Date: THURSDAY 2ND NOVEMBER 2006 North Planning Time: 7 PM Committee Venue: COMMITTEE ROOM 6, CIVIC CENTRE HIGH STREET, UXBRIDGE

To Councillors on the Committee: Visiting the Civic Centre:

Bruce Baker (Chairman) Members of the Public and Press Michael White (Vice-Chairman) are welcome to attend this David Allam meeting. Free parking is Shirley Harper O’Neill available via the entrance to the Michael Markham Civic Centre in the High Street. Norman Nunn-Price Ian Oakley Bus routes 427, U1, U3, U4 and U7 all stop at the Civic Centre. Conservation Area Advisory Members Uxbridge underground station, Michael Platts / Chris Groom with the Piccadilly and Clive Pigram Metropolitan lines, is a short John Ross / Michael Dent walk away. Please enter from Michael Hirst the Council’s main reception Pamela Jeffreys where you will be directed to the Committee Room.

Please switch off your mobile phone when entering the room and note that the Council operates a no-smoking policy in th Publication Date: 25 October 2006 its offices.

Contact Officer: Nadia Williams This agenda is available in large print

Cabinet Office – Decision Team T.01895 277655 F.01895 277373 [email protected] London Borough of Hillingdon, 3E/05, Civic Centre, High Street, Uxbridge, UB8 1UW www.hillingdon.gov.uk David Brough – Head of Democratic Services Agenda B

1. Consideration of the reports from the Head of Planning & Transportation, continued

Reports - Part 1 – Members, Public and the Press

Items are normally marked in the order that they will be considered, though the Chairman may vary this. Reports are split into ‘major’ and ‘non-major’ applications. The name of the local ward area is also given in addition to the address of the premises or land concerned.

Major Application With Petition

Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 9 Land rear of 61, Ickenham Erection of a three storey block to 1 Glebe Avenue, provide 12 residential apartments Ickenham with associated car parking and amenity space (involving demolition of existing builders’ yard storage buildings)

Recommendation : Refusal

Major Applications without Petition Address Ward Description & Recommendation Page 10 RAF Northolt, South Reserved Matters, details of the 21 West End Road, Ruislip design, siting, external appearance Ruislip and landscaping (Phase 1), landscape master plan strategy, access statement, landscape maintenance plan, tree protection, wheelchair parking, site environmental management plan, raising of ground levels, permeable fencing, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities, energy efficiency report, emissions monitoring scheme and bat survey, in part compliance with conditions 3,4,9,11,12,15,16,17,20,23,25,36, 37 and 42 of outline “Statement of No Objection” ref. 189/APP/2005/1321 dated 8/3/06 (Redevelopment of RAF Northolt – Project Model)

Recommendation : Approval

11 Harefield Academy, Harefield Variation of Conditions 69 Northwood Way, 6,7,9,11,14,15,16,19,20,28,29,30 Harefield and 31 of planning permission ref. 17709/APP/2006/825 dated 16/6/06 ‘Redevelopment of school, involving erection of new buildings to provide a new academy school for 1000 students. Provision of associated sports facilities, hard and soft play areas, ancillary crèche, new access, replacement parking and landscaping.

Recommendation : Refuse variation of conditions 28,29, and 30. Vary other conditions as listed in report.

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 2 NOVEMBER 2006 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR (NORTH) OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY AGENDA

A Item No. 9 Report of the Director of Planning and Community Services

Address: LAND REAR OF 61 GLEBE AVENUE, ICKENHAM

Development: ERECTION OF A THREE STOREY BLOCK TO PROVIDE 12 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING AND AMENITY SPACE (INVOLVING DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDERS' YARD STORAGE BUILDINGS)

LBH Ref Nos: 16248/APP/2006/2382

Drawing Nos: 06013/01, 06013/02, 06013/03, 06013/04, 06013/05, 06013/05, 06013/06, 06013/07, 06013/09, 06013/10, 06013/11, 06013/12, 06013/13, 06013/14, 06013/15, 06013/16, Accommodation Schedule, reports titled ‘Planning, Design & Access Statement’ prepared by BCP dated August 2006, ‘Transport Statement’ prepared by Peter Brett Associates dated August 2006, ‘Site Investigation Report’ prepared by Risk Management’ dated July 2001, all received 14/08/06

Letter from Bell Cornwell dated 17/10/06 received 20/10/06

Report titled ‘Tree Survey’ prepared by Land and Landscape Management Ltd dated October 2006, received by email 25/10/06

Date of receipt: 14/08/2006 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 A 3-storey block of 12 apartments is proposed on land formerly used as a builders yard, located to the rear of residential properties fronting Glebe Avenue, Crosier Road and St Giles Avenue. The currently submission is a resubmission of an earlier proposal which was withdrawn prior to determination.

1.2 A total of 43 local residents have been consulted and 20 letters and one petition with 38 signatures have been received objecting to the proposal. Concerns raised include the over development of the site, impacts on residential amenity, and impacts on the local highway network.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 1

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 1.3 Whilst no objection is raised to the principle of redevelopment of the site for housing, the proposal would result in a cramped, overdeveloped site which would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would be detrimental to the residential amenities of surrounding residents. The development would also fail to provide good environmental conditions for future occupants, with inadequate unit size and outlook provided. The applicant has also failed to address a number of issues including disabled access, the provision of units for people with disabilities, and sustainability.

1.4 Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSAL, for the following reasons:

1. The proposal represents an over development of the site, resulting in a cramped and inappropriate form of development which, by virtue of its density, siting, and bulk would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of surrounding properties and that of the area generally. This is contrary to Policies BE13, BE19 and H6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the design principles contained within the Council’s adopted ‘Hillingdon Design and Access Statement: Residential Layouts’.

2. The proposed building, by virtue of its siting and bulk would result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to adjoining residents, by reason of over-dominance and loss of outlook, contrary to Policies BE21 and H6 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and the design principles contained within the Council’s adopted ‘Hillingdon Design and Access Statement: Residential Layouts’.

3. The development is considered to provide an inadequate mix of dwellings, with no larger units (3 or more bed) proposed, no evidence of the provision of lifetime homes and no units specifically identified to be wheelchair accessible, contrary to Policies H5 and H9 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan, Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan, the Council’s 2005 Housing Needs Survey and the Council’s adopted ‘Hillingdon Design and Access Statement: Residential Layouts’.

4. The development fails to provide a satisfactory residential environment for future residents by reason of small internal floor areas and habitable rooms without external windows. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies H6, H8 and BE21 of the Borough’s adopted Unitary Development Plan and the and the Council’s adopted ‘Hillingdon Design and Access Statement: Residential Layouts’.

5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the incorporation of sustainability measures into the development. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 2

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan.

6. The development is not considered to have made adequate provision, through planning obligations, for contributions in respect of the impact upon education provision and concerning project management and monitoring in accordance with Policy R17 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan or the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations (Adopted December 2003).

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Site and Locality

3.1 The site, which is located to the rear of 53 - 67 Glebe Avenue, 33 – 45 Crosier Road and 1 –11 St Giles Avenue, Ickenham, is currently occupied by a number of single storey detached commercial buildings commensurate with its former use as a builders’ yard. The site is devoid of soft landscaping.

3.2 The site is accessed by a 6.2 metre wide drive which is located between 59 and 61 Glebe Avenue. This access also serves garages located to the rear of 49 Glebe Avenue. The site is relatively level and is surrounded on all sides by residential properties, which mainly comprise 1930’s two storey semi-detached and terraced houses and maisonettes. However, a three storey terrace block immediately abuts the site at 39-45 Crosier Road.

3.3 Local shops are located directly opposite the site access. The Ickenham Underground station is situated approximately 200 metres to the north of the site. Notwithstanding this the site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1 on a scale of 1 to 6, where 1 represents the lowest level of public accessibility.

3.4 The site is located within the ‘developed area’ as defined in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

Scheme

3.5 Planning permission is sought for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to accommodate a 3 storey pitched roof residential block comprising 8 two-bed and 4 one bed residential units. Four units will be located on each floor.

3.6 The block, with an overall width of 19.5 metres and depth of 21 metres, would be located on the eastern portion of the site. It would be setback approximately 5 metres from the northern site boundary and 1.2 metres from the southern site boundary at its nearest point. The building would have an eaves height of approximately 8 metres and a ridge height of approximately 11.5 metres. The building would be finished in render and brick with a tiled roof.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 3

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 3.7 The existing drive providing access from Glebe Avenue would be retained. However, it would be redeveloped as a shared surface for both vehicles and pedestrians. Eleven open air car parking spaces would be provided to the west of the block, including one space for people with disabilities. An additional car parking space will be provided within a garage to remain on the northern part of the site, bringing the total number of spaces provided on site to 12.

3.8 Three of the ground floor units will be provided with patio areas outside double doors. Approximately 350m2 of grassed amenity space would be provided to the east of the block as communal amenity space. A dedicated bin storage area would be provided adjacent to car park 11, approximately 23 metres from the Glebe Avenue entrance. A secure cycle store would be attached to the northern elevation of the proposed block.

3.9 The application is supported by the following specialist documents:

• Planning, Design and Access Statement

3.10 This report describes the locality, the proposal and the approach adopted to design and access. It specifically addresses site layout and landscaping, access, scale and appearance, and comments on relevant planning policy.

• Transport Statement

3.11 This report describes the local traffic environment, taking into account public transport accessibility. Utilising the TRICS 2006 database, it concludes that the total number of trips generated by the proposal would equate to a two way flow of 5 vehicles during both the AM and PM peaks. A comparison of the proposed residential use and the site’s previous use as a builders yard indicates that the residential development will have a total of 40 less 2 way trips in the AM peak and 2 fewer trips in the PM peak. Accordingly the proposal would result in a net reduction in the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. The report also considers the access and parking arrangements, concluding that these are acceptable.

• Contaminated Land Report

3.12 This report details investigations carried out to ascertain the subsoil condition of the site. Elevated arsenic levels were found. However, this is comparable to other London brownfield sites and is not considered to be indicative of adverse contamination requiring specialised treatment. However, the report recommends that any fill material to be removed from the site should be treated as special waste.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 4

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS • Tree Survey

3.13 This details a survey undertaken in respect of trees located immediately off site. Few of the trees are considered to be off any great quality, but in any event, all but three threes are proposed for retention. Given that the whole of the proposed development site is in hardstanding and parts of the site are bounded by brick walls it is unlikely that the trees surrounding the site will have developed root systems that have extensively used the are of the site and damage by construction is unlikely subject to recommended mitigation works.

Planning History

3.14 Planning permission ref. 16248/APP/2005/2505 sought a change of use of an existing single storey office building to a 2-bedroom bungalow. The application was refused under delegated powers on 26/10/2005.

3.15 Planning application ref: 16248/APP/2005/3344 was lodged on 30/11/2005 and sought the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to accommodate 15 residential units within a three storey building. The application was withdrawn from consideration following Officer advice that it would be recommended for refusal.

UDP Designation:

3.16 The site is located within the Developed Area as designated by the Unitary Development Plan.

Planning Policies and Standards:

3.17 The following UDP polices are considered relevant to the application:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.16 To seek to ensure enough new residential units are designed to wheelchair and mobility standards. Pt1.17 To seek to ensure the highest acceptable number of new dwellings are provided in the form of affordable housing. Pt1.39 To seek, where appropriate, planning obligations to achieve benefits to the community related to the scale and type of development proposed.

Part 2 Policies:

Built Environment BE13 Layout and appearance of new development

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 5

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BE18 Design considerations – pedestrian security and safety BE19 New development within residential areas – complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE20 Daylight and sunlight considerations BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE23 External amenity space and new residential development BE24 Design of new buildings – protection of privacy BE38 Retention of topographical and landscape features, and provision of new planting and landscaping in development proposals

Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE5 Siting of noise sensitive developments OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites

Housing H4 Mix of housing units H5 Dwellings suitable for large families H6 Considerations influencing appropriate density in residential development H9 Provision for people with disabilities in new residential developments

Recreation, Leisure and Community Facilities R17 Use of planning obligations to supplement the provision of recreation, leisure and community facilities

Accessibility and Movement AM2 Development proposals – assessment of traffic generation, impact on congestion and public transport availability and capacity AM7 Considerations of traffic generated by proposed developments AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM14 New development and car parking standards AM15 Provision of reserved parking spaces for disabled persons

Also considered relevant are:

Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) The London Plan Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement 2005 Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Policies and Standards (December

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 6

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2001) Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations

Consultations

3.18 The application was advertised under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) as major development. A sign was erected on the site and a public notice was placed in a local paper on 06/09/06. 43 households were notified via letter. 20 letters and one petition with 38 signatures have been received objecting to the proposal. The issues raised in the letters of objection are summarised below:

(i) The development would result in the over development of the site; (ii) The design and external appearance of the proposed building would be inconsistent with the character of the locality; (iii) The building would appear over dominant to adjoining properties; (iv) The development would impact on residential amenity by way of loss of light, views and privacy, increased noise and pollution, and on-site lighting; (v) The surrounding road network cannot accommodate the additional parking and traffic generated by the proposal; (vi) Inadequate provision has been made for on-site parking; (vii) The existing access is too narrow to allow vehicles to pass or emergency vehicles to enter the site. No provision has been made for an internal pedestrian footpath. The proposal would therefore adversely impact on pedestrian safety, particularly with the additional movements anticipated by this development; (viii) The proposed units are too small; (ix) The development will place additional pressures on local utilities and amenities; (x) The proposed refuse store is inappropriately located and should be designed to standards; (xi) Additional security measures are required, including CCTV and lighting; (xii) Vibration from heavy vehicles accessing the site may damage adjoining properties; (xiii) The development would adversely impact local property values.

External Consultees

Hillingdon Primary Care No response received. Trust

Ickenham Residents’ Object to the proposal for the following Association reasons: (i) The site may be contaminated from previous activities.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 7

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (ii) The development fails to comply with policies BE21, BE34 and AM1. (iii) The proposal would result in the loss of light to surrounding residential properties. (iv) The area already suffers from heavy traffic volumes which the proposal would exacerbate.

Metropolitan Police To be reported via the addendum sheet.

Internal Consultees

Policy & Environmental No objections are raised to the principle of Planning Officer residential development of this site. However, the density of the proposal is in excess of the density parameters of both the UDP and the London Plan for a suburban area of this character.

Environmental Protection No objections raised subject to recommended Unit conditions requiring further assessment of land contamination and appropriate mitigation.

Urban Design Officer No objections raised subject to conditions requiring the approval of external materials.

Highways Officer No objections raised subject to a condition requiring refuse bins to be relocated on the day of collection.

Waste Strategy Officer No objections raised in principle. The capacity of the proposed refuse store is considered acceptable. However, it will be located in excess of 10m from the closest point of access by refuse collection vehicles. This is contrary to the Council’s standard requirements.

Trees/Landscape Officer An arboriculture impact assessment in accordance with the recommendations of BS 5837:2005 is required to ensure that the proposal complies with Policy BE38.

Projects and Planning contributions should be sought in for

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 8

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Implementation Team education facilities and project management and monitoring in accordance with the relevant Council supplementary planning guidance.

Education Directorate A planning contribution of £14.913.25 should be sought for education facilities.

