Planning Committee 18/02/09 Item No: 09
Ref: P/2008/4509 Address: Manor House School, 16 Golden Manor, Hanwell
Ward: Hobbayne
PROPOSAL: Retention of part of former school building with 2/3/4 storey extensions to provide a total of 36 units (27 private units and 9 social rented units) comprising 7x 1-bedroom, 26x 2-bedroom, and 3 x 3-bedroom, with 34 car parking spaces 26 at basement level and 8 at surface level, landscaping and refuse storage
Drawing numbers: 27998.20A Location Plan 27998.21A Visual CGI 27998.22A Basement Floor Plan 27998.23B Site Ground Floor Plan 27998.24A First Floor Plan 27998.25A Second Floor Plan 27998.26A Third Floor Plan 27998.27A North and West Elevations 27998.28A South Elevation and Site Section 1 27998.29A East Elevation and Site Section 2 27998.30A Site Section Showing Comparative Massing 27998.31A Roof Plan 27998.32A Context Plan S07/2122/01 Floor Plans Existing Basement and Ground S07/2122/02 Floor Plans Existing 1st and 2nd Floors S07/2122/03 Elevations Existing Front and Side S07/2122/03C Elevations Existing Rear and Side 27998.23S1A Proposed Site Plan with Existing Building super imposed 27998.23S2A Proposed Site Plan with consented scheme super imposed 27998.27S3A Proposed Elevations relative to Consented Scheme (West and North Elevations) 27998.28S4A Proposed Elevations relative to Consented Scheme (South Elevation and Site Section 1) 27998.29S5A Proposed Elevations relative to Consented Scheme (East Elevation and Site Section 2). - Affordable Housing Statement (November 2008). -Planning Statement (November 2008). -Transport Assessment & Appendices (November 2008). -Statement of Community Engagement (November 2008). -Market Sector Appraisal (November 2008). -Archaeological Desk Based Assessment (March 2008). -Landscape Design Strategy (November 2008). -Residential Travel Plan (November 2008). -Phase 1 Habitat Survey (November 2008). -Design and Access Statement (November 2008). -Arboricultural Impact Assessment (November 2008).
Type of Application: Full Application (13 week)
Officer: Robert Lester
Application Received: 21/11/2008 Revised: 30/01/2009
SCHEDULE ITEM:09 RECOMMENDATION
Grant PLANNING PERMISSION with conditions (Subject To Legal Agreement)
Site Description:
The site is located at 16 Golden Manor, Hanwell and comprises a former school and a double row of garages to the rear. The site measures 0.24 hectares and whilst its main frontage is to Golden Manor, the double row of garages to the rear have a narrow access leading to Church Road. The site is not located in a Conservation Area.
The school house building was originally constructed as a dwelling unit and was then used as a private school. The existing buildings comprise the old school house, with minor outbuildings and a play area and the double row of garages to the rear surrounded by green space. The school house is of a typical Victorian vocabulary and is not listed. The school house has a height of 11.4 metres, width of 12.7 metres and depth of 12.9 metres.
The site is rectangular in shape, with the Golden Manor frontage measuring approximately 38 metres, and with a depth of 58 metres. The main school building is set out over 4 floors including a lower ground floor with the fourth floor set within the roofspace. The result is a building that appears as a 2 and a half storey building when viewed from the front elevation. The existing building is set back from Golden Manor by 7 metres.
The site is within a suburban residential neighbourhood but the immediate surrounding environment is more urban in scale with a mix of townhouses and flats, which range from 2 to 4 storeys in height. There are three storey-flatted buildings to the south, west and north of the application site. There is also a row of three storey terraced town housing to the east on Church Road. There is a row of smaller two storey terraced houses to the south east, of which some have large gardens. A two-storey coach house directly abuts the application site to the west, and is orientated away from the application site. The wider area is also residential in character with some commercial supporting uses.
Large trees are characteristic of the site and area. There are 13 trees on the site 5 of which are subject to tree preservation order protection
The school site takes direct access from Golden Manor whilst the disused garages to the rear have access from Church Road in-between numbers 65 and 67 Church Road. The site is located 200 metres from Hanwell Railway Station with transport links along the Heathrow Connect Line, including Ealing Broadway, London Paddington and Heathrow. The site is also located 615 metres from Hanwell Town Centre and is located close to Greenford Avenue and Uxbridge Road for bus services 83, 207, 427, 607, E3 and E8.
Since the former school use ceased, the site has been vacant, and the site has fallen into a state of disrepair. Structurally however the school house remains sound. The most recent use, a private school is a community facility and therefore the school site is classified as a redundant community facility.
The site is located within an existing residential area as shown on the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Adopted Proposals Map. The site is located between 25-30 metres from the boundary of the Hanwell Village Green Conservation Area. The site is located with an archaeological interest area and is located within parking standards zone 2.
There is an unconfirmed Public Right of Way across the site leading from Church Road, west across the site connecting to a private access road north of Campbell Road.
The application site has an extant planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings, site clearance and remediation to accommodate a residential care home accommodating 50 bedrooms provided within a new part 2, 3 and 4 storey building.
- 2 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
The Proposal:
This planning application seeks planning permission to demolish the existing outbuildings and garage block on the site and part retain and convert the existing school house building together with adding part 2, 3 and 4 storey extensions to provide a total of 36 residential flats, 27 (72%) of which would be private market units and 9 (28%) of which would be affordable social rented units. The 36 residential flats would comprise 7x 1-bedroom, 26x 2- bedroom, and 3x 3-bedroom flats.
The building would appear as a flatted development scheme made up of several constituent elements. To the rear of the existing partly retained building there would be a part 3 and 4 storey extension. There would also be part 2, part 3 storey side extensions to the existing part retained building one of which has a coach arch with access through to a basement car park. The building would have a depth of 44 metres, a height facing Golden Manor of 11.5 metres and a width on the Golden Manor frontage of 36.5 metres. The finished levels through the site from north to south would fall before rising again to the rear of the site.
Car parking would be provided, with 34 car parking spaces, 8 at surface level and 26 at basement level.
There would also be the provision of landscaping; communal amenity space and a children’s play facility to the side and rear of the main building. Refuse storage would be provided adjacent to the coach arch access.
An indicative pedestrian route is shown on the submitted plans, which would be provided should the Public Right of Way through the site become confirmed.
Relevant Planning History: Ref Address Proposal Decision Date 75/1278 16 Golden Manor, Erection Of External Fire Granted 22-12-1975 Hanwell Escape Staircase. Conditionally 80/0207 16 Golden Manor, Erection Of Single Storey Refused 16-06-1980 Hanwell Prefabricated Building To Provide Classrooms And Toilets And Single Storey Toilet Block. 81/0260 16 Golden Manor, Erection Of Single Storey Granted 06-05-1981 Hanwell Pre-Fabricated Building Conditionally To Provide Class Rooms And Toilets And Single Storey Toilet Block. 84/0812 16 Golden Manor, Erection Of Single Storey Granted 22-08-1984 Hanwell Pre-Fabricated Building Conditionally To Provide Classroom And Toilets And Single Storey Toilet Block. 86/Nfa001 16 Golden Manor, Temporary Classroom. Not Proceeded 15-09-1986 Hanwell With P/1999/2719 16 Golden Manor, Erection Of Temporary Refused 12-10-1999 Hanwell Assembly Building To Side Of School, New Refuse Enclosure To Front, Widenning Of Existing Vehicular Crossover And Layout Of
- 3 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Five Parking Spaces. P/2005/5026 Manor House Demolition Of Existing Refused 31-03-2006 School Golden School Building And Manor Hanwell Erection Of New Four London W7 3eg Storey Care Home (With Accommodation In Roof Space) Comprising 78 Bedrooms With Parking For 10 Vehicles. P/2006/2951 Former Manor Demolition Of Existing Granted 03-04-2008 House School & School Building And Conditionally Adjoining Garages Construction Of A Part 2, Golden Manor H 3 And 4 Storey Building With Part Basement, To Provide A Residential Care Home/Nursing Home For The Elderly With 50 Bedrooms And Associated Car Parking And Servicing; With Vehicular Access,
Relevant Planning Policy:
The relevant policies of the Adopted UDP (adopted 12/10/04) are:
1.10 Legal Agreements and Partnerships 2.1 Environmental and other Sustainability Impacts 2.5 Water Drainage Flood Prevention and Environment 2.6 Air Pollution and Quality 2.7 Contaminated Land 2.9 Energy 2.10 Waste Minimisation and Management 3.5 Land for Sports, Children’s Play and Informal Recreation 3.8 Biodiversity and Nature Conservation 3.9 Wildlife Protection 4.1 Design of Development 4.3 Inclusive Design – Access for all 4.4 Community Safety 4.5 Landscaping, Tree Protection and Planting 4.9 Archaeological Interest Areas 4.11 Noise and Vibration 5.2 Affordable Housing 5.3 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing 5.4 Range of Dwelling Sizes and Types 5.5 Residential Design 5.6 Small Dwellings and Flats 8.2 Major Developments and Community Facilities 8.3 Redundant Community Facilities 9.1 Development, Access and Parking 9.5 Walking and Streetscape 9.6 Cycling
Supplementary Guidance/Documents (SPD/SPG)
SPG 1 Sustainability checklist SPG 2 Water, Drainage and Flooding SPG 3 Air Quality
- 4 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 SPG 4 Safer Ealing SPG7 Accessible Ealing SPD 8 Crossovers and Parking in Front Gardens SPG 9 Trees and development guidelines SPG10 Noise & Vibration SPG13 Garden Space SPG14 Indoor Living Space for New Dwellings And Conversions SPD 1 Affordable Housing SPF2 Community Facilities.
National Policy
PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG17 Open Space Sports and Recreation PPS22 Renewable Energy PPG 24 Noise
Regional Policy (The London Plan Feb 2008)
2A.9 The Suburbs: supporting sustainable communities 3A.1 Increasing London’s supply of housing 3A.2 Borough housing targets 3A.3 Maximising the potential of sites 3A.6 Quality of new housing provision 3A.7 Large residential developments 3A.8 Definition of affordable housing 3A.9 Affordable housing targets 3A.11 Affordable housing thresholds 3C.1 Integrating transport and development 4A.3 Sustainable design and construction 4A.4 Energy assessment 4A.7 Renewable Energy 4B.1 Design principles for a compact city & Table 3A.2 Density Matrix 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment SPG Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation.
Other Material Considerations
BRE Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight DfT Manual for Streets
Consultation: Public: 252 letters of consultation were sent to neighbouring properties at
- 1-8, 10-12, 14-18a, 20a, 19-21, 22-28, 23-27 (odd), 30, 32 a and b, 34, 35-43 Campbell Road, 1-8 Campbell Court on Campbell Road and The Coach House on Campbell Road.
- Flats A-F at 38-41 Church Road, 43-49 (odd), 51, 53-67 (odd), flat a and b at 63, Bellgrave House at 79, 80-94 (even), 81-87, 88a, Flats A-H 89, 96-98 (even), Flat 1 and 2 at 108, 110-112 (even), 100-106 (even), 114-124a (even), 126, 128 a and b, Flats 1-6 at 130-132 all on Church Road
- 1- 7 (all), 8-12 (even), 9-19 (Odd), Flats 1 & 2 at 21, 22, Flats 1-5 at 23, 23A, Flats 1-7 at 25, 16-32 (even), 1-15 Holbrook Court at 33, 35-37 (odd), Flats 1-18 Blagdon Court 14, Flats 1-9 Golden Court, 1-29 Testwood Court all on Golden
- 5 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Manor
Consultation Period 12/12/2008 - 08/01/2009. 2 Residents responded to the consultation objecting to the development on the following grounds:-
Overdevelopment – The proposed development is far too large for the plot it occupies and would have a negative impact on surrounding homes. The size of the proposed development would dominate this quiet residential area. The proposed development is aggressive and an over-intensive use of the land and for these grounds alone should be rejected. The scale and density would result in an aggressive, over intensive use and development of the site, which would lead to an extraordinary and unacceptable level of visual intrusion and loss of privacy to existing houses.
Case Officer Response: - The density would only be 14% above recommended guideline levels once the accessibility of the site is fully appreciated, but whilst the density of the development is above the required levels, the development would be a high quality and well-designed scheme, which would integrate well with its surroundings. The height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation of the extensions would successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce the impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites.
Out of Character – The area around Golden Manor currently has a charming village- like feel that would be drastically altered and harmed if this development is given approval. Whilst the retention of the façade is to be welcomed that will do nothing, given the size and design of this proposal, to prevent this proposed building from dominating the locality and detracting from and entirely altering the local community.
