PLANNING COMMITTEE 20th January 2020 Sam Smith: sam.smith@hounslow.gov.uk

References: P/2019/3227 00580/AI/P1

Unit 5 Bullsbridge Industrial Estate, Hayes Road, Address: Southall, UB2 5LN

Ward: Heston West

Proposal: Change of use from A1 (non-food) retail to open A1 (including food) retail, subdivision of the existing unit to form two A1 retail units, car park reconfiguration, external alterations and associated works

Drawing Numbers: See end of report.

Application Received: 04 September 2019

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The subject site is the former Toys R Us store in the Bullsbridge Industrial Estate that has been vacant since the business was liquidated in early 2018.

1.2 There is a planning condition on the original 1994 Planning Permission which restricts the use of the site as a food retail business. This application (some 26 years after the original) seeks to subdivide the unit into two stores, accommodating a Lidl food store and Home Bargains. Associated ancillary works including car parking and façade changes are required to facilitate the subdivision and to update the buildings appearance and functionality.

1.3 This report seeks to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the viability of surrounding town centre locations in Hounslow, Hillingdon and Ealing, and also that the proposal would not harm local traffic movements, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

1.4 This report recommends that Members grant Planning Permission for the development, subject to a Legal Agreement and Conditions as recommended in this report.

It is therefore recommended that Planning Permission should be APPROVED subject to a legal agreement and the conditions set out at Section 13.0

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 The subject site falls within the Bulls Bridge Industrial Estate located in the north-western corner of the borough, bordering the borough of Hillingdon to the north.

2.2 The site accommodates a c.3,287 square metre retail unit that was formerly a Toys R Us store along with associated car parking, delivery and servicing arrangements.

2.3 Other businesses within the immediate vicinity of the site include a Tesco Extra, service station, vehicle repairs centre, Costco, the Western International Markets and a variety of other light-industrial uses. 2.4 The perimeter of the site can be seen in red on the below diagram, and photographs of the site itself follow after that.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 00580/Q/P23 Erection of retail premises (Class A1) and associated loading and parking including external works. Approved: 28th June 1994 Condition 3 of that permission reads: The premises shall not be used for the sale of food other than that food products ancillary to the primary operation of this development as a non-food retail unit. Condition 4 of that permission reads: No additional floorspace shall be formed within the buildings hereby permitted by means of internal horizontal division without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The application seeks planning permission for the following:

- External alterations to the existing unit to include the sub-division of the unit into two new retail units (Use Class A1). The two units are proposed to be Lidl and Homes Bargains. For avoidance of doubt, the applicant is seeking an unrestricted/open Class A1 retail use for both of the units;

- Erection of a mezzanine floor in the Lidl unit to accommodate ancillary floorspace including staff welfare area, staff toilets, cloakroom, IT room and manager’s offices;

- Reconfiguration of the existing car park to provide 98 carparking spaces (a reduction of 34 spaces to the existing) including electric vehicle charging points and cycle parking spaces; and

- Associated physical works including installation of a trolley bay, a new loading dock with canopy over and an external plant area to the rear.

- Hours 7am-11pm Mon – Sat inc holidays and 10am-6pm Sunday. Will employ approx. 40 FTE staff

Proposed Western and Southern Elevations

Proposed Northern and Eastern Elevations

Proposed Ground Floor

Proposed Mezzanine Floor

Proposed Car Park Plan

5.0 PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Changes to the Use Class Order

5.1 In September 2020, following The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 coming into force, Class A1 (Retail) was absorbed into a wider Class E (Commercial, Businesses and Services). Notwithstanding, this application was made prior the amendment regulations coming into force, as such this application is assessed on the basis of the development falling within ‘old’ Use Class A1.

Amendments to the Scheme

5.2 Amendments to the scheme have been made during the course of assessment, namely to the car park layout. Furthermore, additional information relating to the sequential test and retail impact assessment has been received. Determination of the application is made against the drawing numbers and reports specified in the schedule at the end of this report.

6.0 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 65 neighbours were consulted of the application by way of letter issued on 05 September 2019; a Press Noted Published on 20/09/2019 and a Site Notice Posted on 21/10/2019. The nearby Hillingdon and Ealing Councils were also consulted of the application in 2020.

6.2 London Borough of Hillingdon submitted an objection to the proposal, which is considered in the main body of the report.

6.3 London Borough of Ealing raised no objection.

6.4 Transport for London comments are incorporated into the main body of the report. 7.0 POLICY

Determining applications for full or outline planning permission

7.1 The determination must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local finance considerations must also be assessed.

The National Planning Policy Framework

7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was revised on 19 February 2019. The April 2014 National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is an online guidance resource that supports the NPPF. Where pertinent, the NPPF and NPPG are material considerations that will be taken into account in decision-making.

The Development Plan

7.3 The Development Plan for the Borough comprises the Council's Local Plan (adopted by the Council on 15 September 2015), the West London Waste Plan and the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2011.

7.4 The draft New London Plan has been through Examination in Public, but has not yet been adopted. The Publication Version of the New London Plan was published in December 2020 with intended adoption in February 2021. The weight given to it remains a matter for the decision maker at this stage.

7.5 The Council are currently undertaking two Local Plan reviews; the West of Borough Local Plan review and the Great West Corridor Local Plan review. These have now been submitted for Examination in Public to the Secretary of State. The weight given to these remains a matter for the decision maker at this stage.

7.6 The adopted Local Plan and emerging Local Plan Review documents can be viewed on the Planning Policy pages of the Hounslow website.

Adopted Local Plan Policies

TC1 Town and Neighbourhood Centre Network TC2 Ensuring the Future Vitality of Town Centres TC3 Managing the Growth of Retail and Other Main Town Centre Uses TC4 Managing Uses in Town Centres TC5 Managing Neighbourhood Centres and Isolated Local Shops ED1 Promoting Employment Growth and Development CC1 Context and Character CC2 Urban Design and Architecture GB7 Biodiversity EQ1 Energy and Carbon Reduction EQ2 Sustainable Design and Construction EQ3 Flood Risk and Surface Water Management EQ4 Air Quality EQ5 Noise EQ8 Contamination EC2 Developing a Sustainable Local Transport Network IMP1 Sustainable Development

LB Hounslow West of Borough – Local Plan Review

WOB1Employment Growth

WOB6Connecting People and Places

P5 Heston and Cranford Neighbourhoods

2016 London Plan Policies

2.15 Town Centres

4.7 Retail and Town Centre Development

5.3 Sustainable Design and Construction Policy

5.7 Renewable Energy

5.13 Sustainable Drainage Policy

6.13 Parking Policy

6.9 Cycling Policy

Publication London Plan 2020

SD6 Town Centres and High Streets

SD7 Town Centres: Development Principles and Development Plan Documents

D4 Delivering Good Design

E9 Retail, Markets and Hot Food Takeaways

SI1 Improving Air Quality

SI2 Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions

SI7 Reducing Waste and Supporting the Circular Economy

T2 Healthy Streets

T3 Transport Capacity, Connectivity and Safeguarding

T4 Assessing and Mitigating Transport Impacts

T5 Cycling

T6 Car Parking (T6.3 – Retail)

T7 Deliveries, Servicing and Construction T9 Funding Transport Infrastructure through Planning

DF1 Delivery of the Plan and Planning Obligations

8.0 ASSESSMENT

8.1 The main planning issues to consider are:

 The Acceptability in Principle

 Energy and Sustainability

 Parking, Servicing and Access

 Character and Appearance

 Impact on Neighbours

Principle

8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that new applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

8.3 Section 7 of the NPPF seeks to ensure the vitality of Town Centres, and Paragraphs 86-90 set out the requirements for both a sequential test and impact assessment where a main town centre use, such as food-retail, would be located Out-of-Centre and where the floorspace involved exceeds 2500m2. Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test, or would likely have a significant adverse impact on investment or vitality and viability in nearby town centres, permission should be refused.

8.4 Policy 4.7 of the London Plan 2016 (LP) states that in taking planning decision on proposed retail and town centre development, the following principles should be applied:

a. the scale of retail, commercial, culture and leisure development should be related to the size, role and function of a town centre and its catchment

b. retail, commercial, culture and leisure development should be focused on sites within town centres, or if no in-centre sites are available, on sites on the edges of centres that are, or can be, well integrated with the existing centre and public transport

c. proposals for new, or extensions to existing, edge or out of centre development will be subject to an assessment of impact.