Main Planning Issues

3.19 The main planning issues are considered to be:

(i) The principle of the development and residential density (ii) Building design and impact on local character (iii) Impacts on residential amenity (iv) Traffic and parking issues (v) Sustainability and waste management (vi) Access for people with disabilities (vii) Planning benefits

(i) The principle of the proposed development

3.20 Policy H8 permits the change of land from non-residential to residential use only where a satisfactory residential environment can be achieved and where the existing use is unlikely to meet a demand for such. Whilst the applicant does not provide any evidence to support the loss of builders’ yard, the site directly abuts residential properties on all sides. As such, the site is not considered particularly suitable for commercial redevelopment.

3.21 Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with Planning Policy Guidance 3: Housing, which encourages the efficient re-use of brownfield land for residential purposes. There are therefore no in principle objections to the residential redevelopment of this site, subject to the scheme satisfying other policies of the UDP.

3.22 Policy H6 of the UDP states that an acceptable density depends on a balance between the full and effective use of available housing land and a combination of the following considerations: • The quality of the housing layout and design; • Its compatibility with the density, form and spacing of surrounding development; • The proposed dwelling mix; and • The location, configuration and characteristics of the site.

3.23 Policy H6 further states that new housing will generally be expected to be in the

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 9

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS range of 100-200 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha). Where the density exceeds 150 hr/ha, it is expected that applicants demonstrate the design and layout of a scheme provides good environmental conditions. In addition, the supporting text in the UDP states that circumstances such as site characteristics, dwelling mix, the character of the surrounding area and contributions to meeting local housing needs may enable a density above or below these figures to be achieved.

3.24 Since the adoption of the UDP, density guidelines have also been provided within the London Plan. These density controls take into account public transport accessibility, the character of the area and type of housing proposed. The site has a PTAL of 1, which is considered to be remote within a suburban context. Taking this into account, the London Plan density guideline is 150 to 200 habitable rooms per hectare (hr/ha) or 30 to 50 units per hectare (u/ha) as the appropriate capacity for the site.

3.25 The development exceeds these density parameters, with a density of approximately 85u/ha and 229hrph. This level of development is considered inappropriate in an area with such a low level of public transport accessibility. Furthermore, this density is not supported having regard to the overdeveloped nature of the scheme which will produce unsatisfactory environmental conditions for future/neighbouring occupiers, and the provision of an unsatisfactory internal residential amenity, contrary to Policy H6 of the UDP and the London Plan guidelines.

3.26 Policies H4 and H5 seek to ensure a practicable mix of housing units are provided within residential schemes. One and two bedroom developments are encouraged within town centres, while larger family units are promoted elsewhere, according to local need.

3.27 The proposal provides for 4 one-bedroom flats and 8 two-bedroom flats. The proposed housing mixture is considered limited and would be more suitable to a town centre location than the suburban environment of the site. It is therefore considered that the development fails to provide an acceptable dwelling mix contrary to Policy H4 and H5 of the UDP and the London Plan.

(ii) Building design and impact on local character

3.11 Policy BE13 of the UDP highlights the importance of designing new development to harmonise with the existing streetscene while Policy BE19 seeks to ensure that new development within residential areas complements or improves the amenity and character of the area.

3.28 The surrounding development is predominantly comprised of 1930’s 2 storey semi-detached and terraced properties set on regular plots. Having said this, a 3 storey terrace block abuts the site.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 10

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

3.29 The proposed building would be 3 storeys in height with a pitched roof. It would incorporate small hipped roof features and external balconies which would provide visual interest and break up the elevations. The Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the classic, neutral design of the building and the materials proposed would harmonises with the local character of the neighbourhood.

3.30 The development would be set back from the road frontage and would be couched within surrounding residential development. The separation distances, the screening offered by surrounding properties, and the proximity of the proposed building to an existing three storey terrace block at 39-45 Crosier Road would ensure that the height and scale of the building would not appear over- dominant or incongruous in relation to the streetscene.

3.31 Notwithstanding this, the scale of the development in relation to the limited size of the plot and setbacks from the site boundaries, together with the level of hard surfacing proposed, results in a cramped and incongruous form of back land development, which would be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

3.32 Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies BE13 and BE19 and design principles contained within the Hillingdon Design and Access Statement.

(iii) Impacts on residential amenity

3.33 Policies BE20, BE21, BE24, OE1 and OE5 of the UDP seek to control the effects of new built development. While these policies recognise that any development will result in some effects on surrounding properties by virtue of the status quo being altered, the scale of a development proposal is not directly indicative of significant adverse effects.

3.34 Policy BE20 of the UDP seeks to ensure that buildings are laid out to provide adequate sunlight and preserve the amenity of existing houses. The proposal appears to result in shading/overshadowing of the rear gardens of 35 –45 Crosier Road, progressively, throughout the day. The applicant has advised that a shadowing assessment will be provided to allow the more thorough assessment of this matter. Further comments will be provided via the Committee addendum sheet.

3.35 Policy BE21 requires new residential developments to be designed so as to ensure adequate outlook for occupants of the site and surrounding properties. Policy BE24 states that the development should be designed to protect the privacy of future occupiers and their neighbours. HDAS provides further guidance in respect of these matters, stating in particular that the distance

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 11

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS between habitable room windows should not be less than 21m, and that a 15m setback should be maintained to the rear of surrounding properties.

3.36 Generally speaking, the proposed units are either orientated to the front or rear of the site and as such would not create any significant overlooking of adjoining properties. While some secondary habitable rooms or non-habitable rooms windows are located in the flank elevations, overlooking from these could be controlled by a condition requiring obscure glazing. Accordingly, no objection is raised in respect of Policy BE24.

3.37 While satisfactory outlooks would be provided from most primary habitable room windows, bedroom 1 in proposed units 3, 7 and 11 would not benefit from any external windows. This would not create a satisfactory internal living environment for future residents and is considered to be contrary to Policy BE21.

3.38 The proposed building would be setback of 12m from the rear flank elevation of 37 Crosiers Road. While this setback is slightly offset from the main outlook from 37 Crosiers Road, it falls within the 25 degree angle specified by HDAS for outlook. In addition, a setback of just 15m is maintained from the rear of 39-45 Crosiers Road and 16m from the rear of 5-7 St Giles Avenue.

3.39 It is considered that the bulk and massing of the proposed building would produce an oppressive impact and have an adverse effect on the outlook of adjoining residents from their rear gardens and the rear windows of their houses. Furthermore, in the absence of appropriate soft landscaped boundary treatment, together with the proximity of the block to the property boundaries, the development cannot be effectively screened and softened to minimise the impact on its surroundings. It is therefore considered the close proximity of the building to the property boundaries, together with its massing, will have an adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining residential properties, contrary to policy BE21 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.40 Policy BE23 requires the provision of external amenity space which is sufficient to protect the amenity of occupants of the proposed and surrounding buildings and which is usable in terms of its siting and shape. The Hillingdon Design and Access Statement suggests that where communal amenity space is proposed, 20m2 should be provided for one bed units and 25m2 for two bedroom units. Accordingly, the proposal generates a requirement for approximately 280m2 of communal amenity space.

3.41 The ground floor flats would be provided with small patios. Four of the upper floor flats would be provided with balconies, and a further two would be provided with juliette balconies. All units would have access to 330m2 of communal amenity space located to the east of the building. The plans schematically illustrate some additional planting within this communal area. Significant additional planting and landscaping would be required to ensure a high quality,

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 12

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS usable space. This could be controlled by condition in the event of an approval. However, the Council’s Trees/Landscape Officer has advised that an arboriculture impact assessment in accordance with the recommendations of BS 5837:2005 is required to ensure that the proposal complies with Policy BE38.

3.42 Notwithstanding this, the proposal complies with Policy BE23 and the requirements of HDAS in terms of communal amenity space provision.

3.43 HDAS provides recommended standards relating to floor space. It suggests that 1 and 2 bedroom flats maintain a minimum gross floor space of 50m2 and 63m2 respectively. The 1 bedroom flats would have a maximum floor area of 41.7m2, while the 2 bedroom flats would have a maximum floor area of 62.9m2. The 8 two bedroom flats would have an average floor area of 58.7m2. The smallest units (units 5,and 9 at 41.65m2) do not benefit from private patios or balconies.

3.44 While these variations are subtle, they are considered to be indicative of the overdeveloped nature of the proposed development. When considered in conjunction with the density proposed, the internal arrangements of proposed units 3, 7 and 11, and the impact of the development on surrounding residential properties, the small unit sizes would result in a highly cramped form of development inconsistent with the suburban character of the locality.

3.45 Policies OE1 and OE5 of the UDP relate to disturbance, particularly by noise, on residential amenities. Objectors have raised concerns regarding disturbance by external lighting.

3.46 Noise generated on site would be commensurate with the residential character of the area. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed residential use of the site would result in a net reduction in the number of vehicle movements to and from the site. The number of heavy goods or trade vehicle movements, and associated disturbance from loading and unloading, will be significantly reduced. Furthermore, the existing authorised use could potentially result in greater levels of activity within the site, resulting in additional fumes, dust, vibration, general disturbance and increased noise levels, over and above the proposed residential use.

3.47 External lighting would consist of low level bollard lights. These would not create undue light spill or disturbance to adjoining properties. However, the Council’s position could be retained by a condition requiring the further approval of lighting in the event of an approval.

3.48 Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to adversely impact the residential amenities of adjoining properties in terms of noise, lighting or environmental pollution. No objection is therefore raised in respect of Policies OE1 and OE5.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 13

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (iv) Traffic and parking issues

3.49 Policies AM2, AM7, AM14 and AM15 are concerned with traffic generation, road capacity, on site parking and access to public transport.

3.50 The Transport Assessment provided by the applicant advises that the proposal will result in a reduction of traffic movements to and from the site when compared to the existing permitted use of the site as a builders yard. Specifically, the development would result in 40 less two way trips in the AM peak and two less two way trips in the PM peak. Vehicle trips are likely to comprise cars or motorbikes, rather than heavy or trade vehicles.

3.51 Vehicles accessing the site will utilise the existing vehicle crossing which is centrally positioned with good visibility. The access road will be redeveloped as a shared surface with traffic calming measures (including paving and lighting) intended to provide priority to pedestrians. The Council’s Highways Engineer has raised no objections to the development in these regards.

3.52 In terms of on-site parking, the Council’s revised parking standards seek the provision of 1.5 car parking space per residential unit (maximum). 10% of all spaces must be provided for drivers with disabilities. 1 motorcycle space is required per 20 car spaces, and 1 bicycle space is required per dwelling. Accordingly, the development creates a maximum demand of 18 car parking spaces.

3.53 Notwithstanding this, the London Plan seeks to minimise on-site parking in order to encourage the use of more sustainable non-car modes. In this regard, Table A4.2 of the London Plan (Maximum Residential car parking standards) suggests that flatted residential developments should aim for 1 parking space or less per unit.

3.54 The development proposes 12 car parking spaces of which 1 will be designated for drivers with disabilities. This level of provision is considered satisfactory. While no provision has been made for motorcycle parking, this could be addressed by condition in the event of a recommendation for approval.

3.55 Secure bicycle parking will be provided at a ratio of 1:1 for the residential units. This level of provision is considered acceptable and is in accordance with the Council’s standards set out within ‘Parking Policies and Standards 2nd Deposit Draft’ and Policy AM9 of the UDP.

3.56 Accordingly, no objections are raised in respect of Policies AM2, AM7, AM14 and AM15

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 14

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (v) Sustainability and waste management

3.57 Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan advises that boroughs should require major developments to show how they would generate a proportion of the site’s electricity or heat needs from renewable sources, wherever feasible. The applicant failed to provide details such details and therefore fails the requirements of the London Plan.

3.58 Policy OE13 relates to the provision of satisfactory recycling and waste disposal provisions as part of new developments. A dedicated bin store is proposed adjoining proposed car park 11. This is shown as being capable of accommodating 6 individually movable 1100 litre bins (3 for refuse and 3 for recycling). This level of provision is consistent with advice from the Council’s Waste Strategy Manager.

3.59 Notwithstanding this, the proposed bin store would be located more than 23m from Glebe Avenue. Council standards require bin stores to be located no further than 10m from the closest point of access for refuse collection vehicles.

3.60 The applicant has proposed that, on collection days, the bins will be wheeled to the front of the access way and positioned to allow for collection. This would negate the need for refuse vehicles to enter the site. The positioning of the bins to the side of the access would not prejudice vehicular movements, as a carriageway width of 5m would be maintained and would allow for safe two way vehicular and pedestrian movements. This arrangement is considered acceptable, and could be conditioned in the event of a positive recommendation.

(vi) Access for people with disabilities

3.61 Policy H9 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan require 10% of the total number of units proposed to be designed to full (or capable of easy adaption to) wheelchair standard. HDAS and the London Plan requires all new homes to be built to ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. The applicant has failed to address this requirement and, given the small floor area of the proposed units, it is unlikely that the units could be easily converted for occupants with disabilites. In addition, the applicant has failed to address the matter of accessibility for people with disabilities in the submitted Design and Access Statement, as required by HDAS.

3.62 Policy AM14 requires 10% of all car parking spaces to be marked out and conveniently located to accommodate drivers with disabilities. 1 parking spaces will be provided for people with disabilities and would be located within close proximity to main entrance. Accordingly, the development meets the requirements of Policy AM14.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 15

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (vii) Planning obligations.

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

3.64 This application proposes a scheme of one and two bed flats in an area of pressure for both primary and secondary school places. Under the provisions of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Seeking Funding for School Places from Residential Development, the proposed development is required to make a contribution of £14,913. A further contribution, equivalent to 5% of the total education contribution sought, is required for management and monitoring purposes.

3.65 This has not yet been secured by way of a legal agreement and it is recommended the application should be refused on this basis.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.66 The main issues raised through consultation have been addressed in the main body of the report. However, some objectors have raised concerns regarding the impact of the development on local property values. This matter is not considered to be a valid planning consideration and cannot inform any decision on the application.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

4.2 In addition, Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

4.3 Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 16

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 4.4 Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

4.5 Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance

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

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 There is no in principle objection to the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes. However, this unduly obtrusive and incongruous proposal represents an over-development of the site, due to scale and massing of the proposed block and its proximity to surrounding development. It is considered that the development would have a significant adverse effect on the amenities of adjoining residential properties due to the proximity of the building to the site boundaries.

6.2 The applicant has also failed to provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity for future occupants, and failed to address a number of supplementary issues including disabled access, the provision of units for people with disabilities, and sustainability.