Case Officer Response: - It is considered that the design would be based on the existing school house and the extensions which would blend with the existing building complementing its distinctive character. The retention of the school house building is a significant benefit of this proposal over the extant planning approval for a nursing home (P/2006/2951), which involved the demolition of this building. It is considered that the architectural design of this proposal, based on the retention of the original school building together with extensions sympathetic to the Victorian original should be supported. The design of the resulting building viewed from Golden Manor as shown on the submitted visual (Plan Reference: 27998.21A) would add considerable character and design quality to the area.
Impact on the Conservation Area - This site borders the local conservation area on three sides and the scale of this development will have a material effect upon the area. The authority must consider this application in relation to the impact it will have on the conservation area.
Case Officer Response: - The site is 25 metres from the Conservation area to the north and 30 metres from it to the south. The impact of the development on the setting of the conservation area is a relevant planning consideration. However as the design section of this report indicates it is considered that the layout, scale, bulk, design and appearance of the development all integrate well with the site and the surroundings. It is not considered that the development would negatively impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.
Increased traffic nuisance – The proposed development would cause amenity impact from noise and disturbance in the local area. A significant increase in traffic would be forced on to the local roads and no proper account has been taken of the environmental consequences of this development including pollution and noise.
Case Officer Response: -There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed traffic movements would cause noise, disturbance or environmental pollution to the detriment of local residents. It is noted that the Highway Authority and Environmental Health do
- 6 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 not object to the development.
Same Scale as a Previous Refusal – The particular the design of the new block is of the same scale as a proposal previously rejected by the committee.
Case Officer Response: - The development would be of a height and scale commensurate with the surrounding environment which is characterised by existing flatted schemes to the north and west. The development would be a sufficient distance from the surrounding environment as to not cause harm to existing residents. The previous scheme for a nursing home (Reference: P/2005/5026) was a large design whereas in this proposal the height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation of the extensions would successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce the impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites.
Overlooking of 65 and 67 Church Road - The design means that the walled garden at 67 Church Road currently not overlooked from the rear will if the application is approved. Significant number of habitable rooms will overlook number 65.
Case Officer Response: - The development would be separated from 65 and 67 Church Road by between 30-35 metres, which is above the required 21 metre separation distance.. There is significant tree cover to the rear gardens of numbers 65 and 67 Church Road, which would screen the garden and prevent overlooking. Additional replacement tree planting and boundary treatment would reduce overlooking of garden areas.
Over intensification – the size of garden space for a block of flats this size is inadequate.
Case Officer Response: - This is a material consideration. To address the shortfall the developer has agreed to contribute financially towards improvements to local parks within 300 metres of the site in lieu of on site amenity space provision for 26 units. The total financial contribution is £56,000 towards Churchfields Recreation Ground and Brent River Park.
Loss of light – the size of this development will block light into the property at 67 Church Road and would damage our light and enjoyment of the garden at 67 Church Road.
Case Officer Response: - The development would be too far away from number 67 Church Road to cause this property to lose daylight of sunlight.
1 Resident also made the following comments should the committee decide to approve the planning application: -
The alley between No’s 65 and 67 should not be allowed to form any part of the access to or from the development during construction;
. That alley should not be allowed to be used for vehicular access at all; . That the design of the building requires amendment as to character, size and bulk to reduce the height and building footprint to prevent overlooking of No’s 65 and 67 especially by the removal of balconies and so be reduced in scale; . That appropriate working hours restrictions be imposed to exclude weekend and public holiday working; . That proper provision be made for the storage of waste; . That a 24 hour contact name and number is given so that contact can be made at any time should the need arise.
Case Officer Response: - Planning conditions would deal with refuse storage, access, construction and boundary treatment.
- 7 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Internal Environmental Health (Noise & Disturbance) – No objection
Stacking of rooms should be like for like as per SPG10 Policy (bed/bed, living room/living room). Details required regarding building envelope insulation to meet SPG10 requirements for aircraft noise 57/60 dB contour. Construction phase informatives
Case Officer Response : Noted, planning conditions and informatives could deal with these matters.
Environmental Health (Contaminated Land) – No objection
A land contamination survey is needed prior to the commencement of the development.
Case Officer Response : Noted, a planning condition could deal with this matter.
Environmental Services– No objection
Access Officer – No objection
All new residential units created through new development or conversion should be consistent with the Lifetime Homes standards.
Policy 5.3 of UDP states that 10% of residential units should be designed to wheelchair housing standards; in respect of the current scheme 4 units would need to be designed to wheelchair housing standards.
There should be 4 disabled car-parking bays. These should be 4.8m x 2.4m with a 1.2m circulation space to the side and rear.
All bathroom / en suite doors should open outwards.
The bathroom layout should be designed to incorporate ease of access, probably from a side approach, to the bath and WC. Sufficient circulation space should be provided so that a wheelchair user could use the bathroom.
There is lift access to all but one flat.
Case Officer Response : Noted, planning conditions and informatives could deal with these matters.
Education – No objection
Using the Wandsworth model for calculating child yield but making it more locally relevant we would anticipate a child yield of 4 Primary and 3 Secondary age range pupils which equates to a contribution of £99,884. The contribution is based on 100% of the basic needs allocation multiplier for the primary and secondary sectors.
Furthermore, this development has to be seen in the context of all proposed developments in the area and as such there is a cumulative effect on the demand for places. Current projections, supported by updated predictions by the Greater London Authority (GLA), indicate a significant increase in the number of school age children in the coming years.
Regardless of whether schools have spare capacity increasing school rolls can place increased pressure upon existing school facilities, such as existing buildings, playgrounds, security and safety, access and ancillary facilities such as toilets and kitchens.
- 8 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Case Officer Response : The developer has agreed to contribute £180,000 as a planning obligation. The bulk of this contribution would go towards improvement works and community projects at Hanwell Community Centre. It is considered reasonable that £22,000 from this total would form a contribution towards the local education provision.
Transport Services – No objection
1. The Transport Assessment report submitted in support of the planning application appears to be robust and, under all assessment scenarios, the proposed development would appear to have no material impact on the local highway network.
2. Although there is a shortfall in parking provision by two spaces, given the mix of the development [7x 1 bed units] and its close location to a number of bus stops and Hanwell Train Station, the shortfall would be of no material consideration.
3. Parking layout, design and geometry of the access road appear to be satisfactory from a highway point of view.
4. Bearing in mind that the application site did have the benefit of a school where expectation of vehicular traffic would be much higher than what is being proposed, from a highway point of view, therefore no objection.
5. Although one refuse collection point as shown on the submitted plans may suffice, it would be advisable to introduce another refuse collection point located conveniently and preferably in the vicinity of the public highway fronting the application site.
6. A section 106 contribution is welcome towards cycle routes in the area (mainly off- road) - £100,000 could be spent. Also secure, covered cycle parking must be provided for residents. And I would recommend asking the developer to pledge to spend £10,000 supporting residents' cycling with training and equipment in the first 5 years.
Case Officer Response: The refuse area would be acceptable subject to the submission of details of the type of refuse enclosures, screening and a management plan. This can be dealt with by planning condition. The proposal for a planning obligation is noted, however as it is not envisaged that the development would significantly impact on the local cycle network a planning obligation towards cycle routes would fail to meet the statutory requirements and is therefore unreasonable.
Housing – No objection
The Applicant proposes to build 36 homes in total comprising of 7x1beds; 26x2beds; and 3x3beds. The affordable element is proposed as 6x2beds and 3x3beds of which 1x2bed is provided as fully wheelchair adapted accommodation. This equates to 25% of affordable housing by units and 28% by habitable rooms. All of the affordable housing proposed are for social rented housing.
The tenure and unit size proposed meet with Ealing’s need for affordable housing which is overwhelmingly a requirement for social rented accommodation and an increasing need for family sized homes of 3bed and more. However the quantum of affordable housing does not meet with the policy requirement for 50% of the homes provided to be for affordable housing.
- 9 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
The housing department has received independent advice on the proposal to provide the level of affordable housing set out in the application and concludes that the land purchase price was high as well higher than usual building costs. In addition a reasonably steep fall of values in market housing has contributed to put pressure on the ability of the scheme to support a higher level of affordable housing.
The concentration of affordable as largely social rented housing means that the council can receive 9 homes under this tenure whereas a fully compliant scheme of 50% affordable with 70% of this as social rent would have provided 12 homes for social rent.
Therefore on balance having weighed up all of the above factors it is proposed to accept the affordable housing set out in the application.
Case Officer Response: It is noted that the housing department do not object to the quantum, tenure and mix of affordable housing proposed. The 9 affordable social rented units proposed would be secured using a section 106 legal agreement.
Parks and Countryside – No Objection
Amenity Space
A 3 m buffer to all ground floor units is required resulting in patchy areas of small garden space provision. Shade issues are prevalent on site.
The communal amenity space would provide amenity space for all ground floor units. A financial contribution would be needed towards improvement of local parks in lieu of on site amenity space for the remaining 26 units.
Toddler facilities must be provided on site. However off site provision in adjacent park would be suitable minimum amount of facilities 3 pieces of equipment at £10000/ equipment including surfacing, installation etc =£30000
Tree Issues
No objection to the tree removal as detailed in the tree report etc by Forbes Laird Arboricultural Consultancy. All recommendations made in the Arboricultural report shall be carried out and should be detailed in conditions with regard to surfacing etc.
Full details of tree and ground protection is required preferably up front in order that you can directly refer to it in conditions.
Detailed Hard and soft landscaping is required with at least 6 trees to replace those lost and include hedging / soft landscaping to the front boundary and defensive planting to the ground floor window areas etc.
Conditions should include implementation of all recommendations within the ecological report.
Case Officer Response : Noted, planning conditions and informatives could deal with landscaping, tree planting and boundary treatment. £56,000 would be contributed towards local parks in lieu of on site amenity space for 26 units.
- 10 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Urban Design – Observations
Use and concept
Retaining and integrating the existing Victorian building to the new development contributes to maintaining the local character and would accord to sustainability and urban design principles and policies. The residential use would fit in with the residential character of the surrounding area.
Scale & appearance
The proposal is for 2 to 4-storey high extensions to the sides and rear of the existing building. The larger width on the Golden Manor frontage is consistent with other buildings on the street. Still, the extended building would be over 3 times the length of the existing, resulting in slightly bulky and long side elevations. The height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites. The changes in materials indicated on the elevations would contribute to adding rhythm to the façade, although details and samples of these materials are needed. The traditional design proposed blends in with the style and form of the Victorian building.
Layout and landscaping
The footprint of the proposed building would not be too large in relation to the context. There are large buildings in the area on the opposite side of the road and to the west of the site. The siting of the building also appears to respect the existing trees.
Yet, the large footprint would result in high site coverage by buildings and its positioning would constrain the size and shape of the communal amenity space. It creates a series of narrow, linear and enclosed spaces surrounding the building rather than one larger space defined by buildings, which would be preferred.
Hedges and defensible space needed to protect the windows of the ground floor units make the amenity spaces narrower, less usable and more incidental. Balconies at ground level would prevent direct access from the ground floor units to the amenity space. Parking is provided – 34 spaces for 36 units –, which seems consistent with the site’s PTAL level 2, even though this is close Hanwell train Station.
The provision of basement parking reduces the number of parking spaces at street level. Yet, the vehicular ramp leading down to the basement causes access issues, discussed below, which remain unresolved. Access There would be no separate pedestrian footpath from the street to the main entrance. Pedestrian access to the building would be via the front archway and would be shared with vehicles entering the basement car park via the ramp and a separate pedestrian route. Cycle parking is located at basement level. Considering the number of units (36) and the number of vehicles (34) that are likely to use the access, in addition to cyclists, a conflict between the different users is likely to occur.
- 11 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Access to the soft landscaped areas around the building is via a footpath west from the vehicular ramp. Given the level change at that point, in order to reach the green spaces residents coming from the main front core would have to go across the ramp and then go up again on the opposite footpath. This makes pedestrian movement difficult and inconvenient.
The entrance to the front residential core would be from the side rather than from the front. It was suggested at pre-application stage to remove the ground floor unit (or part of it) located at front, in the existing building, to allow for a grander entrance but this advice has not been taken into account.
As a result, the main entrance to the side is not sufficiently legible and the entrance to the original building is redundant. This is shown as a door on the elevation and as two windows on the plan.
The D&A statement highlight the opportunity for a secondary pedestrian link through the site from Church Road via the existing alleyway. Yet, the proposal does not take this into account. There are no secondary entrances to the building facing that side and there are no details of the paving and boundary treatment to the alleyway, including gate to Church Road. This indicates that this access has not been though as an integral part of the scheme’s layout. The opportunity to increase legibility and permeability of the site is missed.