8.5 Publication London Plan 2020 (PLP) Policy SD6 states that the vitality and viability of London’s Town Centres should be promoted and enhanced. Policy SD7 states that when considering development proposals, Boroughs should take a town centres first approach, discouraging out-of-centre development of main town centre uses. A sequential test should be applied for main town centre uses and out-of-centre sites should only be considered if it is demonstrated that no suitable sites are (or are expected to become) available within town centre or edge of centre locations. Applications that fail the sequential test should be refused. Policy SD7 also requires an impact assessment of proposals for new, or extensions to existing, edge or out-of- centre development for retail uses that are no in accordance with the development plan. Applications that are likely to have a significant adverse impact should be refused.

8.6 Hounslow Local Plan 2015 (HLP) Policy TC1 (Town and Neighbourhood Centre Network) identifies the Borough’s Town and Neighbourhood Centres, and states that we will maintain a network of successful town and neighbourhood centres. Development proposals are expected to be located appropriately in the context of the town and neighbourhood centre network, consistent with HLP Policy TC3.

8.7 The closest centres to the site in the Borough are: Hounslow Town Centre; Cranford; Heston Village; and Hounslow West Large Neighbourhood Centres; and the following small neighbourhood centres:

 620-634 Bath Road, Cranford;

 1-8 Parklands Parade, Heston West;

 Brabazon Road, Cranford;

 Beavers Estate, Hounslow West;

 204-228 Great West Road and 44-50, 64-80 and 141A Vicarage Farm Road, Heston/Lampton;

 309-355 Vicarage Farm Road, Heston;

 182-190 North Hyde Lane, Southall;

 474-514 Great West Road and 1 Heston Road, Heston.

8.8 The closest centres out of Borough include Southall Town Centre, the London Borough of Ealing; and Hayes Town Centre and the Uxbridge Road, Hayes Minor Centre in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

8.9 HLP Policy TC3 (Managing the Growth of Retail and Other Main Town Centre Uses) states that we will support the Council’s Regeneration Objectives by directing the growth of retail uses to the Boroughs Town Centres. We will achieve this by directing proposals for retail and other main town centre uses (as per NPPF) to the Borough’s four town centres, and considering proposals in other locations based on sequential and impact assessments. We will direct large scale retail development to primary shopping areas or other allocated sites within town centre. We will also require impact assessments where development of over 500sqm retail (Note: LBH local requirement is less than NPPF requirements) is proposed outside of the Borough’s town centres.

8.10 Policy TC3 goes on to state that development proposals for main town centre uses to locate in one of the borough’s four town centres where retail floorspace or other main town centre uses are proposed; where development is proposed outside of town centres, proposals should demonstrate through a sequential assessment that suitable locations within town centres are not available; followed by edge-of-town centre sites and large neighbourhood centres; with small neighbourhood centres then considered for smaller proposals that are suitable to the proportions of the centre. Only then should out-of-centre sites be considered, and these should be accessible and well connected to town centres; and demonstrate that the effect of the proposal, either individually or cumulatively, on the vitality and viability of existing town centres has been considered, through the preparation of an impact assessment where development of over 500sqm of retail or 2,500 sqm of other main town centre use floorspace is proposed outside of the borough’s four town centres;

8.11 The site is not located within a town centre or one of the Borough’s designated neighbourhood centres, and therefore would be an out-of-centre site. As is stated at paragraph 3.1, planning permission for the existing building in 1994 subject to conditions, Condition 3 restricts the use to be A1 (non-food retail) and Condition 4 restricts the horizontal subdivision of the unit to provide additional floorspace.

8.12 The subdivision of the store to provide two retail units does not require planning permission, aside from external alterations to the building/car park. However to change the use from A1 (Non-Food Retail) to an Open-ended and non-restricted A1 (retail) use does require planning permission and it is this which must be assessed. Of note, the restriction imposed by Condition 3 would not prohibit Home Bargains from occupying the unit, however Lidl by virtue of being a food retailer, is prohibited by the condition.

Sequential Test

8.13 Planning Policy requires the submission of a sequential test. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) sets out that a sequential test guides main town centre uses, such as retail, towards town centre locations first, then, if no town centre locations are available, to edge of centre locations, and if neither town centre locations nor edge of centre locations are available, to out of centre locations. NPPG outlines that it is for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test.

8.14 When undertaking a sequential test, the applicant and the Local Planning Authority (LPA) should be realistic and only consider sites ‘suitable’ for the development proposed. This is recognised by NPPF paragraph 87 which states that when considering out-of-centre proposals, applicants and LPAs should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge-of-centre sites are fully explored. Relevant case law concerning this includes Tesco vs Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 which considered the issue and definition of ‘suitability’, and the degree to which an application should demonstrate flexibility. The judgement concluded:

 The natural reading of each policy is that the word suitable, in the first criteria, refers to the suitability of the site for the proposed development – it is the proposed development which will only be acceptable if no suitable site is available more centrally; and

 The application of the sequential approach requires flexibility and realism from developers and retailers, as well as LPAs.

8.15 Warners Retail (Moreton) Ltd v Cotswold District Council & ORS [2014] EWHC 2504 (Admin) confirmed that Tesco v Dundee applied in England, and the subsequent judgement in Aldergate Properties v Mansfield District Council [2016] EWHC 1670 (Admin) further clarified the context in which ‘suitability’ and ‘availability’ of sites should be considered:

 ‘Suitable’ and ‘available’ generally mean suitable and available for the broad type of development which is proposed in the application by approximate size, type and range of goods;

 This incorporates the requirement for flexibility as set out in NPPF and NPPG, and excludes generally, the identity and personal or corporate attitudes of an individual retailer; and

 Available must generally mean available for the type of retail use for which permission is being sort.

8.16 Following discussions with Officers, an addendum to the original sequential test (dated September 2019 was submitted to the Council in early January 2021 (dated December 2020). This outlines that a sequential assessment has been undertaken of sites in the following centres (both Town, District and Local), these sites fall within a 7 minute drive time of the site but is extended to include all centres between the site and Hounslow Town Centre, as is required by HLP Policy TC3. . Due to the location of the application site, some sequentially assessed sites are located outside of the Borough, and this is noted where applicable.

 Hayes District Centre (LB Hillingdon);

 Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Minor Centre (LB Hillingdon);

 Southall Major Centre (LB Ealing);

 Hounslow Metropolitan Centre;

 Hounslow West Local Neighbourhood Centre;

 Cranford Local Neighbourhood Centre 720-746 Bath Road and 760-790 Bath Road;

 Heston Local Neighbourhood Centre 9-21, 8-14, 28-30 New Heston Road 8-7 Centre Parade 131-133 and 160-178 Heston Road

 53-75 Salisbury Road (Beavers Estate, Hounslow West);

 1-8 Parklands Parade (Heston West);

 620-634 Bath Road (Cranford);

 204-228 Great West Road (Heston);

 475-514 Great West Road (Heston/Lampton);

 305-355 Vicarage Farm Road (Heston);

 Brabazon Road; and

 North Hyde Lane.

8.17 The sequential assessment parameters set out the minimum requirements for a Limited Assortment Discount foodstore and a non-food retailer, which align with the operations of the intended occupants. These are:  A minimum total site area of 0.75ha, reflecting the need to provide the store, warehousing area and associated servicing, parking and landscaping requirements, as well as the additional road network;

 A site that can accommodate a minimum store size of 2,700 sq.m (GIA);

 A site that can allow for the safe manoeuvring of customer vehicles;

 A prominent site with the ability to attract passing trade;

 A site that is able to offer adjacent surface level car parking, so that customers can easily transfer foods to their vehicles;

 A site that can accommodate a dedicated service area to the rear of the store and associated HGV’s deliveries and manoeuvres; and

 A single storey, open and unrestricted sales floor area which benefits from a generally level/flat topography, or which has the ability to be developed as such.

8.18 The applicant submits that these are the minimum requirements necessary to accommodate a discount foodstore plus discount mixed-goods retailer, and as such demonstrates flexibility in producing the sequential assessment and this is accepted by Officers.

Sequential Test – Sites within Hounslow

8.19 Considering sites firstly within Hounslow, the test has identified that there are no suitable sites within or on the edge-of any of the Neighbourhood Centres which would meet the minimum requirements. This is accepted and reflects the nature of the retail estate within and around these centres seeking to serve key day-to-day shopping and service needs of local communities as set out in HLP Policy TC5 (Managing Neighbourhood Centres and Isolated Local Shops).

8.20 In Hounslow Town Centre itself, 36 units were identified of which 31 had floorspace below 500m2; 2 units had floorspace of between 500-999m2 and three had floorspace of between 1,000-1,499m2.