6.3 Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 17

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Reference Documents:

(a) Unitary Development Plan (b) Planning Policy Statement 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) (c) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (Housing) (d) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) (e) Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) (f) The London Plan (g) Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement 2005 (h) Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance – Community Safety by Design (i) Unitary Development Plan Revised Parking Policies and Standards (December 2001) (j) Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for Planning Obligations

Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250525

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 18

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 19

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 20

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

A

Item No. 10 Report of the Director of Planning and Community Services

Address: RAF NORTHOLT, WEST END ROAD, RUISLIP

Development: RESERVED MATTERS DETAILS OF THE DESIGN, SITING, EXTERNAL APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING (PHASE 1), LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN STRATEGY, ACCESS STATEMENT, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE PLAN, TREE PROTECTION, WHEELCHAIR PARKING, SITE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, RAISING OF GROUND LEVELS, PERMEABLE FENCING, REFUSE AND OPEN STORAGE, WASTE RECYCLING FACILITIES ENERGY EFFICIENCY REPORT, EMISSIONS MONITORING SCHEME AND BAT SURVEY, IN PART COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15. 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 36, 37 and 42 OF OUTLINE "STATEMENT OF NO OBJECTION" REF:189/APP/2005/1321 DATED 8/3/2006 (REDEVELOPMENT OF RAF NORTHOLT - PROJECT MODEL)

LBH Ref Nos: 189/APP/2006/2091

Drawing Nos: Masterplan South Side 49243/FG/MP(PA)003 Medical Building – 49243/FG/CW1(PA)001, 49243/FG/CW1(PA)010 49243/FG/CW1(PA)011, 49243/FG/CW1(PA)012, 49243/FG/CW1(PA)013 Child Care Building - 49243/FG/CW1A(PA)001, 49243/FG/CW1A(PA)010 49243/FG/CW1A(PA)011, 49243/FG/CW1A(PA)012 , 49243/FG/CW1A(PA)013 JRSLA - 49243/SM2(PA)001, 49243/SM2(PA)010, 49243/SM2(PA)011, 49243/SM2(PA)012, 49243/SM2(PA)013, 49243/SM2(PA)014, 49243/SM2(PA)015, 49243/SM2(PA)016, 49243/SM2(PA)017 Junior Ranks - 49243/SM3(PA)001, 49243/SM3(PA)010, 49243/SM3(PA)011, 49243/SM3(PA)012 10 Lane DCCT/Force Development , 49243/TS2/ST/001, 49243/TS2/ST/002 49243/TS2/ST/003, 49243/TS2/ST/004, 49243/TS2/ST/005 Respirator Test Facility - 49243/TS2/ST/006 Guard House - 49243/TS3/ST/001, 49243/TS3/ST/002 RAF Police Station - 49243/TS8/ST/001, 49243/TS8/ST/002,

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 21

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 49243/TS8/ST/003, 49243/TS8/ST/004 Hangars, GSE & A/C Store, MAC Facilities - 49243/TW1,2,3/ST/001 49243/TW1,2,3/ST/002, 49243/TW1,2,3/ST/003, 49243/TW1,2,3/ST/004 49243/TW1,2,3/ST/005 32 Sq Offices - 49243/TW4/ST/001, 49243/TW4/ST/00, 49243/TW4/ST/003, 49243/TW4/ST/004 MT Workshop- 49243/TW5/ST/001, 49243/TW5/ST/00, 49243/TW5/ST/003, 49243/TW5/ST/004, 49243/TW5/ST/005 MT Workshop - Workshop & Covered Vehicle Block- 49243/TW5/ST/006 49243/TW5/ST/007 Shared Technical Centre - 49243/TW6/ST/001, 49243/TW6/ST/002, 49243/TW6/ST/003, 49243/TW6/ST/004, 49243/TW6/ST/005, 49243/TW6/ST/006, AHB/DASC & RAF Ceremonial - 49243/TW6A/ST/001, 49243/TW6A/ST/002 49243/TW6A/ST/003, 49243/TW6A/ST/004, 49243/TW6A/ST/005, 49243/TW6A/ST/006 Armoury & Ammunition Store - 49243/TW7/ST/001, 49243/TW7/ST/002 49243/TW7/ST/003 Fire Station- 49243/TW8/ST/001, 49243/TW8/ST/002, 49243/TW8/ST/003 Dog Kennels - 49243/TW9/ST/001, 49243/TW9/ST/002, 49243/TW9/ST/003, 49243/TW9/ST/004 Whitehouse Gate - 49243/ADD1/ST/001 Main Gate Plan - 49243/EW1/OH/001 Wider Context - 49243-LMP-FG-01 Wider Context Planning Designations - 49243-LMP-FG-02 Site Context - 49243-LMP-FG-03 Key Landscape Features 49243-LMP-FG-04 Landscape Character Areas North Side 49243-LMP-FG-05 Routes and Nodes North Side 49243-LMP-FG-06 Places, Spaces & Edges North Side 49243-LMP-FG-07 Planting Strategy North Side 49243-LMP-FG-08 Planting Strategy South Side 49243-LMP-FG-09 Materials Strategy North Side 49243-LMP-FG-10 Materials Strategy South Side 49243-LMP-FG-11 Earthworks Strategy Overall Site 49243-LMP-FG-12 Maintenance & Management Strategy Overall Site 49243-LMP-FG- 13 Existing Trees Removed/Retained North Side 49243-LMP-FG-21 Existing Trees Removed/Retained South Side 49243-LMP-FG-22 Tree Protection North Side 49243-LMP-FG-23

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 22

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Tree Protection South Side 49243-LMP-FG-24 Tree Protection West Side 49243-LMP-FG-25 Landscape Masterplan Overall Site 49243-LMP-FG-41 Landscape Masterplan North Side 49243-LMP-FG-42 Received 17/7/2006

49243/FG/LMP/(PA) 58 REV. A, 60 REV. A, 62 REV.A, 64 REV. A, 65 REV.A, 66 REV.A, 67 REV.A, 68 REV.A, 69 REV. A, 70 REV. A, 72 REV. A, 73 REV. A, 74 REV. A, 75 REV. A, 76. REV. A, 77 REV. A, 78 REV. A, received 5/9/2006

49243/INF/FL/100 REV. P2, 101 REV. P3, received 7/9/2006

TS_01,02, 03, and 04 Tree survey, received 27/9/2006

Officer SLA Annex Building 2 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)001 REV. P2 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)011 REV. P2 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)012 REV. P2 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)013 REV. P2 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)018 REV. P1 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)019 REV. P1

Officer SLA Annex Building 1 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)010 REV. P2 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)011 REV. P2 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)012 REV. P2 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)013 REV. P2 received 28/9/2006

49243/SM1/FG/(PA)014 REV. P3 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)015 REV. P3 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)016 REV. P3 49243/SM1/FG/(PA)017 REV. P3 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)014 REV. P3 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)015 REV. P3 49243/SM6/FG/(PA)016 REV. P3

Masterplan Overall Site 49243/MP/FG(--)001 Rev P4 Masterplan North Side 49243//MP/FG(--)002 Rev P3 received 19/10/2006

49243/FG/LMP/(PA) 059 REV. B, 061 REV. B, received 20/10/2006 Waste and Recycling Strategy dated August 2006 Schedule of Materials dated September 2006 Letters dated 6/9/2006, 5/10/2006

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 23

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

Date of receipt:17/07/2006 Date(s) of Amendment: 16/8/2006 5/9/2006, 7/9/2006, 27/9/2006, 28/9/2006, 19/10/2006

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application seeks approval of reserved matters for the siting, design, external appearance and landscaping of the first phase of the major investment and restructuring programme for the Defence Estates at RAF Northolt (known as Project MoDEL). Details of this phase, which constitute the bulk of the proposed redevelopment programme, have been submitted pursuant to discharge of is condition 3 of outline "Statement of No Objection" ref:189/APP/2005/1321 dated 8/3/2006.

1.2 In addition to submitting the reserved matters, the following details have been submitted pursuant to the discharge of various outline planning conditions; a landscape master plan strategy, access statement, tree protection, landscape maintenance plan, wheelchair parking, site environmental management plan, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities energy efficiency report, emissions monitoring scheme and a bat survey.

1.3 It is considered that the relatively low height of the proposed buildings, combined with existing screening, proposed landscaping and the substantial setback from the site boundaries, would not result in the phase 1 development having an unacceptable impact on views from the A40 or the adjoining Green Belt land. It is considered that the design and external appearance of the proposed built development would be satisfactory, and the scheme would produce an acceptable standard of urban design, subject to suitable materials. The landscaping scheme, though sparse, is considered appropriate and largely unavoidable, given the institutional function of the base and its operational constraints. The impact on residential amenity of surrounding properties is considered to be minimal, while the setting of the listed Officers' Mess will be protected. It is therefore recommended that the reserved matters details be approved for this phase, in compliance with condition 3 of the Statement of No Objection.

1.4 It is recommended that details relating a landscape master plan strategy, access statement, landscape maintenance plan, tree protection, wheelchair parking, site environmental management plan, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities energy efficiency report, raising of ground levels, permeable fencing, emissions monitoring scheme noise assessment and bat survey, in part compliance with conditions, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,17, 20, 23, 25, 36, 37 and 42 of the outline Statement of No Objection be discharged for this phase. However, insufficient information has been submitted to discharge outline conditions 13, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 31, relating to samples of all materials, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, buffer

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 24

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS zones, site investigations, foundations, surface and foul drainage. It is proposed that these details, which originally formed part of this application be dealt with separately, once adequate information becomes available.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION – Approval, subject to the following conditions:

1. (M1) Details/Samples 1. (M1) Standard Add: Such details shall include: 1. fenestration, 2. brickwork 3. details of paving

2. Prior to commencement of any 2. To ensure the proposal makes works, details of the cycle/motor a positive contribution to the bike stores shall be submitted to character and amenity of the and approved by the Local area and complies with Policy Planning Authority BE13 of the Hillingdon Unitary Development Plan.

3. The development hereby approved 3. To ensure the protection of a shall not be commenced until European Protected Species, in evidence is provided to the Local accordance with Policy EC1 of Planning Authority that a the Hillingdon Unitary Department for Environment Food Development Plan. and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) License, in respect of the protection of the population of bats, has been obtained.

INFORMATIVES:

1. (1) Building to Approved Drawings 2. (2) Encroachment 3. (3) Building Regulations – Demolition and Building Works 4. The development of the site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. The design should be in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage Guidelines. English Heritage consider that in this case, an archaeological watching brief would be an appropriate form of investigation. 5. (6) Property Rights/Rights of Light 6. (11) The Construction Regulations 1994 7. (12) Notification to Building Contractors 8. (13) Asbestos Removal 9. (14) Installation of Plant and Machinery 10. (15) Control of Environmental Nuisance from Construction Work

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 25

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 11. (18) Storage and Collection of Refuse 12. (19) Sewerage Connections, Water Pollution etc. 13. (24) Works affecting the Public Highway – General 14. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the brink of the Yeading Brook. Contact Lydia Bruce-Burgess on 01707 632309 for further details. 15. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters (e.g. watercourses and underground waters), and may be required for any discharge of surface water to such controlled waters or for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632475 for further details. 16. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or development to a surface watercourse. Contact Consents Department on 01707 632475 for further details. 17. Environment Agency advise that surface water discharge from the developed site should mimic that of an undeveloped greenfield site, up to and including a 1 in 100 year critical duration storm event. Greenfield run off rates are generally between 2 - 8 l/s/ha for storm events up to the critical 1 in 100 year return period event. A sustainable approach to the surface water drainage system is required, however storage may need to be provided on site to achieve the above criteria. 18. In order to check that the proposed storm water system meets their requirements, the Environment Agency will require the following information be provided to discharge condition 24 of the outline Statement of no Objection: a) A clearly labelled drainage layout plan showing pipe networks and any attenuation ponds, soakaways and drainage storage tanks. This plan should show any pipe 'node numbers' that have been referred to in network calculations and it should also show invert and cover levels of manholes. b) Confirmation of the critical storm duration. c) Where infiltration forms part of the proposed stormwater system such as infiltration trenches and soakaways, soakage test results and test locations are to be submitted in accordance with BRE digest 365. d) Where on site attenuation is achieved through attenuation ponds or tanks, calculations showing the volume of these are also required. e) Where an outfall discharge control device is to be used such as a hydrobrake or twin orifice, this should be shown on the plan with the rate of discharge stated. f) Calculations should demonstrate how the system operates during a 1 in

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 26

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 100 year critical duration storm event. If overland flooding occurs in this event, a plan should also be submitted detailing the location of overland flow paths. 19. As far as possible, the buffer zone (condition 26 of the outline Statement of no objection) shall be managed to develop a natural character, with the two metre strip along the fence line mown only late in the summer season. The buffer zone should be left as a natural area for wildlife. It is important that formal landscaping is not incorporated into the buffer zone, to avoid problems such as fragmentation of the buffer by fencing; dumping of garden rubbish near the bank; introduction of non-native plants along the river corridor; and pressure for inappropriate bank retention works. 20. (34) Access to Buildings and Facilities for Persons with Disabilities 21. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 22. The decision to discharge conditions 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 36, 37 and 42 relating to phase 1of the outline statement of no objection has been taken having regard to the policies and proposals in the Unitary Development Plan, namely policies OL1, OL2, OL3, OL4, OL14, OL16, OL17, OL26, EC1, EC2, EC3, EC5, EC6, BE3, BE4, BE8, BE9, BE10, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE15, BE18, BE19, BE20, BE21, BE22, BE23, BE24, BE32, BE34, BE38, BE39, OE1, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE12, OE13, H4, H6, H8, H9, R17, AM2, AM7, AM14 & AM15 and to all relevant material considerations, including Supplementary Planning Guidance. In reaching this decision the Planning Committee were mindful of the particular circumstances of this application, namely the impact on the street scene and character and appearance of the area. outline statement of no objection dated 8th March 2006. 23. (25) Consent for the Display of Advertisements and Illuminated Signs 24. To promote the development of sustainable building design, you are encouraged to investigate the use of renewable energy resources which do not produce any extra carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, such as solar, geothermal and fuel cell systems. 25. There are public sewers crossing this site, therefore no building will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water's approval. Should you require a building over application form or other information relating to your building / development work, please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777. 26. Where disposal of surface water is other than to a public sewer, then the applicant should ensure that approval for the discharge has been obtained from the appropriate authorities.

If it is proposed to discharge process water to the foul sewer, the written consent of Thames Water is required. Any discharge without this consent is illegal and may result in prosecution. (Domestic usage is

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 27

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS excluded - e.g. toilets, showers, washbasins, baths and canteens).Typical processes include:- Laundrette / Laundry, PCB manufacture, photographic/printing, food preparation, abattoir, farm wastes, vehicle washing, metal plating/finishing, cattle market wash down, chemical manufacture, treated cooling water and any other process which produces contaminated water. Pre-treatment, separate metering, sampling access etc, may be required before the Company can give its consent. Applications should be made to Waste Water Quality, Crossness STW, Belvedere Road, Abbeywood, London. SE2 9AQ

Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors to be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourse.

Foul and surface water must not be combined. This will only be permitted when a combined public sewerage system exists. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of Ground Water. The discharge of non-domestic effluent is not permitted until a valid trade effluent consent has been issued by Thames Water. If anything other than domestic sewage is discharged into the public sewers without the above agreement an offence is committed and the applicant will be liable to the penalties contained in Section 109(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991. Applicants should contact Trade Effluent prior to seeking a connection approval, to discuss trade effluent consent and conditions of discharge. A Trade Effluent reference number should be obtained and included in the relevant box of the attached application form. The address for Trade Effluent is - Thames Water Utilities Limited, Waste Water Quality, Crossness Sewage Treatment Works, Belvedere Road, Abbeywood, London. SE2 9AQ. Alternatively you can telephone them on 020 8507 4321.

Backdrop connections are not permitted unless expressly requested by Thames Water for operational reasons.

With regard to water supply, this comes within the area covered by the Three Valleys Water Company. For your information the address to write to is - Three Valleys Water Company P.O. Box 48, Bishops Rise, Hatfield, Herts, AL10 9AL Tel - (01707) 268111

Increased flow from the development may lead to sewage flooding. Impact studies of the existing infrastructure will be required in order to determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. The developer will be required to fund this and early contact with Thames Water is recommended.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 28

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 27. Your attention is drawn to the fact that planning permission does not override any legislation designed to protect European Protected Species, including The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. You should contact English Nature (Tel: 020 7831 6922) if you require further information. 28. You are advised that Insufficient information has been submitted to discharge conditions 11, 13, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 31, relating to tree protection measures, samples of all materials, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, buffer zones, site investigations, foundations, surface and foul drainage. 29. Building Control Informative: - Compliance with Building Regulations ‘Access to and use of buildings’ and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for commercial and residential development.

