2012) confirms that any proposals for development within the Green Belt will be assessed against national and London Plan polices, including the very special circumstances test.

Policy DMEI 4 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020), confirms that only predominantly open land uses will be considered acceptable within the Green Belt and that planning permission for other uses will not be granted.

Notwithstanding this, it must be noted however that paragraph 8.27 of the Local Plan: Part 1 (2012), states that "in very exceptional circumstances the Council will consider the release of Greenfield sites for schools."

London Plan policy 7.16 (2016) confirms that the "strongest protection" should be given to London's Green Belt, in accordance with national guidance, and emphasises that inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF (2019) makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It states that:

"When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations."

In view of the above is not considered that the scheme would meet any of the exceptions test outlined within Paragraph 145 of the NPPF (2019) and therefore it would constitute

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 191 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The scheme should therefore only be approved in very special circumstances which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of the inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the proposal.

The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement and Design & Access Statement which seeks to set out a case of very special circumstance to justify the provision of the development in this Green Belt location. These centre around the applicants assertion that the development would have limited additional impact on the Green Belt, enhanced community facilities and the need for additional and improved school places as well as the lack of alternative sites.

Establishing the need for additional places

With regards to the very special circumstances, the applicant has stated that the primary justification is the need for new primary school places to address projected unmet need. There are a number of supplementary documents for which the LPA refer to when assessing the need for school places, one of which is the Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS) (2017). The DIFS (2017) sets out the requirements for delivering infrastructure to support the growth within the Hayes Area which is where the school is located. The documents states that there will be a growing demand for primary places in the south of the borough and specifically in Hayes due to a number of large scale housing developments. Nine new forms of entry were expected to be needed in the south of the Borough by 2023/24, with 6 of these being needed in the Hayes area.

Furthermore the Quarterly School Place Planning Update (Feb 2020) provides the census data and updated projections for primary and secondary needs within Hillingdon. The report breaks down the needs for specific areas and identifies each area via a reference such a PPA 11 which is the reference given to the location for which the application site is located. It is clear within the report that the PPA11 projection already takes into account the plan to re-open the 2FE school in September 2020 for reception classes within temporary buildings. It should be noted that a separate application has been received for the relocation of the temporary buildings within the wider school site shared with Guru Nanak.

Moreover the School Place Planning Project Manager at the London Borough of Hillingdon has commented on the proposal and stated that the need for extra places is evidenced by the Council's education planning projections. The school is in Hayes, an area of growing demand for more primary places, and with substantial new housing developments. Also, the school is likely to recruit some pupils from a wider area of the borough and beyond, as it has done previously along with Guru Nanak school, due to their admissions criteria giving some priority to those of the Sikh faith and location by the boundary with Ealing. Both schools are very popular with parents and have consistently high levels of pupil achievement and active local social and community engagement. This is compounded by the submission of a detailed educational needs assessment report for a Sikh-faith primary school places in the school's catchment area. The report demonstrates that there is a compelling educational need for pupils from the Sikh community in the catchment area (within a 3-mile radius). Therefore, this is accepted as a very special circumstance and this view is shared by the GLA.

Lack of alternative sites

Following pre-application advice the applicant has undertaken a sequential test which is

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 192 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS used to identify alternative sites which could accommodate a school of a similar size in a more suitable (not green belt land) location within a designated catchment area.

The sequential test has been undertaken on a number of agreed assumptions between the local planning authority and the applicant. The catchment area is a 3 mile radius from the site. This covers PPA 11, as well as the majority if not all of the area contained within neighbouring PPAs and is therefore considered appropriate. The test has also been undertaken on the need for a site of at least 0.65 ha, which is below the typical minimum size of 0.8ha that is usually used by the Education Funding Authority (EFA) in London Boroughs and therefore the applicant has demonstrated flexibility in terms of format.

Over sixty potential sites (28 of them brownfield) were assessed and the reasons why the current application site was selected and the rest of the potential sites were rejected were set out. The sequential test has discounted sites that would not be available in the near future. This is considered to be pragmatic noting that the need for new primary school places is already growing and time will be required after the planning process to construct the school. In assessing the sequential test the LPA's Planning Policy Officer has stated that whilst we cannot agree with all of the justifications for discounting some sites, it is agreed that all sites can be discounted but on different grounds than what is set out in the sequential test. It is therefore considered that the sequential test is robust and provides a strong argument for why the application site is the most preferable site having assessed all other available land within the identified catchment area.

Co-location

In addition to the above, the applicant has considered the possibility of co-location with other schools at a different site , however no agreement could be reached. Notwithstanding this, the proposed location of the school is considered to be a form of co- location within an existing community of schools given its close proximity to the existing schools on Springfield Road and the ability to share facilities has also been put forward as a benefit of the scheme. It should be noted however that, considering the importance that government attaches to Green Belt in Paragraph 133 of the NPPF (2019), when taken in isolation this should not amount to the very special circumstances required to outweigh the harm of this development. However it should be considered as part of the cumulative set of very special circumstances.

Visual impact

In terms of visual impact, the site currently comprises the existing temporary accommodation with its ancillary space (outdoor space, drop-off area, car parking etc.) which is focused and contained in the most northern part of the site, along Beaconsfield Road. The existing accommodation is relatively small in scale compared to the proposed development, as it is single storey (3.7m in height) and has a floorspace of just 380m2. Importantly, the existing development has been permitted on a temporary basis until 30th September 2020 and therefore its impact on the Green Belt is also only temporary. It is therefore acknowledged that the application for a larger, permanent building would present a greater impact to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

The applicant has stated that the school has been oversubscribed for an a number of years and this has been verified with the Councils Schools Placement Team. It is therefore acknowledged that the school would emphasise the need for a building which can accommodate more pupils in comparison to what could be achieved within the parameters

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 193 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS of the existing temporary modular units.

The proposed building would predominantly increase to 3 stories and would be characterised by a flat roof measuring 12.3 metres. The internal floor space would increase to 3,795m2. Whilst its clear that the aforementioned increase in the quantum of the built form is significant, the front facade which is where the bulk of the 3 stories is located, would front Beaconsfield Road which comprises of a number of buildings of a similar scale. The built form is not the only element of the scheme for which harm can be attributed. The requirement for additional hard surfacing to both the front and rear of the building to serve as the drop off area/car park and play space is considered to have a moderate adverse impact on the Green Belt.

The applicant's Design and Access Statement demonstrates that a number of options have been carefully considered to ensure that the impact of the development on the openness of the Green Belt is minimised as much as possible. When assessing this statement consideration needs to be given to the level of impact to the openness and the view of the Green Belt which are resultant of the scale and design of the built form as well as the associated hard surfaced areas.

The site is bounded by Guru Nanak School to the west which is a secondary school and therefore considerably larger than the proposed primary school. To the north of the site is a number of strategic industrial parcels which accommodate large buildings such as film studios, cash and carries and large warehouse space with associated office space. To the east of the site is the Hayes and Yeading Football Club facility which comprises of a number of artificial grass pitches and a modest sized spectator stand. With this in mind it is clear that the sense of openness when viewed from Beaconsfield Road is reasonably diminished given the presence of the industrial/functional buildings which create the street scene and give the impression of more urbanised location. Notwithstanding the above there are a number of open areas created through the separation distance of the clusters of buildings and in particular the entrance to Minet Country Park which form a more attractive view over the Green Belt than others.

Whilst the application does clearly propose a larger building which inevitably will have a greater impact to the openness of the Green Belt when taking into consideration the building would be located in an area occupied by the existing temporary school on site, the bulk of the three storey element would front Beaconsfield Road which is already characterised by large industrial and functional buildings and the fact that the site is bounded by the modest scaled football club, and the Guru Nanak Secondary School, the visual harm could be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

Impact on playing fields and provision of enhanced sports facilities and community benefits

The proposed development would result in alterations to the layout of the site, which would affect playing field provision. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF (2019) states that:

"Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: - an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or - the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or - the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 194 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS clearly outweigh the loss."

Policy 3.19 of the London Plan (2016) expects development proposals to increase or enhance the provision of sports and recreation facilities. Proposals that result in a net loss of sports and recreation facilities, including playing fields should be resisted.

Policy S5 of the draft London Plan (2019) seeks to retain existing playing fields unless (among other criteria) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or other better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location or the development is for an alternative sports and recreational provision and the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of current and former use.

Policy DMCI 1A of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires new schools to consider their impact on green open space, games pitches, outdoor play and amenity space, taking account of the character of the area, whether the site is within an area of open space deficiency and whether the school has sufficient outdoor space for play and games.

Further to the above, the 'Playing Fields Policy' states that 'Sport England will oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of all or any part of a playing field, or land which has been used as a playing field and remains undeveloped, or land allocated for use as a playing field, unless, in the judgement of Sport England, the development as a whole meets with one or more of five specific exceptions.'

The five specific exceptions are identified as follows: 1. 'A robust and up-to-date assessment has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of Sport England, that there is an excess of playing field provision in the catchment, which will remain the case should the development be permitted, and the site has no special significance to the interests of sport.' 2. 'The proposed development is for ancillary facilities supporting the principal use of the site as a playing field, and does not affect the quantity or quality of playing pitches or otherwise adversely affect their use.' 3. 'The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and does not: · reduce the size of any playing pitch; · result in the inability to use any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins and run-off areas); · reduce the sporting capacity of the playing field to accommodate playing pitches or the capability to rotate or reposition playing pitches to maintain their quality; · result in the loss of other sporting provision or ancillary facilities on the site; or · prejudice the use of any part of a playing field and any of its playing pitches.' 4. 'The area of playing field to be lost as a result of the proposed development will be replaced, prior to the commencement of development, by a new area of playing field: · of equivalent or better quality, and · of equivalent or greater quantity, and · in a suitable location, and · subject to equivalent or better accessibility and management arrangements.' 5. 'The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor facility for sport, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss, or prejudice to the use, of the area of playing field.'

The proposed development would present a loss of the proportion of the school playing

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 195 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS field therefore Sport England have raised an objection for which the applicant has stated that exception 5 applies and provides a number of documents as evidence to substantiate this exemption.

With regards to the playing field which would be lost, the applicant has provided a plan which demonstrates the net loss/gain with reference to both the loss of the field and also the actual sports pitch net gain. The existing playing field measures 10,227 sqm and the applicant has stated that they are currently not used for sports use and do not meet the minimum guidelines measured by the Sport England Performance Standards. Sport England agreed with this comment in there initial consultation response but also added that many of the school or similar fields do not have to meet the size standards in order to be considered valuable and instead are considered to be informal recreational space.

Notwithstanding this it is important to consider why the playing field remains underused. The planning application submission was accompanied by a 'PSD Agronomy report', which Sport England acknowledged within the attached objection, confirms that the existing playing fields are uneven and present drainage issues. The report confirms these issues to be core to the usability of the existing pitches, which currently make them an extremely difficult location for outdoor sport activities all year round. The report identifies that the existing playing fields comprise significant slopes and undulations greater than 20mm in depth. It is also noted that there is a presence of ground source heat pumps below the site and, as such, trenches from installation may have settled over time which could have contributed to the formation of undulations, which can only be removed via remediation works in the form of topping up to surface level, seeding and fertiliser application. Additionally, the topsoils within the site (silt loam with high stone content) are generally concluded as offering moderate to poor infiltration rates due to high clay and silt contents, with examples of flints and pebbles exceeding more than 32 mm in the longest axis recorded just below the surface. The findings within report are recognised by Sport England within the most recent comments where they state " The agronomy report undertaken does indicate that the playing field does not meet the performance standards guidelines"

The Proposed Development will deliver a total of 8,307 sqm (covering 45.85% of the Site) of sports provision in the form of 2 MUGAs, 1 basketball court, 1 youth soccer pitch and 1 mini-soccer pitch. The new sports facilities will provide a high quality all-weather pitch which will allow for a range of sports facilities to ensure that alongside the wider campus provision, Nanaksar Primary pupils will get the opportunities for sport that they require whilst also improving the campus wide facilities on offer. The three ball courts are multi- use offering a wide range of sports and the Artificial Turf Pitch offers a high-quality sporting facility. Therefore, whilst the proposed development would involve the permanent loss of 10,227 sqm (covering 56.45% of the Site) of identified playing fields. In reality these facilities are not currently in a condition which allows them to be used. The loss of this land for the provision of a new school will enable the creation of new high quality facilities for school pupils and the wider community on a site which is not currently used for any sports.

Furthermore, to respond to the net loss of sport provision area, the layout of the proposed facilities works to maximise efficiency of provision. This results in an increase in usable sport pitches and total area (a net gain of 1,523 sqm as per the accompanying Sports Provision Net Loss Gain Analysis drawing by Ares). To further improve the sport provision, the proposed development improves the pitch specifications to offer year-round facilities via an Artificial Grass Pitch and 3 asphalt ball courts. Whilst there is an existing Artificial

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 196 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Grass Pitch (AGP) within the wider Guru Nanak secondary school site, this is a short pile specification with the priority for hockey. The proposed AGP is a long pile specification with a priority for football.

The 2 proposed MUGAs are multi-use, offering a wide range of sports provision for football, tennis, and netball, alongside the 1 basketball court, which have been designed to ensure that they are appropriately sized in line with Sport England guidance. However, following Sport England's comments regarding their quality for sports provision, rebound fencing has been incorporated around the proposed 2 x MUGAs.

The proposed AGP and outdoor sports facilities, including 2 MUGAs and 1 basketball court, are therefore essential components of the proposed development as they would allow for the provision of a range of sports facilities to ensure that the future pupils get the opportunities for sport and physical activity that they require. Allowing such proposed facilities to be used by the community will also enable the opportunity to improve the health and well-being of the community in addition to pupils.

With regards to the sports provision being made available to the public this would secured by way condition pertaining to the submission of community use agreement however it is noted that a draft copy has been submitted. This remains one of the final concerns raised by Sport England who are yet to be satisfied with the level of access those outside of the school would have to the sports pitches. Within the most recent set of comments Sport England outline the lack of evidence to state that there is or isn't a surplus of artificial sports provision within the area and this is mainly driven by the presence of the existing AGP within the wider Guru Nanak site and also the neighbouring football club. As stated above the AGP within the Guru Nanak site is best suited to hockey rather than football which is the intended use of the application AGP. Sport England has stated that they are concerned with the lack of uptake which could be apparent due to the non inclusion of sports lights something of which the neighbouring football club benefit from. During pre-application discussions the inclusion of sports lights was discussed however, given the sites close proximity to the wildlife and river corridors as well as the habitats within the Minet Country Park, it was considered that sports lights would not be acceptable in this location. Furthermore sports lights would jeopardise the proposed habitat buffer and ecological learning zone along to the south of the proposed AGP. Whilst it is clear that the community facility (AGP) within the football club site benefits from floodlights/sports lights and is in a similar location, this is full size adult pitch. Consequently, whilst the presence of alternative AGPs in close proximity to the site cannot be ignored, it is important to note that these facilities make provision for different sports and age groups than those that will cater for the new school site.