8.21 The 31 units below 500m2 were deemed unsuitable as they would be too small to accommodate the development proposed, which is accepted. Similarly the sites on Prince Regent Road and Bath Road cannot accommodate the development, again this is accepted. Of the largest available units, one is a vacant office building located on Montague Road; the other is a vacant retail unit in the Blenheim Centre and the last is within 9-21 Bell Road (former Roundhouse Site), which has permission for a mixed use residential and commercial development including up to 1,127m2 of commercial floorspace. The assessment concludes that these sites would not have the space to accommodate the proposed developments and this is accepted.

8.22 It is therefore considered that the sequential test is passed for sites within Hounslow.

Sequential Test – Ealing

8.23 The sequential test has considered sites within Southall Major Centre in the London Borough of Ealing. The assessment concludes that no sites or unit within or on the edge of the centre would be available, suitable or viable to accommodate the quantum of the proposed development. Two sites with potential to accommodate the development were assessed in detail; Gasworks Site, Southall (Edge of Centre) and Unit 10D, Beaver Industrial Park, Southall (Out of Centre).

8.24 The Gasworks site was discounted because, although it would be capable of accommodating the development, site development is at an early phase to deliver residential development and commercial opportunities are not actively being marketed. The Beaver Industrial Estate site was also discounted, because the site is designated as a Strategic Industrial Location within Ealing’s Local Plan and is too small to accommodate the proposal.

8.25 LB Hounslow consulted LB Ealing on the application, who advised that they had no objections to the proposal as it would not conflict with the Borough’s strategic plan for development.

8.26 It is therefore considered that the sequential test is passed for sites within Ealing Borough.

Sequential Test - Hillingdon

8.27 The sequential test has considered sites within Hayes District Centre and Hayes East Minor Centre. In both cases, the sequential test found no vacant units or sites within or on the edge of the centre that would be available, suitable or viable to accommodate the proposed development. However, three sites within those centres were assessed in detail; Silverdale Works, Silverdale Road (Edge of Centre) in the former centre; and Car Park R/O Mecca Bingo, Uxbridge Road (In Centre) and Hayes Point, Hayes (Edge of Centre) in the latter.

8.28 The Silverdale Site was discounted because although the site is being marketed, due to its size and position, it is considered unsuitable for the proposed development even when applying some flexibility. Mecca Bingo Car Park was also discounted because the site is not actively being marketed and would be below the minimum space required. Hayes Point was also discounted for the same reasons as Mecca Bingo but also because the site lacks an active frontage.

8.29 LB Hounslow consulted LB Hillingdon on the application, who advised that they objected to the application. Hillingdon advise that they do not consider that there is no qualitative need advance for a new A1 Food Retail in this location. Also flexibility in the format and scale of the proposal does not appear to have been fully considered, nor has the sequential test considered whether there are out of town centre locations which are more accessible and better connected to the town centre than the proposed location.

8.30 In addition, from the results of the sequential test, allocated sites with the London Borough of Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Site Allocations & Designations (January 2020) do not appear to have been taken into account, despite land being identified for residential and retail redevelopment. An example would be Policy SA 22: Chailey Industrial Estate, Pump Lane, Hayes; this is an eight hectare edge of centre location (<300m of the Hayes Primary Shopping Area) which is currently occupied by a Matalan Store. There is no evidence that the landowner of this site has been approached, despite them outlining that the site is developable during the Local Plan process.

8.31 Hillingdon Council therefore considers that the sequential test is currently insufficient and therefore it cannot be demonstrated that there are not available sites in sequentially preferable locations.

8.32 In response to this the applicant advises that there is no requirement to justify a qualitative need for the development. Officers note that neither the NPPF, nor Hounslow’s Local Plan requires the qualitative need to be assessed. Considering the catchment area, the applicant does not directly address this in their response to Hillingdon’s comments.

8.33 Officers further queried this approach in discussions with the applicant to understand better why the 7-minute drive catchment area was chosen, because this catchment approach is not set-out in policy or guidance. The applicant advises that the industry standard approach to catchment areas for retail stores in an urban environment is a 5-minute drive time, based on Experian data, however they considered that this should be increased to 7- minutes for this particular application because of the site specific context, with the site being separated from residential areas by industrial development and open spaces, when compared to other urban locations. This reflects the proposed catchment area being aimed at residents in the Southall Green; Heston and Cranford areas. Furthermore the applicant advances that due to the nature of the road-network in the area, M4; A312 and A30, the store is likely to be more accessible to nearby residents.

8.34 Officers are satisfied that the approach taken for the catchment area, whilst not standard, would be acceptable in this context. It is accepted that the site context is important to acknowledge, due to its being located in a predominantly commercial and industrial location, with residential areas particularly in Hounslow being separated by this intervening development and open space. As well, the nature of the interurban and strategic road network in this location is likely to impact on accessibility to the store.

8.35 In response to Hillingdon’s concerns about the flexibility in the sequential assessment, the applicant has reiterated the legal and policy position. The applicant also assessed the Chailey Industrial Site that Hillingdon highlighted in their response, and found that it is currently occupied by Matalan and not being actively marketed, furthermore there is an existing Lidl store within 400m of the site. Officers accept that flexibility has been shown in regard to this specific proposal. Lastly, in response to Hillingdon’s concerns that the sequential assessment does not consider accessible out of centre sites, the applicant advises that these have been considered and that Hillingdon have not indicated any sites that would fall within this category.

8.36 It is considered that the applicant’s rebuttal to Hillingdon’s objections to the sequential test has demonstrated consideration of all sites relevant to the sequential test. For this reason it is therefore considered that the sequential test is passed for sites within Hillingdon Borough.

Sequential Test Conclusions

8.37 Overall, considering the application against Hounslow’s Local Plan Policies, the sequential test has assessed both town centres and local neighbourhood centres in accordance with HLP Policy TC3, which accords with the NPPF and London Plans. The test has found that there are no sites vacant or otherwise that are suitable or available for the development proposed, taking account of flexibility in format and development parameters. For this reason it is concluded that the development would pass the sequential test and therefore the location of this particular A1 Food Retail use in an Out of Centre Location would be acceptable in principle.

Retail Impact Assessment

8.38 Planning Policy requires the submission of a retail impact assessment. NPPG states that the purpose of an impact test is to consider the impact over time of certain out-of-centre and edge-of-centre proposals on town centre vitality and viability, and investment. It is important that an impact assessment reviews all town centres that may be affected, not just those closest to the proposal and may include centres out of Borough.

8.39 The Retail Impact Assessment was updated in December 2020 reflecting the length of time that has passed since the initial assessment dated September 2019 was submitted.

8.40 The applicant has submitted a retail impact assessment which assessed the impact of the proposed store on the following locations:

 All identified District and Local Centres within the Catchment Area, and additional centres set out earlier in the report;

 Retail facilities in edge of centre locations; and

 Retail facilities in out of centre locations.

8.41 The applicants assessment considers/uses the following information in-line with best practice:

 Predicted population growth within the Catchment (over a 5 year period);

 Available convenience and comparison goods expenditure within the catchment over 5 years;

 The proposed store’s turnover (based on company average benchmark turnovers);

 Predicted turnover of all centres within the proposed catchment;

 Predicted turnovers for any identified edge and out-of-centre locations within the proposed catchment;

 Consider any identified retail commitments (planning permissions or pending proposals) within the catchment; and

 Predicted trade diversion – and subsequent impact - from centres and other locations.

8.42 The proposal consists of a new discount Lidl foodstore of 1,853m2 (GIA) and 1,158m2 net sales area, broken down between 926m2 of convenience floorspace (80%) and 232m2 of comparison floorspace (20%). The Home Bargains unit will comprise 1,090 sq. m net sales area, broken down between 763m2 (70%) of comparison floorspace and 327m2 (30%) of convenience floorspace. As set out before, HLP Policy TC3 sets the local threshold which requires proposals of 500m2 or over to be supported by a quantitative impact assessment. Consequently, commentary on the expenditure capacity within proposed store’s catchment (7-minutes) and predicted turnover of the proposed store is provided.

8.43 The proposed turnover of the store in relation to available expenditure in the catchment area is shown in the table below taken from the applicant’s impact assessment.

8.44 The proposed developments overall turnover is predicted to be in the range of £13.98m to £14.45m, which represents around 3.8% of the overall expenditure on convenience retail in the catchment area.