30. The developer is requested to maximise the opportunities to provide work experience for young people (particularly the 14 – 19 age group) in relation to sports and leisure and construction training as part of the scheme. 31. You are advised that care should be taken during the building works hereby approved to avoid spillage of mud, soil or related building materials onto the pavement or public highway. You are further advised that failure to take appropriate steps to avoid spillage or adequately clear it away could result in action being taken under the Highways Acts.

3.0 CONSIDERATIONS

Site and Locality

3.1 The site is known as RAF Northolt, the only operational military airfield in the London area. The site is some 193 ha (470 acres) in extent and is divided into three separate areas by function: To the south, a triangular parcel of land alongside the A40 provides space for aircraft stands, an aircraft operations building and VIP terminal, car parking, and numerous small hangars and storage buildings. The central and largest part of the site (the airfield) is given over to the main runway and associated taxiways. To the north, a 25 ha (62 acre) site is the principal location of the main operational and residential buildings of the base and includes aircraft hangers, military accommodation, workshops, a passenger terminal, and substantial areas of hard standing. These buildings include two large hangars used for aircraft maintenance. The site contains a range of sport, recreation and community facilities to support those living and working on the base. These include 2 sports pitches at the far western end of the site and a medical centre.

3.2 The site is bounded to the south by the A40, to the south east by a mix of predominantly single and two storey semi-detached and terraced residential houses in Wingfield Way and Glebe Avenue. The site is bounded to the north

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 29

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS east by West End Road. It is bound to the north by Yeading Brook, beyond which are 2 storey terraced and semi-detached houses in Lea Crescent and Clyfford Road, South Ruislip. Green Belt land lies to the north west, west and south (beyond the A40) of the site.

3.3 The site is designated an Area of Open Character in the Hillingdon UDP and falls within the Council’s designated Air Quality Management Area. The area of Green Belt to the north east is designated a countryside conservation area, within which Ickenham Marsh nature reserve and the larger nature conservation site of Borough grade I importance are situated. Further nature conservation sites are in close proximity to the south of the site; these include Gutteridge Wood and Ten Acres nature reserves. All of the above areas fall into the area of environmental opportunity as described in the UDP.

3.4 There are currently 2 vehicular access points to the base, both off West End Road. The main access point is located through the Main Gate, just south of Bridgewater Road junction. A secondary access to the site is through The White House Gate entrance, which is located approximately 600 metres away from South Ruislip Station. There is currently designated parking for approximately 970 cars and space for up to 100 HGV civilian and military HGVs. There is also some cycle parking facilities around the site.

Scheme

3.5 The application seeks approval of reserved matters for the design, external appearance and landscaping (phase 1), for the proposed development at RAF Northolt, which forms part of a major investment and restructuring programme for the Defence Estates in London, known as Project MoDEL (Ministry of Defence Estate in London). This is in part compliance with condition 3 of outline "statement of no objection" ref:189/APP/2005/1321 dated 8/3/2006. The application also seeks to discharge various conditions attached to the outline master plan permission relating to individual phases of the master plan proposals. Details relating to a landscape master plan strategy, access statement, tree protection measures, landscape maintenance plan, samples of all materials, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities, wheelchair parking, site environmental management plan, raising of ground levels, permeable fencing, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, site investigations, foundations, surface and foul drainage, energy efficiency report, emissions monitoring scheme and bat survey, in part compliance with conditions, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37 and 42 of the Outline Statement of No Objection have also been submitted.

3.6 The northern area of the site will remain the administrative centre of RAF Northolt with accommodation for the majority of personnel working on the base as well as living accommodation and associated leisure sport and support facilities. The

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 30

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS main gate and entrance into the site from West End Road will provide limited visitor parking, a guardhouse with reception and visitor registration facilities, parking bays, a search bay for commercial vehicles and a guard post.

3.7 The civic and administrative area is located close to the main gate for ease of access by service and civilian personnel and visitors. This area will ‘straddle’ the east/west spine road with the open parade ground acting as a connecting space between the main groups of buildings. To the east the proposed Support Wing building will form a significant visual backdrop to the spine road roundabout immediately inside the main gate. The open space in front of the Support Wing building will be the site of a static display of three historic aircraft giving recognition to the Station’s significance during the Battle of Britain. This area will also be the location of the main support and administrative functions of the base, including Support Wing, the Defence Aviation Centre (DASC), Air Historical Branch (AHB), RAUXF/Volunteer Block, Queens Colour Squadron (QCS), the Parade Ground and HQ Music Services and accommodation for the Central Band of the RAF.

3.8 The open space of the Parade Ground will be the recognisable heart of RAF Northolt-a place signifying ‘arrival’ on the spine route into the site. The Parade Ground will be a formal square of civic importance and fronted by key buildings on three sides. On the south side the Parade Ground is open to vistas over the main runway and airfield. The northern part of the Civic and Administrative Area will include two key buildings fronting the spine road; the RAUXF/Volunteer block and the HQ Music Services building.

3.9 From the spine road the ground slopes gently down towards the northern boundary and Yeading Brook. This will be the site of the new village area with Junior Ranks living accommodation, health, welfare and dining facilities. The location of the existing Senior Non Commissioned Officers (SNCO) Mess (close to the main gate) and the proposal to construct a new centralised catering facility dictates the position of the JR Club and Mess on the east side of the village. This location also permits the servicing of the JR Club for deliveries and refuse disposal from a single yard on the east face of the Club building with close access from the main gate. A quarter for Junior Ranks with six Single Living Accommodation blocks (JRSLA), the Junior Ranks Dining Club, Medical and Dental Facilities, the London Transit Centre (LTC), the Physical and Recreational Training Centre (PRTC) and sports facilities. In order to make use of centralised catering facilities the JR Dining Club will link to the existing Senior Non Commissioned Officers Mess building. The village will also be the site of a new Child Care facility.

3.10 To the west of the SNCO Mess and close to the spine road the village will encompass the existing Chapel and a new Medical and Dental facility. The village residential area consists five (with potential for an additional block) Junior Ranks Single Living Accommodation (SLA) blocks arranged in a parkland

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 31

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS setting to the west of the Junior Ranks Club and Mess. This part of the site is furthest away from the airfield and aircraft noise. The location permits safe and convenient pedestrian access to the JR Club and Mess, the Civic and Administrative core and the Technical Area to the west. The northern part of the village will include the London Transit Centre (LTC) and the Physical and Recreational Training Centre (PRTC). Associated sports facilities including an all weather pitch and tennis courts will make use of land outside the permitted security area for buildings (50 metres distance from the public highway) and in area unsuitable for building due to the risk of potential flooding.

3.11 The Technical Area is located to the west of the site furthest away from the more public areas of the Civic Area and Officers Area. This part of the site is already a location for support activities such as workshops, maintenance and the Aeronautical Information Documentation Unit (AIDU). The site is also dominated by the retained hangar (Hangar 5) which is on the south side of the spine road. The Technical Area is comprised of two groups of buildings. To the east is a group of four buildings Force Development, Dismounted Close Combat Trainer (DCCT), the Armoury and the Police HQ proposed around a semi enclosed courtyard space. These elements of the Technical Area are the facilities most frequently visited by personnel for training and development purposes and they are therefore located in close proximity to the Civic and Administrative Area and the village. To the west three larger industrial buildings; the Mechanical Transport MT/MS Workshop, the Shared Technical Centre and covered parking are proposed and these are arranged to provide areas of hard standing/parking and vehicular access to workshop areas. This zone is has a harder semi industrial character and is therefore located further away from the village and administrative area. The covered parking structures will act as a separating device between the workshop area and the training/development area.

3.12 The Officers Area is an area of historic importance centred on the existing Officers Mess and providing new single living accommodation for 74 officers with associated car parking facilities. It will be located south of the Support Wing building and extends towards the runway approach to include the existing Officers Mess Building. Traditionally this part of the site has always been the location of the officers dining, living quarters and recreational facilities. This is an area with an important landscape setting of mature specimen trees and sloping lawns overlooking the airfield.

3.13 The Officers Mess, which has been recently listed Grade II is to be refurbished. Unsympathetic extensions on the east side of the Mess will be removed. An application for Listed Building Consent is being prepared and will be submitted at a later date.

3.14 To the north of the Mess two annex buildings are proposed to provide additional single living accommodation for 74 officers. These buildings are positioned to create a semi enclosed courtyard space to the north of the Mess and the

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 32

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS preservation of existing trees adjacent to the existing tennis court. The blocks are also located to permit the retention of the existing Junior Ranks Mess while the new JR Mess and Club is constructed within the village.

3.15 Although most of the airfield will remain as currently laid out, a number of peripheral areas will be subject to change. To the south of the main runway an area has been allocated for the new British Forces Post Office (BFPO) building making use of a redundant runway for associated access and car parking. A replacement fire station to improve fire safety is proposed on the northern perimeter of the airfield. On the west side of the airfield it is proposed to replace the existing dog kennels with a new single storey facility to provide improved kennel accommodation, support and crew accommodation and an exercise/training area.

3.16 Part of the north western corner of the airfield is a sports facility. This use will be retained but it is proposed that the facility is improved by orientation of the pitch areas to a north/south axis. The closure of RAF Uxbridge will require the construction of a replacement 25-metre range at Northolt. The proposed range is to be located towards the open ground on the north west side of the airfield. Details of the range and sports facilities will be submitted as part of a later phase of development.

3.17 Maintenance and servicing operations are to be focused on the south side of the station. The new hangers and workshops are located to the east of the existing Operations building, parallel with the A40 to the south. Existing hangars in this area will be retained and converted to provide alternative technical accommodation. A new linear group of hangars capable of accommodating 5 aircraft plus 3 helicopters is proposed to the east of the existing Operations Building.

3.18 The group of hangars and workshops will be separated from the existing Operations building by a new two storey office block for the 32 Squadron Headquarters, which will have similar scale and construction as the Operations building. The higher hangar structure is some 230 metres in length and although this is subdivided into different functional areas the building is designed as a single volume.

3.19 An area of new car parking is proposed in a linear strip to the south of the new hangar buildings. The car parking will be screened by a row of trees on the southern side of the approach road from Whitehouse Gate. The car parking area and the landscape will act as a visual and acoustic buffer between the A40 and the buildings in the southern part of the site.

3.20 Strategic vehicular routes are limited to three primary roads: 1 Spine Road - the existing tree lined avenue, which runs westwards from the main gate and forms the principal means of access into the site.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 33

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 2 The North South link which will connect the northern area to the airfield operational areas in the southern part of RAF Northolt. This road will also provide service access to parts of the administrative area as well as a ‘ceremonial’ route to the existing Officers Mess. 3 The ‘northern arc’-a road leading from the spine road to the main car park on the northern periphery and providing a principal access into the Technical Area.

Planning History

3.21 On 8th January 1996 a Notice of Proposed Development by the MoD under Circular 18/84 Procedures for the permanent use of the White House Gate entrance was received (Ref. 189/BL/96/0043). On 30 April 1996 the Council resolved to raise no objection subject to the entrance being used solely in connection with traffic movement serving the southern section of the Aerodrome i.e. VIP’s and other civil passengers and by military personnel employed there, and not for construction traffic or other Heavy Goods Vehicles, which should be directed to the main Northern entrance.

3.22 On 25th April 2003 a Notice of Proposed Development (NoPD) for the construction of a 20,300 sq.m British Forces Post Office (BFPO) facility was received (Ref: 189/APP/2003/1112). The proposed building would be the primary mail sorting and distribution facility for British Forces, as well as being the centre for the Defence Courier Service. The proposed BFPO facility would be accessed from West End Road (A4180) through the existing access point to the airfield at White House Gate, which would be upgraded by the provision of improved kerb radii, pedestrian facilities and traffic signals. The operation of these signals would be linked to the operation of the existing traffic signals at the junction of Station Approach and West End Road. It would involve some local widening of the carriageway in West End Road, to provide a dedicated left turn lane into the site from the south and a protected right turn lane into the site from the north. Some local widening of the carriageway in West End Road to the south of the Station Approach junction is also proposed to provide improved queuing capacity at this junction. On 12th December 2003 the Council resolved to raise no objection to the proposal.

3.23 On 12 May 2005 Defence Estates (MoD) submitted outline development proposals in the form of a Notice of Proposed Development (NoPD), reference APP/2005/1321. The submission was supported by a series of studies that addressed the perceived impacts of Project MoDEL to the site. A Land Use Masterplan was prepared which divided the site into a series of land use development zones, with the aim of providing a clear and integrated development framework to guide the future development of the Station. On 8th March 2006 the Council resolved to raise no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions. Of particular note is condition 34, which sets out the total net increase in floor space within the building for office (14,000m²), training (4,000m²), storage (4,000m²),

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 34

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS technical (20,000m²), residential (35,000m²) and social welfare/recreation (3,000m²), with the maximum overall increase being set at 53,900m².

3.24 An application to vary condition 33 of the outline planning consent 189/APP/2006/1956, in order to increase the height of part of the new hanger to 14.5 metres was approved on 25/8/06

3.25 An application for the first phase enabling works involving the provision of internal road access to the approved development sites (ref no. 189/APP/2006/1974) was approved on 11/10/2006.

3.26 Prior to 7th June 2006 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) was exempt from many requirements of the Town and County Planning legislation, including the need to secure planning permission for new development. However, Circular 18/84 “Crown Land and Crown Development” required the MoD and other Government Agencies to consult with Local Planning Authorities about any proposals for development that would otherwise require planning permission. As of 7th June 2006 Chapter 1 of Part 7 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 came into force. This removes the Crown’s exemptions from the Planning Act. The requirements of the Act now apply to the Crown, subject to certain exceptions. Although the outline proposal was submitted under a NoPD it has now been necessary to submit a planning application for reserved matters rather than a NoPD.

Planning Policies and Standards

National Policy

PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG17 Sport & Recreation PPG24. Planning & Noise PPG25 Development and Flood Risk

Regional Policy

The London Plan

UDP Designation: Area of Open Character (RAF Northolt) and Area of Environmental Opportunity

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 35

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS UDP Policies The relevant Unitary Development Plan policies are:-

Part 1 Policies:

Pt1.10 To seek to ensure that new development will not adversely affect the amenity and character of the Borough’s residential areas. Pt1.32 To encourage development for uses other than those providing local services to locate in places which are accessible by public transport. Pt1.33 To promote the construction of new roads or the widening of existing roads only where they would improve safety; promote pedestrian movement, cycling or public transport, or the improvement of the environment; reduce local congestion in a cost effective way; or are required to accommodate traffic likely to be generated by new development.