Amount
The site measures 0.24 ha. This proposal is for 36 units. Residential density is therefore 150 units per ha. This is substantially higher than the density in both the UDP and the London Plan, which recommends a density of 50 – 80 u/ha for flats development in a PTAL level 2 site.
The excessive density of the proposed development is expressed in the layout, access and landscaping concerns raised above. As it stands, the proposal would fail these aspects of UDP policies 4.1 and table 4A, London Plan Policy 4B.1, PPS1 and good practice guidance set out in By Design.
Case Officer Response: Noted, refer to the design, transport and amenity section of the following report for a full response to these comments.
Planning Policy – No Objection
Policy for this site is to retain as a community facility, or failing that, to accept affordable housing. The market sector appraisal provided by the applicant suggests the site is either too small or too large for education/alternative community facility uses. It concludes that there is no demand for the currently consented care home proposal on the larger site.
- 12 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Viability for continued school use would seem to be marginal at best. One local education provider doubts whether Ofsted space requirements could be met and that whilst any one of the site's limitations would be manageable, 'every criteria going against it’ would make it too difficult for them to consider. The School Inspector's report however pointed to problems of overcrowding, which seems to me to indicate local demand for such use.
Case Officer Response: Noted, refer to the principle of development section of the following report for a full response to these comments.
External Hanwell and Canals Conservation Area Panel – Objection
Some of the panel’s previous comments have been addressed with regard to retention of the existing building. However the panel have the following concerns:
1.The proposed development is an over development of the site with a bulky although sympathetic extension
2.We are concerned about the loss of trees and open space that currently surrounds the former Manor House School – the development provide minimal amenity space for residents.
3.We require assurance that the long established walkway at the rear of the site is retained and this must be clearly established as a public right of way with the applicants.
4.There is the provision some vehicle parking space. However we consider this to be inadequate for the size of the proposed development and there will be detrimental impact on the local streets.
5. We consider the proposal would benefit from some scaling down in bulk and foot-print on the site
Case Officer Response: The density would only be 14% above recommended levels once the accessibility of the site is fully appreciated. Whilst the density of the development is above the required levels, the development would be a high quality and well-designed scheme, which would integrate well with its surroundings. The height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation of the extensions successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce the impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites.
11 of 13 trees would be lost including 3 protected trees. From an arboricultural point of view there is no objection to this. However there are planning and design reasons to retain tree cover on the northern and eastern site boundaries. A condition has therefore been recommended requesting the planting of replacement trees. Details of this would need to be agreed with the Council.
The walkway is an unconfirmed right of way. This is a separate legal matter which is discussed later in this report.
The parking is marginally below the maximum standards. However the site has reasonable public transport accessibility level. Also 7 of the units are 1-bed units and t Highway Authority has no objection to the level of parking proposed.
- 13 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Ealing Primary Care Trust - No Objection
Would like to apply for section 106 monies to support the healthcare services required by the additional population this development produces. The Healthily Urban Development Unit (HUDU) suggests a capital contribution of £37,112 and a revenue planning contribution of £126,732 based on a 2-year development programme.
Case Officer Response : The developer has agreed to contribute £180,000 as a planning obligation. The bulk of this contribution would go towards improvement works and community projects at Hanwell Community Centre. It is considered reasonable that £22,000 from this total would form a contribution towards local healthcare provision.
Ealing Community Network - No Objection
Ealing Community Network (ECN) is unaware of any organisation that is looking for premises in this area for a major community development. Any such proposal would also be opposed by local residents in this quiet residential area. In addition local residents are very concerned that the existing main building is maintained which makes suitable use even more restricted.
The developer has been in contact with ECN since over the last 12 months this has included at least two face to face meetings, email and telephone conversations. These meetings have included reviewing with the developer the 'community' facilities in the area, signposting them to the key also be consulted.
ECN advised the developer that the area around this development was well served with community facilities although Hanwell Community Centre in particular was in very poor repair. ECN are not aware of any local organisation with the funding necessary to use the site. The developers also reported back to ECN on the consultations they had locally and that provided the main building was kept the local community were in favour of the development.
Case Officer Response : The developer has agreed to contribute £180,000 as a planning obligation. £80,000 of this contribution would go towards improvement works and community projects at Hanwell Community Centre to mitigate for the loss of this community facility site in this area.
Hanwell Steering Group – No Objection Support in principle for the planning application submitted by the Anderson Group in May this year for the development of the former Manor House School site.
Steve Gough, Planning Director of the Anderson Group, and his team have twice taken the trouble to present their plans to public meetings of the HSG; they have met separately with local residents in the Hanwell Village Green Conservation Area and The Lawns who care deeply about their local architectural heritage; and in addition they have conducted an excellent formal consultation with local residents and the wider community in Hanwell via an exhibition.
Most recently, at the HSG public meeting on 1 July, Mr Gough talked us through the plans that they have submitted to Ealing Planning Services for approval.
- 14 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Overall we are delighted that the plans incorporate the old Manor House School building, and that the new build elements reflect, and harmonise with, architectural highlights in the original 1869 residence. In the old building, Anderson Group plans to retain as many original internal features e.g. coving, arches and skirting, as have survived institutionalisation during the twentieth century.
By using complementary materials (London Stock bricks with red brick detailing, and slate pitched roofs), the proposed new build will be sympathetic to the School House and to the architectural heritage of the wider area.
It is absolutely essential that local residents are able to walk across this site from Church Road towards Hanwell Station. This had been established as a right of way through continual use over a period of decades (in fact as far back as living memory stretches), and was only stopped, to the severe inconvenience of local residents, when the site was sold by the School to the original developers.
We understand that the Council referred this issue to the Home Secretary, but that the paperwork has been returned, for some reason, without a decision. Whichever way the mechanism of this right of access is worked out in legal terms, the footpath must be reopened as soon as possible, so note needs to be taken of this point when planning permission is granted.
As discussed and agreed with Steve Gough at an earlier meeting with local residents, we would like to see the areas of cream painted rendering on the sides and back of the new build left as natural brick – Mr Gough agreed that this would be possible within the budget. We ask you to include this in the planning specifications.
Our view is that natural brick will be more in harmony with the structural materials of the original house, will need less maintenance than rendering which has to be painted regularly to continue to look good, and will be less likely to ‘date’ the design of the back of the building.
During landscaping, we ask you to specify that the developers use native species in planting of standard trees and hedging, wherever possible, as this will encourage and support the maximum levels of wildlife.
Whilst we may applaud the drive to develop affordable housing for both renting and buying, local residents feel strongly that at least some of the new apartments are available for anyone to buy, at the market price, regardless of their income or chosen career/job, and that purchase of apartments is not just restricted to ‘key workers’. To exclude someone from buying an apartment on this site on the basis of their choice of career or level of income is clearly undemocratic. We ask that you specify that at least a percentage of the apartments are offered for anyone to buy at the market price. The Anderson Group has conducted an exemplary local consultation process from the start of the development of their plans for the site, and has clearly listened to what has been said to them by the local community. This has been demonstrably best practice, and we suggest that you recommend their process to other developers who hope to be able to find a smooth way through the planning process with the support of the local community.
We are confident that this development, with the materials used, level of finish specified and landscaping proposed in this planning application, will enhance the architectural heritage of the local area rather than being a blight upon it.
- 15 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
Case Officer Response: The support for this development from this residents group is noted. The information on the pre-application consultation the developer had with the local residents is useful.
50% of the front half of the school house building would be retained including the part of the building facing Golden Manor.
The walkway is an unconfirmed right of way. This is a separate legal matter and is discussed in the following report.
Details of materials, landscaping and boundary treatment would all be submitted later. However it is in the Council’s interest to ensure that the type of materials, landscaping and boundary treatment is consistent with the surrounding area and the existing school house.
9 affordable social rented units proposed would be secured using a section 106 legal agreement. This is 28% of the development by habitable rooms. Metropolitan Police Design Advisor
The entrances to houses and flats are often a target for crime, so they should be located on the main access route, with a view of people approaching.” Houses and flats should have a front door visible to passers-by, and front gardens should be designed without space that could be used for concealment.
One issue is that the building is not accessed directly from the street but via a service road along the side of the building that leads to the underground parking. It is important to restrict to the side and rear of the building in order to reduce the opportunity for crime and disorder due to the lack of natural surveillance available from passers-by.
The most effective point to do this at would be in the archway flush with the front building line. This would involve installing access-controlled gates for both vehicles and pedestrians and arrangements will need to be made regarding access for refuse collection, postal deliveries and visitors.
An alternative would be to gate further back after the two entrances across the gardens at the point where the service road enters the underground parking. This is the easier option but leaves the parked cars in the archway area vulnerable, along with the entrance doors that are hidden from the street, especially the rear one due the slope and creates areas for people to loiter. If this method is adopted I would ask that the physical security standards of the doors and windows be made are part of any approval notice or is included as a ‘section 106’ agreement
The standard for all main entrance door sets front and rear and individual flat/room door sets throughout the development hereby allowed shall be made secure to standards, independently certified, set out in BS PAS 24-1:1999 ‘Security standard for domestic door sets’.
- 16 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 The standard for all ground floor or accessible window sets on the development shall as a minimum be made secure to standards, independently certified, set out in BS.7950 ‘Security standard for domestic window sets’ with glazing to include one pane of laminated glass to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm.
Underground Parking: This area needs to be secured, irrespective of the method of gating the side/rear access. Inward opening automatic gates or roller grilles must be located at the building line. They must be capable of being operated remotely by the driver whilst sitting in the vehicle. This will allow easy access by a disabled driver, and will normally satisfy the requirements of the Highways Department. Roller shutters should be successfully tested to LPS 1175 Security Rating 2 as a minimum, preferably SR3.
Lighting must be at the levels recommended by BS 5489
Defensible Space – ground Floor Flats: Some of the flats have planting to form an enclosed defensible space although it only appears to cover the area directly outside the French doors rather than including the whole area where the wall of the individual flat abuts the garden (South side). This would be a more useable space. The some of the flats to the east do not have any defensible space between them and the communal gardens. Communal Front Door: The security of the communal door is very important and this door needs to have access control fitted.
(I would recommend to the applicant that they install doors that are certificated to BS PAS 24-1:1999 “Doors of enhanced security” with the access control fitted. (Ideally the door should meet the higher standard LPS 1175 Level 2 or 3.) In all cases, these locks must be able to be opened from the inside without the aid of a key, to comply with Fire Regulations and BS5588. Any glazing in or around the Communal door should include a pane of laminated glass, minimum thickness 6.8mm). Postal Deliveries: The main delivery that needs accommodating is the post. Secure letterboxes should be built into the entrance such that items can be deposited in them without the need to access the building. The letterboxes should be lockable and accessed by the residents from inside the building.
(These remove the need for Trade’s release buttons on any access control system that is fitted to the Communal Door. Trades’ release buttons probably provide the opportunity for a significant proportion of flat burglaries. It seems folly to install a high quality communal entrance door only to allow access to all sometimes up to 1pm each day. This is especially true with the removal of first and second post where it will more difficult to obtain the agreement of the Post Office to restrict the hours of operation of the trade’s release to the morning.) An alternative would be to fit internal letter boxes (to serve each individual household) meeting the requirements of LPS 1175 Security Rating 1 (if available – if not then the most robust examples that can be found), located within a secure lobby area. This will require an air lock access control system to be incorporated i.e. a further internal secure PAS 24 access doorset would be required to stop unauthorised access beyond the entrance lobby. Postal Delivery staff would gain access to the lobby via key fob or code rather than simple time restricted button.
- 17 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Second Response
The development has been gated off at the front of the premises at the archway.
The possibility that the security of the rear of the building will be compromised if it is decided that there should be a public footpath from Church Road needs to be addressed.
I would recommend against such public access, however if access is permitted then a suitable boundary needs to be established between the footpath and the grounds of the development. I would recommend railings or similar to allow good natural surveillance from the development for the benefit of bona-fide members of the public using the footpath. 2 metres high and designed without horizontal elements in the mid-section that could assist climbing. A solid fence or wall would hide any offenders from view, create an area for them to loiter undetected and be vulnerable to graffiti etc.
Case Officer Response : Noted, planning conditions and informatives could deal with these matters.