In conclusion, whilst Officers acknowledge Sport England's objection to this application, the Council's planning policies DMCI 1A do allow for consideration of whether the proposed school will retain sufficient outdoor space for play and games. It is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that despite a loss in area due to its very limited use, there will be a significant overall improvement in the quality and variety of sports pitches available to the school and the local community following the redevelopment of the site. This is a material consideration that weighs in favour of the development.

Officers are satisfied that an appropriate balance has been struck between planning and educational policy requirements such that the development meets the practical needs of the school whilst ensuring there is no overall loss in quality sports provision. Officers are of the view that the educational need for the proposals carries significant weight, which would

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 197 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS outweigh any loss in sports provision Sport England may argue.

The Ministerial Statement on planning for schools is clearly an important material planning consideration. It is important to understand the 'weighting' that should be given to this as a material planning consideration. Officers have undertaken a search of appeal decisions concerning new education developments that affect either playing fields or open space to understand how Planning Inspectors have interpreted the Ministerial Statement.

A search of a national appeals database identified 4 appeal cases where loss of open space or playing field was involved.

Where the schemes are of direct relevance is that in each case the decision maker had, in effect, to decide whether a clear education need outweighed other strong material planning considerations. All 4 appeals (namely the appeal by Chapel Street Community Schools Trust for a free school on open space in Oxfordshire, a new free secondary school by 'Great Schools for all Children' in Warrington on public open space involving the loss of a sports pitch and Poulton Church of England Primary and Nursery School's planning application in Gloucester for a school on open space was allowed and significant weight was given by the appeal inspector to the education need in every case.

In the Warrington case (which is a 2014 case) the Council in refusing the planning application stated:

"The playing fields offer significant benefits to the local community due to the sports pitches available and their accessibility and close proximity to residents, community groups and schools."

Sport England did not object subject to conditions regarding the submission, agreement and implementation of a sports development plan and community use agreement, the details and specifications of the sports hall, changing rooms and artificial grass pitch and a scheme for the improvement of the remaining playing fields are required to ensure that there is sufficient benefit to the development of sport, suitable arrangements for community access and that the loss of the existing playing fields on the site is effectively mitigated.

It should be noted that Sport England therefore appear to have been satisfied that conditions could be used to address potential policy conflicts. The Inspector in allowing the appeal stated;

"There are differing views as to the potential effects on existing schools and the justification for the proposed school in terms of the need to raise educational standards. What is clear however is that the proposal will create an additional school, increasing the number of school places available and creating greater choice and diversity for secondary education in the area. In the context of the Framework and the Ministerial Policy Statement, this constitutes a significant benefit that carries substantial weight."

What these appeal cases show is that decision makers are expected to place substantial weighting on the Ministerial Statement and that it is a very important material planning consideration. As such, officers consider that the educational need argument outlined by the applicant with respect to schools should be given substantial weighting as a material planning consideration.

Taking all matters into consideration, including current planning policy wording at local,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 198 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS regional and national level, the applicant's and Sport England's arguments, it is very difficult to see how an objection from Sport England could be upheld in this instance. This application is supported by a well reasoned justification that demonstrates there would be no loss in overall sports provision in terms of quality.

Conclusion

The primary special circumstance is considered to be the need for additional primary school places particularly within this part of the borough. The applicant's planning statement and DAS provide details of this need and this is further supported by up-to-date information from the Council's Schools Placements Project Manager. The applicant has also demonstrated to the satisfaction of officers that there are no suitable alternative sites within the relevant school place planning area. Consideration should also be given to the ministerial statement which states the need for improved and new educational facilities as a very important material planning consideration thus should be given substantial weight in the decision making process.

Consequently, it is on the basis of the need for additional primary school place provision in the Hayes areas that the applicant is able to demonstrate very special circumstances which are considered to outweigh the harm caused by the inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Furthermore, officers are content that whilst the development presents an impact to the openness of the Green Belt, the development has been designed to minimise the impact and this is apparent through the submission of the Visual Impact Assessment.

It is noted that the loss of playing fields has also been a point of objection by Sport England together with concerns about the use of replacement facilities by the wider community. Officers are satisfied that in this instance, due to the non-utilisation of the existing playing fields and the enhanced facilities proposed for use by pupils and the community, that the development of part of the site for a new school will not have a detrimental impact on the provision of sports provision. Furthermore, by broadening the type of provision the range of sports facilities available will be enhanced.

Taking the above points into consideration the principle of development is considered acceptable. 7.02 Density of the proposed development The application relates to new educational development. Residential density is therefore not relevant to the consideration of this application. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character There are no Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings or Areas of Special Local Character within the vicinity. Although the application site does not fall within a designated Archaeological Priority Area, there is a requirement to consult Historic England's Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) due to the size of the site. An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment has been submitted in support of the application and GLAAS have been consulted. No objection has been raised and there is no further requirement for conditions. 7.04 Airport safeguarding The proposed height of the development raises no airport safeguarding issues. 7.05 Impact on the green belt This issue has been partly addressed in part 7.01 of the report.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 199 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The application site and the adjoining secondary school currently comprises school buildings, which range in height from one to three-storeys, playgrounds, car parking, playing fields and ancillary development. It is bounded to the north by Beaconsfield Road, beyond which are large scale industrial buildings, and to the east by Yeading Football Club and its associated stands and clubhouse. The proposed built form would largely be located within an existing developed part of the site, comprising of existing temporary accommodation for the 2FE primary school and a large area of hardstanding used for the primary school car park and pick up / drop off area.

Accordingly the proposed development would be seen in context with the wider school site and surrounding large scale buildings.

In terms of visual impact, the existing accommodation is relatively small in scale compared to the proposed development, as it is single storey (3.7m) and has a floorspace of just 380m2. Importantly, the existing development has been permitted on a temporary basis until 30th September 2020 and therefore its impact on the Green Belt is also only temporary. It is therefore acknowledged that the application for a larger, permanent building would present a greater impact to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Minet Country Park bounds the wider school site to the south. Large bunds within that park, which bound the school site, helped limited views of the existing temporary school from the wider Green Belt. Whilst the proposal extends much further into the Green Belt than the existing arrangement and also proposes an increase in scale, bulk and massing the bunds would still provide some form of obscurity when viewed from the Country Park.

The views provided are as follows;

View 1 : Looking north west from Yeading Brook View 2 : Looking west from Yeading Brook View 3 : Looking west from Yeading Brook 2 View 4 : Looking east from A312 Road View 5 : Looking north east from A312 Road View 6 : Looking east from Minet Country Park

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 200 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS View 7: Looking east from Minet Country Park 2

With regards to views 1,2 and 3 these view are dominated by large deciduous trees growing by the edge of the water. The buildings with the Guru Nanak Academy campus can be seen clearly within these views with additional views of the Hayes and Yeading Football Club offered from view point 2. The appraisal concludes that the proposed new building would be obscured by trees when view from, view point 2 and would be visible within the cluster of educational buildings or the Football Club buildings from view points 1 & 3. It is therefore considered that the proposed would cause a slight deterioration of these existing views.

With regards to views points 4 & 5 which are taken from the main A312 Road. In commenting on the proposal the councils Planning Policy Officer stated that the view point 5 should be retaken as the photo differed from the location indicated on the map within the assessment document. This photo has been re-submitted having been taken from the correct location. It is evident that both views would be significantly obscured due to the dense woodland apparent within the Minet Country Park thus there would be no deterioration of these existing views.

View points 6 & 7 are taken from within Minet Country Park and whilst the new building would not be seen from view point 7, arguably view point 6 would offer the most prominent view of all of the above locations. The school building would be visible from behind the cluster of the Guru Nanak Academy buildings however the photo demonstrates that there is some tree planting within this location which will assist with obscuring the view and the choice of materials assists with softening the visual impact and presents a view not dissimilar to what is offered now.

Further to the above the views offered from Minet Country Park are considered to be the most prominent and therefore it is regrettable that the school has chosen not to include rear facing green walls which could have softened the views of the rear elevations. It is understood that as a DFE funded project there is an element of cost analysis which the applicant needs to take into consideration when balancing the functionality of the school as well as the design requirements imposed by planning policy. It is noted that the applicant has stated a willingness to review the possible inclusion of a green trellis which could be beneficial therefore a condition has been included to ensure further investigation of green walls and other types of walling which could soften the impacts of the views offered from Minet Country Park is undertaken.

Accordingly, the size, scale and height of the proposed building and associated structures and other areas (playspace, sports pitches) are not considered to be obtrusive in this location. The design is considered to be acceptable and would not have an adverse affect on the openness of the Green Belt or the visual amenities of the surrounding area. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area Paragraph 131 of the NPPF (2019) requires that in determining applications, great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs which promote high levels of sustainability, or help raise the standard of design more generally in an area, so long as they fit in with the overall form and layout of their surroundings.

Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) requires new developments to make be of the highest architectural quality and be of a proportion, composition, scale and orientation that enhances, activates and appropriately defines the public realm.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 201 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policy D1 of the London Plan (2019) requires all development to make the best use of land by following a design led approach that optimises the capacity of sites. The design-led approach requires consideration of design options to determine the most appropriate form of development that responds to a site's context and capacity for growth

Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) re-emphasises the importance of good design in new development by;

A) requiring all new buildings and extensions to be designed to the highest standards, which incorporate principles of good design, such as harmonising with the local context by having regard to the scale, height, mass and bulk of surrounding buildings; using high quality materials and finishes; having internal layouts and design which maximise sustainability and the adaptability of the space; protecting features which contribute positively to the area and providing landscaping that enhances amenity, biodiversity and green infrastructure; B) avoiding adverse impacts on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent property and open space; C) safeguarding the development potential of adjoining sites and D) making adequate provision for refuse and recycling storage.

Policy DMHB 12 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) re-emphasises the need for new development to be well integrated with the surrounding area and provides design criteria as to how this would be achieved.

The proposal seeks the redevelopment of the Land Adjoining Guru Nanak Sikh Academy which currently accommodates the existing 2FE primary School (Nanaksar). The site is located along the southern side of Beaconsfield Road which leads from Springfield Road. The character of the street scene (both Beaconsfield Road and Springfield Road) comprises of a mixture of educational, sports and industrial/functional buildings which are of a large scale.

To the east of the site is Hayes and Yeading United Football Club consisting of two playing pitches, a seated stand and associated car parking. To the west of the site are numerous buildings and several playgrounds associated with Guru Nanak All-through School. South of the site is an all-weather sports pitch and the Minet Country Park.

The proposed development would feature a 1-3 storey T shaped building for which the bulk of the building would front Beaconsfield Road and the remainder of the building would tunnel along the boundary shared with the football club car park. The proposal also includes facilities such as the hall which has been located so that it could be used for events outside of school hours and be made available to the public, the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and the All Weather Pitches (AWP) which will be subject to a community use agreement to allow those outside of the school to benefit from the facilities.

The location of the building has been dictated by a number of constraints with the most important being the sites location within the Green Belt. A design approach has therefore been taken to try and limit the overspill of the floor area outside of the floor area of the existing school. However it is clear that there will be some overspill given the increase in capacity for which the school is trying to achieve. The building has been set back from the main highway to allow adequate space for the necessary quantum of parking which will also act as a pick up and drop off area for pupils attending the school. Whilst this does present the potential for an increase in the impact to the Green Belt, the set back from the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 202 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS existing front building line of the temporary huts is minimal.

Furthermore the location of the building and its design ensure that the bulk of the building is set towards the main frontage which is similar to the surrounding buildings. It is therefore considered that the proposed location of the building close to Beaconsfield Road is appropriate as it would help to keep development close to already developed areas.

The scale of the building would be significantly smaller than the adjacent high school and the height would be no greater than these buildings either. A contemporary and functional design is proposed whilst using traditional materials comprising of mainly light coloured brickwork which creates a welcoming visual appearance balancing a fresh and independent identity for Nanaksar Primary School. The addition of a much darker red brick on some of the feature walls assists with breaking up the elevations to create more interesting views of the building.

The front of the building would feature an element of cladding over the main entrance. Whilst the LPA would normally steer away from the use of cladding, the proposed elevations illustrate that the cladding is a deliberate prominent feature which includes the school motif and can be conditioned to ensure the cladding is of a good quality.

The proposal includes facilities such as the hall at the centre of the school, the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) and the All Weather Pitches (AWP). Views of these areas would be restricted from all areas outside of the development due to the boundary fencing around the perimeter of the site however it is noted that the 3 m high welded mesh fencing which surrounds the AFG would be partially visble due to its height. However the fencing is proposed to be green in colour and therefore less prominent from a distance which is dictated by the field to the south.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would be viewed in context with the existing school site and surrounding large scale developments and, as such, would not be visually obtrusive in this location. For these reasons, and those discussed in part 7.01 and 7.05 of the report, it is not considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the Beaconsfield Road street scene or the surrounding area. 7.08 Impact on neighbours Policy DMHB 11 (2020) requires that development proposals should not adversely impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

There are no residential properties within the vicinity of the site. The immediate neighbours are the Guru Nanak Secondary School for which the primary school would directly associated to given that they will be managed by the same trust. The site is also bounded by the Minet Country Park and the Hayes and Yeading Football Club neither of which would be impacted by the proposed development.

The proposed built form and associated areas (parking, play space and sports provision) are not considered to appear over dominant against the back drop of the neighbouring sites which feature large open spaces and built form of a greater scale.

It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not impact the visual amenities of the neighbouring properties or open space. 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers This consideration relates to the quality of residential accommodation and is not applicable

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 203 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS to this type of development. However, it is considered that the proposed development, which has been designed to accord with Department for Education standards, would provide an appropriate environment for the future staff and pupils. 7.10 Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety Policy DMT 2 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) notes development proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicular access to the highways network is provided to the Council's standards.

Policy DMT 6 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) sets maximum car parking standards. For a development of this type it is required that the quantum of car parking provided is determined 'on an individual basis using a transport assessment and a travel plan, and in addition provision for taxi and bus/coach access and parking'.

Springfield Road is an adopted public highway leading off the busy A4020 Uxbridge Road, it benefits from a 30 mph speed limit, street lighting and footways on both sides of the road. Along the southbound carriageway that boarders the site, there is a mix of single yellow lines operational Monday to Friday 07:00 to 09:00 and 14:30 to 16:30 hours, double yellow lines and no parking restrictions at all. On the opposite side of the road there are double yellow lines only.