Part 2 Policies:

Areas of Environmental Opportunity OL9 Areas of Environmental Opportunity - condition and use of land

Design of New Development BE10 The setting of a listed buildings BE13 Layout and appearance of new development

Residential Amenity BE19 New development within residential areas - complementing and improving amenity and character of the area BE21 Siting, bulk and proximity of new buildings/extensions BE24 Design of new buildings - protection of privacy BE36 Proposals for high buildings/structures in identified sensitive areas Planning Benefits LE7 Provision of planning benefits from industry, warehousing and business development

Terminal Capacity A3 Development at Northolt Aerodrome

Other Environmental Considerations OE1 Protection of the character and amenities of surrounding properties and the local area OE2 Assessment of environmental impact of proposed development OE3 Buildings or uses likely to cause noise annoyance - mitigation measures OE5 Siting of noise-sensitive developments OE6 Proposals likely to result in pollution OE7 Development in areas likely to flooding - requirement for flood protection

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 36

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS measures OE8 Development likely to result in increased flood risk due to additional surface water run-off - requirement for attenuation measures OE9 Limitation of development in areas with a potential for sewerage flooding OE11 Development involving hazardous substances and contaminated land - requirement for ameliorative measures OE12 Energy conservation and new development OE13 Recycling facilities in major developments and other appropriate sites

Ecology And Nature Conservation Protection of Habitats EC1 Protection of sites of special scientific interest, nature conservation importance and nature reserves EC2 Nature conservation considerations and ecological assessments EC3 Potential effects of development on sites of nature conservation importance

Creation of New Habitats EC4 Monitoring of existing sites of nature conservation importance and identification of new sites EC5 Retention of ecological features and creation of new habitats EC6 Retention of wildlife habitats on derelict or vacant land

AM1 Developments which serve or draw upon more than a walking distance based catchment area - public transport accessibility and capacity considerations AM9 Provision of cycle routes, consideration of cyclists’ needs in design of highway improvement schemes, provision of cycle parking facilities AM11 Improvement in facilities and promotion of safety and security at bus and rail interchanges; use of planning agreements to secure improvement in public transport services AM14 New development and car parking standards AM15 Parking for people with disabilities

Consultations

The Notice of Proposed Development was advertised as major development under Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 and 355 neighbours were consulted in the surrounding area. One letter has been received from a local resident objecting to the proposal. The reasons for the objection are summarised below: 1. At present we have no rear neighbour and the airfield behind our house is open, flat and peaceful. We do not want anything to change this. 2. It is important that the present quiet and pleasant outlook is not significantly reduced by virtue of overlooking windows and noise. 3. Surface water drainage should not result in additional rainwater being

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 37

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS discharged to the rear of our house. 4. New buildings and hard standing should not increase the risk of flooding or of Yeading Brook exceeding its capacity.

External Consultees

Ruislip Residents’ Association No response

South Ruislip Residents’ No response Association’ Defence Estates Safeguarding No safeguarding objection Team

National Air Traffic Services Ltd No objection

Environment Agency We are now able to recommend that the following conditions be discharged:

Condition 3 (vi). Condition 23. Condition 25.

Comment on other conditions: Conditions 24 and 31 are two different conditions and hence cannot be discharged using the same information as requested by Mari Jones of Faber Maunsell. The information needed to discharge condition 24, was included as Informative No. 17 in the Conditions of Approval.

We would also like to remind the applicant that the drainage scheme for the site must mimic the drainage design which we previously agreed at outline stage.

We cannot recommend the discharge of condition 29, or any other conditions related to water or land contamination (conditions 30 and 31) as the applicant has not provided a detailed site investigation report. We require a full site investigation, including analytical results of soil and groundwater. The applicant refers to a risk assessment but again this information has not been provided.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 38

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS In order to recommend discharge of the conditions, we will also require a full risk assessment to enable agreement to the applicant's remedial targets for clean up. Until we have seen this report, we cannot comment on the drainage strategy and are unable to discharge any related conditions.

We cannot recommend the discharging of Conditions 24 and 26. It is imperative that the applicant designs the scheme to meet the requirements which were previously agreed at outline stage. It is not acceptable to make substantial changes to the planning application under the assumption that it will then be possible to discharge planning conditions.

Buffer Strip We cannot recommend the discharging of this condition (26) as substantial changes have been made to this part of the planning application. The plan shows a greater encroachment within the eight metre margin than previously agreed at outline stage.

Surface Water Drainage We cannot recommend the discharging of this condition (24). The surface water drainage details do not meet with those previously agreed with at outline stage, which includes - greenfield discharge rates - 1 in 100 year attenuation.

English Heritage The Method Statement for an archaeological (Archaeology) watching brief accords with English Heritage guidelines. EnglishHheritage would be pleased to monitor the works on behalf of the Borough. Should significant archaeological remains be revealed during the evaluation, further archaeological field work may be required to mitigate the impact of the development. Following completion of the fieldwork, the results will be assessed and a report produced. It is therefore recommended that the conditions will not have been satisfied

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 39

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS until all works are complete and any programme of analysis leading to publication has been agreed, if necessary.

English Heritage This application should be determined in (Historic Buildings) accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice. It will not be necessary for English Heritage to be consulted again on this application. English Heritage is not expressing any views on the merits of the proposals, which are the subject of the application. This response relates to historic building and historic area matters only.

Transco No response

London Fire Brigade No response

Metropolitan Police No objections

London Ambulance Service No response

Sport England No response

English Nature (London Office) No response

Biodiversity Group, Greater No response London Authority National Air Traffic Services No response (N A T S) Scottish and Southern Electricity No response British Waterways British Waterways has no comments to make.

Three Valleys Water PLC No response

Transport for London (TfL) No response (Street Management)

Thames Water Where disposal of surface water is other than to a public sewer, then the applicant should ensure that approval for the discharge has been obtained from the appropriate authorities.

If it is proposed to discharge process water to

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 40

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the foul sewer, the written consent of Thames Water is required.

Thames Water would recommend that petrol / oil interceptors to be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of petrol / oil interceptors could result in oil-polluted discharges entering local watercourse.

Foul and surface water must not be combined. This will only be permitted when a combined public sewerage system exists. The discharge of non-domestic effluent is not permitted until a valid trade effluent consent has been issued by Thames Water. Backdrop connections are not permitted unless expressly requested by Thames Water for operational reasons.

Increased flow from the development may lead to sewage flooding. Impact studies of the existing infrastructure will be required in order to determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point.

There are public sewers crossing this site, therefore no building will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water's approval.

Transport for London (TfL) No response (Signals)

Internal Consultees

Policy and Environmental Outline development proposals for RAF Planning Northolt, in the form of a Notice of Proposed Development (NoPD) were submitted in May 2005. This was found to be acceptable by the Planning Committee in February 2006 and a Statement of no objection was issued on 8 March 2006, with 38 conditions attached. The current proposal comes within the permitted

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 41

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS maximum floorspace increase.

During the consideration of the NoPD Policy and Environmental Policy provided policy observations on the application. In relation to land-use, it was considered that the proposed development was acceptable, in principle. However, issues were raised in respect to air and noise pollution, road traffic, mitigation measures in terms of Green Belt, flooding and ecology. These issues appear to have been addressed through the NoPD.

The principle for this development has previously been established and the current application provides the further details. There are no additional issues that are of concern. No objections are raised to this reserved matters application.

Environmental Protection Unit Condition 29 relates to land contamination matters. Some discussion with the environmental consultants took place in June 2006 with regard to the site investigation proposals, which appeared to be quite broad and covered a large area. It was anticipated that further supplementary investigations might be required depending on the proposed site uses. Information submitted in the Planning Statement was reviewed at this time and not considered sufficient. The agents were also advised to consult with the Environment Agency with regard to this condition.

The detailed site investigation information and any proposed remediation measures have yet to be submitted as part of this application. It is inadvisable to discharge condition 29 until this information becomes available and the remedial works have been carried out to the Council’s and the Environment Agency’s satisfaction.

The Construction Phase Site Environmental Plan, which shows the details of the site

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 42

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS management procedures to be adopted by the contractor are satisfactory, with the proviso that they must ensure that Best Practicable Means are employed at all times to ensure that noise is minimised.

Dust and Air Pollution control measures are acceptable.

Conservation Officer In relation to the proposed Senior Officers’ Annexes, which will flank the listed Officers’ Mess at RAF Northolt, SM1, (the three storey block), has now been set a further two metres away from the listed building, and dropped a further 1.5 metres into the ground to reduced its height. Its design has been changed to make it plainer and more discreet. SM6, the two storey block, has been set a further 10 metres away from the listed building, and it too has been redesigned so as to help it recede from view. The proposed colour of the brickwork should be dark red/brown, rather than the buff identified on the plan, to enable the new buildings to blend more successfully into the background. This is an important consideration for a grouping visible from the A40 and the southern parts of the airfield, due to its elevated siting. English Heritage are in agreement with this view.

It is acknowledged that there are major constraints as to siting, due to the, necessarily, pre-constructed nature of the accommodation, the phasing pattern and the amalgamation of many different RAF bases on this site. In the circumstances, it is considered that the amended designs are the best which can reasonably be achieved to protect the setting of the listed Officers’ Mess, subject to the change in colour of the proposed brickwork, as described above.

The proposed alterations to the listed building have not been agreed as yet. It is therefore important that this element is taken

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 43

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS out of the application for reserved matters and dealt with separately.

Conclusion: Acceptable, subject to suitable materials.

Urban Design Officer The site comprises an area of 193 ha, with main access from West End Road. The proposal includes the re-development of the current guardhouse with improved access at the main gate, the re-development of and considerable extension to the existing staff accommodation, as well as the erection of ancillary welfare and health facilities. Furthermore, the scheme entails development of workshops, offices, storage, airside maintenance, servicing and operations buildings, a new fire station as well as new kennels. Pedestrian/vehicular segregation and the improvement of recreational space are some of the key urban design drivers, which are fully supported in principle.

The application site is dominated by the existing airfield and taxi runways, characterised by its flat topography, openness and long distance views. The main runway extends to c 1,7 km. The site currently accommodates over 500 buildings with a total floor space of approximately 62,000 sq. m. The more built up areas benefit from many large, valuable specimen trees. The northwest side of the site is well screened by adjacent woodlands. The Yeading Brook creates the northern boundary of the site. A few paddocks are located within the south part of the area.

The Officers’ Mess, a grade II listed building, is prominently positioned in the northeast part of the site. The prominent brick building with its characteristic clock tower and the two wings forms the eastern outpost against the vast, open airfield. The Officers’ Mess is the focal point, strategically positioned at the

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 44

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS very end of the long vista across the airfield. The building is set in a spacious landscape setting, with many valuable specimen trees. The main entrance is enhanced by a formal garden setting and ornamental plants.

The final siting, the external appearance, detailed design as well as external materials are all considered acceptable from an urban design point of view. The design and palette of materials reflect the character and use of the development. This colour coded approach is very positive, since it improves orientation and eligibility of the scheme, which, given the scale of the site is highly important. Also the shape and height of the different types of accommodation blocks has been designed to indicate the purpose of the buildings.

The design approach for the operational buildings is focused on simplicity, to reduce the visual impact of these large scale buildings. The large volumes of hangars are clad in profiled metal panels, while the offices and workshops are clad with flat metal cladding.

The proposed location of additional development in relation to the Officers’ Mess, has been amended considerably following officers’ design advice. The siting, footprint, scale, height or massing of the additional development in this sensitive location has been reconsidered. Consequently, the three storey building 2, has been located a further 2 m to the north, increasing the distance between the Officers’ Mess and the new build. In addition, the internal floor level has been lowered to reduce the overall bulk of the building. Building 1, which is two storeys, has been located a further 10 m west and 3m north. The proposed materials, high quality facing bricks in combination with white render and stone details (cornices and banding), with

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 45

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Spanish slate roof, are in accordance with officers previous advice. In order to blend in with the existing buildings, a neutral buff coloured brick is advisable, instead of plain yellow. In summary, the proposed new development in relation to the Officer’s Mess is now considered acceptable from an urban design point of view. The new annexes respect the integrity of the listed building and its sensitive landscape setting, as well as the appearance from long distance views. Overall, the proposed siting, scale, height, design, materials and details of the officers’ annexes will result in a development, which fully respects the sensitive setting of Officer’s Mess.

A condition requiring the submission of samples of all building materials is recommended.

Trees/Landscape it was confirmed that the proposed species selection and character of planting have been influenced by the operational requirements of this MoD site. Constraints on the planting details include the need for a high level of visual permeability through the site and around boundaries (for security reasons) and the avoidance of native species and potential habitat creation, which might pose a safety hazard to aircraft (through bird strike).

Planting associated with car parks is generally thin, particularly with regard to the car park along the north boundary of the site, which backs onto the River Pinn corridor. The character, and extent of offsite planting in the corridor is still not shown although requested by the LPA. Furthermore, no supplementary boundary planting is proposed in the grass verge between the car park and site boundary. Planting within the car park itself is also minimal, with groups of 3No fastigiate (non-spreading) trees located some 40.00- 50.00 metres apart.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 46

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Planting near the officers annex building comprises Carpinus betulus 'Frans Fontaine', a fastigiate variety, in the centre of the car park at 24.00m or 8 car park bay spacing. There is a 6.00m wide grass verge between the car park and the hedge to the edge of West End Road with no planting. Existing trees are to be retained within the new car park.

There is no tree survey, or arboricultural impact assessment, to clarify whether the existing trees are worthy of retention or whether it is feasible to do so. There is also no detail of tree protection.

The rectilinear style of tree /avenue planting around the site reflects the rectilinear nature of the built forms and clearly defines the main vehicular and pedestrian routes through the site.

The planting style throughout the base can best be described as spartan, generally characterised by trees (of single species ) often planted in formal avenues and grid patterns. Much use is made of naturally- tailored fastigiate species and, where appropriate, blocks of low ground cover, or Spring bulb planting will be introduced, beneath the trees, to provide visual interest at ground level. In the limited areas where shrub planting is indicated these too tend to use bold blocks of a single species for maximum impact. The provision of hedges is also featured within the new landscape.

There is a simplicity, verging on sterility, of planting within the site. However, this is appropriate and largely unavoidable, given the institutional function of the site and the operational constraints, referred to above.

Highways (Transportation/Traffic) The traffic generation from the development was assessed and approved at outline planning stage. Details of the proposed

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 47

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS highway works in West End Road, comprising carriageway widening, signalisation of the Main Gate and the White House Gate junctions, do not form part of this application. In accordance with the outline planning consent, the Main Gate is to line up with Bridgewater Road. No objections are raised to the internal roads. With the vastness and self containment of the site, it is highly unlikely that there will be an overspill of parking on the public highways.

Waste Strategy Manager No direct comments to make.

3.27 The principle of the redevelopment of the site by Defence Estates (MoD) has already been established, by virtue of a Statement of No Objection dated 8th March 2006, relating to a Notice of Proposed Development (NoPD), reference APP/2005/1321. The main planning issues relating to this reserved matters application are considered to be:

(i) The visual impact on the Green Belt, the Northolt Aerodrome Area of Open Character/Area of Environmental Opportunity and the locality (ii) Impact on landscape features and trees (iii) Urban Design Considerations (iv) The setting of the listed Officers’ Mess (v) The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties (vi) Access, parking and traffic generation (vii) Environmental/Sustainability issues (viii) Drainage/Flood risk Issues

(i) The visual impact on the Green Belt, the Northolt Aerodrome Area of Open Character/Area of Environmental Opportunity and the locality

3.28 The bulk of development on the site is to be located within and adjacent to the main existing built up area in the north east corner of the site. This northern area includes a variety of buildings reflecting their different ages, condition and functions. It is intended to remove most of them and provide a more intensive, coordinated development relevant to this part of the site’s military purpose, for living, recreation, welfare, administration training and technical matters. The majority of the site will remain concerned with the operation of the airfield. The proposed developments within this central area include replacement of the fire station, a rifle range (not part of this phase) and improvements to the dog facilities. These facilities are all single storey and it is considered that these will

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 48

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS have a relatively limited visual impact.