Main Planning Considerations:- . Principle of Development . Affordable Housing . Density . Design . Amenity . Internal and External Living Space . Children’s Playspace . Highway, Parking & Access . Environmental Pollution including Noise and Land Contamination . Refuse Storage . Accessibility, Lifetime Homes & Wheelchair housing . Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency . Archaeology . Trees, Landscapes and Ecology Reasoned Justification/Remarks:
Principle of Development
The site is made up of two parts. The former Manor House school building together with its ancillary buildings and surrounding landscaping and play space to the north, and the two rows of 12 lock up garages to the south. The school operated as a private day school from 1951 until its closure in July 2005.
It is therefore established that the northern former school part of the site has a standing ‘community’ use in land use planning terms. Policy 8.1 (Existing Community Facilities) establishes that education facilities are classed as ‘community facilities for planning purposes.
Adopted UDP policy 8.1 resists the loss of existing community facilities, such as schools. In cases such as this where an existing community use has become redundant, policy 8.3 (Redundant Community Facilities) of the UDP encourages consideration of alternative community uses in the first instance. However, if the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that no alternative community facility can be identified for the site; affordable housing is acceptable in principle, on sites in residential areas.
The development plan therefore encourages the refurbishment of redundant community facilities to meet community needs. However on sites in residential areas the change of community facilities to
- 18 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 affordable housing will be considered after an investigation (within a reasonable period of time), as to whether other community uses could use the site. This sequential justification test to be followed is therefore:
1. Can the existing community use be reinstated? 2. Can an alternative community use come on site? and; 3. If the above is not achievable then affordable housing is acceptable in principle.
Can the existing community use be reinstated
In regards to the first test, the former private school is vacant at present. The developer has submitted a plan showing that there is a strong representation of schools in the area. This shows that there are 10 schools including 1 private school in the north Hanwell area.
The developer states that a return to school use on the site would not successfully meet the modern standards imposed on it by the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the Local Education Authority. Specifically it has been concluded by the developer that all new school buildings have to comply with the Building Regulations and the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 to be physically accessible to disabled pupils. Improvements would be required to the access to the building and space within it. The developer states that ceiling heights, half floor levels and a small footprint all mean that the existing school is not readily adaptable to these requirements. Access would be required down from the ground floor level within the school 1.15 metres above external ground level. Although this would be possible the gradient means that it would result in steps or chair lifts in contravention of the DDA.
The Council accessibility officer who has inspected the existing plans of the school agrees that significant access improvement works would be required including the provision of ramps, external and internal lifts and most significantly increasing internal circulation space involving reconfiguration of the internal walls.
A Schools Inspector report from 2001 concluded that the school had ‘significant shortcomings in the accommodation, which restricts the breadth and quality of the education provided’. This report also concluded that the school had ‘restricted space, overcrowding and no indoor sports hall’.
The developer has also submitted a market sector appraisal report concluding that it is unlikely that there would be demand for a school use on this site, due to its small size, poor building configuration, limited internal space and inaccessible location. They state that the cost of any extension or refurbishment works would be high, and an extension would reduce the already small external play area. They also state that the site would not have sufficient vehicle parking.
The market sector appraisal included targeted marketing of the site to 195 developers/operators within the education sector. 1 response was received expressing a lack of interest in the site due to sufficient supply of private schools in the area, inaccessible location, limited parking, limited internal classroom space and high set up costs.
The Local Education Authority (LEA) who has been consulted on this application state that there is no demand for this site for use or redevelopment for a publicly funded school.
It is accepted on the basis of the submitted information that there is no demand for either a public or private school on this site. It is also acknowledged that the site has severe constraints, which reduce its suitability for use as an educational establishment. It is therefore deemed reasonable that the existing community use could not be reinstated.
Can an alternative community use come on site
The second test as part of the sequential justification required by UDP policy 8.3 is to explore whether an alternative community use can make use of the site. The alternative community facilities identified within UDP are:
- 19 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 • Leisure and culture; • Facilities for children; • Social Services; • Healthcare facilities and veterinary services. • Community offices and meeting places;
The developer has identified that there are is a high level of existing community facility provision in the area including 12 libraries, 23 community centres (including Hanwell Community Centre), 3 halls, 6 indoor sports centres, 4 swimming pools, 2 outdoor sports arenas, 10 youth centres and 84 doctors surgeries.
The developer has also consulted with various community groups including Ealing Community Network (ECN) as part of the pre-application process. ECN have stated in their response that the site is not needed as a local community facility.
The site is a small site not easily suited to a community use and it is likely that the existing buildings would need to be demolished with high redevelopment costs would prevent all but the largest community facility operators from coming forward which would be incompatible with the surrounding residential area.
Healthcare and social uses
It is recognised that the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) have stated there is no need for additional public sector nursing home capacity in the local area.
The developer states that the extant planning permission for a 50-bed care home has not come into use due to low market demand. The market sector appraisal also states that the site is too small for healthcare operators who normally require 0.3-0.4 hectare sites and a minimum of 60 bedrooms.
The market sector appraisal included targeted marketing of the site to 43 developers/operators within the healthcare sector. One care home developer responded confirming that the site was too small for their requirement. The low level of interest from healthcare operators reflects the limited appeal of the site and the large cost of refurbishment.
It is important to indicate that the flyer sent out to the healthcare operators/developers, as a part of the targeted marketing did not point out that there is an extant planning permission (ref: P/2006/2951) for a nursing home (C2 use) on a larger combined site made up of the school and the garages to the south. This extant permission accepts the principle of the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the combined larger site. This is an important fact, and one, which may have increased interest for the site if it had been clearly reported in the marketing flyer. The submitted market sector appraisal even states that healthcare operators are looking to develop new purpose built premises, which would comply with their own operational requirements and obtain full compliance with DDA.
Also the marketing flyer gave the site area as 0.144 hectares whereas the development site now under consideration is 0.24 hectares meaning the site occupied by the garages to the rear has been excluded from the marketable area. Again if the combined site area had been stated in the targeted marketing there may have been more interest from healthcare operators. It is acknowledged that the garage site does not have a standing community use and is not strictly subject to the sequential justification test in policy 8.3. Nevertheless the developer has acknowledged that information about site redevelopment options and site assembly with the garage site was given to developers and operators who enquired about the site.
Nonetheless it is concluded that weight should be attributed to the lack of demand for the site within the private healthcare sector. It is also noted that the site was subjected to separate marketing for C2 use in 2007 and no demand was found.
Leisure and cultural uses
- 20 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 The market sector appraisal did not include targeted marketing of the site to developers/operators within the leisure and cultural sector. Rather the developers commercial agent conclude on the basis of their commercial experience that there would be no demand for this site from commercial operators working within the leisure and cultural sector.
Nonetheless it is accepted that the site is too small to accommodate a sports facility. It is also recognised that the site is inaccessible and would therefore not sustainably support a leisure use. It is further accepted that large-scale leisure facilities would be inappropriate on this site because of the high level of activity including traffic, which would generate noise and disturbance to the detriment of the amenities of local residents. Also it is Council policy to direct large community facility uses into town centres. It is therefore accepted that the site constraints mean that the site is unsuitable for leisure, sports and cultural uses.
Religious groups/special interest groups
It is accepted that religious and special interests groups would not have the financial resources necessary to fund the conversion of the existing building or the redevelopment of the site.
Conclusions
Although additional information on the marketing flyer sent out would have been welcome, it is judged on the basis of the fact that no demand could be found for any community use, and due the site constraints that the sequential justification test has been met.
Furthermore there are clear planning benefits that would arise from the redevelopment of the site for housing. These benefits include the regeneration and re-use of a brownfield site for residential purposes and the additional supply of housing (including affordable housing).
UDP policy 8.3 states that if a community use is not achievable then affordable housing is acceptable in principle. Therefore where a community re-use cannot be found any residential development should be affordable housing. However policy 8.3 also needs to be read alongside UDP policy 5.2 (Affordable Housing) which states that level of affordable housing should have regard to the economics of provision and other planning objectives. Also policy 3A.10 of the London Plan (Negotiating Affordable Housing) states that affordable housing targets should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs and other requirements.
The development proposes a mixed residential scheme of 36 units with 27 (72%) private market units and 9 (28%) affordable units. The developer has submitted an appraisal showing that this level of affordable housing is all that can be supported within the margins of their development finance.
The key issue is therefore whether the Council should support the development now before it; a development proposal which would deliver tangible benefits to the area in the short term including regeneration and re-use of the site, the retention of an important and distinctive building and the increase in housing supply (including affordable housing) in the local area.
On balance it is considered that the principle of this development should be supported in this instance. In reaching this decision considerable weight has been attributed to the constraints of the site, its unsuitability for re-use as a community facility, the lack of commercial demand for a community re-use and the tangible benefits delivered in the short term through site redevelopment which would re-use this derelict site.
The developer would provide planning obligation financial contribution on this site of £180,000. It is considered that £80,000 of this should go towards improvement works and project work at Hanwell Community Centre. This contribution is to reflect that a community facility site would be lost in the local area.
Affordable Housing
London Plan Policy 3A.11 (Affordable Housing Targets) states that boroughs should normally require
- 21 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 affordable housing provision on a site which has a capacity to provide 10 or more homes, applying the density guidance set out in Policy 3A.3 of the Plan and Table 3A.2. The development proposes 36 dwellings and the density although high is appropriate for the site considering its particular characteristics and constraints and therefore London Plan policy 3A.11 must be applied.
The type of affordable housing, which that would be secured, would be in accordance with Supplementary Planning Document 1 (Affordable Housing). SPD 1 normally requires that 50% of the gross increase in the residential content should be made available as affordable accommodation. This will normally be measured in the form of habitable rooms.
The Applicant proposes to build 36 homes in total comprising of 7x1 beds, 26x2beds; and 3x3beds. The affordable element is proposed as 6x2beds and 3x3beds of which 1x2bed is provided as fully wheelchair adapted accommodation. This equates to 25% of affordable housing by units and 28% by habitable rooms. All of the affordable housing proposed is for social rented housing.
The tenure and unit size proposed meet with Ealing’s need for affordable housing which is overwhelmingly a requirement for social rented accommodation and an increasing need for family sized homes of 3 bed and more. However the quantum of affordable housing does not meet with the policy requirement for 50% of the homes provided to be for affordable housing.
The Housing Department has received independent advice on the proposal to provide the level of affordable housing set out in the application and concludes that the land purchase price was high, as are higher than usual building costs. However they note that a reasonably steep fall of values in market housing has contributed to put pressure on the ability of the scheme to support a higher level of affordable housing.
The concentration of affordable as wholly social rented housing means that the council can receive 9 homes under this tenure whereas a fully compliant scheme of 50% affordable with 70% of this as social rent would have provided 12 homes for social rent.
Therefore on balance having weighed up all of the above factors it is proposed to accept the affordable housing set out in the application. The recommendation is that the level of affordable housing provision should be secured through a section 106 legal agreement.
Density
Density is a measure of the number of dwellings, which can be accommodated on a site or in an area.
The site is within an existing suburban residential area. Former policy 5.1 (Housing Supply) and UDP Table 5A (Residential Density) of the UDP is no longer a saved policy and the borough is now applying policies 3A.3 (Maximising the potential of sites) and 4B.1 (Design principles for a compact city) of the London Plan when assessing density.
The London Plan states that boroughs should develop residential and commercial density policies in their UDP’s in line with this policy and adopt the residential density ranges set out in Table 3A.2 (Density matrix - habitable rooms and dwellings per hectare). The site area is 2400m2, which is equal to 0.24ha and which gives a density of 150 units per hectare based on 36 units, and 433 habitable rooms per hectare based on 104 habitable rooms at a average of 2.8 per unit. The site is located within a suburban area as defined by paragraph 3.23 of the London Plan. The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) on this site is 2, although the submitted transport assessment states that the PTAL is a high 2 and the site is located 60 metres from a PTAL 3 zone where transport access is considered to be good.
Table 3A.2 of the London Plan indicates that on suburban sites with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of between 2-3 and between 2.7-3.0 habitable rooms per unit (average) the acceptable density range will be 50-95 units per hectare and 150-250 habitable rooms per hectare.
The density of the proposal at 150 units per hectare and 433 habitable rooms per hectare is between
- 22 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 37% (based on units) and 43% (based on habitable rooms) above recommended maximum levels.