There are three pedestrian routes into the site area; one via Springfield Road and two via Minet Country Park. One access through Minet Country Park is via a underpass from a shared pedestrian/cycle route at Abbotswood Way to the west of the site. The other Minet Country Park route connects to the Ossie Garvin Roundabout and the segregated pedestrian and cycleway routes provided across the roundabout.

The development site is a 30-minute walk (1.6 miles) from both the Southall and the Hayes and Harlington train stations and a 10-minute walk (0.5 miles) to the Uxbridge Road (A4020) bus stop.

According to the Transport for London WebCAT service the application site has a PTAL ranking of 0 indicating access to public transport is poor compared to London as a whole. This suggests that there would be a higher reliance on the motor vehicle to make trips to and from the school.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 204 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The existing primary school benefits from an area of hardstanding which fronts Beaconsfield Road and this provides an area dedicated to pick up and drop off and accommodates 2 staff parking spaces.

The proposed plans illustrate 27 staff car parking spaces 3 of which would be blue badge/wheelchair accessible. The proposal states the commitment of 10% of parking spaces would be provided as active electric charging spaces and notes a further 10% would be provided as passive electric spaces. As such 5 active spaces and 5 passive spaces have been secured via the landscaping condition.

The bin store is located at the north-eastern corner of the site, adjacent to the cycle store. This enables refuse vehicles to use the one-way vehicle access/egress system and stop adjacent to the bin store for collection. The refuse collections will be scheduled to occur outside of the drop-off/pick-up periods.

The proposal extends and formalises the existing drop off area at the front of the site which will provide an area for 23 vehicles. These spaces form a queue around the car park edge and wraps around the area which is illustrated to be the entrance to the school building. The vehicles would be expected to enter the car park via the access abutting the eastern boundary shared with the football club and exit via the western boundary.

In response to the Highway Officers comment relating to coach park it is proposed that coaches will use the drop-off route in front of the school, the same as a refuse vehicle. The refuse vehicle which was previously tested under swept path analysis is 10.5m long and is able to negotiate/navigate the drop-off route in front of the school successfully. For completeness a swept path analysis has been submitted demonstrating that coaches can negotiate the roundabout and both enter and exit the site without compromise.

A Transport Assessment has been submitted alongside the application which provides details pertaining to the number of trips that the development would generate and uses a relevant model to allow the Highway Authority to assess the impact these trips would have upon the local highway network. The transport assessment indicates that the AM peak period is when the greatest number of trips would be generated.

Travel survey data has been included and demonstrates that in 2019 out of the 240 pupils the school currently accommodates 41% arrive by car, the developer then reports that as 35% of pupils car share, this equates to 64 cars arrive each morning to drop students off and then leave. Of the 20 teachers working at the school, the same travel survey found that 93% commute by car. Adding the number of car trips generated by pupils and teachers together, the developer reports that the development currently generates 83 car trips in AM peak.

The new development would have 840 pupils, assuming the mode share remains the same and 35% of pupils car share then the new school would generate 224 pupil and 51 teacher car trips in the AM peak, 275 in total, an increase of 192 car trips. However, not all

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 205 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS of these pupils arrive at the same time, over a third of pupils, 38% attend a breakfast club and are already at the school before most children arrive. Taking this into account it is forecast that 140 cars would arrive just before the school day begins.

As requested by the GLA, the applicant has carried out an assessment of the Uxbridge Road/Springfield Road junction to determine whether it has the capacity to cater for any uplift in car trips generated by the school expansion as well as background traffic growth. The report demonstrates that the junction is shown to experience capacity issues in the future assessment year 2027 regardless of whether the school is expanded or not. The Transport Addendum suggests that capacity issues at this junction may even deter parents/guardians from driving to school supporting a mode shift in favour of active and sustainable travel. Whilst this may well have the desired impact Officers have been keen to remind the applicant that the school already contributes to congestion issues at this junction and whilst it is not solely liable the inclusion of a improvement works to alleviate some pressure from this area is necessary. As such a financial contribution has been added to the obligations.

The aforementioned increase in vehicle trips is not considered to be significant and the transport assessment provides details for how the increase in vehicle trips will be managed. The management methods proposed are common across school projects and in particular where a significant increase in pupil numbers are proposed which demonstrates that in most cases the methods are successful. One of these methods is the staggering of arrival times over a 30 minute period. The applicant has stated that Reception to Year 2 would arrive in the first 15 minutes followed by Years 3 to 6 in the last 15 minutes. Based on it taking just over 3 minutes to arrive and park, let the pupil out of the car and leave over the course of 30 minutes the 23 car parking spaces could accommodate up to 197 cars arriving. It should also be noted that the proposal for staggered start times includes the wider Guru Nanak Secondary School Academy and Primary (see below). As it is estimated that 140 cars would arrive just before the school day begins and it is noted that there would be ample parking spaces provided. The staggered start and finish times for the proposed primary school have been secured by planning condition. As the adjoining schools do not form part of the red line boundary, a legal obligation/Head of Term is proposed in order to secure a staggered start and finish time for all of the Guru Nanak Academy Trust schools in order to minimise the pressures on the local and strategic highways network.

In commenting on the application the GLA had raised a request for the review of whether a school bus could be implemented into the school travel plan as this could reduce the number of vehicle trips as well as having a positive impact on Air Quality. Although no specific data was submitted to demonstrate how successful the proposal for a school bus could be, the method of reducing trip numbers is supported by the Highway Authority and will be secured via the legal agreement.

Further contributions have been agreed pertaining to improvements to the roads linking to the proposed development in order to make walking and cycling both a safer and more attractive modes of transport. These improvements include measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Carriageway surfacing, shared use footpaths linking the subways at Minet Drive and Abbotswood Drive with the school and Springfield Road and installation of a 'School Keep Clear' markings CCTV camera to enforce illegal parking.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 206 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The proposal for a contribution to extension to the Santander bike scheme to a location near the school was considered and found to be unnecessary. It was decided that the focus in achieving the targets within the travel plan should be directed towards the use of the school bus and this was agreed by the councils Highway Officer.

The following contributions have been agreed:

(1) £26,000 - Shared use footpaths linking the subways at Minet Drive and Abbotswood Drive with the school and Springfield Road. (2) £15,000 - Installation of a 'School Keep Clear' markings CCTV camera to enforce illegal parking. (3) £1,370.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Traffic management. (4) £6,682.00 - Preliminary design works (5) £53,375.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Carriageway surfacing. (6) £29,420.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Footway & kerb. (7) £25,000.00 - Measures to create an active travel zone around the school, including works to reduce road safety risk, encourage active travel and create a 'Healthy Streets' environment: Street lighting. (8) £20,000 for Uxbridge Road/Springfield Road junction improvements.

In addition to the above the applicant has submitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan which has been assessed and found to be acceptable by the Councils Highway Officer. As such not construction management plan condition is necessary.

Taking the above into consideration the proposal is considered to comply with the necessary Highway Policies. 7.11 Urban design, access and security - Urban Design

The proposed new building adopts a T shape design with the bulk of the building being orientated to face Beaconsfield Road. It is also noted that the building has shifted as far towards the Beaconsfield Road as possible in already to ensure that it close to the existing developed areas. The T shape block presents a functional design which is considered to minimise the impact to the Green Belt as well as being efficient and a cost effective building which can be delivered quickly by containing the majority of school facilities within a single building footprint. Whilst ideally size, scale and height of the buildings would be reduced, particularly given the site's Green Belt location, the applicant has demonstrated that a number of options have been explored in order to ensure that the proposed site layout limits, as much as is possible, the overall impact of the development on the Green Belt and it is accepted that the layout and designs proposed are a satisfactory compromise between delivering cost effective and much needed school facilities and overall visual impact.

Detailed proposals were submitted during pre-application discussions regarding the general site layout and the design of the building. It is clear that the design advice given at pre-application stage has been taken into consideration given that the design featured a

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 207 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS linear block which was considered to be undesirable has now changed and the bulk and mass of the building has been broken up due to the inclusion of stepped heights from 1-3 stories thus reducing the visual impact.

The elevational treatments comprise of brick as the primary building material and the removal of the render from the majority of the elevations is welcomed. The use of brick will also assist with establishing a relationship with the existing school buildings which bound site and add to the visual interest of the building through brick detailing in the form of banding and expressed brick courses and the introduction of decorative spandrel panels.

It is noted that the GLA do not consider the building to be of high-quality and more specifically the comments state;

"The design is not high-quality and does not demonstrate mitigation measures are utilised in relation to impact on the openness of a Green Belt site. Whilst the proposed internal layout is functional, massing and materiality do not recognisably acknowledge the site's Green Belt context. South facing classrooms have canopies as mitigation against overheating and to provide shading, which is welcomed. The main entrance block is located some way from the street entrance which is not ideal, and the scheme's car dominant design should be revisited. Car parking and waiting areas also dominate the public realm of the site in terms of area and proportions and it is not clear whether this is a permanent design approach or would be reduced over time. Further clarification is therefore required in this respect.

An informal landscape is proposed, with incidental planting which is welcomed. However, the applicant should consider incorporating formal soft standing play areas as the landscape strategy is currently dominated by wide areas of hardstanding. The proposed orchard planting is a positive move and could be expanded upon to run throughout the application site."

With regards to the above comments, consideration should be afforded to the Local Authorities parking standards and given the sites low PTAL rating (PTAL 0) there is a high dependency on the motor vehicle to access the site. This therefore dictates the level of parking required and depth in which the building needs to be set back from the main frontage. Furthermore, the applicant has undertaken a review of a number of control options which could accommodate a different design however retaining the majority of the building footprint within or as close to the existing temporary classrooms as possible was considered the best option for restricting the impact to the openness of the Green Belt and this is further compounded by the fact that this location was considered the most appropriate when granting consent for the temporary school. Furthermore a revised plan has indicated further fruit trees are to be planted within the front car parking / entrance area which will soften the view of the area which is dominated by hard surfacing.

The addition of green roofs appears minimal and restricted to the single storey roof at the southern end of the building. It is also felt that the larger expanses of plain brickwork to the elevations of the school would also benefit from the inclusion of green walls to help soften the development. However the applicant has stated that the cost involved with building the school is substantial and the inclusion of further green roofs and green walling could add have additional cost implications once implemented in order to ensure they are properly maintained therefore further works are not considered financially possible. In discussing the need to alleviate some of the concerns raised by the GLA regarding the impact to the Openness of the Green Belt a condition is to be added to ensure further work to review the

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 208 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS inclusion of further green roofs and walls is undertaken. In addition to this the agent has stated that a green trellis could be proposed to the rear elevations which would appear similar to a green wall and less costly for the school. This again will be reviewed during the submission of further details secured by condition.

It is noted that in commenting the proposal the Councils Urban Design Officer requested additional fencing details. These have been submitted within a revised set of landscaping drawings and these are considered acceptable. A condition has been added to ensure further material details are submitted and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of above ground works.

- Security

The proposed development includes fencing to the Nanaskar Primary School perimeter will be 2.4m high. The car park will function as a non-secure area, with an efficient secure line enabling access for visitors to the main building entrance without entering the secured area.

Internal fencing locations have been carefully considered to minimise impact on movement while providing containment where required. Fencing height will vary depending on the use of the space. The security strategy has been reviewed and refined during the CEM process, to ensure that the zoning is effective with simple management processes. Cross- corridor doors with access control have been located to simply restrict access to the teaching wings, and the spatial arrangement minimises the number of doors requiring manual locking. The zoning layout includes significant access to fire escape routes and ensures an appropriate number of WCs are available to support large congregations using the space. Access to external areas is also provided within the out-of-hours use zone, allowing events to spill out into the landscape where appropriate. The external teaching spaces will have a 1.2m high fence to the surround and the MUGA will have a 3.0m fence to facilitate ball games

All proposed fencing will be visually permeable weldmesh fencing except to the bin store. The weldmesh fencing will be specified in a dark recessive colour in order to reduce its prominence, disappearing into the surround while providing a secure site.

The metropolitan police has assessed the proposal and stated that whilst the above details are welcomed the standard secure by design condition is necessary. 7.12 Disabled access The submitted Design and Access Statement confirms that the proposed development will achieve reasonable levels of accessibility with level access provided throughout, appropriate signage, disability standard parking bays and provision of lifts.

It confirms that the development will comply with relevant educational design standards (BB98) and Part M of the building regulations.

Initially the Council's Access Officer has advised that a 'Changing Places' cubicle should be incorporated into the scheme to serve those with complex care needs. The accommodation provision within the Nanaksar Primary School proposals follows the strict Department for Education requirements. These are the result of many years' research and development by the Government, and establish benchmarks from which DfE-funded projects should not deviate. In particular, with respect to Hygiene Room provision, the DfE allowance is for an 8m2 space which provides for disabled pupils' wash-down and toileting,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 209 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS a ceiling-mounted hoist, with peninsular accessible wc and wash-hand basin, an accessible shower, plus space for shower-bed. Whilst this does not achieve the full Changing Places provision, the functionality is close, and the provision is considered by the DfE to be appropriate to Primary School use. It is therefore considered that the current size of the hygiene room is acceptable.

The Access Officer has stated the requirement for a fire evacuation plan to be submitted and this will be secured via an appropriate condition.

It is considered that, subject to conditions, acceptable levels of accessibility would be achieved across the development. 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing This section is not applicable to this type of development 7.14 Trees, landscaping and Ecology TREES AND LANDSCAPING

The NPPF states that development proposals should seek to respect and retain, where possible, existing landforms and natural features of development sites, including trees of amenity value, hedges and other landscape features. It states that development should make suitable provision for high quality hard and soft landscape treatments around buildings.

Policy DMHB 14 of the Local Plan:Part Two (2020) notes all developments will be expected to retain or enhance the existing landscape, trees, biodiversity and natural features of merit. Planning applications for proposals that would affect existing trees will be required to provide an accurate tree survey showing the location, height, spread and species of trees.

The site lies within the area covered by TPO 722, which protects an oak (T1 on the schedule) in the north-east corner of the plot. Regionally the area falls within the National Landscape Character Area 115 (Thames Valley). The site also lies within the Green Belt whereby there is a presumption against development except in exceptional circumstances.