3.29 The development at the north is to be set back away from the site boundary and separated from it by landscaping and car parking. Building heights will extend to no more than three storeys, which approximates to the height of existing and retained accommodation blocks and is lower than the existing hangars. It is not considered that the development will make much difference to existing views where they are possible from the north and east. Where views are possible, they are likely to be improved, provided the details of the materials are of appropriate quality. Due to the lie of the land and long distances involved, little of this part of the station is visible from the Green Belt to the west and the A40 and therefore the proposed development will not be apparent. Whilst more of the development will be visible from the Green Belt in the vicinity of Charvel Lane, which lies on higher ground to the south, its impact will be minimal due to the distance involved and the presence of existing and adjacent development. Furthermore, it is considered that the retained presence of the two large hangers will continue to dominate the view and offset any impact arising from the new development.

3.30 In relation to the proposed hangars to the south, a photomontage impression of the scale of this building and a visual appraisal was contained within the Environmental Review at outline stage. That photomontage indicated the hanger building to a proposed height of up to 18 metres. It was concluded that the visual impact would be no more significant than that which already exists resulting from several groups of military buildings located around the margins of the site. The limit if 12 metres imposed by condition 33 of the outline permission was based on an assumed height of a 4 storey building. The applicants have submitted that for operational reasons, it is essential that part of the hangar (in the order of 37% of its floor space) be constructed to a minimum height of 14.5 metres. An application to vary this condition to allow for the additional height over part of the building has recently been approved.

3.31 Whilst the building will have only a marginal impact on views from the eastbound carriageway of the A40 there will be a greater impact on views from the west bound carriageway. There would also be some views from the Green Belt on higher ground to the south. However, good design and landscaping will mitigate some the impact. The proposed hanger would be sited some 60 metres north of the boundary with the A40. The site already has substantial screening from the A40 by sheeting covering the airfield fence for security reasons. The boundary setback would mean that there are significant opportunities for planting and landscaping. Mitigation measures have been identified through a landscape strategy, which has informed the detailed design proposals. These measures include landscape proposals in the enhanced screening along the southern boundary with the A40.

3.32 It is considered that the relatively low height of the proposed development (maximum 14.5 metres, combined with existing screening, proposed landscaping

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 49

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS and the substantial setback from the site boundary, would result in the building not having an unacceptable impact on views from the A40 or the Green Belt land. As such, the objectives of the Area of Environmental Opportunity would not be compromised and the proposal would be consistent with Policy OL9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

3.33 The alterations to the Main Gate entrance will have a minor impact on West End Road involving slight widening within the existing carriageway on the west side and the loss of some grass verge. The scheme indicates that proposed lighting will be incorporated within existing development areas and will not add significantly to unlit areas. The off site main gate access works will provide street lighting in accordance with Hillingdon Borough Council requirements. General on site roads and pathways will be illuminated to an average of 10lux and car parks illuminated to an average of 20lux. All external lighting will be afforded by luminaires with high-pressure sodium lamps on 6m high columns. Luminaires will be selected to ensure no light is emitted above the horizontal. Flood-lighting will be required around the sports pitch, although this is proposed to be a Phase 2 works element the details of which will be submitted in due course. Overall, the proposed lighting is considered to be acceptable..

3.34 It is considered that the relatively low height of the proposed buildings, combined with existing screening, proposed landscaping and the substantial setbacks from the site boundaries, would result in the phase 1 development not having an unacceptable impact on views surrounding residential development, from the A40 and West End Road, or the surrounding Green Belt land. As such, the objectives of the Area of Environmental Opportunity would not be compromised and the proposal would be consistent with Policies BE 13 and OL9 of the Unitary Development Plan.

(ii) Impact on landscape features and trees

3.35 A number of landscape principles or objectives have been established to guide the landscape master plan strategy required by condition 4 of the outline permission.. 1 To create a series of distinctive landscape character areas that relates to land use, built form and spatial qualities of the site and develop the planting design, layout, species and material selection to reinforce and enhance the different landscape character areas. 2 To retain, protect and incorporate where possible existing tree planting to reinforce the planting strategy and provide a degree of maturity. 3 To maintain a strong visual relationship where appropriate between the built areas and the large open expanse of grass, runways and taxi areas. 4 To develop a co-ordinated range of paving materials and planting types to define a hierarchy of vehicular routes, key nodes, junctions and arrival points. 5 To create a well-connected, safe and accessible network of pedestrian routes throughout the site that respond in geometry, width and alignment to their

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 50

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS location with co-ordinated paving materials appropriate to their use. 6 To develop a central paved space adjacent to restaurant, bar and shops with seating, lighting, paving and planting selected to create a distinctive sense of place and act as social heart of the site. 7 To create incidental focal points at footpath junctions and thresholds to provide interest and aid orientation, with seating, lighting and signing where appropriate. 8 To develop a series of intimate gardens and courtyards as areas of delight and relaxation for the users of the adjacent buildings, incorporating lawns, quality paving, ornamental shrub and tree planting. 9 To arrange the larger parking areas towards the edge of the site, ensuring that the relative security distances are maintained between parking areas and buildings. 10 To create a series of incidental parking courts, where temporary parking is close to buildings it is proposed to create the appearance of paved courtyards when empty. 11 To develop a planting structure that will relate to the character areas, create a sense of place as well as define a hierarchy and variety of spaces. 12 To co-ordinate the planting design with lighting and security requirements, in particular CCTV camera positions and boundary fencing. 13 To ensure that new planting, where proposed, within 10 metres of the Yeading Brook watercourse is of locally native plant species of UK genetic origin. (a requirement of baseline condition 28)

3.36 In terms of the detailed landscape proposals for this phase, the landscape master plan strategy has divided the site into a series of character areas, determined by the use, response to the existing landscape, scale and disposition of buildings and the spaces that are created. The key features and components that determine these zones are described below:

3.37 Technical Zone - large scale buildings and structures, a workplace environment, industrial in character with profile metal sheet cladding to buildings; extensive functional open areas for parking, storage, service yards, set-down and maintenance areas. The planting within the technical zone comprises blocks of tree planting set out on a regular grid orthogonal with the built form. The objective is to introduce vegetation on a scale that is comparable to the adjacent structures. The trees will help break down the mass of the structures and help compartmentalise the set-down areas and car parks. The trees are a single species to increase their impact and selected from the following species, which have a more upright habit, suited to closer planting and proximity to roads and buildings. The ground treatment under and around the trees is simple areas of grass or ground cover planting.

3.38 Residential area – residential units in parkland setting, pastoral character with undulating lawns and individual trees, adjacent to the tree lined meandering Yeading Brook, a generally non-vehicular pedestrian environment. The planting

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 51

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS within the residential, recreation and historic zone comprises clumps of trees set within an undulating grass landscape. Where appropriate shrub, herbaceous and ground cover planting are used to help define the external areas and add interest in the garden areas. The objective is to develop a pastoral setting for the residential blocks and the area around the Officer’s Mess to enable the integration of changes in level, built form and the retention of a number of existing trees. The existing officer’s mess and surrounding landscape will comprise lawns and mature trees, with a strong visual relationship with the airfield and connection with the past history of the site. The new trees will comprise a number of different species, selected and positioned to complement those trees that are retained.

3.39 Civic Heart – generally two storey buildings to create a hierarchy of spaces off the main vehicular and pedestrian spine. An unfolding series of courtyards, formal spaces, axis and vistas is a key characteristic of this zone. The planting within the civic heart comprises formal lines, avenues and blocks of trees arranged to reinforce the geometry and civic quality of the spaces. Hedges compliment the lines of trees in defining routes and creating the sense of place. Where appropriate to the use of the building, the adjacent courtyards are planted with shrub and herbaceous plant material to provide interest, colour and delight for the users. The objective is to create a crisp organised landscape setting that adds to the character of the civic heart of the airfield. The new trees provide a regular uniform habit suitable for avenues and grids of trees. The hedges are formal in shape and line and will be clipped on a regular basis and selected from the following species.

3.40 The South Side - The character of the south side is different to the north, comprising a linear strip of airfield related structures, including the Operations Building and new aircraft hangars, access road and car park set between the airfield and A40. The planting on the south side comprises a line of single stem trees with under planting adjacent to the access road with other informal clumps integrating existing and proposed tree planting. The objective is to create an arrival experience commensurate with its use by VIPs as well as help break down the mass of the new structures both from the approach and the A40.

3.41 The selection of plant species is constrained by the need to minimise bird strike and is also subject to security requirements and the constraints imposed by existing services. Where possible existing trees are retained, protected and incorporated into the landscape strategy. However the development of the overall master plan requires some tree removal due to level changes required to accommodate the new built form, the need to provide order to the development and the somewhat scattered location of the existing trees.

3.42 The landscape master plan strategy ensures that an equivalent number of new trees are planted to compensate for those removed. The tree removal will be on a phased basis, concurrent with the building phases, to maintain an adequate

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 52

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS tree cover as each phase of work proceeds, unless a tree requires removal because it is dead, dying or overcrowded. The crowns of trees reduced where necessary should there be problems with light penetration or gaining access for maintenance. It is stated that the trees that are retained will be protected in accordance with relevant standards. Tree Officer observes that there is no complete up to date tree survey, or arboricultural impact assessment, to clarify whether the existing trees are worthy of retention, or indeed whether it is feasible to do so. However, there is a selective tree survey addressing crucial areas to the north of the site A written tree protection specification has also been provided in the Planning Statement. It is therefore recommended that outline condition 11 (tree protection) be discharged for this phase.

3.43 The earthworks strategy comprises incidental earthworks and large scale mounding. The incidental earth modelling is used to help integrate buildings into the landscape, especially where there are changes in level such as the parkland area and also to help screen structures such as the hangars on the south side. The larger scale earth mounding is designed to absorb the spoil from the site construction works into the overall landscape. Two areas are proposed, to the northwest and the southeast, providing an anchor point each end of the disused runway. In the north west the levels are raised to avoid water logging of the pitches and provide banking for watching the game. The earthworks are to be co-ordinated with the levels adjacent to the Yeading Brook. To the south east the levels rise in a gentle mound that helps provide an edge to those arriving to the south side and screen from the A40 into the site. The Environment Agency has raised no objections to the raising of ground levels in these areas (outline condition 23).

3.44 A paving palette comprises a range of materials from tarmacadam, concrete blocks and setts, reconstituted stone paving and gravel. Principally, the main road spine is finished in tarmacadam with the arrival points and junction nodes highlighted in granite setts or concrete blocks. Combined with these features there are crossing points providing flush access across the road, which in turn act as speed restrictors. The secondary roads are a combination of concrete blocks or tarmacadam depending on their location. The parking areas are constructed in porous concrete block paving where appropriate, with bays marked in contrasting blocks. Larger set-down and work areas in the technical zone are finished in in-situ reinforced concrete. The roads and parking areas have standard concrete kerbs. The smaller more discreet temporary parking areas adjacent to buildings are finished in concrete block, but designed to give the appearance of a paved court, with flush kerbs and appropriate patterning.

3.45 Footpaths, including the main pedestrian spine, are generally finished in concrete block paving with concrete setts to articulate junctions and key points along the route. The meandering path adjacent to the Yeading Brook is gravelled and timber edged to reflect the informal character of this route. The main piazza and paved space around the restaurant and amenity area is finished in textured

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 53

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS concrete slabs with bands of concrete setts or blocks to provide an organising geometry to the paving and structure to the spaces. Where there is a change in level steps and ramps are provided and designed as part of the overall space to allow for incidental sitting. At important and symbolic points of reference such as the Support Wing at the main entrance and the Officer’s Mess and accommodation a higher quality paving material is used such as granite aggregate or stone paving in limited areas to reflect the significance of the space.

3.46 The existing boundaries to the airfield remain in place, except for where the new main entrance is slightly moved northward in West End Road. This will result in part of the existing hedge being removed. This section of hedge planting is to be reinstated in conjunction with the security fence along the back edge of pavement. The Environment Agency has recommended that condition 25 of the outline permission relating to permeable fencing be discharged.

3.47 The development will take place on a phased basis and consequently the landscape will be installed at different periods over a number of years. Initially the maintenance regime ensures the successful establishment of the landscape works and the subsequent objective for the management strategy ensures that the specific design objectives of each character area are realised. It is a requirement of the strategy that should any plant material die or become diseased within five years from the completion date, it shall be replaced by a similar sized species in the same place the next planting season. One of the main considerations in the maintenance and management of vegetation at RAF Northolt is the requirement to avoid attracting birds to the site. The planting is to be installed towards the end of the period of construction for the specified works. This will enable more substantial areas to be planted and a more consistent approach taken. The new planting is to be installed in accordance with the latest appropriate British Standards.

3.48 It is acknowledged that the objectives and principles in the landscape master plan strategy will be compromised, to some extent, by the operational requirements of the site, including security and the threat of bird strike. It is also acknowledged that there will be some change to the landscape character during the construction phase, including the loss of mature trees in the north-east corner of the site. The Tree Officer observes that there is a simplicity, verging on sterility, of planting within the site. However, this is appropriate and largely unavoidable, given the institutional function of the base and the operational constraints. On balance, the overall landscape strategy and detailed landscape scheme for this phase is considered appropriate for the site and responds to the requirements of Policies BE26 and BE38 of the UDP. It is therefore recommended that the landscape master plan strategy (condition 4 of the outline approval) and the detailed landscaping proposals for this phase be discharged.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 54

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (iii) Urban design considerations

3.49 There are three distinct forms of building proposed within this phase of the master plan proposals, each with a restricted palette of construction materials, to provide a visual association with the character of the area. Operational airfield buildings are mainly located on the south side and are of necessity large scale structures. These have been designed in a modern commercial aesthetic, in keeping with their function and are clad in metal panels to match the existing Operations building. In contrast, the buildings to the northern side of the site are 2 and 3 storeys, more compact and arranged in an urban form, to create a mixed use neighbourhood character with working, living and recreational facilities. Technical areas will utilise a similar modern commercial aesthetic to the airside operational area, including rain screen metal cladding and standing seam roofs. The scheme provides three essential visual links between the northern part of the site and the airfield: from the main gate through the glazed atrium of the Support Wing building, from the Officers Mess, allowing views from the public rooms over the grassed embankment towards the airfield and from the Civic and Administrative Area through the open space of the Parade Ground.

3.50 The layout in the northern part of the site revolves around a series of interrelated open spaces connected by pedestrian routes. On entering the site from the main gate visitors will be able to see a reminder of the Base’s heritage; a display of historic aircraft set on a lawn with a backdrop of the curved façade of the Support Wing Building. To the south, the new officers living quarter’s annex buildings will be arranged in a courtyard form amongst existing mature trees.

3.51 Within the village and Officers Area the design approach will be to provide traditional structures with familiar domestic elements and finishes. Proposed construction materials consist of pitched tiled roofs, brickwork walls and punched window openings. These building forms will compliment the retained existing buildings such as the Senior Non Commissioned Officers' (SNCO) Mess and Officers Mess. The village living accommodation is typically on three floors and construction materials will incorporate two colours of brick, multi stock reds for the lower two levels with a yellow buff brick providing a high level colour contrast.