However the Greater London Authority (GLA) produced an update to the London Plan Density Matrix in June 2006. This document advised that due to limitations of PTAL’s not too much emphasis should be placed on the exact PTAL of a site when assessing density. Where alternative transport assessments can demonstrate that a site has a good existing, or planned public transport connectivity; the density of a scheme can be at the higher end of the density range. It is fully accepted that the submitted Transport Assessment demonstrates the public transport accessibility of the site through identification of local public transport services and stations together with the proximity of the site to local services. Taking this approach the acceptable density range would be 70-130 units per hectare and 200 –350 habitable rooms per hectare. The density of the proposal at 150 units per hectare and 433 habitable rooms per hectare is between 14% (based on units) and 19% (based on habitable rooms) above recommended maximum levels. The question of what weight must be attributed to the density update is relevant as it is noted that this document was released in 2006 prior to the latest revision of the London Plan in February 2008. However allowing for the findings of the submitted Transport Assessment it is recommended that some weight be attached to this consideration.
In addition although the site has been designated a suburban location in accordance with paragraph 3.23 of the London Plan it is fully acknowledged that the site has many characteristics of an urban location including proximity to the local town centre, the mix of uses, large plots and building footprints and heights of buildings between 2-4 storeys.
Nonetheless whilst the density of the development is above the required levels, the development would be a high quality and well-designed scheme, which would integrate well with its surroundings. The height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation of the extensions successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce the impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites. Planning Policy Statement 3 (Housing) states that it is desirable to use land efficiently. It also states that the density of existing development should not dictate that of new housing by stifling change or requiring replication of existing style or form. The development proposes an imaginative design and layout, which would lead to a more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the local environment.
The existing schoolhouse on the site is a distinctive Victorian building with considerable character. The surrounding environment on Golden Manor is characterised by existing large blocks of flats including Blagdon Court to the west, Golden Court, Testwood Court and Holbrook Court to the north and a flatted building to the east. These flatted developments are characteristic of early post war developments in the courtyard and modernist styles. The wider area including Church Road to the east is characterised by older 2 and 3 storey dwellings with a Victorian character. It is considered that the proposed development as a flatted scheme would achieve an effective compromise between these forms of development. The resulting building would integrate well with the scale of the adjacent blocks of flats, whilst the retention of the existing Victorian building together with the architecturally similar extensions would be sympathetic to the wider Victorian character of the area.
Design
Siting & Layout
With regard to the general location of the site, the proposed development would be located on a brownfield site in a residential area which is accessible by non-car transport modes, especially bus and train. The site is also in close proximity to shops and services reducing the need for future residents to travel unsustainably.
With regard to the siting and layout of the development in relationship with the surrounding built form. The development proposes extensions to the side and rear of the existing schoolhouse building resulting in a part 2, 3 and 4 storey building that would extend 36 metres across the front of the site facing onto Golden Manor, and into the site by some 44 metres. The side extensions to the existing building would give the building a T-shape in plan form. The northern section of the building would therefore be aligned with the established pattern of development along Golden Manor. The
- 23 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 resulting vista from Golden Manor is shown on the visual image (Plan Reference: 27998.21A) and on the northern elevation (Plan Reference: 27998.27A). It is considered that the siting of this part of the development integrates well with Golden Manor including Blagdon Court to the west and the 3 storey town houses to the east.
Although the building layout extends into the site covering a large footprint, it is considered that the footprint of the proposed building would not be too large in relation to the context. There are large courtyard style developments in the area on the opposite side of the road and to the west of the site. The siting and layout would result in an acceptable relationship with the surrounding built form with the eastern elevation of the building located over 30 metres from the rear of the dwellings on Church Road. The southern elevation of the building would be located over 35 metres from the rear of the properties on Campbell Road. On the Golden Manor frontage the flank elevations of the development would be sited in close proximity with Blagdon Court to the west and the 3 storey town houses to the east. Nonetheless this type of arrangement is entirely normal in suburban residential street patterns.
The urban design officer was concerned that the large building footprint would result in high site coverage by buildings and its positioning would constrain the size and shape of the communal amenity space. This concern is noted, however it is recognised that the site is located less than 300 metres from public open space at Churchfields Recreation Ground and Brent Park beyond. It is considered that in amenity terms future residents would be well served by nearby open spaces. Furthermore the development would provide private amenity space and an area of communal amenity space providing external amenity for all ground floor units.
The siting and layout of the development is similar to the extant planning permission for a nursing home on this site (P/2006/2951). The comparison of the siting and layout compared to the consented scheme has been shown on a submitted drawing (Plan Ref 27998.23S1A).
On the whole it is considered that the development would provide a suitable relationship between the proposed and existing buildings and spaces consistent with UDP policies 4.1 and 5.5.
Height and scale
The building would have a height facing the Golden Manor frontage of 11.5 metres which is the existing height of the building. This height is in keeping with the adjacent flatted development at Blagdon Court, which has a height of 10.6 metres and the 3 storey town houses to the east, which have a height of 10.3 metres. To the rear the height of the development varies between 10-13 metres depending on the number of storeys: with 4 storey sections measuring 13 metres in height, 3 storey sections measuring 11.5 metres in height and 2 storey sections measuring 10 metres in height. Although a section of the 4 storey extension to the rear would be higher than the retained schoolhouse building it would not be visible on Golden Manor due to the aspect from street level.
The 3 storey townhouse dwellings on Church Road to the east of the site are approximately 11 metres in height. The silhouette of these properties is shown as a background to the development on the plans (Plan Reference: 27998.27A). The main 4-storey extension to the school house with a height of 11.5 metres would be commensurate with the height of the properties. It is therefore considered that the height of the development would be consistent with the existing built form in the area.
In terms of scale and bulk it is recognised that the footprint of the building would be relatively large in comparison with the overall size of the site. However the height variation, roofscape and volumetric articulation of the extensions successfully reduce the perception of the large mass of the sides of the building and reduce the impact of the building mass on neighbouring sites. It is noted that Blagdon Court to the west and Testwood Court and Golden Court to the north are existing flatted schemes in the area, all of which have large building footprints and considerable bulk. Although there are terraced dwellings to the east, these are large Victorian 3 storey townhouses with a comparable height and collective bulk to the development.
It is therefore considered that the proposed development as a flatted scheme would achieve an
- 24 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 effective compromise between the different forms of development in the area. The resulting building would integrate well with the scale of the adjacent blocks of flats, whilst the retention of the existing Victorian building together with the architecturally similar extensions would be sympathetic to the wider Victorian character of the area.
High quality architecture and character
It is considered that the design would be based on the existing school house and the extensions which would blend with the existing building complementing its distinctive character. The retention of the school house building is a significant benefit of this proposal over the extant planning approval for a nursing home (P/2006/2951), which would incorporate the demolition of this building.
The wider Victorian character of the built environment along Golden Manor has been eroded in the past through the redevelopment of sites in the area for courtyard style flatted development schemes. These buildings which include Blagdon Court to the east and Testwood and Golden Court to the north are built in the modernist style, are largely functional and are characterised by the simplicity of their geometrical form, with un-textured/ un-detailed elevations, large areas of glass and brick/concrete construction. It is considered that the architectural design of this proposal, based on the retention of the original school building together with extensions sympathetic to the Victorian original should be supported. The design of the resulting building when viewed from Golden Manor as shown on the submitted visual (Plan Reference: 27998.21A) would add considerable character and design quality to the area and improve the setting of the conservation area.
Amenity
UDP Policy 4.1 (Design of Development) states that the council will only approve development that respects current standards of safety, natural light, health, privacy; freedom from traffic nuisance and disturbance from visual intrusion in relation to neighbouring land uses. Policy 5.5 (Residential Design) states that residential development should provide good living conditions for residents and good architectural quality, should relate well to its setting and incorporate sustainability principles.
Overshadowing and Loss of Light (Daylight and Sunlight)
At the site planning stage the aim is to ensure that there is a sufficient area of sky visible to give good interior lighting with windows of reasonable size. The availability of skylight at a window is determined primarily by the block form of the building and its surroundings.
UDP policy 5.5 states that residential development should provide good living conditions for residents including adequate daylight and sunlight. UDP policy 4.1 states that the Council will expect all proposals to allow sufficient daylight and sunlight into buildings. UDP policy 5.5 Table 5F states that development should not cause a material loss of daylight and sunlight to existing buildings.
The Council applies the standards in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) Report ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight – A Guide to Good Practice’. This report states that when a window is used as a main source of light, external obstructions should not be higher than 25° above the horizon in order to allow sufficient daylight.
The eastern elevation of the development would be located 30-35 metres from the rear of the dwellings on Church Road. The southern elevation of the development would be located over 35 metres from the rear of the properties on Campbell Road. The northern elevation of the development would be 29 metres from Golden Court and Holbrook Court to the north. On the Golden Manor frontage the flank elevations of the development would be sited in close proximity with Blagdon Court to the west and the 3 storey town houses to the east. To the west there is a two-storey cottage adjoining the site, which would be 4 metres from the flank elevation of the south west wing of the development.
The development would be integrated well with its surroundings. The block of flats to the north at Golden Court and Holbrook Court, and the terraced dwellinghouses on Church Road to the east and Campbell Road to the south would all be too far from the development to cause a material loss of
- 25 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 daylight. In all respects the proposed development would be lower than 25° above the horizon from their windows.
The development would be in close proximity to the flank elevation of Blagdon Court, the flank elevation of 18 Golden Manor and the flank elevation of the Cottage. However because none of these properties have habitable windows on their flank elevations this siting arrangement would not cause any material loss of light. In the case of Blagdon Court and 18 Golden Manor the development would maintain the linear pattern of development along Golden Manor. The contiguous relationship between the flank elevations is an entirely normal relationship within a suburban residential environment. It is recognised that the Cottage the closest existing dwelling to the site only has a flank elevation facing directly onto the site.
It is therefore accepted that the development would not cause a material loss of daylight to surrounding buildings.
Sunlight
Obstruction to the sunlight received by existing buildings may become an issue if some part of a new development lies within 90° of due south of a main window wall of an existing building, and, in section drawn perpendicular to this wall, the new development is lower than 25° measured from a point 2m above the ground.
The development would be within 90° of due south of Golden Court and Holbrook Court to the north but the proposed development would be lower than 25° in relation to these buildings.
The development would also be within 90° of due south of the rear elevation of 18 Golden Manor. However because the rear elevation of this dwelling faces south east in a parallel relationship with the site, the development would not directly obstruct sunlight to its windows. Nonetheless it is considered that the extensions to the main building may lead to a minor loss of sunlight to the garden of number 18 Golden Manor in the afternoon in the winter. However it is noted that there are several large trees along the rear boundary between the site and 18 Golden Manor which act to heavily diffuse sunlight. Any loss of sunlight to the garden at 18 Golden Manor would therefore be a marginal loss in winter only. This potential minor impact has to be balanced against the planning benefits delivered by the scheme including re use of this derelict site and supply of housing for the area. It is judged that this issue should hold minimal weight in the overall decision.
The development would also fall partially within 90° of due south of the rear and eastern elevations of Blagdon Court to the west. With respect to the southern elevation of Blagdon Court the development would fall within an oblique easterly aspect from these windows. Again like number 18 Golden Manor this elevation faces south east away from and parallel with the site. The development would not directly obstruct above 25° meaning adequate sunlight would be maintained for this elevation.
The eastern elevation of the southern wing of Blagdon Court faces directly into the site. However the development would be positioned over 32 metres from this elevation. The development would therefore be lower than 25° above the horizon from this eastern elevation. It is therefore considered that adequate sunlight would be maintained for this elevation.
The development would also fall partially within 90° of due south of the rear elevation of number 67 Church Road to the east. However although the rear elevation and main window wall of this property faces directly onto the site there would be a distance of 35 metres between it and the development. Consequentially the development would be lower than 25° above the horizon and adequate sunlight would be maintained for this elevation.
Visual Impact and Loss of Outlook
Although it is acknowledged that in planning terms no property has a right to a view it is important to qualitatively assess the visual impact of the proposal from surrounding property. UDP policy 5.5 states that development should provide good living conditions for residents, which includes an
- 26 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 attractive outlook. Table 5F of the UDP states that development should ensure that there is adequate space between existing and proposed buildings to preserve the visual amenity of the adjoining residents, so that the proposal does not appear overbearing. The main test of the visual impact of a development is made with reference to UDP policy 5.5 Table 5C which states that residential schemes should allow a distance of at least 21 metres (70ft) between the windows of habitable rooms which directly face those of another habitable room.
As stated above, the development integrates well with its surroundings. The siting and layout would result in an acceptable relationship with the surrounding built form with the eastern elevation of the building located over 30 metres from the rear of the dwellings on Church Road. The southern elevation of the building would be located over 35 metres from the rear of the properties on Campbell Road. The northern elevation of the building would be located 29 metres from Golden Court and Holbrook Court to the north. The western elevation of the building would be located over 30 metres from the eastern elevation of the southern wing of Blagdon Court to the west. No other existing building in the area has a direct relationship with the site (i.e. faces the site directly). All of these relationships would maintain the required 21 metre separation distance between the existing buildings and the development. It is also accepted that the development would have a commensurate scale with the surrounding environment.