8.45 The next table shows the applicant’s estimated turnover diversion from the centres within the catchment area assessed on both the Lidl and Home Bargains:

8.46 This shows that the greatest impact would be to centres outside of the Borough, with Southall experiencing the most impact, followed by Uxbridge Road Minor Centre and least impacted out-of-borough centre being Hayes District Centre. Hounslow Town Centre is expected to have the lowest turnover diverted.

8.47 10% of turnover is predicted to be generated from trade which ‘leaks’ to other locations outside of the catchment area, this is known as inflow trade. Inflow trade takes into account trade from visitors to the area and ‘random’ shopping trips such as people driving home from work and passing the store, who decide to shop there.

8.48 In regard to comparison goods trade, a majority of the proposed stores comparison expenditure is expected to be drawn from main food stores (which have similar or extensive comparable comparison goods), and no other bulky goods retail destinations. It must also be recognise that comparison goods sales from foodstores – particularly from discounters such as Lidl – are often ancillary to food sales as most consumers visit foodstores for the primary purpose of purchasing convenience goods. In terms of Home Bargains, as stated, the comparison floorspace is already accepted on this site.

Impact Assessment – Hounslow

8.49 The assessment looks at centres within Hounslow Borough as outlined earlier in the report.

Hounslow Town Centre

8.50 Firstly considering Hounslow Town Centre, currently accommodates district centre uses such as Retail Shops, Barbers, Takeaways, Banks, Estate Agents and Off Licence. There are a number of convenience retail units in the centre.

8.51 The convenience offerings identified are Aldi (Hospital Road), Asda (Blenheim Centre), Iceland (High Street), Tesco Express (Staines Road/Bell Corner) and a range of independent convenience retailers. The centre has a vacancy rate of 9%, which is below the national average of 13.2% (Source: Retail Gazette, 30 October 2020), which in itself is a good indicator of the health of the Town Centre.

8.52 In terms of the assessment criteria Hounslow Metropolitan Centre presents lower than average vacant units and a good mix of retail uses, given this it is considered that the vitality and viability of the centre is good. The centre benefits from good accessibility, well-maintained streets, no graffiti and good street lighting. The area does experience relatively high crime rates; however this is to be expected given that it is a metropolitan centre. Given the above assessment, the assessment concludes that Hounslow Metropolitan Centre is in very good health.

8.53 Considering trade impact, the applicant submits that the proposal would divert trade of £0.27m from Hounslow Town Centre, and this would be focussed on the existing Aldi store – with which Lidl would directly compete. Hounslow Centre is some distance away (4 miles) from the proposal, and the Aldi store is the only comparable retailer within this centre, although Officers note the Asda within the Blenheim Centre. In addition, there are a number of larger foodstores (Asda [Aerodrome Way] (Officers Note: This is a ‘Ghost Store’ for online orders and is not open the public except for Click and Collect), Tesco Extra [Bulls Bridge Industrial Estate], Lidl [Hayes], Lidl [Uxbridge Road], and Sainsbury’s [Lombardy Retail Park]) in closer proximity to the proposal. Given that these locations are closer to the proposal site, local residents are much likely to shop at these destinations. As such, these stores are more likely to be impacted upon by the proposed development than stores within Hounslow Town Centre.

Hounslow West

8.54 Considering Hounslow West the convenience offerings are an Iceland, a Nisa, five independent supermarkets, three butches, an off licence and a bakery. The centre has a vacancy rate of 9%, which is below the national average of 13.2% (Source: Retail Gazette, 30 October 2020), which in itself is a good indicator of the health of the Town Centre.

8.55 The centre is in a highly accessible location and it is considered that the network of pavements and crossings that serves the area is of a good standard. The centre is highly accessible by foot and bicycle with dedicated pedestrian connections to local communities and crossings across busy roads. There is also a number of bicycle parking facilities within the area.

8.56 In terms of the assessment criteria Hounslow West LNC presents lower than average vacant units and a good mix of retail uses, given this it is considered that the vitality and viability of the centre is good. The centre benefits from good accessibility, well-maintained streets, no graffiti and good street lighting. Given the above assessment, it is considered that Hounslow West LNC is in very good health.

Cranford

8.57 The centre currently accommodates town centre uses such as Retail Shops, Restaurants, Takeaways, and Pharmacies. There is adequate convenience provision in the centre with 24% (8) of the units being convenience retailers. The convenience offerings are Tesco Express, butchers, independent supermarkets and an off licence.

8.58 The centre has a vacancy rate of 9%, which is below the national average of 13.2% (Source: Retail Gazette, 30 October 2020), which in itself is a good indicator of the health of the Town Centre.

8.59 In terms of the assessment criteria Cranford presents lower than average vacant units and a good mix of retail uses, given this it is considered that the vitality and viability of the centre is very good. The centre benefits from good accessibility, well-maintained streets, no graffiti and good street lighting and there have been recent examples of redevelopment. Given the above assessment, it is considered that Cranford is in very good health.

Other Local Centres

8.60 Other local centres assessed range in size from 5 units (Salisbury Road, Beavers Estate) to 33 units (Heston) typically of 40 – 200sq.m in size. As such, vacancy rates do not provide a good indicator of health, as a centre with 2 small vacant units could result in a vacant rate of 25% (Brabazon Road).

8.61 However, these centres tend to have a good range of local businesses and one or two small independent convenience retailers, providing ‘top-up’ shopping facilities catering for the surrounding residents. Overall, it is considered that the health of these centres will not be impacted upon, as they clearly provide a completely different role and function and serve a rent retail market, to that of the proposed store.

Out of Centre

8.62 The closest Out-Of-Centre stores the applicant has identified are the Asda (Cranford – ‘Ghost Store’ and the existing Tesco at Bulls Bridge, next door to the site. It is estimated that £2.39m would be drawn from these stores.

8.63 Overall it is considered that the impact assessment presents a representative assessment of the state of the centres within Hounslow Borough that would fall within the assessed catchment area of the store.

Impact Assessment – Ealing

8.64 The impact assessment has looked at Southall Town Centre within Ealing Borough. The centre has a vacancy rate of 9% similar with Hounslow, which is below national average. The town centre offers a range of convenience retail provision, including Iceland, Holland and Barratt and Lidl, alongside a number of independent retailers; off licences and grocers.

8.65 It is considered that this centre performs well with regard to the indicators of vitality and viability, with a mix of uses, accessible by different modes of transport, a good level of environmental quality, and safety.

8.66 The greatest impact is indicated to be drawn from Southall Town Centre.

8.67 London Borough of Ealing was consulted on the application and raised no objection in regards to the impact on Southall Town Centre. Therefore it is considered that the impact assessment is representative of Southall Town Centre.

Impact Assessment – Hillingdon

8.68 The impact assessment considers Hayes District Centre and Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Minor Centre within the London Borough of Hillingdon.

8.69 Considering the former first, the assessment sets out that there are 287 units within the centre, of which 38 are convenience retail. A recent Health Check by Retail Gazette from the 30th October 2020 indicates that vacancy rates sit at 6%, which is below national average and below other centres within the proposed store’s catchment area.

8.70 It is considered that Hayes performs well with regard to indicators of vitality and viability with a good mix of uses, good accessibility by all means of transport and a good level of environmental quality and safety. There is scope for further improvements to the centre particularly in terms of vacancy rates, which are slightly above the national average. However, and overall, the centre appears to be functioning well and is considered to be in a good state of health.

8.71 The largest supermarket in the centre is Lidl, followed by Iceland, and then other independent retailers. However, the vast majority of the retailers within the Town Centre are comparison good retailers providing a different offer. In terms of the comparison retail provision, it should be noted that the non-food offer within Lidl stores is mainly focused on household cleaning products, and health and beauty products. Lidl stores do receive a twice weekly delivery of non-food ‘specials’, which can range from garden equipment and small items of furniture to flat screen TVs.

8.72 The applicant submits that the proposal would draw £1.62m (2025) from Hayes District Centre, which represents 3.1% of the centre’s turnover, and of this £1.08m would be from the existing Lidl store, and the remainder from other stores in the centre including Iceland, Sainsbury’s Local and other retailers. The applicant does not consider Iceland to be a direct competitor with Lidl’s offering and submits that the range stocked within a Sainsbury’s Local, and therefore its catchment area, is not comparable to this proposal. Overall the assessment submits that based on the known investment, and the current health of Hayes District Centre, and that it is not considered that the proposed Lidl store will lead to a significant adverse impact on Hayes District Centre.