3.52 Three areas of the northern site will use traditional urban design to give a sense of formality to the civic, administrative and officer’s areas. Immediately inside the main gate, the curved geometry of the proposed Support Wing building is designed to establish a formal entrance to the Station. The open space in front of the building will be the site of a flagpole and the display of three historic aircraft. The entrance to the Support Wing offices is conceived as a glazed atrium space placed on a parallel axis with the taxiway to the south of the building. The entrance and the formal terrace to the south will allow dramatic views over the open space of the airfield.

3.53 The proposals to concentrate parking to the perimeter of the site will permit much

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 55

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS of the existing parking to the south of the Officers Mess to be removed and the area landscaped with sloping grass banks. The Station’s north-south link road will allow a new ceremonial route to be constructed to the Officers’ Mess. The intention is to improve and restore the historic setting of the building.

3.54 The Junior Ranks Single Living Accommodation (JRSLA) buildings within the village are set out in five buildings enclosing a central parkland space. The Parade Ground forms a major new open space directly south of the spine avenue. It is flanked on three sides by buildings and to the south there will be extensive views across the airfield.

3.55 Social space in the northern part of the site will be concentrated around the facilities at the eastern end of the village. The external enclosed terrace and garden on the west side of the SNCO Mess is to be retained. To the north of this space will be the paved area surrounding the existing chapel, which is also to be retained within the master plan. The west face of the Junior Ranks' Mess and Club will overlook an extensive terrace on two levels. This will be a natural social gathering point as well as offering the possibility of alfresco dining in summer months.

3.56 With regard to development on the southern part of the site, there is greater potential impact from the hangar, which is proposed for the southern boundary of the station adjoining the A40. The proposed hangar would have the largest footprint of any other building on the station apart from the British Forces Post Office, which is proposed in the south east corner. Although it would replace some existing buildings it would be substantially larger and also much bigger than the existing operations building, which will be retained to the east. In addition it would be would be sited closer to the A40. However, the principle of large military buildings on the site is well established and it is considered that the visual impact would be no more significant than that which already exists from several groups of military buildings located around the margins of the site.

3.57 The Urban Design Officer considers that the final siting, the external appearance, detailed design as well as external materials are all acceptable subject to a condition requiring the submission of samples of all building materials. It is considered that the scheme would produce an acceptable, standard of urban design in compliance with Policies BE13 and BE19 of the UDP and relevant design guidance.

(iv) The setting of the listed building

3.58 In general it is intended to retain those buildings of some historic/architectural interest. These include the two large hangars, the Station H.Q. as well as the Officers Mess. All buildings on the site have been subject to an assessment by English Heritage and only the Officers Mess was considered to be of sufficient architectural and or historic interest to warrant Listing. The building and

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 56

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS surroundings have recently been listed Grade II. It has been established that it is essential to retain the existing original 1920 external fabric of the building, together with the public rooms within this portion of the building, including the dining room, reception, ante room, bar and minstrels gallery. It is considered that the 1970s bedroom extension and the single storey rear catering facilities, which have grown organically over time, can be removed. However, the consideration of any works to the Listed Building are not to be determined as part of this reserved matters application, but will be treated separately, by way of planning and listed building consent applications.

3.59 Given the nature of the existing Officers’ Mess and its listing, it is not feasible to accommodate additional officer sleeping accommodation either within the existing structure or by extending it. It has therefore been necessary to provide new buildings in the vicinity of the existing, to provide additional single living officer accommodation (SLA). The applicants have explained that the location of the SLA annexes is constrained by several factors, including operational requirements, internal accommodation standards, the aircraft safety zone, the counter terrorist protection zone, existing buildings and trees. Officers and English Heritage objected to the initial location of the annexes, as it was considered that they would have an unacceptable impact on the listed Officers’ Mess. The 2 storey western block (building 1) has now been located 10m further west and 3 m north, thereby increasing physical separation from the listed building. With regard to the 3 storey eastern block (building 2), this has been located a further 2 metres north, with a reduction in floor levels to reduce the overall bulk of the building. It is considered that the amended locations and design now represent an overall development that will not impact adversely on the setting of the listed building.

3.60 Car parking is provided to the north of the retained existing mess, adjacent to the site perimeter fence. Provision is also made for wheelchair user parking bays to the appropriate standard. Covered cycle storage for 8 bicycles is provided within this parking area. Refuse storage is also provided in the form of close boarded enclosures with gates at the service area to the catering facility.

3.61 Both the Urban Design and Conservation Officers are of the view that the amended designs and siting of the Officers’ annexes are the best which can reasonably be achieved to protect the setting of the listed Officers’ Mess. English Heritage have recommended that this application be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice. It is therefore considered that the new SLA annexes would not detract from the setting of the listed building, in compliance with Policy BE10 of the UDP.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 57

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS (iv) The impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties

3.62 With reference to the noise impact the development may have upon surrounding residents, traffic to the proposed development would utilise new and existing internal estate roads, while the proposed parking areas would be located over 40 metres from the nearest adjoining residential properties. It is not considered that the additional vehicle movements associated with the proposed development would result in the occupiers of surrounding properties suffering any significant noise and disturbance or visual intrusion, in compliance with Policy OE1 of the UDP. With regard to the proposed rifle range, Military Band Practice Facility and all weather sports pitches, conditions were imposed at outline stage that required a noise assessment to be submitted ; the assessment including the detailed design, frequency of use. These elements of the development do not form part of the current reserved matters submission, but will form part of a subsequent phase.

3.63 Policy BE20 of the UDP seeks to ensure that buildings are laid out to provide adequate sunlight and preserve the amenity of existing houses. Policy BE24 seeks to ensure that new development will not result in a loss of privacy to occupiers of surrounding dwellings, while Policy BE 21 seeks to ensure that proposals do not constitute over dominant forms of development, which would detract from the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. None of the buildings in the northern part of the site, which are a maximum of 3 storeys in height would be sited closer than 50 metres from the nearest residential properties to the north. This is sufficient distance to avoid any loss of light and privacy to, or loss of outlook from these properties. The boundary setback would mean that there would be significant opportunities for planting and landscaping to minimise the visual impact of the buildings on these properties. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the aims of Policies BE20, BE21 and BE24 of the UDP.

(v) Access, parking and traffic generation

3.64 There will be two points of access and egress from the site: the Main Gate and White House Gate, both located along West End Road. It is intended to relocate the Main Gate slightly north of its current position so that it directly aligns with Bridgewater Road. New signals are also to be installed at the junction of West End Road and the White House Gate: the latter under the BFPO development contract. Improvements being undertaken in connection with the BFPO development take account of the future traffic levels associated with Project MoDEL. The principle of these access points and the off site highway works was approved at outline stage. Visitor parking and the new guardhouse are to be located to the south of the main gate for ease of circulation by car. Internally, the proposals provide wherever possible separate pedestrian and cycle routes across the site, running through traffic free spaces. Military and most civilian

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 58

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS personnel are allocated lockers and have access to showers, changing facilities etc at their place of work

3.65 Car parking is proposed in three main areas within the 50m security zone adjacent to the site boundaries. Limited parking is also provided in proximity to individual buildings. In an area to the north of the main gate, a car park will provide parking bays for visitors and a coach drop off facility. The main car parking serving the village and Junior Ranks accommodation is to be located along the northern boundary with Yeading Brook. Parking for the Officers Area is located along the perimeter boundary with West End Road.

3.66 The proposed on-site car parking provision is below the Council’s maximum permitted standards. However, there are existing hard standing areas within the site which would be able to accommodate any overspill parking if necessary and, therefore, in the worst case scenario the development will not result in any additional parking in adjoining streets. The parking provision is considered to be in compliance with Policy AM14 of the UDP. Parking for people with disabilities , have been provided in close to individual buildings, in compliance with Policy AM15. It is therefore recommended that outline condition 17 be discharged. Covered and secure storage areas for both cycles and motorcycles are also proposed. However, insufficient information has been provided and a condition is recommended requiring elevational details of these facilities to be submitted (condition 2).

3.67. Details of the new internal north south link road, the realignment of the southern perimeter road and the internal White House Gate access arrangements, which were agreed in principle at outline stage have already been approved as part of the first phase enabling road works (ref no. 189/APP/2006/1974 approved on 11/10/2006). The Highway Engineer raises no objection to the proposals in terms of parking provision and internal access arrangements.

(vi) Environmental/Sustainability issues

3.68 Waste Management Strategy has been submitted, pursuant to discharge of conditions 15 and 16. This strategy will seek to ensure that all station personnel will have a responsibility to minimise waste, by reducing the amount produced, reusing by-products if possible, by recycling waste where feasible and ensure compliance with relevant regulations and guidelines. Waste produced within MoD establishments by MoD employees can be transported using military vehicles under direct control of the MoD. The waste producer is exempted from waste carrier registration. However, much MoD waste will be transferred for reuse/recovery /disposal by contractors. Such waste carriers will require registration for transporting MoD waste. All contractors and visitors on site are to be made aware of the environmental protection policy and measures employed by the unit. Details of bin stores and recycling enclosures have been provided and the Waste Manager raises no objections to facilities that will be provided. It is

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 59

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS therefore recommended that conditions 15 and 16 be discharged.

3.69 Condition 20 of the outline decision notice related to the submission of a Site Environmental Management Plan to include: 1 A tree protection method statement as described in Condition 11 2 A programme showing how the most valuable or potentially contaminating materials and fittings can be removed from the site safely and intact for later re-use or processing 3 Provisions to ensure that all construction vehicles are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway 4 A scheme for protecting surrounding dwellings from dust and noise emitted from demolition and construction activity

Both the Council’s EPU and Tree Officer consider that the submitted details are acceptable. It is therefore recommended that condition 20 be discharged.

3.70 Archaeological Investigations and “Watching Brief” (Condition 22) Within selected areas, an intensive watching brief is required. This is to examine the area for archaeological features and to record them prior to their removal. The programme will result in the preparation of a report and ordered archive, which shall follow the report outline. Following completion of the fieldwork, the results will be assessed and a report produced. English Heritage (Archaeology) advise that the condition will not have been satisfied until all works are complete and any programme of analysis leading to publication has been agreed, if necessary. It is therefore not recommended that condition 22 be discharged at this time.

3.71 Land contamination (Condition 29). A Phase 1 Land Quality Assessment for Northolt has been undertaken and the Summary Land Quality Statement was included in the NoPD. This describes the potential sources of contamination and the environmental risks associated with the redevelopment of the site. The Phase 1 Assessment concluded that the site is unlikely to contain any significant environmental constraints that would restrict the redevelopment as described in the NOPD. Based on these results and advice from EPU, a condition relating to land contamination details was imposed, requiring further information and mitigation, to fully address the potential issues relating to land quality, at the detailed design stage. However, detailed site investigation information and any proposed remediation measures have yet to be submitted. The Council’s EPU and the Environment Agency advise that condition 29 should not be discharged until this information becomes available and the remedial works have been carried out to the Council’s and the Environment Agency’s satisfaction.

3.72 Condition 30 requires the submission of foundation details on an individual building by building basis for approval prior to any commencement of works associated with the relevant building. Foundations to buildings are proposed to be simple strip and pad footings in either reinforced or un-reinforced concrete,

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 60

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS excavated to a depth, as appropriate, to provide adequate protection from frost and tree roots and to achieve the adequate safe bearing pressure of the bearing strata required. The intention is not to undertake piling works unless, during the site investigation, ground conditions are found to be different to those currently anticipated or there are localised, currently unknown, subterranean structures. However, the Environment Agency advise that they cannot recommend the discharge of condition 30, as the applicant has not provided a detailed site investigation report.

3.73 A condition was imposed requiring the submission of an energy efficiency report, to demonstrate that a proportion of the development’s electricity and/or heat needs will be derived from renewable technologies. An Energy Efficiency report details the site energy demand, energy efficiency and the renewable energy strategy: This includes the following: 1 An energy demand assessment based on benchmark figures outlining the estimated KWH/yr demand expected for the new build and refurbishment elements of the development and the resulting overall carbon dioxide emissions from the energy use. 2 A review of the design of the buildings with reference to energy efficiency design measures and recommendations being considered for the development 3 A strategy for how 10% of the predicted carbon emissions from the new buildings can be avoided by buying in renewable electricity to the site.

3.74 As a government department, the MoD and Defence Estates have set targets for energy efficiency and carbon reduction: These targets and reporting requirements will apply to RAF Northolt and progress towards these targets is to be reported in the MoD Annual Sustainable Development Report. These measures are generally considered to be in accord with the aims of Policy OE12 of the UDP and Renewable Energy- Policy 4A.9 of the London Plan. It is therefore recommended that condition 35 be discharged. 26 3.75 Condition 36 requires the submission of an Acoustic Assessment, while condition 37 requires the submission of a Dust and Air Pollution Control Strategy. The site comprises an RAF airfield, which is used by commercial and military aircraft. Other land uses in the surrounding area include private and military housing to the north-east and eastern boundary of the site. Existing noise sources include the following: military and commercial aircraft; noise from non-aircraft sources associated with the operation of RAF Northolt; road traffic along the A40 and the A4180; and railway noise from the railway to the north-east of the site.

3.76 Proposals include a security buffer of up to 50m between built development and the perimeter fence, which will help increase the distance between noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. In addition, the proposals involve the relocation of

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 61

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ‘airside’ activities to the south of the runway away from residential properties. It is proposed that a detailed noise assessment will be undertaken of the proposed rifle range, sports pitches and military band practice building, These elements of Project MoDEL, which require the submission of a Noise Assessment, are to be undertaken in Phase 2 and therefore no details are currently presented for these buildings/uses at this stage.

3.77 Details have been submitted relating to the way in which the construction and occupation of the site is managed. These relate to impacts generated during the construction of the facility such as the effects of noise, dust and dirt from construction vehicles, particularly in relation to those living outside the site. A Construction Phase Site Environmental Plan, has also been submitted which shows the details of the site management procedures to be adopted by the contractor and confirmation that during the construction process, the contractor will liaise with local residents and the Council under the guidance set out in the “Considerate Contractors Scheme”. The impact during construction and in the long term, on the environment is likely to be minor if these sustainable construction principles are followed. The Council’s Environmental Protection Unit advise that the details are satisfactory and it is recommended that condition 36 (Acoustic Assessment and Report) and condition 37 (Dust and Air Pollution Control Strategy) be discharged for this phase of the development.

3.78 Condition 38 requires the submission of a bat survey to determine the existing knowledge of the use of the site by protected species and to determine those areas where there are gaps in the information available. A desk study was undertaken at outline stage. The associated Environmental Review, Building Condition Survey and Tree Survey also provided background information. A walkover survey, with respect to bats, was undertaken on 24th May 2006. The objective of the walkover was to assess the buildings, trees and landscape for their potential for use by bats. In addition, an internal roof void inspection was undertaken on the buildings near to or, on a flight path, to the Yeading Brook. A number of these buildings were identified as having a previous history of use by bats. The survey was undertaken by an English Nature licensed bat worker and an experienced ecologist. In addition, one dusk survey was carried out on 29th June 2006, using broad band bat detectors and visual observation to determine the species and numbers of bats using the site.

3.79 The surveys concluded that at least one, and probably two, species of bat are roosting within the site; brown long-eared and common pipistrelle bats. The numbers of bats observed during the evening surveys were considered low (less than 20), though further surveys are required to confirm this. The applicants state that further dusk and dawn surveys will be scheduled to confirm the specific number, species and locations of bats on site in order to make a satisfactory application for a Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Licence, will be required prior to any demolition of buildings or removal of trees. The licence requires sufficient surveys to assess the population and species

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 62

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS using the site. It will also set out the methodology for any mitigation requirements. While it is considered that sufficient information has been submitted to discharge outline condition 38, it is recommended that a further condition be imposed (condition 3), requiring evidence to be provided that a DEFRA License has been obtained in respect of the protection of the population of bats, given the results of the surveys.