The development would constitute a change in outlook in certain respects particularly for residents within property, which would view the long side elevations of the resulting building including those on Church Road and Blagdon Court. On Church Road it is noted that only three properties numbers 63 - 67 would directly face onto the side elevation of the development. It is considered that these are adequate separation distances, which would preserve the visual amenity of the residents of the properties on Church Road and Blagdon Court.
Overlooking and Loss of Privacy.
UDP policy 5.5 states that development should provide a sense of privacy for new residents and their neighbours. UDP policy 5.5 table 5F states that there should be no unacceptable overlooking of houses and back gardens. UDP policy 5.5 states that roof terraces and balconies will not be permitted where they overlook neighbouring habitable rooms or garden space. The main test of the privacy provided by a development is made with reference to UDP policy 5.5 Table 5C which states that residential schemes should allow a distance of at least 21 metres (70ft) between the windows of habitable rooms which directly face those of another habitable room
It is been established above that the development would not fall within 21 metres of any window to any existing building, which directly faces into the site. It is therefore considered that adequate privacy would be provided within existing buildings.
The development site does adjoin several rear gardens at 18 Golden Manor and 63-67 Church Road all to the east and the Cottage to the west. The eastern elevation of the development would be sited 12 metres from the rear garden at 18 Golden Manor. Part of the 3 and 4 storey east elevation containing habitable windows as shown on the submitted plan (Plan Reference 27998.29S5A) would face this garden. It is judged that the ground and first floor of the development would not have a visible angle into this garden. However the second and third floor would have a visible angle by virtue of their height above ground level. Having said this there are several large and small trees along the boundary with this property, which would reduce the potential for overlooking by obscuring the visible aspect. 3 of these trees would be removed to facilitate the development and replacement planting will be required.
It is acknowledged that the development is designed to take into account any potential impact on 18 Golden Manor. The side extension on the east side of the school building would only have a depth equivalent with the depth of the flank elevation of the building at 18 Golden Manor. The rear extension to school house building is therefore set back by 12 metres from the boundary with the rear garden. On balance it is judged that the impact of any overlooking in this respect would be marginal the development is sited away from the boundary with this property.
The relationship with the development and the rear gardens at numbers 65 and 67 Church Road is
- 27 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 less acute. Although the development would be sited 11 metres from the boundary with number 67 and 9 metres from the boundary with number 65 it should be noted that these properties have large rear gardens over 25 metres in length. In the case of 67 Church Road there are several large and small trees both adjacent to the site within its rear garden and within the site. It is considered that the separation distance together with the protection provided by the trees would act as an effective screen protecting that garden from overlooking. In the case of 65 Church Road there is an outbuilding in the rear garden of this property adjoining the site. Also there are a row of trees between the site and the access way linking the site with Church Road. The tree and the outbuilding would combine to provide an effective screen preventing overlooking of the garden. However to this should be added the fact that the garden to number 65 is positioned to the south east of the site where it would not directly face either the eastern or southern elevation of the development. This oblique relationship would act to reduce the potential for overlooking further.
The rear garden of number 63 Church Road adjoins the southern boundary of the site where presently the southernmost row of garages is sited. The development has been kept to part 2 and 3 storey in this location to avoid material overlooking of this garden. Considering the distance between the development and this garden only the second floor would have any visible aspect of this garden. Although this overlooking issue is judged to be immaterial and little weight shall be attributed to it in the recommendation it is considered that the planting of a row of trees with diffuse qualities along the southern boundary of the site would help to reduce the potential for overlooking.
Proposed Development
The UDP requires the provision of good living conditions for all residents including the future residents of the development. The development would be well integrated with its surroundings and as a result there are no concerns in relation to privacy, outlook or low levels of daylight and sunlight resulting from proximity to neighbouring buildings. However the resulting development itself would form a block of flats with L-shaped corners that result from the relationship between the side and rear extensions to the existing building. The flats that are positioned within the rear extension but are closest to the corners between the rear and side extensions would have windows which may receive poor levels of daylight. The sensitive windows are shown on the eastern side (Plan Reference: 27998.29S5A) and western side (Plan Reference: 27998.27A). Specifically it is considered that the living room window to unit 11 on ground floor of the western elevation would receive poor levels of daylight. The bedroom windows to unit 5 on the ground floor, unit 15 on the first floor and unit 27 on the second floor all on the eastern side of the building would also receive poor levels of daylight.
These concerns about daylight represent only a fraction of the flats within the proposed development. In a medium density residential environment a small number of rooms with minor daylight problems can be accepted when the benefits of the development such as the regeneration of the site and provision of housing are weighed in to the balance. Ultimately these issues will be a matter between the developer and his clients, the future occupiers of the development who as active in the market and who will have a choice.
Internal and External Amenity Space
The proposal would involve the development of 36 (7 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed) flats. Internal floor space standards should meet the minimum requirements in SPG 14. The following table summarises the results:
Indoor Floor Areas: Unit no Bedrooms Occupancy Habitable Required net Proposed net Net floor rooms floor area floor area area (SPG14) (m²) complies?
1 2 3 3 56.6 68 Yes 2 2 3 3 56.6 68 Yes 3 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 4 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 5 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes 6 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes
- 28 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 7 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 8 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 9 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 10 3 5 4 78.9 86 Yes 11 1 2 2 44.5 49 Yes 12 2 3 3 56.6 68 Yes 13 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 14 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 15 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes 16 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes 17 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 18 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 19 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 20 3 5 4 78.9 86 Yes 21 1 2 2 44.5 49 Yes 22 1 2 2 44.5 47 Yes 23 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 24 1 2 3 44.5 47 Yes 25 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 26 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 27 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes 28 2 3 3 56.6 65 Yes 29 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 30 2 3 3 56.6 67 Yes 31 3 5 4 78.9 86 Yes 32 1 2 2 44.5 49 Yes 33 1 2 2 44.5 47 Yes 34 1 2 3 44.5 70 Yes 35 2 4 3 69.6 135 Yes 36 2 3 3 56.6 78 Yes
The table above shows that all the units would provide adequate internal living space for residents in accordance with the requirements set out in SPG 14.
However the internal arrangement is problematic in other respects. The kitchen in flat 24 on the second floor would be above a bedroom in flat 12 on the first floor, and the kitchen in flat 34 on the third floor would be partially above a bedroom in flat 27 on the second floor. This stacking arrangement with noise generating kitchens above noise sensitive bedrooms is likely to lead to noise and disturbance problems to the future occupiers of the noise sensitive rooms. No details of sound mitigation have been submitted, and although it is accepted that noise insulation could be used to eliminate this problem it would preferable if vertical stacking was like for like throughout the development. UDP policy 5.5 states that ‘ residential development should provide good living conditions for residents therefore a planning condition has been recommended requesting a revised internal layout so that the vertical stacking arrangement is acceptable.
Garden (Amenity) Space
In terms of private garden space UDP policy 5.5 states that all proposed residential development should provide adequate garden space, well related to the residential accommodation. Residential garden space must be space, which is usable as amenity space. It does not include forecourts or front gardens, which are primarily for access, or areas which are in continuous shade.
UDP policy 5.5 and SPG 13 establish that as an alternative to individual gardens new flats for one or two people, may have a communal garden with a minimum area of 75m2 for up to 5 units and 15m2 for each additional unit. Ground floor units should have private gardens, especially where the communal garden adjoins their windows. These should be 50m2 in new developments and in conversions where space allows, but elsewhere should provide at least 3m between these windows and the boundary screening the communal garden.
Ground floor units 3-9 would provide private amenity space enclosed by soft boundary treatment.
- 29 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Unit 3 would have 24m2, unit 4 would have 9m2, unit 5 would have 12m2, units 6 and 7 would have 18m2 and units 8 and 9 would have 27m2. Although the requirement for private garden space is a minimum of 50m2 it is recognised that the ground floor units would all have access to the communal amenity space to the rear and side of the development. It is therefore considered that the external amenity requirements for all ground floor units 2-11 is met by the communal amenity space provided. The development would provide over 280 m2 of usable communal amenity space. This calculated by taking the area to the sides and rear of the building and discounting access areas, areas in shade, 3 metre buffer areas from ground floor windows and the play area. Although the private amenity space provided at ground floor level would not contribute towards meeting the UDP policy requirement, this space is useful private space for the ground floor units and should be provided to give better living conditions for future residents of those units.
The area of usable communal amenity space provided is sufficient in theory to meet the external amenity needs of 18 units. However it is judged that none of the units on the upper floors or the semi- basement unit would be well related to this communal amenity space as required by UDP policy 5.5. The communal amenity space provided is therefore deemed to not be usable by the aforementioned units. Nevertheless it is recognised that the site is located less than 300 metres from public open space at Churchfields Recreation Ground and Brent Park beyond. These open spaces combined represent one of the largest public parks in the borough and it is judged that their proximity to the site means that they would be accessible and usable by the future residents of the development. Because of this the developer has agreed to contribute towards their maintenance and improvement in lieu of providing on site private or communal external amenity space for the upper floor units and the semi-basement unit. The Council’s draft SPD 9 on Planning Obligations states that if a proposed housing development cannot provide sufficient on site usable amenity space provision off site may be acceptable where opportunities exist sufficiently close to the development to make them usable by future residents. This document states that the level of contribution is at a level of £2,000-£6,000 per dwelling.
In this case due to the proximity of local parks the appropriate contribution is at a level of £2,000 for units with under 3 bedrooms and £4,000 for large family units with 3 bedrooms. 24 of the units concerned have fewer than 3 bedrooms made up of unit 1 in the semi basement, units 12-19 and 21- 23 on the first floor, units 24-30 and 32-33 on the second floor and units 34 – 36 on the third floor. Units 20 and 31 are large family units with 3 bedrooms. The total financial contribution for under provision of amenity space is therefore £56,000 calculated as follows:
24x 2000=48,000 2x 4000=8,000 48,000+8,000=56,000
The specific parks would be Churchfields Recreation Ground and Brent Park, which would be named, in the legal agreement.
Children’s Play space
The London Plan SPD ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ (2008) is now being used to calculate the required area of children’s play space for a development. The required area is based on the calculation of the child yield for the development which is shown in the table below:
No of Units Unit Type Factor Child Yield Social Rent 6 2 bed 1 6 3 3 bed 2 6 Private 7 1 bed 0.11 0.77 20 2 bed 0.11 2.2 Total 36 14.97
The London Plan SPD states that 10m2 of external play space is required per child giving a requirement for 150m2 of play space for this development.
- 30 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 A play area would be provided on site with 3 pieces of play equipment (Plan Reference: 27998.23B). However this play area is within a tree root protection zone and would need to relocated. Further details of the location of the play area/equipment together with surfacing and boundary treatment for the play area would need to submitted and a planning condition has been recommended obligating the developer to submit these details and provide the play area prior to the first occupation of the development.
Although the play area is likely to be below the area required it is noted that the London Plan SPD does not require external play for ground floor units, which have private amenity space. The play needs of children are considered to be met by units with private amenity space. Also the ground floor units have reasonable access to the communal amenity space, which can to a certain degree serve a dual function as amenity and play space. The practical fact remains that children will play within an outdoor amenity space regardless of its planning designation. In addition it is recognised that the site is located less than 300 metres from public open space, which provide the opportunity for supervised trips. On balance it is considered that the development adequately provides for the play needs of children.
Highway, Parking & Access
The site is not situated within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). 34 car parking spaces are proposed for the development made up of 8 surface and 26 basement spaces of which 4 would be designed to disabled standards. The UDP maximum car-parking requirement is for 1 space for per flat inclusive of 1 disabled space per 10 flats in this instance (Table 1 of the UDP in Transport Appendix 1).
The development would therefore not provide a designated car parking space for 2 units. However the 4 disabled car parking spaces provided would meet the need for a minimum UDP requirement of 4 disabled car parking spaces for this development. In addition the development would generate a total need for 24 cycle parking spaces for the development. All parking should be provided prior to the first occupation of any of the units and retained for the lifetime of the development (refer to relevant planning conditions).
The level of car parking proposed represents 94% provision for this development. It is acknowledged that the Council Highways Authority do not object to this level of provision. The site is located 375 metres from Hanwell Rail Station. Also the site is located 300 metres from a bus stop on Greenford Avenue where the E3 bus service provides links with Greenford, Ealing and Chiswick. The site is also within walking distance at 615 metres of Hanwell Town Centre for the provision of goods and services and bus services. There are more local services including shops within 400 metres on Church Road and Greenford Avenue. Also community support facilities such as schools, doctors and dentists are all within 500 metres of the site. It is therefore considered that the level of car parking proposed should be supported as the site is in a highly sustainable location where it is well served by local facilities and the local public transport network.