The application includes a number of new soft and hard landscaped areas as well formal and informal play space. As discussed in the Landscaping Officers comments there remains a small number of missed opportunities within the final design, most notably the inclusion of more green roofs/walls however it is noted that the applicant has agreed to a review of implementing a green trellis wall in order to further soften the impact to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal includes a comprehensive and well thought landscaping layout which is enhances the sense of place that will contribute to the children's well-being. The layout incorporates robust and attractive spaces which preserve and protect the TPO'd oak in the north-east corner of the site. Approximately 45 new trees will be planted to enhance the setting of the building and external spaces, together with an additional 17 trees in a new school orchard. This is welcomed as is the additional fruit trees to the frontage which assist with softening the area which is dominated by hard surfacing.

The proposed landscaping is considered to be acceptable.

ECOLOGY

In terms of ecological impacts, an Ecological Appraisal a Preliminary Ecological Assessment was carried out by Betts in December 2018. It was noted that the site is

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 210 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS dominated by amenity grassland used as a school sports field. There is some shrub planting along the northern boundary of the site where there is also one A3 tree. It was recommended that in order to increase the site's ecological value the applicant should consider implementing areas of longer vegetation to be enhanced with compost heaps and log piles to the north and bat and bird boxes. In response the proposed masterplan now includes a range of ecological enhancements which include;

-Bat and bird boxes -Areas of longer vegetation to be retained along with the addition of a log pile to the north -Native shrub buffer and hedgerow planting -New tree planting -Ornamental, flowering herbaceous plants

The application has been assessed by the Councils Ecology Officer who has stated that the use of Green Walls should be revisited and also a plan providing further detail for the above ecological enhancements is submitted.

FLOODLIGHTING

During the consultation with Sport England it was requested that the development and in particular the sports pitches to be made available outside of the school and within the community use agreement would benefit from additional floodlighting. Whilst this would enable the use of the facilities to be expanded particularly within the autumn and winter months this would compromise the protection of the wildlife habitat and preservation of the ecological corridor which abuts the southern boundary of the site. Furthermore the emphasis on creating an orchard or possible pond area is to create further ecological habitat which again would be compromised by the inclusion of further floodlighting. As such a condition restricting lighting to that only which is shown on the proposed plans has been attached. 7.15 Sustainable waste management Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016) sets out the Mayors Spatial Policy for Waste Management including the requirements for new developments to provide appropriate facilities for the storage of refuse and recycling. The applicant has demonstrated the proposal would include a secure waste storage area within the proposed plan.

The design and access statement concludes that recycling areas will be incorporated both internally and externally. Waste will be collected and segregated in the building, and daily collections will be made to transport waste to the external waste and recycling store. This external compound is generously proportioned, to allow appropriate capacity for multiple bins providing flexibility for segregation of recycling streams on site as required. The bin store itself is located to the front of the western elevation and is segregated by the main building. The bin store would measure approximately 40 sqm and would be constructed of solid timber fencing to ensure the bin area remains discreet.

As stated above the layout of the bin area and car park prevents the bins being access within the appropriate distance from the vehicle stopping point. This results in the a drag distance in excess of 10 metres which will require a management condition to ensure that the bins can be moved on collection day to an area that is not in excess of the drag distance. 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2016) requires developments to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 211 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Be lean: use less energy Be clean: supply energy efficiently Be green: use renewable energy

Policy EM1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that the Council will ensure that climate change mitigation is addressed at every stage of the development process. This includes the reduction of carbon emissions through low carbon strategies and encouraging the installation of renewable energy to meet the targets set by the London Plan (2016).

Policy DMEI 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) requires that: A) All developments make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with London Plan targets; B) All major development proposals must be accompanied by an energy assessment showing how these reductions will be achieved; C) Proposals that fail to take reasonable steps to achieve the required savings will be resisted. However, if the Council is minded to approve the application despite not meeting the carbon reduction targets, then it will seek an off-site contribution to make up for the shortfall. The contribution will be sought at a flat rate at of £/tonne over the lifetime of the development, in accordance with the current 'allowable solutions cost'.

The application is supported by an energy statement which outlines how the design will comply with the above policy. The detailed design helps to achieve a reduction of CO2 emissions by 2% as measured by the initial Part L assessment. This, together with the proposed PV provides a 73% reduction, with PVs providing a further 71% reduction beyond the "Be Lean" measures. When allowing for SAP10 emission factors, the total CO2 reduction drops 13.464 Tonnes CO2/year, though with the total building emissions also reduced through SAP10 factors, this still provides a total reduction of 46% through 'Be Lean' and 'Be Green' measures. Around 71% CO2 reduction is achieved from the inclusion of onsite renewable technologies in the form of photovoltaic panels on current carbon emission factors, which drops to 53% reduction over actual building and 46% reduction.

The Councils Sustainability Officer has stated that the energy saving methods are acceptable however further details pertaining to the location of the PV panels is required as well as how the energy saving targets will be monitored. These details will be secured via a suitably worded condition. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues Policy 5.13 of the London Plan (2016) states that development proposals should use sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) unless there are good reasons for not doing so and that developments should aim to achieve green-field run-off rates. Policy 5.15 goes on to confirm that developments should also minimise the use of mains water by incorporating water saving measures and equipment.

Policy DMEI 10 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) applications for all new build developments are required to include a drainage assessment demonstrating that appropriate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have been incorporated in accordance with the London Plan Hierarchy.

Following a review of the revised drainage strategy, the flood water management officer has removed their concerns to the application. The scheme is aiming for BREEAM Excellent in the water category by firstly, installing a BREEAM compliant leak detection system between the utility providers meter at the site boundary and the incoming main

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 212 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS meter at point of building entry in order to monitor below ground mains for leaks on site, to ensure a signal is present should any water leakage/wastage occur below ground on site. The GNSA ultimately felt that the operational and maintenance costs of a specialist green wall installation were not practical; and as a result the proposals incorporate a planted arrangement of pleached trees along the feature wall, establishing an element of 'green wall' visual impact without the associated maintenance requirements. The scheme does not specifically include measures to collect and reuse rain/grey water. However it does seek to minimise water consumption and thus be more water efficient

The application has been reviewed by the Councils Flood Water Management Officer who has stated that the details provuded are acceptable and no further information is required. As such the proposal meets the flooding policies set out above. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues NOISE

Policy DMCI 1A of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires new schools and school expansions to take into account the size of the site, its location and suitability to accommodate a new school or school expansion taking account of compatibility with surrounding uses, and existing planning policy designations.

The baseline survey details presented with the noise assessment are considered to be acceptable following the applicants confirmation that no industrial/commercial noise was found to be present during the survey. Furthermore the assessment relating to the impact the proposed development would have on noise levels to the surrounding areas has been found to be acceptable. The proposed glazing, ventilation and overheating strategy is considered suitable (on acoustic grounds). With regards to the control of noise and vibration throughout the construction process these details are included within the CEMP and are deemed to be acceptable.

AIR QUALITY

Policy DMEI 1 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires major development in Air Quality Management Areas to provide onsite provision of living roofs and/or walls. A suitable offsite contribution may be required where onsite provision is not appropriate.

The Local Plan recognises that living walls and roofs allow a number of environmental goals to be achieved in a relatively small space. The also remove particulates that improve local air quality. The Sustainability Officer has requested that a condition is added to the decision notice to ensure the proposal contributes to Air Quality enhancements.

Policy DMEI 14 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires development proposals to demonstrate appropriate reductions in emissions to sustain compliance with and contribute towards meeting EU limit values and national air quality objectives for pollutants. Developments are expected to be:

- Air quality neutral; - include mitigation to ensure there is no unacceptable risk from air pollution to sensitive receptors; and - actively contribute towards the continued improvement of air quality, especially within the Air Quality Management Area.

The application site is located within the declared Air Quality Management Area and

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 213 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS approximately 460 m to the south of the Ossie Garvin Air Quality Focus Area. The proposal is for expansion of the school to accommodate additional pupils from 240 to 900 pupils along with 55 additional staff. The impacts of the school are felt beyond the site boundary in terms of the associated increases in road traffic from the school users accessing the site. Although the site itself is on the margins of an Air Quality Focus Area, the road in and out of the site connects directly, via a junction, to the Uxbridge Road which is within the Ossie Garvin Air Quality Focus Area. Air Quality Focus Areas are identified where the pollution levels are already elevated, there is relevant public exposure and where improvements in air quality are to be prioritised.

The Air Quality assessment includes a variety of analysis which are set out to ascertain whether or not the proposed development is air quality neutral. If the result is such that the air quality is not neutral the applicant would be expected to pay a damage cost to offset the lack of on site mitigation. The assessment provides a review of the junction located between Springfield Road and Uxbridge Road which as described in the Highways section of this report is a hotspot for congestion. The applicant states that Springfield Road will experience an increase of approximately 23% and an increase in traffic flows on the Uxbridge Road of approximately 12%. In assessing the scheme the Councils Air Quality Officer has stated that it is unclear whether committed developments along Springfield Road have been taken into account, therefore this could be an under-estimate. Notwithstanding this the document and transported related documents show the congestion issues around the junction would increase in future with or without the development and that the proposed congestion here could deter those who interact the school to shift to other modes of transport . As also stated in the highways section of this report this may well have the desired affect however it should be recognised that the school and wider Guru Nanak site contribute to this congestion and whilst not solely responsible appropriate levels of mitigation are required.

However the assessment accompanying the application concluded that the scheme was air quality neutral and therefore no mitigation was required. It is made clear within the Air Quality Officer's comments that this statement is not supported a more precautionary approach in terms of the assessment of air quality neutrality should have been taken. Notwithstanding the difference in the methodology used to assess whether the scheme is air quality neutral it is clear that the scheme presents an increase in vehicle trips in an area of very low access to public transport and in an area already recognised as pollution- sensitive therefore mitigation is required.

As such the Council requires the developer to provide a suitable mitigation strategy to allow the Council to be able to assess compliance with London Plan Policy 7.14, Local Plan Part 1 and Part 2 and the objectives of the Air Quality Action Plan.

The following mitigation methods have been agreed.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 214 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS contribution is sought to enable an effective scheme for alleviating congestion at this junction. 3 As the school is itself a sensitive receptor in terms of air quality, the landscaping scheme and active travel zone should include the use of green infrastructure specifically designed to protect the pupils from exposure on the routes to and from school.

The above mitigation measures are considered to be satisfactory and given the proposed use of the development the Council has been forthcoming with attempts to ensure the appropriate mitigation is agreed and will be delivered rather than opting for a damage cost payment. It is noted that the Air Quality Officer has requested a condition pertaining to dust emissions throughout the construction phases however these details are included within the CEMP therefore this has been amended to a compliance condition. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations The public comments are addressed in the main body of this report. 7.20 Planning obligations Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020) relates to securing planning obligations to supplement the provision recreation open space, facilities to support arts, cultural and entertainment activities, and other community, social and education facilities through planning obligations in conjunction with other development proposals. This policy is supported by more specific supplementary planning guidance.

Should the application be approved, a range of planning obligations would be sought to mitigate the impact of the development, in line with Policy DMCI 7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (January 2020).

Relevant Officers have reviewed the proposal, as have other statutory consultees. The comments received indicate the need for the following contributions or planning obligations to mitigate the impact of the development.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 215 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2. The provision of a Green School Travel Plan: Prior to first occupation a full travel plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the council. Thereafter, the Travel Plan is required to be reviewed at regular intervals to monitor its impact and, if required, it shall be updated and/or amended in order that its aims and objectives are achieved. Therefore, a travel plan review should be undertaken and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% occupation of pupils and staff. The Travel Plan shall demonstrate a commitment to the ongoing provision and expansion of the existing school bus service to cater for the growing number of pupils and also a commitment to the ongoing review of and provision of additional cycle parking provision should demand dictate. A Travel Plan bond in the sum of £20,000 is also to be secured.

4. Employment Strategy and Construction Training - either a contribution equal to the formula within the Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2014, or an in-kind training scheme equal to the financial contribution delivered during the construction period of the development. Details shall be in accordance with the Council Planning Obligations SPD with the preference being for an in-kind scheme to be delivered.

5. Carbon off-set contribution as required by an approved Energy Assessment

6. Staggered Start and finish times for the Guru Nanak Academy Trust Schools on Springfiled Road;

7. Project Management & Monitoring Contribution equal to 5% of the total cash contributions. Details shall be in accordance with the Council Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document 2014.

A Community Infrastructure Levy contribution would not be required for this development which seeks to provide an educational use. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action None 7.22 Other Issues CONTAMINATED LAND

Policy DMEI 12 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) requires proposals for development on potentially contaminated sites to be accompanied by at least an initial study of the likely contaminants. Conditions will be imposed where planning permission is given for development on land affected by contamination to ensure all the necessary remedial works are implemented, prior to commencement of development.

The application is supported by a ground investigation report which is split into two phases of investigation.

The Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) and Conceptual Site Model (CSM) identified the principal contaminants of concern as: Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); Poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); Volatile organic compounds (VOC)

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 216 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB); Metals; Asbestos containing materials (ACM) and Landfill Gas. Plausible contaminant linkages were also identified.

Following findings from each Phase 2 site investigation the revised conceptual site model and updated risk assessment indicate residual risks, associated with earlier identified contaminants of concern and plausible contaminant linkages, are reduced to low and very low risk in response to the proposed construction of extensive areas of hardstanding and cover system for landscaped areas at the site.

However, there is an exception which relates to the detected concentrations of hazardous ground gases, for which the probability of vertical and lateral migration of gas was assessed to represent a low to moderate risk. A technical appraisal of the ground gas regime has classified the site as Characteristic Situation 2 (CS2) in accordance with BS8485:2015. Therefore ground gas protection measures are required, and the LPA shall require the protection to be correctly specified, installed, verified and validated accordingly.

Section 9 (Conclusions and Recommendations) within the Delta-Simons report provides summary details dealing with impacts of the contamination issues on human health and controlled waters, with particular reference to: heavy metals; PAHs; petroleum hydrocarbons; ACMs and ground gases which have been identified within soils at the site. The section

The Geo-environmental details within the three submitted reports provide suitable and sufficient information in terms of meeting the requirements for Phase 1 and 2 works conducted at site.

However, as outlined in section 9.3 (Recommendations for Supplementary Work), a range of additional issues are identified; the LPA shall require all of those issues to be addressed in accordance with the reports' recommendation.

The Contaminated Land Officer commented on the application noting the applicant's reports were reviewed, however further details are required by condition. As such a condition is attached to the draft decision notice requiring further details to be submitted.

URBAN GREENING

Policy G5 of the Mayors London Plan (intended to publish) seeks to promote the Use of Urban Greening. The use of greening streets, buildings and other public spaces does more than change the look of these places. Roofs and walls covered in plants, street trees and small pocket parks in between buildings make the city a better place to live, work and invest. These green features act as part of London's green infrastructure network to help clean our air, reduce the risk of flooding and keep the city cool.