8.73 Considering Uxbridge Road Minor Centre, the applicant’s impact assessment identifies a vacancy rate of 5%, which is below the national average, again showing a good indicator of health for the centre. Uxbridge Road Minor Centre currently accommodates a variety of town centre uses such as convenience stores, hairdressers, betting shops, estate agents, financial services and takeaways. The convenience stores account for 17% of the retail units in the centre.

8.74 In terms of the assessment criteria Uxbridge Road Minor Centre presents a vacancy rate of 5% and a good mix of retail uses for a local retail centre, given this it is considered that the vitality and viability of the centre is very good. The centre benefits from good accessibility, well-maintained streets and good street lighting and soft landscaping. Given the above, the assessment submits that Uxbridge Road Minor Centre is in very good health. 8.75 The applicant submits that the most impact would be from Uxbridge Road, but this is weighted to the Sainsbury’s Superstore which has a benchmark turnover of £53m annually; and the existing Lidl store. The applicant estimates that trade draw would be £2.51m (3.9% of turnover) from Sainsbury’s and £0.60m from Lidl. As such, the overall impact on Uxbridge Road would not harm its vitality or viability.

8.76 London Borough of Hillingdon were consulted on the application and objected to the original retail impact assessment (dated 2019). Hillingdon submitted that the assessment underestimated vacancy rates, with the Council’s own health-check of October 2019, which indicated that 9 units were vacant in Hayes and 14 vacant in Hayes East town centres. Objections are also raised against the assumptions made in the report regarding pass- by trade from shoppers not resident within the catchment area, where in the absence of this proposal, the expenditure is more likely to be spent within those town centres and therefore improve their vitality and viability. Hillingdon also raise concerns about the significance of the predicted loss of turnover to the Sainsbury’s Superstore at Hayes by 10.5%.

8.77 In response to this, the applicant reiterates that despite the vacancy rates Hillingdon, neither them nor the applicant have been able to identify any suitably sized in-centre vacant units and that it would be unreasonable to decant the proposed foodstore into several units within Hayes and Hayes East Town Centres. The applicant also emphasises that foodstores tend to compete with comparable facilities, i.e. other foodstores/supermarkets; and distance is an important factor for consumers when deciding on where to shop. The applicant’s own store within Hayes District Centre is submitted to be the most comparable facility within the centre. Given that this store is some distance away from the proposal, the proposals likely impact is likely to be limited. In addition, the proposals impact on the Sainsbury’s Superstore is based on its size (thereby a large catchment) and its ease of access to the proposed Lidl store (via The Parkway); and also on the basis that Sainsbury’s is not a discount operator. As such, the proposals impact on the Sainsbury’s, in our view, would be modest. Furthermore, the applicant’s impact assessment (Table 6, Appendix 5 of the applicants Retail Impact Assessment) also considers impact on smaller local stores. It is considered that all factors have been taken into account within our assessment. Overall, the assessment outlines a 3.5% impact on Hayes District Centre, and a 3% impact on Hayes East Centre

8.78 In response to pass-by trade concerns, the applicant indicates that this diversion assumptions account for only £1.77m of the proposals turnover and that this diversion would be from multiple locations, and that it would be unreasonable to assume that this diversion would all come from in-centre stores. Finally, in response to concerns about loss of trade from Sainsbury’s, the applicant indicates that this was based on a percentage of the proposed stores turnover, rather than the direct loss of turnover by Sainsbury’s, where it is predicted to be £1.23m or 3.1% of Sainsbury’s Hayes turnover.

8.79 The report will now seek to bring together an assessment and conclusion on the Retail Impact Assessment against planning policy.

Impact Assessment – Conclusions

8.80 Firstly, considering Hounslow’s Centres, the impact on the Borough’s centres is considered to be limited. The applicant has not considered all comparable stores within Hounslow Town Centre, specifically Asda Blenheim Centre, however it is acknowledged that the site falls between a ‘triangle’ of Asda stores in Hayes, Hounslow and Feltham – any trade impact is likely to be shared between the three stores, rather than falling entirely on Asda Hounslow. The assessment of the Asda at Cranford is questioned, given this is a ‘Ghost-store’, which is a store not open to the general public and is used to process online orders only, however this store does have a click and collect facility and there may be some impact on this store. Notwithstanding, the direct competitor within Hounslow Town Centre is considered to be the Aldi store on Hospital Road. Given the distance between the site and Hounslow (4.3km south-east of site), the impact is considered to be acceptable and would not result in unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of Hounslow Town Centre. Similarly, the assessment of other centres within the catchment in Hounslow Borough is deemed to be acceptable and would not harm these centres.

8.81 Considering Southall, it is accepted that the London Borough of Ealing have not objected to the proposed development, but nevertheless, the extent of likely trade drawn would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre.

8.82 In Hillingdon, Hayes District Centre and Uxbridge Road Minor Centre would be impacted. The applicant has demonstrated that the majority of turnover would come from its existing Lidl Stores in these centres, plus the Sainsbury’s Superstore at Hayes. It is considered that the applicants have adequately explained and clarified the concerns raised by Hillingdon Council, in particular the proportions of trade impact to Sainsbury’s, in relation to it significant turnover, and therefore Uxbridge Road. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed store would not result in unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of Hayes District Centre or Uxbridge Road, Hayes, Minor Centre.

8.83 For this reason, it is considered that the proposed development would therefore comply with Local Plan Policy TC3, and in turn NPPF and London Plan policies, in regards to trade impact on the vitality and viability of centres in the catchment area of the store because the development would not have a significant adverse impact on these.

Other principle considerations

8.84 The development would bring back into use an existing vacant commercial site, which has been vacant for almost 3 years and would provide employment for up to 40 FTE people. These are positive economic benefits of the scheme which should be given weight and would accord with the intent of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy ED1; and West of Borough Plan WOB1.

Energy and Sustainability

8.85 The London Borough of Hounslow remains committed to providing the highest levels of sustainability and efficiency in all new developments through the use of sustainable building technologies and, where appropriate, passive design moves. Such a goal is being echoed globally.

8.86 The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13 – Climate Action – recognises that action is needed now at all levels of government to reduce our emissions. Goal 13 targets 13.2 aims to integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. Planning and building design plays a critical role in delivering this target. 8.87 At a Council meeting of 23 July 2019 the Council declared a motion recognising the Government’s amendment to its Climate Change Act Environmental and Sustainability Strategy (Paper No.19-197), that introduces a legally binding net zero carbon target for the UK by 2050. Hounslow Council urges the Government to bring this target forwards, stating that:

We believe that all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to act to protect our world and counteract climate change before it’s too late.

8.88 The principles of the Sustainable Development Goals are echoed in the Hounslow Climate Emergency Action Plan. In June 2019 the Council joined with other local authorities, the Mayor of London and the UK Parliament in declaring a climate emergency that requires urgent action.

8.89 Local Plan Policies EQ1 (Energy and Carbon Reduction) and EQ2 (Sustainable Design and Construction) echo the principles of the London Plan policies in promoting sustainable development and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

8.90 London Plan Policy 5.2 requires development proposals to be designed in accordance with the following energy hierarchy:

Be lean: use less energy

Be clean: supply energy efficiently

Be green: use renewable energy

8.91 It is expected that developments meet the minimum targets for carbon dioxide emissions stipulated within Policy 5.2. Those targets are expressed as minimum improvements over the Target Emission Rate (TER) outlined in the national Building Regulations, leading to zero carbon residential buildings from 2016 and zero carbon non-domestic buildings from 2019.

8.92 In addition, London Plan Policy 5.3 requires development to demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal. Furthermore, London Plan Policy 5.15 requires development to minimise the use of mains water by incorporating water saving measures and equipment throughout.

8.93 After a development has incorporated sustainable design features and technologies, any residual carbon emissions must be offset by a cash-in-lieu contribution to the Hounslow Carbon Offset Fund to make the development net-zero carbon.

8.94 The final comments of the Council’s Sustainability Officer are awaited and the final conclusion on sustainability matters will be reported in an Addendum Report to the Planning Committee.

Ecology

8.95 Local Plan Policy GB7 (Biodiversity) states that we will protect and enhance the Borough’s natural environment and we will expect developments to contribute to the greening of the Borough and incorporate measures to promote biodiversity.

8.96 The site has no designated habitats and is previously developed, however it is close to the Grand Union Canal. 8.97 The application is accompanied by an ecology statement which states that the site is of low ecological value and surveys have confirmed that the site is not suitable for habitat use by invertebrate species, nor is the site suitable for hedgehog; reptiles or amphibians. Surveys have found that there is no potential for use by roosting bats.