In terms of access the development would alter the exist access onto Golden Manor. The alteration of a crossover at this point is acceptable to the Highways Authority. Visibility at the access point is important to prevent conflict and highway safety problems between vehicles accessing and egressing the site, passing vehicles, cyclists, wheelchair users and pedestrians. Details of visibility should therefore be submitted to the local planning authority for later approval (refer to relevant planning condition).
The access provides a route into the basement car park through the arch and via a split 1:20 and 1:10 gradient. The Council Highway Authority is satisfied with the technical design specification of the internal access road, arch, gradient and basement car park. The main access into the site and the internal access route to the basement car park would be constructed to a shared surface design for dual use by pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users and vehicles. A tactile surfaced pedestrian route would be provided from the main entrance to the development to the communal amenity space and play area to ensure that disabled residents can access those areas safely. A separate pedestrian access would also be provided along the western side of the proposed building linking the two internal access cores. The section of this pedestrian route adjacent to the ramped access to the basement car park would have railings for safety. The Council Highway Authority is again satisfied
- 31 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 with the design of the shared surface and pedestrian access routes.
There is an unconfirmed public right of way across the south of the site from Church Road through to the south west corner of the site. A route for pedestrians, cyclists and wheelchair users is shown between Church Road and the south west corner of the site (Plan Reference: - 27998.23B). The legal situation is as follows, if the public right of way is confirmed then the landowner would have to provide it regardless of the requirements of this planning application. Nevertheless this planning application should not enforce the provision of the public right of way. Therefore although the route is shown it should be treated indicatively at this rime.
Planning conditions have been recommended dealing with hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatment and therefore the future landscaping and boundary treatment can be revised depending on the outcome of this situation. The suggested arrangement would work as follows; if the public right of way is confirmed then the route should be provided to the appropriate standard and boundary treatment such as railings or hedging should be used to separate and enclose the site from the route. The route would also be future safeguarded so that should a right of way be designated across the site in future the access would be provided.. However if the public right of way in not confirmed then this land should be used as communal amenity space with landscaping to the appropriate standard. Either way the boundary treatment on the far southern boundary of the site should be provided to the appropriate standard.
Environmental Pollution
Noise
Policy 4.11 of the Adopted UDP states that ‘noise - sensitive development will not be permitted where its users would suffer noise above acceptable levels, unless this can be acceptably attenuated. The Council Environmental Health Department state that the development site is assessed as being exposed to noise from Heathrow Airport. Noise insulation of the building to achieve a sound reduction within the building with ventilation provided will therefore be required (refer to relevant planning condition). This normally entails the use of specialist materials for the construction of the building envelope together with sound proofed doors and wide air space acoustic secondary glazing and an under ceiling within roof space. Further details on aircraft noise mitigation can be found in SPD 10 section 6 ‘Sound Attenuation and Design Criteria.
Land
UDP policy 2.7 states that where a site is strongly suspected to be contaminated, the Council will require an assessment to demonstrate that the development can be carried out safely, before any application is determined. Such assessment should investigate and propose remedial measures if land contamination is found to avoid harm for the intended use of the site and the area. The Council Environmental Health Department have assessed this development and consider that a contaminated land investigation should be completed prior to development commencing. This is deemed to be a reasonable request and a planning condition has been recommended requiring such an assessment and remediation measures if necessary prior to the commencement of the development.
Refuse Storage
SPD 4 states that appropriately designed refuse and recycling storage bins and enclosures need to be provided in conjunction with new buildings so that materials which are no longer required can be stored pending collection for recycling or disposal.
The development would provide a refuse storage area adjacent to the coach arch to the north west of the site. This storage area would be located close to the access point within a semi-enclosed space, which can be screened from the street by fencing and landscaping. The storage area would also be located not more than 10 metres from the nearest access point on Golden Manor for the collection vehicle as required where wheeled containers would be used. The refuse storage area would also be located on level ground.
- 32 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
However no detail of the type of bins and enclosures that would be used, the type of screening to be used and management arrangements showing how refuse bins would be wheeled to the collection point without interfering with vehicular car parking or access has been submitted. Therefore a planning condition has been recommended requesting this detail prior to the first occupation of the development.
Accessibility, Lifetime Homes & Wheelchair housing
Policy 5.3 (Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair Housing) states that all new residential units created through new development or conversion should be consistent with the Lifetime Homes standards to ensure that the development is as accessible as possible. This policy also requires that on sites of 10 or more units 10% of the units must be designed to wheelchair standards.
The lifetime homes and wheelchair standards are set out in Table 5B of the UDP and SPG7. The Council Accessibility Officer has made an assessment of the development against these standards and has concluded that subject to bathroom doors opening outwards and the bathroom layout allowing a side approach to the bath and WC the lifetime homes standards would be met. It is considered entirely reasonable to request this level of detail from the developer prior to the first occupation of the development (refer to the relevant planning condition).
4 units within the development would be constructed to the wheelchair housing standards. The developer has confirmed that these units would units 8, 9, 18 and 19. Again considering the level of detail required to meet the wheelchair housing standards a planning condition has been recommended requiring the developer to submit details demonstrating compliance with the standards prior to the first occupation of the development.
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency
Policy 2.9 of the UDP requires major development to incorporate equipment for renewable power generation so as to provide at least 10% of their predicted energy requirements.
However the Council is now applying London Plan policy 4A.7, which requires a reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation, which can include sources of decentralized renewable energy unless it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible.
In accordance with policy 4A.4 of the London Plan an energy assessment of the energy demand and CO2 emissions from the development including expected energy and CO2 savings from energy efficiency and renewable energy measures incorporated into the development is required. This assessment should include a calculation of baseline energy demand and CO2 emissions, proposals for reduction of energy demand and CO2 from heating, cooling and electrical power, and the proposals for meeting residual energy demands through renewable energy generating equipment.
The developer has undertaken initial scooping and feasibility work in relation to renewable energy and energy efficiency with the aim of meeting the London Plan requirement in policy 4A.7.
The renewable energy and energy efficiency requirements are important and details will need to be submitted prior to the commencement of development to ensure that these issues are fully considered and assessed at the pre construction stage (refer to relevant planning condition).
Sustainability
The development scores 61/100 on the sustainability checklist and is regarded as broadly sustainable. The main aspects of this are considered below.
1. The site is located less than 400 metres from public transport links including Hanwell Rail Station and local bus services. The site would be accessible by cycling and walking and car parking provision would be below the maximum standards.
- 33 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 2. The development proposes insulation and double-glazing with heating and lighting systems. Wind chill would be minimized whilst sunlight would be maximized. Renewable energy would be generated on site to the London Plan standards. Recycling storage and management would be provided on site and water re-use and composting facilities would be provided and managed on the site. More than 30% of building materials would be re-used from existing buildings on the site. 3. The development proposes to comply with the Safer and Accessible Ealing guidance. The developer has conducted an extensive pre consultation process and the development has support from the community. 4. Subject to tree protection, replacement tree planting and landscaping the biodiversity, green space and trees on the site would be improved. The development would re-use a previously developed site and two thirds of existing buildings on the site would also be reused. The development would also protect the heritage value of the site by retaining the existing Victorian school house. 5. The development would reduce land pollution through land decontamination and demolition of unused buildings. 6. The development would contribute financially towards improvement works and projects at Hanwell Community Centre and would therefore increase social goods and services in the area.
Archaeology
The site is located within an Archaeological Interest Area. UDP policy 4.9 requires that it is the Council’s intention to protect archaeological sites and within Archaeological Interest Areas an opportunity for investigation must be provided prior to the development.
The development was submitted with an Archaeological Assessment, which states that although Palaeolithic finds have been discovered within 500 metres of the site, the site itself has low archaeological potential as the site was agricultural land up until the 1880s. The submitted Archaeological Assessment concludes that the redevelopment of the site is unlikely to have a significant or widespread archaeological impact and no further archaeological mitigation measures are proposed.
The English Heritage Archaeological Advisor agrees that archaeological issues should not be a consideration when determining the application
Trees, Landscapes and Ecology
Trees
A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) designated in 1968 protects 5 trees on the site. These trees are listed in the table below together with all other trees on the site.
Tree Species Grade TPO Protected Retained/Removed 1 Yew B1 Yes (T18) Removal 2 Walnut C1 No Removal 3 Cherry C1 No Removal 4 Common Lime A1 Yes (T23) Retention 5 Sycamore B2 No Removal 6 Small Leaved Lime B1 Yes (T17) Removal 7 Sycamore C1 No Removal 8 Magnolia C1 Yes (T21) Removal 9 Cherry Laurel C2 No Removal 10 Holly C2 No Removal 11 False Acacia B2 Yes (T22) Retention 12 Sycamore B2 No Removal 13 Flowering Cherry B2 No Removal
There is an extant planning approval on the site (Reference: P/2006/2951). An Arboriculture Impact
- 34 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Assessment has been submitted with the application which states that this extant permission would have led to the loss of all trees of the site except numbers 4, 5 and 7. Therefore only 1 TPO tree would have been retained through the extant permission. This development would involve the loss of all trees except 4 and 11 and includes the loss of 3 of the 5 TPO protected trees. The Council’s Parks and Countryside Arboriculture Department has no objection to the loss of these trees from a landscape and arboricultural perspective provided the retained trees are protected to British Standard during the construction process and replacement tree planting.
From an urban design perspective it is considered that the trees on the frontage of Golden Manor, which would be lost, should be replaced with new semi mature trees within engineered planting pits in order to retain the character of the area. It is therefore recommended that trees 9 and 12 be replaced by semi mature trees. In addition trees 5, 6 and 7 which would be lost are located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the rear garden of number 18 Golden Manor. As discussed elsewhere in this report there are important planning reasons for retaining a considerable amount of tree cover against this boundary in order to reduce the potential for overlooking of the rear garden of number 18 Golden Manor. It is therefore considered that trees 5 and 7 should be replaced with semi mature trees within engineered planting pits. It is recommended that details of all replacement tree planting would need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and implemented on site prior to the commencement of the development.
Landscapes
The application has been submitted with a Landscape Design Strategy setting out the broad conceptual approach to landscaping the development including types of plants and lawns, hard landscaping for building entrances, design of the amenity space and play space and boundary treatment. The Council’s Parks and Countryside Arboriculture Department has no objection to the landscaping design approach although a plan showing the detailed layout and type of hard and soft landscaping together with a specification of species type, samples of hard surfacing materials and boundary treatment would all be required. It is recommended that this level of detail should be requested using planning conditions. Any details would need to be approved and implemented prior to the first occupation of the development. It should be noted that the developer proposed to only replace 1 lost tree as stated in the Landscape Design Strategy is not agreed. At least 4 replacement trees would be required to mitigate for the loss of 11 trees on the site and further trees would be required on the western and southern boundary as part of the landscaping scheme.
Ecology
The planning application was submitted with an Ecological Statement, which concludes that birds are the only UK or EU protected species found on this site, which is of medium nature conservation importance.
The Ecological Statement includes the following 6 recommendations:
1. An appropriate landscaping program based on the use of native species in accordance with British Standards. 2. Erection of 9 bat boxes on the trees in accordance with the technical specification in the Ecological Statement. 3. Erection of 6 bat tubes on the building in accordance with the technical specification in the Ecological Statement. 4. Erection of 6 swift bricks on the building in accordance with the technical specification in the Ecological Statement. 5. Erection of 4 sparrow boxes on the building in accordance with the technical specification in the Ecological Statement. 6. Make log piles and bury old timber to encourage stag beetles in accordance with the technical specification in the Ecological Statement.
The Council’s Parks and Countryside Arboriculture Department has no objection to the conclusions of the Ecological Statement provided all recommended enhancements be implemented. A planning condition is therefore recommended requesting details of ecological enhancement works in
- 35 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 accordance with the submitted Ecological Statement. Yet again these details would need submitted, approved and implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.