The policy states that development proposals should integrate green infrastructure from the beginning of the design process to contribute to urban greening, including the public realm. Elements that can contribute to this include tree planting, green roofs and walls, and soft landscaping. Major development proposals within the Central Activities Zone should demonstrate how green infrastructure has been incorporated.

Policy DMHB 11 and DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan : Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) both state the importance of development incorporating green infrastructure into the design.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 217 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS With regard to this policy the proposed development would incorporate the planting of 45 trees, 13 of which would be fruit trees planted within the frontage. This accompanied by the various pockets of soft landscaping helps to break up what is predominantly an area dominated by hard standing. Furthermore tree planting is proposed to the rear of the building in addition to both informal and formal play space comprising of both soft and hard landscaping. Furthermore the school have committed to the delivery of an orchard which will provide a modest ecological area for the children to enjoy.

The application proposes one green roof and whilst it is disappointing that further green roofs or walling have not been brought forward following pre-application discussions a condition for a further review of green infrastructure options has been included. Furthermore a condition for the use of pollution absorbent planting to be considered has also been included. This condition also includes specific wording related to the submission of an urban greening factor assessment.

FIRE SAFETY

In accordance with Policy D12 'Fire safety' of the Mayor's Intend to Publish London Plan, all major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Safety Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party, suitably qualified assessor.

The policy states :

A. In the interests of fire safety and to ensure the safety of all building users, development proposals must achieve the highest standards of fire safety and ensure that they: 1. are designed to incorporate appropriate features which reduce the risk to life in the event of a fire 2. are constructed in an appropriate way to minimise the risk of fire spread 3. provide suitable and convenient means of escape for all building users 4. adopt a robust strategy for evacuation which all building users can have confidence in 5. provide suitable access and equipment for firefighting which is appropriate for the size and use of the development. B. All major development proposals should be submitted with a Fire Statement, which is an independent fire strategy, produced by a third party suitably qualified assessor. The statement should detail how the development proposal will function in terms of: 1. the building's construction: methods, products and materials used 2. the means of escape for all building users: stair cores, escape for building users who are disabled or require level access, and the associated management plan approach 3. access for fire service personnel and equipment: how this will be achieved in an evacuation situation, water supplies, provision and positioning of equipment, firefighting lifts, stairs and lobbies, any fire suppression and smoke ventilation systems proposed, and the ongoing maintenance and monitoring of these 4. how provision will be made within the site to enable fire appliances to gain access to the building.

The application is supported by a Fire Safety Strategy which has been provided by a suitable fire safety assessor. The strategy has been reviewed by the Councils Building Control Team who have stated that the document provided is sufficient to adhere to the policy however a suitably worded condition has been included to ensure the development complies with the details within the Fire Safety Strategy.

8. Observations of the Borough Solicitor

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 218 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS General Members must determine planning applications having due regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material to the application, any local finance considerations so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (including regional and national policy and guidance). Members must also determine applications in accordance with all relevant primary and secondary legislation.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 219 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable

10. CONCLUSION The application proposes the demolition of the existing temporary huts which accommodate the existing primary school pupils. There is significant policy support at all levels within the policy hierarchy which seek to encourage the expansion of educational facilities providing there is a evident need. Whilst the application presents a departure from National Policy in terms of its development within the Green Belt, the benefits and need for the development are considered to outweigh the harm to openness of the Green Belt. The applicant has provided sufficient information to justify the need and this is compounded by the response from the Councils Schools Placement Manager. Furthermore the sequential test is recognised as robust and the GLA have agreed that the proposal does meet more than one of the "very special circumstances" set out in the NPPF.

The applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that there will be no overall loss in the quality of sports provision by providing play spaces AWP MUGA's, and indoor provision by way of the hall which would be available to the public to use outside of school hours. Notwithstanding Sport England's objection, the educational need and the alternative sport provision outweighs the loss of the playing field.

It is not considered that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on the visual amenities of the school site or on the surrounding area. The proposal would not have any significant detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties and it is not considered that the development would lead to such a significant increase in traffic and parking demand that refusal could be justified on highway grounds.

Accordingly, approval is recommended, subject to referral of the scheme to the Secretary of State and the GLA.

11. Reference Documents Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012) Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Site Allocations and Designations (2020) Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Development Management Policies (2020) Hillingdon Local Plan: Policies Map (2020) London Plan (March 2016) London Plan (Intend to publish draft) 2019 National Planning Policy Framework (2019) Policy Statement - Planning for Schools Development (DCLG, 15/08/11) Council's Supplementary Planning Document - Planning Obligations (2014) Contact Officer:Christopher Brady Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 220 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS El Sub Sta

BEACONSFIELD ROAD ´

El Sub Sta

Guru Nanak Sikh Academy

Hayes And Yeading United FC

L Twr

Notes: Site Address: Land adjoining LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Guru Nanak Sikh Academy OF HILLINGDON Residents Services For identification purposes only. Springfield Road Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Hayes Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 4450/APP/2020/515 1:1,350 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 221 June 2020 100019283 Major This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

Report of the Head of Planning, Transportation and Regeneration

Address HILLINGDON COURT PARK PAVILION PARKWAY HILLINGDON

Development: Proposed demolition of the existing pavilion and erection of a detached house and all associated external works. LBH Ref Nos: 72929/APP/2019/3703

Drawing Nos: 04A Proposed Plans 05A Proposed Elevations Design and Access Statement - Former Court Park Pa 02 Existing Site Plan 03A Proposed Site Plan 01 Site Location Plan 06

Date Plans Received: 14/11/2019 Date(s) of Amendment(s): 14/11/2019 Date Application Valid: 21/11/2019 1. SUMMARY The site relates to a Council owned redundant pavilion building that lies on the western side of Parkway in Hillingdon. The eastern part of the site falls within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. The western part of the site falls within the Green Belt.

Permission is sought for the erection of a 2 storey, 3 bedroom detached house and all associated external works, involving the demolition of the existing pavilion building (It should be noted that to address initial concerns with the proposals, the plans were revised from a large 6 bed modern design house to a smaller 3 bed Arts and Crafts style property).

The proposal constitutes redevelopment of previously developed land. The proposed redevelopment of the site into a 2 storey residential unit would significantly reduce the footprint, site coverage, bulk and scale of the existing built form, reducing the built up area of the site. As such the development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development and would therefore not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Comparing the impact on the Green Belt of the existing authorised use with the proposed change of use for residential purposes, the impact in terms of activity is considered to be comparable.

In terms of the loss of a community facility, the applicant has demonstrated that the specific use is no longer required on-site, there is currently no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site and the redevelopment of the site would secure a public benefit. The proposal is therefore considered to be broadly in compliance with policy Policy DMCI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020).

The proposal would provide the new dwelling with acceptable levels of internal floorspace and external amenity space. Sufficient parking would be provided for and the development,

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 223 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS which would not impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

The scale and design of the proposed house would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Character.

The proposed dwelling would not cause harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

The proposed scheme complies with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMHB 18, DMHD1, DMT2 and DMT6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policies 3.5 and 3.8 of the London Plan (July 2016). 2. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL subject to the following:

1 RES3 Time Limit The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 2 RES4 Accordance with Approved Plans The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans,

P01 P03 rev A P04 rev A P05 rev A P06

and shall thereafter be retained/maintained for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development complies with the provisions of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and the London Plan (2016). 3 HO4 Materials The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planing Authority.

REASON To safeguard the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the proposed development does not have an adverse effect upon the appearance of the existing building in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 4 RES8 Tree Protection

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 224 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS No site clearance or construction work shall take place until the details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority with respect to:

1. A method statement outlining the sequence of development on the site including demolition, building works and tree protection measures.

2. Detailed drawings showing the position and type of fencing to protect the entire root areas/crown spread of trees, hedges and other vegetation to be retained shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. No site clearance works or development shall be commenced until these drawings have been approved and the fencing has been erected in accordance with the details approved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing should be a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. The fencing shall be retained in position until development is completed. The area within the approved protective fencing shall remain undisturbed during the course of the works and in particular in these areas: 2.a There shall be no changes in ground levels; 2.b No materials or plant shall be stored; 2.c No buildings or temporary buildings shall be erected or stationed. 2.d No materials or waste shall be burnt; and. 2.e No drain runs or other trenches shall be dug or otherwise created, without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

3. Where the arboricultural method statement recommends that the tree protection measures for a site will be monitored and supervised by an arboricultural consultant at key stages of the development, records of the site inspections/meetings shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To ensure that trees and other vegetation can and will be retained on site and not damaged during construction work and to ensure that the development conforms with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 5 RES9 Landscaping (car parking & refuse/cycle storage) No development shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: -

1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1.a Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, 1.c Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate

2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Cycle Storage 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layouts 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 225 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2.f External Lighting 2.g Other structures (such as play equipment and furniture)

3. Schedule for Implementation

4. Other 4.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground 4.b Proposed finishing levels or contours

Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details.

REASON To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14 and DMT6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 5.17 (refuse storage) of the London Plan (2016). 6 RES10 Tree to be retained Trees, hedges and shrubs shown to be retained on the approved plan(s) shall not be damaged, uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any retained tree, hedge or shrub is removed or severely damaged during (or after) construction, or is found to be seriously diseased or dying, another tree, hedge or shrub shall be planted at the same place or, if planting in the same place would leave the new tree, hedge or shrub susceptible to disease, then the planting should be in a position to be first agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and shall be of a size and species to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be planted in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier. Where damage is less severe, a schedule of remedial works necessary to ameliorate the effect of damage by tree surgery, feeding or groundwork shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. New planting should comply with BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs'

Remedial work should be carried out to BS BS 3998:2010 'Tree work - Recommendations' and BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. The agreed work shall be completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier.

REASON To ensure that the trees and other vegetation continue to make a valuable contribution to the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy DMHB 14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and to comply with Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 7 HO10 Front Garden Landscaping Notwithstanding the details hereby approved a minimum of 25% of the front garden area shall be soft landscaped (eg. grass or planted beds) for so long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 226 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14 and DMT6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 5.17 of the London Plan (2016). 8 RES12 No additional windows or doors Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England)Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows, doors or other openings shall be constructed in the walls or roof slopes of the development hereby approved.

REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 9 RES14 Outbuildings, extensions and roof alterations Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification); no garage(s), shed(s) or other outbuilding(s), nor extension or roof alteration to any dwellinghouse(s) shall be erected without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To protect the character and appearance of the area and amenity of residential occupiers in accordance with Policies DMHB 11, DMHB 18 and DMHD 1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 10 RES17 Sound Insulation The noise level in rooms at the development hereby approved shall meet the internal noise levels specified in BS8233:2014 for internal rooms and external amenity areas.

REASON To ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of the proposed development is not adversely affected by noise in accordance with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and London Plan (2016) Policy 7.15. 11 NONSC Non Standard Condition All soils used for gardens and/or landscaping purposes shall be clean and free of contamination. Site derived soils and imported soils shall be tested for chemical contamination, and the results of this testing shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority.

REASON To ensure that the occupants of the development are not subject to any risks from soil contamination in accordance with Policy DMEI 13 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020). 12 NONSC Non Standard Condition Prior to works commencing, details of step free access via the principal private entrance shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall remain in place for the life of the building.

REASON

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 227 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS To ensure that an appropriate standard of housing stock, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.8(c), is achieved and maintained. The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the standards for a Category 2 M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015, and all such provisions shall remain in place for the life of the building. REASON: To ensure that an appropriate standard of housing stock, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.8(c), is achieved and maintained. 13 RES15 Sustainable Water Management (changed from SUDS) No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of sustainable water management has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall clearly demonstrate that sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) have been incorporated into the designs of the development in accordance with the hierarchy set out in accordance with Policy 5.15 of the London Plan and will: i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The scheme shall also demonstrate the use of methods to minimise the use of potable water through water collection, reuse and recycling and will: iv. provide details of water collection facilities to capture excess rainwater; v. provide details of how rain and grey water will be recycled and reused in the development. Thereafter the development shall be implemented and retained/maintained in accordance with these details for as long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To ensure the development does not increase the risk of flooding in accordance with Policy DMEI 10 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and London Plan (2016) Policy 5.12. 14 COM30 Contaminated Land (i) The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a scheme to deal with contamination has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). The scheme shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing: (a) A desk-top study carried out by a competent person to characterise the site and provide information on the history of the site/surrounding area and to identify and evaluate all potential sources of contamination and impacts on land and water and all other identified receptors relevant to the site; (b) A site investigation, including where relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, together with the results of analysis and risk assessment shall be carried out by a suitably qualified and accredited consultant/contractor. The report should also clearly identify all risks, limitations and recommendations for remedial measures to make the site suitable for the proposed use. (c) A written method statement providing details of the remediation scheme and how the completion of the remedial works will be verified shall be agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 228 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS (ii) If during development or works contamination not addressed in the submitted remediation scheme is identified, an addendum to the remediation scheme must be agreed with the LPA prior to implementation; and

(iii) All works which form part of the remediation scheme shall be completed and a verification report submitted to the Council's Environmental Protection Unit before any part of the development is occupied or brought into use unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing.

REASON To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policies DMEI 11 and DMEI 12 Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) 15 RES13 Obscure Glazing The windows witin all flank/side elevations shall be glazed with permanently obscured glass to at least scale 4 on the Pilkington scale and be non-opening below a height of 1.8 metres taken from internal finished floor level for so long as the development remains in existence.

REASON To prevent overlooking to adjoining properties in accordance with policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1-2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020). INFORMATIVES

3 I70 LBH worked applicant in a positive & proactive (Granting)

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 229 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS In dealing with the application the Council has implemented the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive way. We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies from Local Plan Part 1, Local Plan Part 2, Supplementary Planning Documents, Planning Briefs and other informal written guidance, as well as offering a full pre-application advice service, in order to ensure that the applicant has been given every opportunity to submit an application which is likely to be considered favourably. 4 I15 Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work Nuisance from demolition and construction works is subject to control under The Control of Pollution Act 1974, the Clean Air Acts and other related legislation. In particular, you should ensure that the following are complied with:-

B. All noise generated during such works shall be controlled in compliance with British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:2009.

C. Dust emissions shall be controlled in compliance with the Mayor of London's Best Practice Guidance' The Control of dust and emissions from construction and demolition.

D. No bonfires that create dark smoke or nuisance to local residents.

3. CONSIDERATIONS

3.1 Site and Locality The site relates to a Council owned pavilion building that lies on the western side of Parkway in Hillingdon. The pavilion is a detached, predominantly single-storey building, with a two-storey equivalent tower. The building is in a poor state of repair and has been subject to vandalism and graffiti. It would appear that the building has not been in regular use for some time. On the eastern and southern boundaries of the site is an established hedgerow with numerous trees.