8.98 The report advises that the boundary vegetation may provide potential habitats for birds, and recommends that any clearance of those sections is undertaken outside of the main nesting season (March to End of August), or immediately after an ecologist has confirmed the absence of active nests.

8.99 A landscaping condition is recommended to secure enhancements to the soft landscaping within the site.

8.100 It is therefore considered that subject to securing compliance with the ecology report and landscaping details by condition, there would be no unacceptable impact to habitats or the biodiversity of the Borough as a result of this proposed development.

Flood Risk and Drainage

8.101 Local Plan Policy EQ3 (Flood Risk and Surface Water Management) requires new development to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and ensure that surface water would be managed.

8.102 The site is previously developed land comprising hard-standing for car park/servicing with a large shed-like building. There are existing drainage systems on site and it is proposed that these be used by the final development.

8.103 The final comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority are awaited, however there would be no in principle objection to the drainage strategy proposed. The conclusion on Flood Risk and Drainage will be reported in an Addendum Report to the committee.

Land Quality

8.104 Local Plan Policy EQ8 (Contamination) requires development proposes to ensure that contamination is properly considered and remediated where required.

8.105 The site is in an area of former landfill/contaminated land. The Council’s Land Quality Officer has recommended that an informative be added to the decision notice providing some advisory information to the developer. Given the development comprises of converting an existing building plus formation of a servicing area, no further assessment is considered necessary at this time.

8.106 The development would therefore comply with Policy EQ8.

Character and Appearance

8.107 The NPPF states that good quality design is an integral part of sustainable development and that decision takers should always seek high quality design. It states that achieving good design is about creating places, buildings or spaces that work well for everyone, look good, will last well, and adapt to the needs of future generations, with good design responding in a practical and creative way to both the function and identity of a place, putting land, water, drainage, energy, community, economic, infrastructure and other such resources to the best possible use. The NPPF also says permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. It is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.

8.108 Adopted Local Plan policy CC1 (Context and Character) states that development proposals should have due regard to the Context and Character Study and Policy CC2 (Urban Design and architecture) states that “We will retain, promote and support high quality urban design and architecture to create, attractive, distinctive, and liveable places”.

8.109 The development proposes external alterations to install glazing to the northern, southern and western elevations. The installation of glazing would improve the appearance of the existing building and create a more active frontage, particularly when viewed from the west and on Hayes Road. This would be a significant improvement against the current design of the building and would enhance its appearance. The formation of the second entrance to the new unit would be of a similar design, ensuring a coherent appearance to the building.

8.110 There would be new cladding installed in light grey (RAL9006) to the parapet over the Lidl Store. The existing cladding is to be retained on the rest of the building and painted light grey (RAL9006) around the Lidl part of the store to the west, south and east; and dark grey (RAL7011) to the other part of the store to the north, east and west.

8.111 The new loading bay and canopy installed onto the northern elevation would be functional in design and have no impact on the appearance of the wider area taking account of the commercial and industrial context. Public views would be limited.

8.112 Advertisements are proposed to be installed on the eastern and southern elevations. Whilst these locations are considered to be acceptable in principle, an application for advertisement consent would need to be made to confirm whether the finalised specifications, including any illumination, would be acceptable in public safety and amenity terms in accordance with the Advertisement Regulations.

8.113 Overall it is considered that the proposed design would be an improvement on the existing and the installation of glazing would give the building a more contemporary appearance; and provide a more active frontage. The development would therefore accord with Local Plan Policies CC1 and CC2.

Impact on Neighbours

8.114 The Local Plan seeks to ensure that developments have no unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbours. In the circumstance of this application, impact must be assessed both for surrounding neighbours, and for occupants of the existing buildings.

8.115 The site is located within a predominantly industrial / commercial area with no residential development immediately adjoining. Further, the scale of the existing building on site (in terms of its height and footprint) is not subject to change as a result of this application. It can therefore be reasonably concluded that the proposal would not impact on neighbours by way of overshadowing, overlooking or an increase sense of bulk or enclosure. 8.116 The proposal does have the ability to generate noise from the coming and going of cars and deliveries, combined with general people noise (talking, car doors closing etc). Given the location of the site and its context this is not found to be unreasonable and is an acceptable impact.

Transport and Waste Matters

8.117 Local Plan Policy EC2 states that proposals should comply with London Plan standards for car parking and cycling. The level of car and cycle parking provided by a development is, in part, influenced by the site location and its Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL). PTALs are a theoretical measure of the accessibility of a site to the public transport network, taking into account walking time and service availability and frequency. This site has a PTAL rating of two, which indicates a ‘poor’ level of accessibility.

8.118 The below assessment will consider the acceptability of the proposed vehicle and cycle parking, as well as the provision of waste and recycling storage provided by the development.

Vehicular parking

8.119 The site benefits from an existing car park and vehicular access via a signal controlled junction off Hayes Road. It is proposed that this be retained and the car park be reconfigured to provide 98 parking spaces, including 7 blue-badge spaces and 7 parent and child spaces. This would be a reduction of 34 spaces against the current parking layout, but would improve the flow and layout of the car park. The reduction of parking spaces is also supported by planning policy, particularly noting the benefits arising from reduced car usage on congestion and air quality.

8.120 EV Parking Bays are also proposed, the final details of which shall be secured by planning conditions.

Cycle parking

8.121 62 spaces are proposed which comprise of 20 uncovered Sheffield-style stands; 24 covered Sheffield-style stands; and 18 cycle-hoop style contained within a bikehanger.

8.122 The number of spaces provided is welcomed and strongly supported as this would encourage the uptake of sustainable and healthy modes of travel, such as cycling for both staff and customers alike. The location of the stands would be acceptable as they would be within close proximity to the store entrance. The mixture of stand types permits for use by a variety of cycles and cyclists.

8.123 The final details and implementation can be secured by planning condition.

Trip generation

8.124 The trip profile for the proposed use as food retail was calculated from surveys undertaken at other Lidl stores in London as presented in the Transport Assessment. This was then compared to survey data available in the TRICS database for Discount Foodstores. The comparison exercise found that in all eight hours compared over a weekday that the vehicular trips from the Lidl surveys were higher therefore their use when estimated vehicular trips for the subject site is considered robust and more reflective of the current applicant’s business model. 8.125 In addition to the Lidl store, the development proposes a 1,326 square metre gross internal floorspace sub-let retail unit. The TRICS database was interrogated for non-food retail to estimate the trip generation that would be associated with this element of the proposal.

8.126 When the trip generation for the two proposed retail uses are combined and compared to the existing use as non-food retail, the results indicate that the proposal could generate an additional 89 arrivals and 85 departures during the weekday evening peak hour and an increase of 91 arrivals and 90 departures during the Saturday peak hour. It is accepted that some of these trips may be linked trips (ie. people travelling to/from work or visiting other businesses in the area) or could be transferred from similar offerings in the area.

Traffic impact

8.127 At the request of the council’s transport officers and TfL, traffic modelling of the roads and junctions in the vicinity of the site – including the signalised junction at the Hayes Road access to the site and Bullsbridge Roundabout – was undertaken by the applicant. The results show that the proposed development, which includes minor changes to the highway marking at the site access and signal changes, would not have a severe impact on journey times on the surrounding road network when compared to the Future Base level as agreed with TfL.

8.128 The biggest impact to the average journey times was found to occur on the western arm of Bullsbridge roundabout for eastbound traffic, with the modelling predicting that traffic would take an additional 30 seconds to pass through this section of the highway network in both the weekday PM and weekend peaks. The other increases of note are a 13.5 second delay for westbound traffic on Hayes Road in the weekday PM, and a 5 second delay on the northern arm of Bullsbridge roundabout for drivers heading south. The proposed changes to the signals at the Hayes Road junction with the site contribute to a 10 second journey time reduction for drivers heading east on Hayes Road in the weekend peak.

8.129 TfL have requested a contribution of £150,000 towards a TfL scheme to improve Bulls Bridge Roundabout which would need to be secured by legal agreement.

8.130 There would be minor changes to bus journey times in the vicinity of the site when compared to the Future Base level, the largest increase being an additional 5.6 seconds for the 195 eastbound in the weekday PM peak. TfL have been asked to comment on these minor increases and their response will be provided in an addendum or relayed to members at Committee.

8.131 The highway works consist of adding a right-turn arrow to the road markings at the site egress at Hayes Road to facilitate right turns from the centre lane, and offsetting the Hayes Road/site access signals by 5 seconds relative to surrounding junctions to optimise the relationship. The changes to the road markings are being subjected to a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit with the results to be reported separately.