Conclusion:
This community facility is no longer required for a community use and as such the principle of this development should be supported on this site. The developer has demonstrated that the level of affordable housing proposed is all that can be financially supported. The density of the development is only 14% above the recommended levels once the accessibility of the site is appreciated. In design terms the development would be a high quality and well-designed scheme, which would integrate well with its surroundings. It would achieve an effective compromise between the different forms of development in the area by integrating well with the scale of the adjacent blocks of flats. The retention of the existing Victorian building together with the architecturally similar extensions would be sympathetic to the wider Victorian character of the area. The development would not harm the amenity of existing residents in the area. The site is in a highly sustainable location with good public transport links and access to local services meaning the minor under provision of car parking can be supported. There is adequate internal living space provision and the communal garden would provide external amenity for all ground floor units. Subject to conditions the development would provide adequate noise insulation, land decontamination, renewable energy, accessibility, refuse storage, landscaping, boundary treatment, ecological enhancement, tree protection and tree planting. The development would provide a financial contribution to mitigate for the loss of the community site, off site improvement of amenity space in lieu of on site provision for 26 units, towards local education and healthcare provision. A legal agreement would be used to secure this financial contribution and ensure that 9 of the units are provided as affordable social rented units.
Recommendation (Planning Permission):
RECOMMENDATION
Grant PLANNING PERMISSION with conditions (Subject to S106 Legal Agreement)
Heads of Terms
The development shall contribute financially to a total sum of £180,000 made up as follows :
1. £80,000 to be contributed to Hanwell Community Centre towards maintainance, enhancement works and community projects at Hanwell Community Centre. 2. £56,000 to be contributed to Ealing Council Parks and Countryside towards the maintenance and enhancement of local parks including Churchfields Recreation Ground and Brent River Park in lieu of the provision of on site external amenity space for units 1 and 12-36. 3. £22,000 to be contributed to Ealing Local Education Authority (LEA) towards local education provision. 4. £22,000 to be contributed to West London Primary Care Trust (PCT) towards local healthcare provision 5. Pay the Council’s reasonable legal fees in drawing up the agreement. 6. Delivery in pepetuity of 9 of the 36 proposed residential flats (6x2beds and 3x3beds) as affordable social rented units in association with an RSL on the Councils approved list.
1. Time
The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: In order to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). 2. Samples of Materials
Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development shall be
- 36 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings in accordance with policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 'New Plan for the Environment'.
3. Boundary Treatment
Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential flats hereby approved details indicating the positions, appearance, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, which shall be completed before the residential units are first occupied and permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect the appearance of the area and the amenity of surrounding properties in accordance with policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 'New Plan for the Environment' (2004). 4. Hard and Soft Landscaping
Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plans details of hard and soft landscaping works and a phased programme of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development, or in accordance with the programme agreed by the local planning authority. Any trees or other plants which die or are removed within the first five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme shall be replaced during the next planting season, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is landscaped in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies 3.8, 4.1, 4.5, and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004); Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 9 (Trees and Development Guidelines). 5. Car Parking
The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be marked out on the site prior to first occupation of any of the residential flats hereby approved, and these spaces shall be kept continuously available for car parking and shall not be used for any other purpose, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for car parking within the site, in accordance with policy 9.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004). 6. Noise Mitigation
Details of sound attenuation measures from aircraft noise together with associated ventilation for the proposed residential flats shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, Such details as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units and thereafter permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupiers of the residential properties, in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 (Noise and Vibration). 7. Retained Trees
- 37 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
The following protected trees within the site, 11 (False Acacia – T22) and 4 (Lime – T23as shown on the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Plan Reference 27-1058.05P) shall not be lopped, topped, felled or otherwise affected in any way (including raising or lowering soil levels under the crown spread of the trees) and no excavation shall be cut under the crown spread of those trees without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard those protected trees in the interest of visual character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies 3.8, 4.1 and 4.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), and Supplementary Planning Document 9 (Trees and Development Guidelines). 8. Protection Method Statement for Retained Trees
Before the development is commenced, details of a tree protection method statement setting out the measures to ensure full protection of the following retained trees within the site: 11 (False Acacia – T22) and 4 (Lime – T23to BS 5837: 2001 as shown on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Plan Reference 27-1058.05P) and means of constructing the buildings and associated overground and underground services, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out only in accordance with the approved method statement, which shall apply until the end of the construction period.
Reason: To prevent damage to the protected trees in the interest of the visual character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies 3.8, 4.1 and 4.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 9 (Trees and Development guidelines). 9. Replacement Tree Planting
Prior to the first occupation of the residential flats hereby approved a detailed specification of replacement tree planting to mitigate for the loss of the following trees: 1 (Yew - T18), 2 (Walnut), 3 (Cherry), 5 (Sycamore), 6 (Small Leaved Lime - T17), 7 (Sycamore), 8 (Magnolia - T21), 9 (Cherry Laurel), 10 (Holly), 12 (Sycamore), and 13 (Flowering Cherry) as shown on the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Plan Reference 27-1058.05P), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This specification will include details of replacement tree planting together with details of their size, species, position, the proposed time of planting, an indication of how they integrate with the proposal in the long term with regard to their size and anticipated routine maintenance. All replacement tree, planting shall be implemented in accordance with that specification prior to the first occupation of the development and in accordance with BS 3936 (parts 1, 1992, Nursery Stock, Specification for trees and shrubs, and 4, 1984, specification for forest trees); BS4043, 1989, (Transplanting root-balled trees); and BS4428, 1989, (Code of practice for general landscape operations, excluding hard surfaces). If within a period of five years from the date of planting of any tree, that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, (or becomes in the opinion of the LPA seriously damaged or defective), another tree of the same species and size as originally planted shall be planted at the same place on the site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To mitigate for the loss of trees on the site in the interests of the visual character and appearance of the area and in accordance with policies 3.8, 4.1, and 4.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 9 (Trees and development guidelines). 10. Refuse Storage
Details of refuse storage bins and enclosures including screening and a recycling, and/or a refuse management plan in accordance with the standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such provision shall be brought into use prior to the first occupation of the development permitted and retained thereafter, unless otherwsie agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
- 38 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 Reason: To protect the living conditions of occupiers of the area.in accordance with policies 2.10, 4.1, 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), and Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 (Refuse Storage).
11. Visibility Splays
There shall be no obstruction above 0.6m in height at any time within pedestrian visibility splay areas at the back line of the footway / access road that measure 1.5m deep and 1.5m wide at either side of the vehicular access point to the site. The new access shall be constructed before any of the residential flats hereby approved are first occupied and this visibility splays shall be permanently retained in the form described in this condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with policies 9.1 and 9.9 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004). 12. Contaminated Land Survey
Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a contaminated land and buildings investigation shall be carried out, using sampling points and methods agreed with the Local Planning Authority and subsequently a risk assessment shall be prepared, following the CLEA guidance. A scheme shall then be submitted for approval to describe the proposed methods of removal, neutralising or sealing of the contamination, and for the remedial works to be implemented in accordance with a phasing programme to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All decontamination works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the flats hereby approved.
Reason: To protect the health and living conditions of residents in the area in accordance policies 2.7 and 4.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004). 13. Lifetime Homes & Wheelchair Housing
All residential units hereby approved shall be constructed to the Lifetime Homes Standards, and 4 residential units (8, 9, 18, 19), Plan Reference: 27998.23B) shall be constructed to the Council’s Wheelchair Housing Standards, details of which shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development. The approved details shall be implemented in this development prior to the first occupation of any of the residential flats hereby approved, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development is accessible by all future occupiers, in accordance with policies 4.1, 4.3 and 5.3 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan ‘Plan for the Environment’ (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance 7 (Accessible Ealing).
14. Renewable Energy
Details of energy efficient design, sustainable construction, and a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% from on site renewable energy generation equipment (which can include sources of decentralised renewable energy) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any part of the development and shall be permanently retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure the proposal contributes to its renewable energy and climate change requirements in accordance with policy 2.9 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (Plan for the Environment) 2004 and London Plan Policies 4.A.2, 4A.4 and 4A.7. 15. Construction Details
Prior to the commencement of the development, details of a site construction method statement and management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement/management plan shall include the following:
- 39 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09
- on-site construction worker parking - anticipated number, frequency and size of construction vehicles entering/exiting the site - delivery times (staggered to avoid morning and afternoon school run peak periods) - dust suppression measures - wheel washing provisions - site security - vehicle manoeuvring and turning, including sweep path diagrams to demonstrate how vehicles will access the site and be able to turn into and emerge from the site in forward gear. - details as to the locations for the storage of building materials and construction debris and contractors offices - procedures for on-site contractors to deal with complaints from local residents.
Such details shall be implemented, or phasing agreed in writing, prior to the commencement of works on site and thereafter retained for the duration of the works.
Reason: To ensure appropriate mitigation measures to protect the amenity of local residents and occupiers of the neighbouring sites and ensure adequate highway and site safety, in accordance with policies 4.4, 4.5, 4.11, 9.1 and 9.9 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan (Plan for the Environment) 2004. 16. Ecological
The following ecological enhancements listed in section 12. of the submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Wildlife Matters 12/11/2008) shall be completed on site prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby approved:
-Erection of 9 Bat boxes on the trees on the site. -Erection of 6 Bat tubes fitted to the apex of the south facing gable end walls on the site. -Erection of 6 Swift bricks within the brick walls on the site. -Erection of 4 House Sparrow boxes on new buildings on the site -Installation of log piles and buried old timber along the curtilages for Stag Beetles.
The ecological enhancement shall be implemented only in accordance with the technical specifications shown in the submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Wildlife Matters 12/11/2008), and after completion shall be permanently retained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planing authority.
Reason: To ensure that the ecological habitat of the site is protected and enhanced in accordance with polcies 3.8, 3.9 and 4.1 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004).
17. Children’s Play Area
Notwithstanding the information shown on the submitted plan (Reference: 27998.23B), prior to the first occupation of the residential flats hereby approved details of a children’s play area (with a location to be agreed so as not to impact on the existing trees) including information about the type of foundation, surfacing materials, boundary treatment and play equipment (which shall include at a minimum 3 pieces of play equipment for toddlers) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the residential flats hereby approved, and shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
1. Reason: To ensure that there are adequate outdoor children’s facilities on the site to help achieve a healthy and balanced quality of life for the future child residents of the development in accordance with policies 3.5, 4.1 and 5.5 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004), policy 3D.13 of the London Plan and Greater London Authority SPD (Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation).
- 40 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 18. Stacking
Prior to the commencement of this development details shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the layout and internal arrangement within the block of flats is designed to ensure that similar types of rooms in flats are stacked above each other. The details as approved shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details, prior to the first occupation of any of the residential flats, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of future occupiers of the residential properties, in accordance with policies 4.1 and 4.11 of the adopted Ealing Unitary Development Plan, 'Plan for the Environment' (2004) and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 (Noise and Vibration). 19. Cycle Parking
Prior to the first occupation of the residential flats hereby approved, details of a scheme to provide a minimum of 24 cycle parking spaces on the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local planning Authority, and such details as approved shall be implemented and brought into use prior to first occupation of any of the residential flats hereby permitted, and retained permanently thereafter.
Reason: To provide adequate parking facilities for cyclists on the site in the interests of sustainable transport and in accordance with policies 9.1 and 9.6 of the Council’s adopted Unitary Development Plan ‘The New Plan for the Environment’ (2004). 20. Surfacing Materials
Prior to the first occupation of the residential flats hereby approved, details of surfacing materials to be used for the vehicular parking and access areas shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, which shall be completed before the residential units are first occupied and permanently retained thereafter.
Reason: To protect the appearance of the locality and the living conditions of the surrounding properties in accordance with policies 4.1, 5.5 and 9.1 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 'New Plan for the Environment'. 21. Entrance Gate
Prior to the installation of the coach arch entrance gate and the entrance to the basement car park, details of an automated gate opening system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained permanently, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to prevent noise and disturbance and to ensure reliable and safe access to the site in the interests of living conditions of both the adjoining occupiers and occupiers of the development hereby permitted, in accordance with policies 4.1, 5.5 and 9.1 of the Ealing Adopted unitary development plan 'Plan for the Environment' 2004, and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10: (Noise and Vibration).
- 41 - SCHEDULE ITEM:09 22. Demolition
Prior to the commencement of the development details of the extent of the retention and partial demolition of the existing school house building including engineering drawings showing the parts of the building to be retained and details of the total floorspace retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of retaining the school house building to protect the character of the area in accordance with policies 4.1 and 5.5 of the of the Ealing Adopted unitary development plan 'Plan for the Environment' 2004. 23. Eastern Elevation (Details of Windows)
Notwithstanding the information contained on the submitted plans, prior to the commencement of development details of window design, position and glazing type for all windows on the eastern elevation of the development hereby approved planning permission shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented only as approved and retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To protect the living conditions of the surrounding properties in accordance with policies 4.1, 5.5 and 9.1 of the Council's adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 'New Plan for the Environment'.
- 42 -