The site lies in a predominantly residential area. However, to the east of the site is St Helen's College and to the north of the site is a Medical Centre. To the west of the site is Hillingdon Court Park which is an open green space whilst to the south is a public car park. The eastern part of the site falls within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. The western part of the site falls within the Green Belt.

Adjoining land to the west is designated as a Nature Conservation Site of Borough Grade II or Local Importance and also falls within the Green Belt.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 230 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level rating (PTAL) of 1A (Poor).

3.2 Proposed Scheme Permission is sought for the erection of a 2 storey, 3 bedroom detached house and all associated external works, involving the demolition of the existing pavilion building. 3.3 Relevant Planning History Comment on Relevant Planning History Not applicable

4. Planning Policies and Standards Development Plan 1.1 Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.2 The Development Plan for the London Borough of Hillingdon currently consists of the following documents: The Local Plan: Part 1 - Strategic Policies (2012) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) The Local Plan: Part 2 - Site Allocations and Designations (2020) The West London Waste Plan (2015) The London Plan - Consolidated With Alterations (2016)

Material Considerations 1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) is also a material consideration in planning decisions, as well as relevant supplementary planning documents and guidance. Emerging Planning Policies 1.4 Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 states that 'Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:

(a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); (b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and (c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

Draft London Plan (Intend to Publish Version, December 2019) 1.5 The GLA consulted upon a draft new London Plan between December 2017 and March 2018 with the intention of replacing the previous versions of the existing London Plan. The Plan was subject to examination hearings from February to May 2019, and a Consolidated Draft Plan with amendments was published in July 2019. The Panel of Inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State issued their report and recommendations to the Mayor on 8th October. 1.6 The Mayor has considered the Inspectors' recommendations and, on the 9th December 2019, issued to the Secretary of State his intention to publish the London Plan along with a statement of reasons for any of the Inspectors' recommendations that the Mayor does not wish to accept. 1.7 Limited weight should be attached to draft London Plan policies that have not been

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 231 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS accepted by the Mayor or that have only been accepted in part/with significant amendments. Greater weight may be attached to policies that were subject to the Inspector's recommendations and have since been accepted by the Mayor through the Intend to Publish version of the Plan. Greater weight may also be attached to policies, which have been found acceptable by the Panel (either expressly or by no comment being made). UDP / LDF Designation and London Plan The following Local Plan Policies are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

PT1.BE1 (2012) Built Environment

Part 2 Policies: DMHB 11 Design of New Development DMHB 14 Trees and Landscaping DMHB 18 Private Outdoor Amenity Space DMHD 1 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Dwellings DMT 2 Highways Impacts DMT 6 Vehicle Parking LPP 3.5 (2016) Quality and design of housing developments LPP 3.8 (2016) Housing Choice 5. Advertisement and Site Notice

5.1 Advertisement Expiry Date:- 27thNot applicable December 2019

5.2 Site Notice Expiry Date:- Not applicable

6. Consultations External Consultees Consultation letters were sent to neighboring local owners/occupiers and a site notice was displayed. 4 responses have been received stating:

First, the main complaint is that there should not be a house on the site rather it should be part of the Public Park with trees planted for the betterment of the local community. Second, the plans state that the area had been designated as suitable for residential development. However, none of the local residents were aware of this, having never been notified. Third, there is concern about future use. The plan is for a single family residential dwelling however in the future, could this change to multi-occupancy residential use or a school extension?

I write to oppose the proposed development of the current green belt site into a detached residential house. The development would not be in line with the local area which is of special local character. It would also set a bad precedent to be taking areas that are part of local parkland (green belt site) and using it for residential development. The frontage and side along the car park currently consist of hedges and trees which are home to much wildlife and birds. I have volounteered to cut the grass at the front of the pavilion when it was a playschool and found it to be full of common frogs. The trees at the front have a beautiful pink bloom in spring which makes for a pleasant view for those visiting the amenities in the park. The site was previously used as a playschool and changing area for local

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 232 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS sports facilities. I don't feel there was a lack of demand as mentioned in the statement, just that it was not maintained well. I am sure that if it was maintained well there would be a demand for those using the park and its amenities. The anti-social activities only started when the maintenance stopped. This has ceased since the pavilion has been boarded up. Parkway is a small cul-de-sac with a narrow road and already has a large doctors surgery (10-11 rooms) and a primary school. This, along with all the locals who visit the park and its amenities leads to a huge problem with traffic. This will not be eased with another residential development for 12 people. The statement also mentions that it is a redundant plot of land whereas it is actually local council green belt land and part of parkland of outstanding natural beauty with green flag awards. Building residential properties on that green belt land would detract from that beauty.

As this area is an area of Special Local Character. The design does not appear to fit with the existing properties and will be an imposing and unwanted addition to the park.

I oppose the proposed development of the current green belt site into a detached residential house for the following reasons: 1. The development would not be in line with the local area which is an area of special local character. 2. It would set a bad precedent to take areas that are part of local parkland (green belt site) and use it for residential development. 3. The frontage and side along the car park currently consist of hedges and trees which are home to much wildlife and birds. 4. The grass at the front of the pavilion is full of common frogs. 5. The trees at the front have a beautiful pink bloom in spring which enhances the attraction of the park and encourages the public to use its amenities. 6. The site was previously used as a play school and changing area for local sports teams. The current lack of demand for these facilities is only due to the neglect and lack of maintenance. If renovated Borough's sportspersons would welcome the future use of these changing facilities. 7. I have lived at 11 Parkway since 2004 and have personally never noticed any anti-social activities at or around this site. 8. Parkway is a small cul-de-sac with a narrow road with a large health centre (10-11 rooms) and a very busy school. This with all the visitors to the park and its amenities leads to a huge problem with traffic which will be exasperated by a residential development for 12 people. 9. It is stated that this is a redundant plot of land, in fact it is actually local council green belt land and part of parkland of outstanding natural beauty with green flag awards. Building residential properties on that green belt land would detract from that beauty and have a negative impact on the whole environment of the park.

Officer comment: It should be noted that officers originally consulted on a large 6 bed house which would have had far greater impact on its surroundings and the green belt. Revised plans were received and the scheme was reduced from a large 6 bed modern design house to a smaller 3 bed Arts and Crafts style property. Internal Consultees POLICY TEAM (ORIGINAL COMMENTS)

Principle of Development At present the proposed development site is occupied by a vacant sports pavilion owned by the London Borough of Hillingdon. The western part of the application site is located within the Green Belt. The pavilion has not been in active use for some time but would have provided sports facilities for the local community.

Loss of Community Facilities Policy DMCI 1 seeks the retention of existing community facilities except where relevant policy

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 233 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS criteria can be met. This includes providing evidence that the specific use is no longer required on site through demonstrating that its loss would not lead to a shortfall in provision in the local catchment area, and that there is no demand for other social infrastructure on the site/ or it is no longer appropriate for such infrastructure. The applicant must also demonstrate that the activities carried out are inconsistent with the living conditions of nearby residents and that the redevelopment of the site would provide an overriding public benefit.

To date the applicant has not provided any evidence to justify the loss of the existing community use except noting that it has been closed due to a 'lack of demand' and that it is the focus of anti-social behaviours. Additional evidence particularly of alternative sports facilities in the local catchment area should be provided to demonstrate that the loss of this sports pavilion is justified otherwise at present the proposal is contrary to policy DMCI 1.

Green Belt The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) attaches great importance to the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The NPPF states that once Green Belt boundaries have been defined and local planning authorities are required to positively enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 145 of the NPPF (2019) notes a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it meets one of the exceptions. Part g) of paragraph 145 allows from the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use provided it would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development Policy EM2 of the Local Plan: Part One (November 2012) notes that any proposals for development in the Green Belt will be assessed against national and London Plan policies, including the very special circumstances test.

Policy DMEI 4 of the Local Plan: Part Two (2020) notes inappropriate development in the Green Belt will not be permitted unless there are very exceptional circumstances. Extensions and redevelopment of sites will also only be permitted where this would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt as well as the purposes of including land within it having regard to height and bulk, the proportion of the site that is already developed, the foot, distribution and character of the existing buildings on sites, the relationship of the proposal with any development on the site that is to be retained and the visual amenity and character of the Green Belt.

It is noted that the proposed dwelling would have a smaller built footprint than the existing pavilion and, whilst the new building would be two storeys in height, the pavilion does have taller elements at present which would read as an upper storey. Much of the dwelling's footprint would also be within the portion of the site not designated as Green Belt and the overall built form within the Green Belt would be reduced. In terms of visual amenity, a number of existing trees would be retained which provide visual screen of the site and the overall bulk of built form would be reduced. On this basis it is considered that the proposed development does fall with exception g) of para 145 and would not require the demonstration of very special circumstances.

POLICY TEAM FURTHER COMMENTS:

LOSS OF COMMUNITY FACILITY

Policy DMCI 1: Retention of Existing Community Facilities states that proposals involving the loss of an existing community facility will be permitted if:

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 234 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS i) the specific use is no longer required on-site. In such circumstances, the applicant must provide Evidence demonstrating that:

a) the proposal would not lead to a shortfall in provision for the specific use within the local catchment area;

b) there is either no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site, or that the site/premises is no longer appropriate for social infrastructure uses; and

c) any replacement/relocated facilities for the specific use provides a level of accessibility and standard of provision at least equal to that of the existing facility.

ii) the activities carried out are inconsistent and cannot be made consistent with acceptable living conditions for nearby residents;

and

iii) the redevelopment of the site would secure an over-riding public benefit.

The applicant explains that historically the pavilion has been vacant for several years and has fallen into a state of dereliction and disrepair. Over time, the site and the building attracted anti--social behaviour and has become a major eyesore, leading to complaints from residents. The lease holders were unable to sustain the upkeep of the pavilion because of declining membership and use. In 2018, the Leaseholders surrendered the lease back to the Council. The condition of the building is very poor and not fit for purpose as sports facility.

A number of alternative uses of the site were considered for the site and it was finally decided to use the plot for residential use, but to restrict it to a single dwelling, in keeping with the existing detached houses along The Parkway. The loss of a community facility is recognised but it is also acknowledged that the residential use would have positive benefits in bringing back the redundant plot back into meaningful use.

With regard to the loss of a community facility, the applicant submits that the Council takes a holistic approach to the provision of community facilities in the Borough. The Council has a huge investment strategy in place for improving, replacing and providing a range of community facilities right across the borough. The Council has an ongoing strategic role in reviewing all its assets on a regular basis, to ensure that they are effectively and efficiently used and are fit for purpose. Through this review process, a number of facilities, ranging from small allotment shed's to major sports centres are delivered for the residents and local communities. The Council's vision is to balance the needs of the residents and where specific facilities are identified to sustain the local community the Council endeavours to deliver the best it can.

Within the catchment area of the subject site, the Council has invested substantial funds on the following community facilities:

1 Hillingdon Court Park Bowls Club - Complete replacement of the existing life expired club building. This facility is within Hillingdon Court Park. 2 Improvements to the public libraries, such as Oak Farm Library and Ickenham Libraries, 3 Plans to replace/improve Scout huts facilities located at Sweetcroft Lane and Ickenham. 4 Substantial improvements and provision of a new visitor's centre at Battle of Britain Bunker site. 5 Disabled access improvements works at the Uxbridge Cricket Club Pavilion.

The above list is not exhaustive and represents some of the projects that have been delivered during

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 235 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS the recent past, amounting to an excess of a £2.0 million investment in community projects. There are many other community projects covering the wider Borough, currently under consideration, based on the ongoing community investment programme.

Hillingdon Court Park is a public park covering almost 22 hectares, which includes the new Bowls Club Building and retained tennis courts. The applicant submits that through the Council's review process, if in the future a need for new recreational facilities is identified, then such a proposal would be favourably considered to support and deliver sustainable facilities to serve the local community.

In light of the above mentioned submissions, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that the specific use is no longer required on-site and that there is currently no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site.

Whereas a single dwelling house in itself would not provide an 'overriding public benefit', given this is a small site which is not within or close to a town centre it is difficult to envisage what alternative use would provide an 'overriding public benefit' if there is no identified possible viable alternative community use. There is public benefit from providing a family dwelling house on the site with any income generated from the proposing contributing to the work of the local authority.

Overall the proposal is considered to be broadly in compliance with policy DMCI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020).

FLOOD AND WATER MANAGEMENT

The site is not at risk of flooding but lies within a Critical Drainage Area that has an extensive flood history both in the vicinity of Hillingdon Court Park as well as further downstream in Regent Avenue and Windsor Avenue. The Council is leading on a flood alleviation scheme that looks to manage water in a more sustainable way in Hillingdon Court Park, the surrounding suburban area and in Elephant Park. Through this ere are opportunities to reduce the contribution of this development to the local risk of surface water flooding by reducing the area of impermeable surface connected to the local highway and drainage network. While the design and access statement confirms that the front driveway will be formed of permeable paving, the details of the design, as well as proposals for the drainage of the roof areas, are not included within the information submitted. As such, a surface water management condition is required to ensure that the development meets local planning policies in restricting runoff to pre-development greenfield runoff rates (Part B of Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMEI 10).

(OFFICE COMMENT: The condition requested will be added)

HIGHWAY ENGINEER

Site Characteristics This site address is located off a private un-adopted section of a cul-de-sac - the 'Parkway' and consists of a redundant Council owned pavilion. It is now proposed to build a single 6 bedroom detached residential unit with curtilage parking provisions with 2 spaces contained within a double garage with additional parking provision (up to 3-4 spaces) on the frontage utilising an existing shared Council owned access which presently serves the redundant site. The PTAL rating is considered as low given the relative isolation of the site from public transport services which gives rise to a higher dependency on the ownership and use of private motor transport.

Car Parking Provision Development Management Policy DMT 6 state that new development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council's adopted parking standards. It is proposed to provide 1 new

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 236 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS residential unit consisting of a detached 6 bedroom house with 2 spaces within a double garage and up to 4 parking spaces on the frontage. This level of provision exceeds the maximum standard (which requires up to 2 spaces) but is considered acceptable as it assists in reducing potential untoward parking displacement onto the neighbouring private and public highway network which does not exhibit parking controls.

Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP's) It is encouraged that at least one 'passive' electric vehicle charging point is provided in order to future proof for future 'active' demand.

Cycle parking The cycle parking provision should be at level of 2 secure and accessible spaces in order to accord with the Council's minimum cycle parking standard. This is to be provided to the rear of the build hence there are no further observations.