Deliveries and Servicing

8.132 A new servicing bay with capacity for two HGVs would be installed on the northern elevation. This would use the existing servicing arrangements for access which runs to the rear of the site through the wider Bulls Bridge Industrial Estate, before joining Hayes Road via a signal controlled junction. There are no concerns as to the capacity of this road to handle likely delivery traffic associated with the development; however a finalised Delivery and Servicing Plan, including waste/recycling provision, can be secured by planning condition.

9.0 EQUALITIES DUTIES IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The public sector equality duty applies to all council decisions including planning decisions the duty is as follows:

9.2 A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—

 (a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;

 (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

 (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

(2) A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

(3) Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

 (a) Remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;

 (b) Take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;

 (c) Encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.

(4) The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.

(5) Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—

 (a) Tackle prejudice, and

 (b) Promote understanding.

(6) Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act. (7) The relevant protected characteristics are—

 Age;

 Disability;

 Gender reassignment;

 Pregnancy and maternity;

 Race;

 Religion or belief;

 Sex;

 Marriage and Civil Partnership:

 Sexual Orientation.

9.3 Due regard needs to be demonstrated in the decision making process and requires an analysis of the material with the specific statutory considerations in mind. It does not follow that the considerations raised will be decisive in a particular case the weight given to them will be for the decision maker. The equalities duty is not a duty to achieve a particular result. Some equalities considerations are covered under other legislation such as building control matters.

9.4 Officers have in considering this application and preparing this report had regard to the public sector equality duty and have concluded that due regard has been given to the Council’s duty in respect of its equalities duties and that if approving or refusing this proposal the Council will be acting in compliance with its duties.

10.0 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

10.1 Local Plan Policy IMP3 seeks to ensure that development proposals fully mitigate the impacts of the development on the area through a Section 106 agreement, where necessary or appropriate, having regard to Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy 2015 and provide the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments required by any charging schedule, including the Mayor of London’s CIL. A payment or other benefit offered in a Section 106 or other legal agreement is not material to a decision to grant planning permission and cannot be required unless it complies with the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (regulation 122), which provide that the planning obligation must be:

a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

b) directly related to the development; and

c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

10.2 The Section 106 or other legal agreement will not address all the impacts since some of these will be addressed by CIL in order to satisfy the Regulation 122 tests above. 10.3 The NPPG provides guidance on the use of planning obligations which may impose and restriction or requirement, or provide for payment to make acceptable development proposals that might otherwise not be acceptable in planning terms. The Council’s SPD on Planning Obligations contains guidance on the imposition of planning obligations in Section 106 Agreements. These obligations may offset shortfalls in the scheme of mitigate a developments impact.

10.4 It is mandatory that each criterion be satisfactorily addressed prior to granting planning permission subject to a satisfactory legal agreement(s) or unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

10.5 The following draft Heads of Terms are likely to form the basis of the any legal agreement, all of which are considered to satisfy the three Regulation 122 tests referred to above:

(i) Contribution to Highway Works for Bulls Bridge Roundabout on the TfL Road Network (£150,000);

(ii) Travel Plan

(iii) Monitoring Fees (£636 per clause except Travel Plan at £2,318.40);

(iv) Planning Services Fee (£1919.00)

10.6 Any further contributions that may be necessary, related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development; following the receipt of any outstanding planning consultations. Details of these would follow in an addendum report to the Planning Committee.

11.0 LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

11.1 Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. A local finance consideration means:

a) a grant or other financial assistance that has been, or will or could be, provided to a relevant authority by a Minister of the Crown; or

b) sums that a relevant authority has received, or will or could receive, in payment of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

11.2 The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for the decision maker. The Mayor of London's CIL and Hounslow CIL are therefore material considerations.

11.3 Most new development which creates net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or creates a new dwelling, is potentially liable to pay the CIL to Hounslow and the Mayor of London.

Existing lawful Demolished floor CIL liable floor Floor space floor space space space (sqm) 3287 0 3287

11.4 This proposal would be liable to pay the CIL which is index linked. The CIL rate would be £155/m2 (LBH Retail Rate) and £60m2 (Mayoral).

12.0 CONCLUSION

12.1 The development would bring back into use a vacant brownfield retail use in an Out-of-Centre Location. The development would provide for up to 40 FTE jobs. As an out-of-centre location with a current restriction on food retail, a Sequential Test and Retail Impact Assessment have been submitted. The proposal would pass the sequential test and the development would not have a significantly adverse impact on any surrounding Town or Neighbourhood Centres within its catchment.

12.2 The development would be of an acceptable design, which would enhance the appearance of the existing building. In addition there would be no unacceptable impact on any neighbours. The development would also be acceptable in regards to Ecology and Land Quality matters subject to safeguarding conditions and advisory informatives. The development would also be acceptable in regards to parking for vehicles and cycles; and delivery and servicing subject to conditions. A contribution towards improvements to Bulls Bridge Roundabout on the TfL Road Network is necessary to mitigate against any impacts of the development on the surrounding road network.

12.3 For these reasons, it is considered that the development would therefore be acceptable and it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

13.0 RECOMMENDATION:

13.1 That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions (subject to any minor variation of condition wording) and securing the abovementioned planning obligations by the prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and of highways agreements under Sections 38 and 278 of the Highways Act 1980 (at the appropriate time) and or other appropriate legislation, the exact terms of which shall be negotiated by appropriate officers within the Housing, Planning and Communities Department on the advice of the Head of Governance.

13.2 The satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking outlined above shall be completed and planning permission issued by 1st April 2021 or such extended period as may be agreed in writing by appropriate officers within the Housing, Planning and Communities Department or within Legal Services.

13.3 If the legal agreement or unilateral undertaking is not completed by the date specified above (or any agreed extended period), then the Chief Planning Officer or Head of Development Management is hereby authorised to refuse planning permission for the reason that the proposal should include planning obligations required to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, development plan policies and the Planning Obligations SPD, as described in this Report.

13.4 Following the grant of planning permission, where (a) requested to enter into a deed of variation or legal agreement in connection with the planning permission hereby approved and by the person(s) bound by the legal agreement authorised in paragraph 1 above, and (b) where the planning obligations are not materially affected, and (c) there is no monetary cost to the Council, the Chief Planning Officer or Head of Development Management is hereby authorised (in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee and upon the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance) to enter into a legal agreement(s) (deed of variation) made under Sections 106 and/or 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and or other appropriate legislation.

13.5 If planning permission is refused following the failure to sign the S106 in time, the Chief Planning Officer or Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission validated within 12 months of the date of refusal of planning permission, provided that it (a) duplicates the planning application, and (b) that there has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and (c) that a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking securing the obligations set out in the Report is completed within any specified period of time.

C onditions:

1. A1a Time Limit The development herby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To accord with the provisions of Section 92(1) of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. B5 Implementation The proposed development shall be carried out in all respects in accordance with the proposals contained in the application and the plans submitted therewith and approved by the Local Planning Authority, or as shall have been otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby approved is first brought into use. Reason. To ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the planning permission. 3. B4 Materials Samples No development, excluding site investigations and internal works, shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the refurbishment of the external surfaces of the hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason. In order that the Council may be satisfied as to the details of the development in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and to satisfy the requirements of policies CC1 and CC2 of the adopted Local Plan. 4. Use Class/PD Restriction The premises shall be used for A1 (Retail) Use Only and for no other purpose under the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) and notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (As Amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order) no change of use shall take place. Reason. The Council is satisfied that the use hereby approved would not harm the vitality or viability of any nearby centres based on the information submitted to it with this planning application, but would wish to control future changes of use within the same class in the interests of amenity and town centre vitality and viability in accordance with Local Plan Policies TC1; TC3 and TC5. 5. C16 No additional floorspace No additional floorspace shall be formed within the buildings hereby permitted without prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: The Council is satisfied that the use hereby approved would not harm the vitality or viability of any nearby centres based on the information submitted to it with this planning application, but would wish to control future changes of use within the same class in the interests of amenity and town centre vitality and viability in accordance with Local Plan Policies TC1; TC3 and TC5. 6. C27 Hours of Operation The use hereby permitted for A1 (Retail) purposes shall not be carried on outside the following times: Monday to Saturday 7am-11pm and Sunday 10am-6pm. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies CC1 Context and character, CC2 Urban design and architecture and EQ5 Noise of the adopted Local Plan. 7. C29 Hours of Construction No demolition or construction work shall take place on the site except between the hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm on Mondays to Friday and 9 00am to 1:00pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority. Reason. In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential properties and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of the locality in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 (New Development) and EQ5 (Noise pollution) of the adopted Local Plan. 8. NRMM Air Quality – NRMM All Non-road Mobile Machinery (NRMM) used during the course of the development that is within the scope of the GLA 'Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition' Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) dated July 2014, or any successor document, shall comply with the emissions requirements therein. Reason: In the interests of Air Quality and to satisfy the requirements of policy EQ4 of the adopted Local Plan. 9. Ecology Compliance The development, including all necessary mitigation measures, shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of 18-4753 Preliminary Ecological Report by Syntegra dated February 2019 received: 04/09/2019.