Vehicular Trip Generation Policy AM7 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Saved UDP Policy and emerging Local Plan Part 2 Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 require the Council to consider whether the traffic generated by proposed developments is acceptable in terms of the local highway and junction capacity, traffic flows and conditions of general highway or pedestrian safety. In comparison to the previous redundant pavilion use when fully active, the anticipated trip generation related to the new dwelling unit does not raise any immediate highway concerns. This is due to the fact that traffic movement into and out of the site is not expected to exceed 1-2 vehicle movements during the peak morning and evening hours. Hence such uplift is considered marginal in generation terms and therefore can be absorbed within the local road network without notable detriment to traffic congestion and road safety.

Vehicular Access The shared access arrangement will remain to serve the on-plot parking area and is considered fit for purpose.

Refuse Collection Refuse would be collected from the roadway as is the case at present for the other residential dwellings in the 'Parkway'. Waste collection distances between the proposed waste collection point and a refuse vehicle should not exceed the recommended distance of 10m in order to conform to the Council's waste collection standard. There is also a requirement for carrying distances from each residential unit to not exceed a distance of 30m. It is acknowledged that these parameters are achievable within the presented design which enables a refuse vehicle to collect from a suitably located 'waste sack' collection point on the property frontage.

Conclusion The application has been reviewed by the Highway Authority who are satisfied that the proposal would not discernibly exacerbate congestion or parking stress, and would not raise any highway safety concerns, in accordance with Local Plan Part 2 Development Plan Policies DMT 1, DMT 2 & DMT 6 and Policies 6.3, 6.9, and 6.13 of the London Plan (2016).

ACCESS OFFICER:

Any grant of planning permission should include the following conditions: Prior to works commencing, details of step free access via the principal private entrance shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall remain in place for the life of the building. REASON To ensure that an appropriate standard of housing stock, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.8(c), is achieved and maintained. The dwellings hereby approved shall be constructed to meet the standards for a Category 2 M4(2) dwelling, as set out in Approved

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 237 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Document M to the Building Regulations (2010) 2015, and all such provisions shall remain in place for the life of the building. REASON: To ensure that an appropriate standard of housing stock, in accordance with London Plan policy 3.8(c), is achieved and maintained.

(OFFICER COMMENT: the requested condition will be added)

TREES OFFICER

This site is occupied by a redundant pavilion, located at the southern end of Parkway, on the west side and adjacent to Court Park. As indicated on the site plan, the site has trees / hedging along the Parkway frontage and there are some off-site trees to the west in Court Park. There are no TPO's affecting the site (because it is Council-owned) or Conservation Area designations. The site lies within the Green Belt and part of the site lies within a local Area of Special Local Character. COMMENT There will be no direct impact on trees due to the proposed siting of the building, however, the space required to demolish the existing building and construct the new one will require a larger footprint that the existing, or proposed buildings. The extended footprint will be likely to affect the existing trees on the east boundary and will encroach upon the root protection area (RPA) of a large, mature oak within Court Park. Although there is no objection to the proposal, tree protection measures (method statement) and some pre-emptive tree pruning will be required in order to safeguard existing trees. RECOMMENDATION No objection, subject to pre-commencement condition RES8 and post-commencement conditions RES9 (parts 1,2,4,5 and 6) and RES10.

(OFFICER COMMENT: The requested conditions have been added)

Urban Design Officer: No objection.

Officer comment: The Urban design officer inputted into the changes to the scheme which resulted in the size, scale and design of the dwelling being reduced from a large 6 bed modern design house to a smaller 3 bed Arts and Crafts style property. 7. MAIN PLANNING ISSUES 7.01 The principle of the development The western part of the site is designated as Green Belt. The eastern part of the site falls within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. The main policy issue in relation to this development is considered to be the principle of additional development within the Green Belt and its impact on the openness, character and appearance of the Green Belt.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is relevant. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. Nevertheless, the document states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 143 of the revised NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances'.

According to paragraph 144 of the revised NPPF, when determining applications, LPAs should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt; 'very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to Green Belt by reason of

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 238 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

However, Paragraph 145 states that limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 146 sets out types of development that are not inappropriate within the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These include the material changes in use of land;

Policies in the Hillingdon Local Plan reflect national and London Plan guidance.

The London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 1 Policy EM2: (Green Belt, Metropolitan Open land and Green Chains) states that the Council will seek to maintain the current functions of the Green Belt and that any development proposed within the Green Belt will be considered against national and London Plan policies.

The London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 Policy DMEI 4 (Development in the Green Belt or on Metropolitan Open land) reiterates that inappropriate development will not be permitted unless there are very exceptional circumstances, while noting that redevelopment on sites will be permitted only where they would not harm openness or conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

With regard to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, whilst the proposal is not inappropriate development, it does not conflict with the five purposes set out in the NPPF. Thus, the proposal would not result in unrestricted urban sprawl (a), nor the merging of neighbouring settlements (b), nor result in encroachment into the countryside since the application is previously developed (c), nor affect the setting and special character of historic towns (d), nor would it prejudice urban regeneration elsewhere in the borough (e).

In addition, it is not considered that the proposal would materially affect the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposed redevelopment of the site into a 2 storey residential unit would significantly reduce the footprint, site coverage, bulk and scale of the existing built form, reducing the built up area of the site.

In addition, in terms of usage, the existing building was last used as a pavillion. Comparing the impact on the Green Belt of the existing authorised use with the proposed change of use for residential purposes, the impact in terms of activity is considered to be comparable. Therefore, as the proposed use does not have a materially greater impact in terms of its use than the former use on the openness of the Green Belt, the proposal is

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 239 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS considered to be in accordance with the aims of national, regional and local policies and a case of very special circumstances sufficient to justify an exception to Green Belt policy would not be required.

LOSS OF COMMUNITY FACILITY

Policy DMCI 1: Retention of Existing Community Facilities states that proposals involving the loss of an existing community facility will be permitted if:

i) the specific use is no longer required on-site. In such circumstances, the applicant must provide evidence demonstrating that: a) the proposal would not lead to a shortfall in provision for the specific use within the local catchment area; b) there is either no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site, or that the site/premises is no longer appropriate for social infrastructure uses; and c) any replacement/relocated facilities for the specific use provides a level of accessibility and standard of provision at least equal to that of the existing facility. ii) the activities carried out are inconsistent and cannot be made consistent with acceptable living conditions for nearby residents; and iii) the redevelopment of the site would secure an over-riding public benefit.

Within the catchment area of the subject site, the Council has invested substantial funds on the following community facilities:

1 Hillingdon Court Park Bowls Club - Complete replacement of the existing life expired club building. This facility is within Hillingdon Court Park.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 240 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 2 Improvements to the public libraries, such as Oak Farm Library and Ickenham Libraries, 3 Plans to replace/improve Scout huts facilities located at Sweetcroft Lane and Ickenham. 4 Substantial improvements and provision of a new visitor's centre at Battle of Britain Bunker site. 5 Disabled access improvements works at the Uxbridge Cricket Club Pavilion.

The above list is not exhaustive and represents some of the projects that have been delivered during the recent past, amounting to an excess of a £2.0 million investment in community projects. There are many other community projects covering the wider Borough, currently under consideration, based on the ongoing community investment programme.

Overall the proposal is considered to be broadly in compliance with policy DMCI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.02 Density of the proposed development Policy 3.4 of the London Plan (2016) seeks to ensure that the new development takes into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relative density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.

Policy DMHB 17 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2: Development Management Policies (Jan 2020) states that all new residential development should take account of the Residential Density Matrix contained in Table 5.2. Developments will be expected to meet habitable rooms standards.

The density matrix, however, is only of limited value when looking at small scale development such as that proposed with this application. The density ranges set out in the London Plan are not used in the assessment of schemes of less than 10 units. In such cases, it is often more appropriate to consider how the development harmonises with its surroundings and its impact on adjoining occupiers. 7.03 Impact on archaeology/CAs/LBs or Areas of Special Character Policy HE1 of the Local Plan Part 1 aims to conserve and enhance Hillingdon's distinct and varied environment, its settings and the wider historic landscape.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 241 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) states that all new developments should achieve a high quality of design in all new buildings and the public realm contributes to community cohesion and a sense of place.

Policy DMHB 11 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that all development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and incorporate principles of good design. It should take into account aspects including the scale of the development considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; building plot sizes and established street patterns; building lines and streetscape rhythm and landscaping. It should also not adversary impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space.

The site lies partly within the Hillingdon Court Park ASLC, and adjacent to the park. This is an important historic landscape and originally formed part of the grounds to Hillingdon Court, a grade II* Listed Building, now a school. The existing pavilion building appears not to have any historic importance and there are, therefore, no objections in principle to its replacement on heritage grounds. The original submission invovled a large 6 bed house which would have had an adverse impact on the Hillingdon Court Park ASLC. The scheme was reduced from a large 6 bed modern design house to a smaller 3 bed Arts and Crafts style property, which is considered to be in keeping with the wider streetscene. The proposed dwelling takes its architectural cues from the positive architectural and design featires of the wider Hillingdon Court Park ASLC, which involves a number of Arts and Crafts design properties. Overall the proposed development is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of both the local streetscape as well as the Area of Special Character. Conditions will be imposed seeking details of the final materials in order to ensure they maintain the character of the wider ASLC. 7.04 Airport safeguarding There are no airport safeguarding considerations relevant to this application.: 7.05 Impact on the green belt See section 7.01 of this report. 7.07 Impact on the character & appearance of the area Policy BE1 of the Local Plan: Part 1 Strategic Policies (2012) requires all new development to improve and maintain the quality of the built environment in order to create successful and sustainable neighbourhoods, where people enjoy living and working and that serve the long-term needs of all residents.

Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016) and chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) stipulate that development should have regard to the form, function, and structure of an area, place or street and the scale, mass and orientation of surrounding buildings. It should improve an area's visual or physical connection with natural features. In areas of poor or ill-defined character, development should build on the positive elements that can contribute to establishing an enhanced character for the future. In addition, Architecture should make a positive contribution to a coherent public realm, streetscape and wider cityscape. It should incorporate the highest quality materials and design appropriate to its context.

Policy DMHB 11 (Design of new development) of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020) says (amongst other things) that development will be required to be designed to the highest standards and, incorporate principles of good design

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 242 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS including: i) harmonising with the local context by taking into account the surrounding: · scale of development, considering the height, mass and bulk of adjacent structures; · building plot sizes and widths, plot coverage and established street patterns; · building lines and setbacks, rooflines, streetscape rhythm, for example, gaps between structures and other streetscape elements, such as degree of enclosure; · architectural composition and quality of detailing; · local topography, views both from and to the site; and · impact on neighbouring open spaces and their environment.

In accordance with the detailed criteria of policy DMHB 11, the position of the building in relation to the road and existing houses are well set back, and mostly angled to the street, giving the road an open and spacious feel. The scale of the development (as revised) and gaps between buildings reflect that the existing street, as does the proposed architectural composition, albeit the final materiality will be subject to approval by condition. The original submission involved a large 6 bed house which would have had an adverse impact on the Hillingdon Court Park ASLC. The scheme was reduced from a large 6 bed modern design house to a smaller 3 bed Arts and Crafts style property, which is considered to be in keeping with the wider streetscene. The proposed dwelling takes its architectural cues from the positive architectural and design features of the wider Hillingdon Court Park ASLC. Overall the proposed building is considered with respect to its size, scale, design and lcoation to reflect the character of the existing streetscene and is therefore considered to be acceptable and to be in compliance with policy DMHB 11 (Design of new development) of the Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.08 Impact on neighbours Policy DMHB 11 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advises that proposals should not have an adversary impact on the amenity, daylight and sunlight of adjacent properties and open space. Policy DMHD 1 also requires that there is no unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal site falls within a residential area, however it will be separated from the nearest residential properties by the existing boundary hedge and Parkway. Whilst Park Lodge and no. 7 The Parkway are the closest residential properties to the site, both properties will overlook the proposed properties side/flank elevations, into which there are only limited upper floor windows. A condition will also be imposed to ensure that these windows are obscure glazed. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on residential amenity, in accordance with Policies DMHB 11 and DMHD 1 Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.09 Living conditions for future occupiers On 25 March 2015, the Government introduced new technical housing standards in England, which comprise of new additional 'optional' Building Regulations on water and access, and a nationally described space standard (referred to as "the new national technical standards"). These new standards came into effect on 1 October 2015. The Mayor of London has adopted the new national technical standards through a minor alteration to The London Plan.

Policy DMHB 16 advises all housing developments should have an adequate provision of internal space in order to provide an appropriate living environment. The proposed four bedroom unit meets the minimum floorspace requirements.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 243 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policy DMHB 18 advises that all new residential development and conversions will be required to provide good quality and usable private outdoor amenity space and for a 3 bed property of 60 sqm per unit should be provided. The propsed development would deliver circa 500 sqm of private amenity space which accords with policy DMHB18 of the Local Plan Part 2 (2020). 7.10 Traffic impact, Car/cycle parking, pedestrian safety Policy DMT 2 of the Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) advised that development proposals must ensure that safe and efficient vehicle access to the highway network is provided to the Council's standards; they do not contribute to the deterioration of local amenity or safety of all road users and safe secure and convenient access and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are satisfactorily accommodated in the design.

Policy DMT 6 advises development proposals must comply with the parking standards outlined in Appendix C Table 1 in order to facilitate sustainable development and address issues relating to congestion and amenity. The Highways Officer has advised:

Development Management Policy DMT 6 state that new development will only be permitted where it is in accordance with the Council's adopted parking standards. It is proposed to provide 1 new residential unit consisting of a detached 6 bedroom house with 2 spaces within a double garage and up to 4 parking spaces on the frontage. This level of provision exceeds the maximum standard (which requires up to 2 spaces) but is considered acceptable as it assists in reducing potential untoward parking displacement onto the neighbouring private and public highway network which does not exhibit parking controls.

Vehicular Access The shared access arrangement will remain to serve the on-plot parking area and is considered fit for purpose.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 244 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS of 10m in order to conform to the Council's waste collection standard. There is also a requirement for carrying distances from each residential unit to not exceed a distance of 30m. It is acknowledged that these parameters are achievable within the presented design which enables a refuse vehicle to collect from a suitably located 'waste sack' collection point on the property frontage.

It is therefore considered that the proposal would comply with the requirements of Policies DMT 2 and DMT 6 of Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020). 7.11 Urban design, access and security Addressed in other sections of this report. 7.12 Disabled access Policy 3.8(c) of the 2016 London Plan requires all new housing to be designed and constructed as accessible and adaptable in accordance with M4(2) as set out in Approved Document M to the Building Regulations (2015 edition). The Access Officer has not raised any concerns subject to the imposition of a condition, the requested condition would be included in any future decision notice.

The proposal therefore complies with Policy 3.8(c) of the 2016 London Plan. 7.13 Provision of affordable & special needs housing Not relevant to this proposal. 7.14 Trees, landscaping and Ecology Policy DMHB 14 seeks the retention and utilisation of topographical and landscape features of merit and the provision of new planting and landscaping where appropriate.

There will be no direct impact on trees due to the proposed siting of the building, however, the space required to demolish the existing building and construct the new one will require a larger footprint that the existing, or proposed buildings. The extended footprint will be likely to affect the existing trees on the east boundary and will encroach upon the root protection area (RPA) of a large, mature oak within Court Park. Although there is no objection to the proposal, tree protection measures (method statement) and some pre-emptive tree pruning will be required in order to safeguard existing trees.

The Landscape Officer has not raised any concerns subject to conditions for tree protection measures and landscaping subject to the imposition of root protection conditions and future landscaping works which have been added. 7.15 Sustainable waste management

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 245 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management policies(January 2020) requires new developments to be provided with satisfactory arrangements for the storage and collection of waste and recycling. Refuse storage needs to be well-designed; external bins should be located and screened to avoid adverse visual impacts and nuisance to both occupiers and neighbours. The proposed property will be able to provide secure refuse storage on site and the Highways team have confirmed that the collection of refuse if within the required parameters and the arrangement is therefore unacceptable.

The proposal therefore complies with Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (January 2020) in regards to waste management. 7.16 Renewable energy / Sustainability Not relevant to this proposal. 7.17 Flooding or Drainage Issues The site is not at risk of flooding but lies within a Critical Drainage Area that has an extensive flood history both in the vicinity of Hillingdon Court Park as well as further downstream in Regent Avenue and Windsor Avenue. The Council is leading on a flood alleviation scheme that looks to manage water in a more sustainable way in Hillingdon Court Park, the surrounding suburban area and in Elephant Park. Through this there are opportunities to reduce the contribution of this development to the local risk of surface water flooding by reducing the area of impermeable surface connected to the local highway and drainage network. While the design and access statement confirms that the front driveway will be formed of permeable paving, the details of the design, as well as proposals for the drainage of the roof areas, are not included within the information submitted. As such, a surface water management condition has been requested by the Councils specialist officer to ensure that the development meets local planning policies in restricting runoff to pre-development greenfield runoff rates (Part B of Local Plan Part 2 Policy DMEI 10).

The requested condition has been added. 7.18 Noise or Air Quality Issues Not relevant to this development. 7.19 Comments on Public Consultations All representations have been addressed within the main body of the report. 7.20 Planning obligations The Council adopted its own Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on August 1st 2014 and the Hillingdon CIL charge for residential developments will be applicable, as well as the Mayoral CIL charge. 7.21 Expediency of enforcement action Not relevant to this proposal 7.22 Other Issues Contaminated Land The standard condition on site investigations will be imposed.

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 246 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations (including regional and national policy and guidance). Members must also determine applications in accordance with all relevant primary and secondary legislation.

9. Observations of the Director of Finance Not applicable

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 247 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS 10. CONCLUSION The site relates to a Council owned redundant pavilion building that lies on the western side of Parkway in Hillingdon. The eastern part of the site falls within the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Local Character as designated in the Hillingdon Local Plan. The western part of the site falls within the Green Belt.

Permission is sought for the erection of a 2 storey, 3 bedroom detached house and all associated external works, involving the demolition of the existing pavilion building.

Comparing the impact on the Green Belt of the existing authorised use with the proposed change of use for residential purposes, the impact in terms of activity is considered to be comparable.

In terms of the loss of a community facility, the applicant has demonstrated that the specific use is no longer required on-site, there is currently no demand for another suitable social infrastructure use on-site and the redevelopment of the site would secure an overriding public benefit, in compliance with policy Policy DMCI 1 of the Local Plan Part 2 - Development Management Policies (2020).

The proposal would provide the new dwelling with acceptable levels of internal floorspace and external amenity space. Sufficient parking would be provided for and the development, which would not impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

The scale and design of the proposed house would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the immediate street scene and the Hillingdon Court Park Area of Special Character.

The proposed dwelling would not cause harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

11. Reference Documents Hillingdon Local Plan Part 1 - Strategic Policies (November 2012). Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2. The London Plan (2016). Supplementary Planning Document 'Accessible Hillingdon'. National Planning Policy Framework. Contact Officer:Karl Dafe Telephone No: 01895 250230

Major Applications Planning Committee - 16thPage June 248 2020 PART 1 - MEMBERS, PUBLIC & PRESS n

D 1 GREAT PARK CLOSE Tupelo Lodge

P ackanack

Oak ´House

Croyde House

Ellerslie

Araxy

Land

2 3 Milk Wood

Sanatan

Y A W K R A

P Surgery 1

Park Lodge

PCs St Helens n College io il (Sch) v a

7 9

1 3 a

1 5

Bowling Green

3 7

9 9

1 1 Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Hillingdon Court Park OF HILLINGDON Residents Services For identification purposes only. Pavillion Parkway Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 72929/APP/2019/3703 1:1,250 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 249 June 2020 100019283 Major This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Annex

Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 16

38 33

2 4

14 12 ´49

11 5

1 3

47 39a

BENSON CLOSE

58 148

Tank

ROYAL LANE 138

Meadow High School

(Special Needs) 130

BRYONY CLOSE

CR 128

Drain

46 41

Ward Bdy CF

37 42 65 66

53 47 114 54 48

59 55

35 71 72 64 60 36

30 29

28 22 Community

79 74 27

21 Centre

77 76 81

13 14 102

El Sub Sta

86 91 90 85 El Sub Sta

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

160 150

´138

2 - 34 - 2 LB 140 31.4m

Works BLYTH ROAD

137 to 213

Works TCBs

The Global Academy 133

31.7m

El Sub Sta 252 to 254 to 252

Gramophone Lane The The Boiler House Old Vinyl Factory

Material Walk 1 to 38 to 1

POWERHOUSE LANE

The Material Store

6 to 28

Gramophone Lane El Sub Sta

Electricity Sub Station

77 79 75

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

208 218

8 ´

8 NORTH HYDE GARDENS

1 2

Mast

SUTHERLANDAVENUE

El Sub Sta 26.5m 162

164a

164 1 178 27.7m Ward Bdy

CR NORTH HYDE ROAD 29.3m TCB TCB Shelter

151 LB 5 161

171 171c The Crane WATERSPLASH

171b (PH) 1

LANE

1 1a

2 1 9

BLAIR CLOSE 3

12 14

22 18

Watersplash Lane (Path) 15

ROSEVILLE ROAD 32

Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary The Crane PH OF HILLINGDON Watersplash Lane Residents Services For identification purposes only. Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Hayes Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 11026/APP/2020/142 1:1,250 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 276 June 2020 100019283 Major Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 ´

Tank

Works S Gantry

El Sub Sta El Sub Sta

MP 6.25

Eagle Office Centre FB

Spendale House

Works 6

Astral House St Martins House

Odyssey Business Park

Charlwood House

Runway House

Works

THE RUNWAY

ESS Howard 32 House

45 22 59

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 2342/APP/2020/930 1:1,250 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 300 June 2020 100019283 Major Page 301 Page 302 Page 303 Page 304 Page 305 Page 306 Page 307 Page 308 Page 309 Page 310 Page 311 Page 312 Page 313 Page 314 Page 315 Page 316 Page 317 Page 318 Page 319 Page 320 Page 321 Page 322 Page 323 Page 324 Page 325 Page 326 El Sub Sta

BEACONSFIELD ROAD ´

El Sub Sta

Guru Nanak Sikh Academy

Hayes And Yeading United FC

L Twr

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 4450/APP/2020/515 1:1,350 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 327 June 2020 100019283 Major Page 328 Page 329 Page 330 Page 331 Page 332 Page 333 Page 334 Drain 1 GREAT PARK CLOSE Tupelo Lodge

Packanack

Oak ´House

Croyde House

Ellerslie

Araxy

Land 32 Milk Wood

Sanatan

PARKWAY Surgery 1

Park Lodge

PCs St Helens College (Sch)

Pavilion

7 9

215b 13

215a

213

215 15

207

211

205

209

203

Bowling Green

201

199

193a 197 Notes: Site Address: LONDON BOROUGH Site boundary Hillingdon Court Park OF HILLINGDON Residents Services For identification purposes only. Pavillion Parkway Planning Section This copy has been made by or with Civic Centre, Uxbridge, Middx. UB8 1UW the authority of the Head of Committee Telephone No.: Uxbridge 01895 250111

Services pursuant to section 47 of the Scale: Copyright, Designs and Patents Planning Application Ref:

Act 1988 (the Act). 72929/APP/2019/3703 1:1,250 Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright. Planning Committee: Date: © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 Ordnance Survey Page 335 June 2020 100019283 Major This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Annex

Meeting: Major Applications Planning Committee

Date: Tuesday, 16th June 2020 Time: 6:00pm Place: Committee Room 5, Civic Centre, Uxbridge

ADDENDUM SHEET

Item: 6 Location: Meadow High School Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Condition 4 amended to read as follows: For completeness.

Prior to the commencement of works on site, a Construction Logistics Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should be in accordance with Transport for London's Construction Logistic Planning Guidance and detail the management of construction traffic, including vehicle types, frequency of visits, expected daily time frames, use of an onsite banksman (if required), on-site loading/unloading arrangements, parking of site operative vehicles and wheel washing arrangements. The construction works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plan. REASON :To ensure that the construction works include appropriate efficiency and sustainability measures so as not to compromise the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network and minimises emissions, in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (March 2016).

Item: 7 Location:Assembly Building, TOVF Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Condition 3 to be amended as follows: Following the submission 'Notwithstanding the submitted details, the proposed cladding and its and approval of profile/relationship with other materials within the building elevations acceptable cladding shall be as approved under application reference 59872/APP/2020/507. details. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such.

REASON: To ensure that the development presents a satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy HE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan:

Page 337 Part One - Strategic Policies (November 2012) and Policy DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020).'

Item: 11 Location: Guru Nanak School Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments:

Replace condition 4 with;’ For correction No works above ground level shall take place until a landscape scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include: -

1. Details of Soft Landscaping 1.a Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), 1.b Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, including pollution absorbing planting where possible in order to provide further air quality mitigation 1.c Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate 2. Details of Hard Landscaping 2.a Refuse Storage 2.b Cycle Storage for 112 number of bicycles including 12 short-stay spaces located adjacent to the visitor entrance 2.c Means of enclosure/boundary treatments 2.d Car Parking Layouts for 50 vehicles 23 of which should be identified as pick up and drop off spaces (including demonstration that 5 spaces are served by active and 5 are served by passive electrical charging points and 3 dedicated blue badge spaces) 2.e Hard Surfacing Materials 2.f Other structures (such as play equipment and furniture) 3. Details of Landscape Maintenance 3.a Landscape Maintenance Schedule for a minimum period of 5 years. 3.b Proposals for the replacement of any tree, shrub, or area of surfing/seeding within the landscaping scheme which dies or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased. 4. Schedule for Implementation 5. Other 5.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground 5.b Proposed finishing levels or contours 6. An Urban Greening Factor Assessment for the proposed development Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in full accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To ensure that the proposed development will preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and provide adequate facilities in compliance with policies DMHB 11, DMHB 14, DMEI 1 and DMT 6 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part 2 (2020) and Policies 5.11 (living walls and roofs) and 5.17 (refuse storage) of the London Plan

Page 338 (2016) and policy G5 of the Mayor's London Plan (intend to publish) 2019. Replace condition 12 with the below and remove condition 16 For completeness (conditions merged together)

(1) All works which form part of the remediation scheme shall be completed before any part of the development is occupied or brought into use unless the Local Planning Authority (LPA) dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing. The scheme shall include all of the following measures unless the LPA dispenses with any such requirement specifically and in writing: (i) No contaminated soils or other materials shall be imported to the site. All imported soils for landscaping purposes shall be clean and free of contamination. All imported soils shall be tested for chemical contamination, and the results of this testing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (ii) No deviation shall be made from the proposed remediation scheme without the express agreement of the LPA . (iii) Any required addendum to the proposed remediation scheme shall be agreed with the LPA, prior to implementation; and (iv) Upon completion of the approved remedial works, this condition will not be discharged until a comprehensive verification report has been submitted to and approved by the LPA. The report shall include the details of the final remediation works and their verification to show that the works for each phase have been carried out in full and in accordance with the approved methodology. (v) The results from chemical testing of imported soils shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. REASON: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems and the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 (January 2020) Policies - DMEI 11: Protection of Groundwater Resources and DMEI 12: Development of Land Affected by Contamination. Add condition: The proposed development shall be constructed in Additional condition accordance with the Construction and Environmental Management Plan required. and in accordance with Transport for London's Construction Logistic Planning Guidance and detail the management of construction traffic, including vehicle types, frequency of visits, expected daily time frames, use of an onsite banksman (if required), on-site loading/unloading arrangements, parking of site operative vehicles and wheel washing of construction vehicles shall be undertaken at all times. The construction works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved plan.

REASON: To ensure that the construction works include appropriate efficiency and sustainability measures so as not to compromise the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network and minimises emissions, in accordance with Policies DMT 1 and DMT 2 of the

Page 339 Hillingdon Local Plan: Part 2 - Development Management Policies (January 2020) and Policy 7.14 of the London Plan (March 2016). Add condition: Measures shall be put in place to ensure that lights, Additional condition including car park lighting, are automatically turned off by 21:00 and required. when the buildings are not in use.

REASON: To safeguard residential amenity in accordance with policies DMHB 11 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Development Management Policies (2020) and to reduce energy demands in accordance with Policy 5.2 of the London Plan (2016).

Item: 12 Location: Hillingdon Court Park Pavillion Amendments/Additional Information: Officer Comments: Amend condition 3 Materials - page 224 For completeness

Delete: The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Add: No development shall take place until details and/or samples of all materials and finishes to be used on all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such. Details should include information relating to:

(i) fenestration and doors (ii) fencing (iv) comprehensive colour scheme for all built details (v) make, product/type, colour and photographs/images. (vi) bricks and roof finishes (vii) bin Stores

Amend condition 5 - Landscape page 225 Considered unnecessary as the proposal is for a Delete: single residential unit.

2.f External Lighting

2.g Other structures (such as play equipment and furniture)

4.a Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground Renumber remaining sub sections accordingly.

Page 340