Reason: To ensure the development does not compromise ecology in the locality and accords with policy GB7 (Biodiversity) of the adopted Local Plan. 10. Construction Management Plan No development shall take place until a Construction Logistics Plan written in accordance with current TfL guidance has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Plan shall include:

i. A site plan (showing the areas set out below) ii. Confirmation that a pre-start record of site conditions on the adjoining public highway will be undertaken with Hounslow Highways and a commitment to repair any damage caused iii. Provision for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors iv. Provisions for loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials within the site v. Details of access to the site, including means to control and manage access and egress of vehicles to and from the site for the duration of construction including phasing arrangements vi. Details of vehicle routeing from the site to the wider strategic road network vii. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate viii. Provision of wheel washing facilities at the site exit and a commitment to sweep adjacent roads when required and at the request of the council ix. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from construction works x. Measures to ensure the safety of all users of the public highway especially cyclists and pedestrians in the vicinity of the site and especially at the access xi. Commitment to liaise with other contractors in the vicinity of the site to maximise the potential for consolidation and to minimise traffic impacts. xii. Avoidance of peak hours for deliveries and details of a booking system to avoid vehicles waiting on the public highway xiii. All necessary traffic orders and other permissions required to allow safe access to the site to be secured and implemented prior to commencement of construction xiv. Details of the construction programme and a schedule of traffic movements xv. The use of operators that are members of TfL's Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) All work on site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure highway safety is maintained and preserved in accordance with policy EC2 of the Local Plan. 11. E1 Landscaping Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, l details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include (proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing material; minor artefacts and structures (eg. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant). Soft landscape works shall include (planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate; implementation programme) Reason. In the interest of biodiversity, sustainability, and to ensure that a satisfactory standard of visual amenity is provided and maintained in accordance with policy CC1, CC2 (New Development) of the adopted Local Plan. 12. G7 Car Parking The parking, loading and turning spaces shown on drawing Received: 30/10/2020 and numbered SK04 Rev: BB Site Plan, shall be constructed and available for use before first occupation of any part of the development and such spaces shall not be used for any other purposes. Reason: In order to prevent obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjacent highway and the premises, and in the interests of road safety in accordance with policies CC1 Context and character, CC2 Urban design and architecture and EC2 Developing a sustainable local transport network of the adopted Local Plan. 13. Waste and Recycling The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the arrangements for storing of waste and recycled materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The arrangements for storing waste and recycled materials shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with any approval given and shall be completed before any part of the accommodation hereby permitted is occupied.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the area and in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 (New Development) and EQ7 and WLWP (Recycling Facilities in New Developments) of the adopted Local Plan. 14. Delivery and Servicing Strategy The development permitted shall not be occupied until a Delivery and Servicing Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall cover the delivery and servicing arrangements for both retail units and the development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In order to prevent obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjacent highway and the premises, and in the interests of road safety in accordance with policies CC1 Context and character, CC2 Urban design and architecture and EC2 Developing a sustainable local transport network of the adopted Local Plan. 15. Cycle Parking The development permission shall not be occupied until full details including plans and elevations of cycle parking and associated facilities shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out as approved and the spaces/facilities made available prior to first occupation and shall be available at all times thereafter.

Reason: In order to prevent obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjacent highway and the premises, and in the interests of road safety in accordance with policies CC1, CC2 (New Development), EC2 (Car and Cycle Parking and Servicing Facilities for Developments) and EC2 (Road Safety) of the adopted Local Plan.

Informatives:

1. Granted following pre-app To assist applicants, the London Borough of Hounslow has produced planning policies and written guidance, which are available on the Council's website. The Council also offers a pre-application advice service. In this case, the scheme was submitted in accordance with guidance following pre application discussions. 2. Landfill You are advised that the proposed development is noted within our records to be located within 250m of a former landfill site. Therefore we advise that either the site is investigated for the presence of landfill gas to ascertain whether gas protection measures are required or that gas protection measures are installed as a precautionary measure. Please contact the Land Quality Team on [email protected] if you require any advice. REASON: The site lies on, or in close proximity to, a former landfill site and the Local Planning Authority wishes to ensure that the development does not give rise to any potential risk from landfill gas migration. Supporting notes: a. The Council do not provide a landfill gas monitoring service, but Environmental Consultancies can be employed to undertake this work. b. In the case of small developments or extensions it is believed to be often cheaper to install basic gas protection as a precautionary measure. However, please note that the level of protection required may vary depending on the nature of the site. Further information is available from the Land Quality pages of the Council's website. c. We request that any site investigation reports or site plans sent to us be sent electronically to the email address above or by post on a cd or dvd wherever possible. 3. Land Contamination You are advised that our records suggest that the site of the proposed development may have had a former use with the potential to cause contamination of the ground. We advise persons working on site to take suitable safety precautions in relation to any contact with the soil, including dust inhalation. Further, you should ensure harm is not caused to the environment, including groundwater, during the proposed development, and that any waste generated is disposed of correctly. If the look, feel or smell of material in the ground causes you concern then we recommend that you contact the council's land quality team for more information on [email protected]. Following discussions with the Land Quality Team, consultation with an environmental professional may be required to confirm if the site poses a risk to health or the environment.

REASON: The possible presence of contamination on the site is due to a former land use. The LPA therefore wishes to ensure that the development can be implemented and occupied with adequate regard for public and environmental safety.

The advice is provided on the grounds of Health and Safety of the workers on site and to ensure the appropriate restoration of the site once works are complete to minimise risk to the occupants of the site. The suitability of building materials and building techniques may also need to be considered under the Building Regulations.

Supporting notes: We request that any site investigation reports or site plans produced in response to this informative be sent electronically to the address above or by post on a cd or dvd wherever possible.

4. Advertisement Consent This planning consent does not grant any express consent for advertisements; signage; totem poles; flags or advertisements otherwise under The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

Schedule of Drawing Numbers and Reports

Received: 04/09/2019 Lidl Hayes Road Installation: Car Park. Report by Signify dated 03/09/2019; Energy and Sustainability Statement: Rev B. Report by JS Lewis Ltd dated July 2019; DWG00 LIAS Design Notes and Luminaire Schedule; 18-0234 Design and Access Statement by Rapleys dated September 2019; 18-0234 Planning and Retail Statement by Rapleys dated September 2019; SK02 Rev: H Proposed Floor Plans; SK06 Rev: D Proposed North and East Elevations; SK07 Rev: D Proposed South and West Elevations; SK12 Proposed Roof Plan; SK13 Rev: A Location Plan; SK14 Rev: A Block Plan; SK15 Existing Ground Floor Plan; SK16 Existing First Floor Plan; SK17 Existing Roof Plan; SK18 Existing North and East Elevations; SK19 Existing South and West Elevations; SK20 Existing and Proposed Section; 6001 Rev: B Proposed Drainage GA; 18-4753 Preliminary Ecological Report by Syntegra dated February 2019.

Received: 02/10/2019 Transport Statement v1.5 dated 01/10/2019; Travel Plan v1.4 dated 27/09/2019.

Received:20/12/2019 Highway Response to LB Hounslow Comments dated 20/12/2019.

Received: 02/09/2020 Rapleys Resonse to LB Hillingdon dated September 2020.

Received: 30/10/2020 SK04 Rev: BB Site Plan.

Received: 04/11/2020 Rapleys Additional Sequential Test Note dated October 2020.

Received: 04/01/2021 18-02434 Addendum Retail Statement by Rapleys dated: December 2020.

Received: 11/01/2021 MG0124 Version 4 Proposed Model Report VMAP Stage 5.

Report Ends.

Background Papers:

The contents of planning application and enforcement files save for exempt or confidential information as defined in the Local Government Act 1972, Sch. 12A Parts 1 and 2.