(viii) Drainage/Flood risk Issues

3.80 A number of conditions were imposed at outline stage to prevent increased risk of flooding, to improve water quality and to enhance the ecological character of the area. The Environment Agency have recommend that the following conditions be discharged: Condition 3 (vi). - Finished floor levels Condition 23 - Raising of existing ground levels within land liable to flood Condition 25 - fencing permeable to flood waters

3.81 However, with regard to surface water drainage and source control measures (condition 24), the Environment Agency advise that they cannot recommend the discharging of this condition. They stress that it is imperative that the applicant designs a scheme to meet the requirements, which were previously agreed at outline stage. Condition 26 relates to the provision of an eight metre wide undeveloped buffer strip alongside the Yeading Brook, except at the two minor points of encroachment. However changes have been made to this part of the planning application. The detailed plans show a greater encroachment within the eight metre margin than previously agreed at outline stage. The Environment Agency therefore advise that they cannot recommend the discharge of condition 26. With regard to surface water discharge (31), the Agency cannot recommend the discharging of this condition. The surface water drainage details do not meet with those previously agreed at outline stage, which included green field discharge rates and 1 in 100 year attenuation.

3.82 In light of this advice, it is therefore recommended that conditions 23 and 25 be discharged. However, conditions 24, 26, 30 and 31 cannot be discharged at this stage and have therefore been deleted from the application, to enable the applicant to address the concerns of the Environment Agency.

Comments on Public Consultations

3.83 The concerns raised in relation to residential amenity and flooding have been dealt with in the main body of the report.

4.0 Observations of the Borough Solicitor

4.1 When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. This will enable

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 63

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

In addition, Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal Committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

5.0 Observations of the Director of Finance

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

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 This reserved matters application forms the first and major phase of the overall development strategy for RAF Northolt, which has been formalised in the outline master plan NoPD Statement of No Objection. The detailed siting, design and external appearance of the buildings are considered satisfactory, subject to a further materials condition, and broadly comply with the recently approved outline master plan for the site. It is considered that the development meets the needs of the MoD and ensures that key urban design objectives are addressed. In

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 64

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS addition, the total floor space now being developed is, so far, below that suggested within the outline NoPD.

6.2 The landscape design strategy has been developed to provide a functional though sparse and utilitarian landscape that will allow the routine functions of airbase to take place. This is due in the main, to the inherent safety and security considerations associated with base and the importance of not attracting birds or wildlife to the area (in the interests of avoiding bird strike).

6.3 A comprehensive parking strategy for both cars and cycles has been developed for the site. Details of parking, and facilities to meet the needs of staff, cyclists and pedestrians, including those with mobility difficulties across the site is considered satisfactory. In terms of traffic generation, no objections are raised subject to the proposed highway improvements contained in the Notice of Proposed Development being implemented prior to commencement of development.

6.4 It is considered that the scheme will have minimal visual impact on the openness of the adjoining Green Belt. The proposals should not cause loss of local residential amenity, given the sensitive siting and design, height limitations and the generous set backs of built development from the site boundaries. It is considered that the setting of the listed Officers’ Mess will be protected and that good environmental conditions will be provided for service personnel and visitors to the base. Approval of the reserved matters is recommended accordingly.

6.5 With regard to the discharge of various conditions attached to the outline Statement of No Objection, it is recommended that details relating to a landscape master plan strategy, tree protection, access statement, landscape maintenance plan, wheelchair parking, site environmental management plan, refuse and open storage, waste recycling facilities, energy efficiency report, raising of ground levels, permeable fencing, emissions monitoring scheme, noise assessment and bat survey, in part compliance with conditions, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 25, 36, 37 and 42 of the outline Statement of No Objection be discharged. However, insufficient information has been submitted to discharge conditions 13, 22, 24, 26, 29, 30 and 31, relating to samples of all materials, archaeological investigation, surface water drainage works and source control measures, buffer zones, site investigations, foundations and surface and foul drainage.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 65

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Reference Documents:

Unitary Development Plan Unitary Development Plan: Further Alterations to the parking policies and Standards: Second Deposit Draft 2001 Responses from statutory consultees

Contact Officer: KARL DAFE Telephone Number: 01895 250727

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 66

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS BLOCK PLAN

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 67

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 68

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

B Item No. 11 Report of the Director of Planning and Community Services

Address: HAREFIELD ACADEMY, NORTHWOOD WAY, HAREFIELD

Development: VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30 AND 31 OF PLANNING PERMISSION REF. 17709/APP/2006/825 DATED 16/06/2006 ‘REDEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL, INVOLVING ERECTION OF NEW BUILDINGS AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE A NEW ACADEMY SCHOOL FOR 1000 STUDENTS. PROVISION OF ASSOCIATED SPORTS FACILITIES, HARD AND SOFT PLAY AREAS, ANCILLARY CRECHE, NEW ACCESS, REPLACEMENT PARKING AND LANDSCAPING’.

LBH Ref Nos: 17709/APP/2006/2697

Drawing Nos: ‘Harefield Academy Phase 2’ and drawing TWC/N/SK035 received 19/09/06

Letter dated 06/10/06, planning condition summary, and drawings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 received 10/10/06

Date of receipt: 19/09/06 Date(s) of Amendment(s): None

CONSULTATIONS:

78 adjoining owners and occupiers have been consulted and a sign has been erected on the site. 1 response has been received raising traffic safety concerns.

The Harefield Village Conservation Panel has responded advising no objections to the proposed variations.

Highways Engineer The applicant has failed to demonstrably address the traffic safety implications of the proposed variations to conditions 28, 29 and 30. The Council has a duty of care in this matter, and the risks to highway safety cannot be justified at this point.

Trees/Landscaping Officer No in-principle objections are raised to the proposed variations. However, condition 6 (installation of driveways

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 69

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS and landscaping along southern boundary) requires minor rewording to ensure clarity while condition 14 (submission of a landscaping plan) should be amended to include a relaxed time frame for compliance.

Urban Design Officer No objection raised to the proposed variation of condition 7 (which relates to the approval of materials and external finishes).

Environment Agency No objection raised to the proposed variation of conditions.

Transport for London No response received.

Greater London Authority No response received.

English Heritage No response received.

THE SITE, PLANNING HISTORY AND PROPOSAL:

1. Harefield Academy is located on the northern fringe of the village of Harefield, and is located within the Green Belt. The site covers 9.75 hectares of land, extending from Northwood Road in the east to Rickmansworth Road in the west. The site is bounded to the south by a residential area consisting of predominantly semi-detached houses and an allotment garden. To the north is a Green Belt Countryside Conservation Area.

2. Extant planning permission (ref. 17709/APP/2006/825 dated 16/06/06) provides for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a new Academy school for 1000 pupils. The Harefield Academy is scheduled to open in September 2007.

3. It is proposed to vary the wording of various conditions of the extant planning permission, so that they better reflect the operational and construction requirements of the school.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND KEY PLANNING ISSUES:

Condition 6

4. Condition 6 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘6. The landscaping and driveways between Northwood Way and the southern

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 70

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS school boundary, as indicated on Plans A002/P2 and A003/P1 Rev 1, are to be implemented within 6 months of the occupation of the new main school building.’

5. It is proposed to vary condition 6 to read as follows:

‘6. The landscaping and driveways between Northwood Way and the Southern school boundary, as indicated on Plans A002/P2 and A003/P1 Rev 1 are to be implemented within the nearest planting season to the completion of the development.’

6. The Council’s Trees/Landscape Officer has raised no objections to the proposed variation, but has noted that the condition should be reworded as follows to ensure clarity:

‘6. The landscaping and driveways between Northwood Way and the Southern school boundary, as indicated on Plans A002/P2 and A003/P1 Rev 1 are to be implemented within the nearest planting season following the completion of the development.’

7. The variation is required to reflect the school’s construction timetable. The school is scheduled for occupation from September 2007. Accordingly, any landscaping carried out within the 6 months from September will be compromised by the colder winter months. Furthermore, demolition and external works will continue beyond the 6 month period referred to. Access arrangements and landscaping will be managed around construction activities.

8. The proposed wording would ensure that the required works are carried out as soon as practicable, within the confines of the construction timetable. Accordingly no objection is raised to the proposed variation, as amended.

Condition 7

9. Condition 7 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘7. No development shall take place until details and/or samples of all materials, colours and finishes to be used on all external surfaces have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’

10. It is proposed to vary condition 7 to read as follows:

‘7. Details and/or samples of all materials, colours and finishes to be used on all external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the materials being incorporated into the works.’

11. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until details of

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 71

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS external materials have been finalised, despite the fact that external material will only be incorporated towards the end of the construction process.

12. The applicant has advised that they will not be in a position to submit details of external materials to the Local Planning Authority until construction contracts have been agreed. The proposed variation seeks to minimise the delay between this and the commencement of development.

13. The Local Planning Authority will still retain control over the external materials used for the development. The Council’s Urban Design Officer has raised no objection to the proposed variation.

Condition 9

14. Condition 9 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘9. No development shall take place until details of facilities to be provided for the screened storage of refuse bins within the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter the facilities shall be permanently retained.’

15. It is proposed to vary condition 9 to read as follows:

‘9. Details of facilities for the screened storage of refuse bins within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of these facilities. Details shall address:- (i) Temporary facilities to be provided between first occupation of the main school building and completion of the external works; and (ii) Permanent facilities to be provided within one month of the completion of external works (or any other timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). The temporary facilities shall not be removed until the permanent facilities have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. The permanent facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained.’

16. The applicant has advised that it will not be possible to provide permanent facilities at occupation of the main school building. This is due to ongoing external works, include ongoing demolition and construction, where the permanent facilities would be best located.

17. The proposed condition would ensure that adequate facilities are provided on site at all times following occupation. However, it would provide the applicant with the flexibility to provide temporary facilities in a location which responds to construction constraints.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 72

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

18. Accordingly no objections are raised to the proposed variation. Condition 11

19. Condition 11 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘11. A Closed Circuit Television system shall be installed in accordance with the report titled ‘Harefield Academy: Response to Planning Conditions’ prepared by Buro Happold Job no. 007978 dated April 2005 Rev 01, prior to occupation of the main school building and shall thereafter be maintained.’

20. It is proposed to vary condition 11 to read as follows:

‘11. A closed circuit television system shall be installed in accordance with the report titled ‘Harefield Academy: Response to Planning Conditions’ prepared by Buro Happold Job no. 007978 dated April 2005 Rev 01, prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The closed circuit television system shall thereafter be permanently retained.’

21. The approved closed circuit television system includes both internal and external fittings. The applicant has advised that it may not be possible to install the external fittings prior to occupation of the main school building due to ongoing external works. However, it remains the applicant’s intention to install the internal fittings prior to occupation.

22. The proposed variation would allow for the installation of fittings in accordance with a timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the Metropolitan Police). This would provide the applicant with the flexibility to respond to construction constraints while ensuring that control over the timing of implementation remains with the Local Planning Authority.

23. Accordingly, no objections are raised to the proposed variation.

Condition 14

24. Condition 14 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘14. No development shall take place until a landscape scheme providing full details of hard and soft landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include: -

Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 73

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS numbers/densities where appropriate, Implementation programme

The scheme shall also include details of the following:-

Proposed finishing levels or contours Means of enclosure, Car parking layouts, Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, Hard surfacing materials proposed, Minor artefacts and structures (such as play equipment, furniture, refuse storage, signs, or lighting), Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power cables or communications equipment, indicating lines, manholes or associated structures), Retained historic landscape features and proposals for their restoration where relevant.

25. It is proposed to vary condition 14 to read as follows:

‘14. A landscape scheme providing full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include:-

Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, Implementation programme

The scheme shall also include details of the following: - Proposed finishing levels or contours Means of enclosure, Car parking layouts, Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, Hard surfacing materials proposed, Minor artefacts and structures (such as play equipment, furniture, refuse storage, signs, or lighting), Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power cables or communications equipment, indicating lines, manholes or associated structures), Retained historic landscape features and proposals for their restoration where relevant.

26. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 74

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS landscaping details have been finalised. This is notwithstanding the fact that landscaping will be installed following the completion of all other site works.

27. The Council’s Trees/Landscape Officer has advised that it is necessary to maintain an acceptable timeframe for the submission of details, to ensure that they have been approved and are ready for implementation in accordance with the timetable set by condition 15 (implementation of approved landscaping).

28. Accordingly, it is proposed to vary condition 14 to read:

‘14. Within 6 months of the date of this variation, a landscape scheme providing full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include: -

Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, Implementation programme

The scheme shall also include details of the following: -

Proposed finishing levels or contours Means of enclosure, Car parking layouts, Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, Hard surfacing materials proposed, Minor artefacts and structures (such as play equipment, furniture, refuse storage, signs, or lighting), Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power cables or communications equipment, indicating lines, manholes or associated structures), Retained historic landscape features and proposals for their restoration where relevant.

29. The proposed variation will therefore provide the applicant with the flexibility to commence development without having finalised landscaping details. However, it will ensure that landscaping details are submitted within an appropriate timeframe enabling implementation in accordance with Condition 15.

30. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the proposed variation as amended.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 75

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Condition 15

31. Condition 15 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘15. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and shall be completed within the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier period.

The new planting and landscape operations should comply with the requirements specified in BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' and in BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. Thereafter, the areas of hard and soft landscaping shall be permanently retained.

Any tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding shown on the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of 5 years from the completion of development dies, is removed or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the same place in the next planting season with another such tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority first gives written consent to any variation.’

32. It is proposed to vary condition 15 to read as follows:

’15. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and shall be completed within the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development. The new planting and landscape operations should comply with the requirements specified in BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' and in BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. Thereafter, the areas of hard and soft landscaping shall be permanently retained. Any tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding shown on the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of 5 years from the completion of development dies, is removed or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the same place in the next planting season with another such tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority first gives written consent to any variation.’

33. The existing condition requires the approved landscaping details to be implemented either within the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the buildings, whichever is the earlier period.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 76

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS 34. The applicant has advised that landscaping can not be implemented within the first planting and seeding season following occupation of the buildings due to ongoing external works across the site. However, approved landscaping can be installed in the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development.

35. The variation therefore responds to on-site construction constraints. However, the variation does not preclude the applicant from installing landscaping, where possible, prior to the completion of the development.

36. The Council’s Trees/Landscape Officer has raised no objections to the proposed variation.

Condition 16

37. Condition 16 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘16. No development shall take place until a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. Maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

A landscape management plan, including long term maintenance and management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all retained and proposed trees and landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development. This shall be implemented as approved.’

38. It is proposed to vary condition 16 to read as follows:

‘16. A schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. The schedule of landscape maintenance shall be implemented immediately following completion of external works.

A landscape management plan, including long term maintenance and management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all retained and proposed trees and landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The landscape management plan shall be implemented immediately following the completion of external works.’

39. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until a schedule of landscape maintenance and a landscape management plan have been approved. This is notwithstanding the fact that landscaping will only be

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 77

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS completed following the completion of all other external works.

40. The proposed variation will therefore provide the applicant with the flexibility to commence development without having finalised such details. The Local Planning Authority will still retain control over these matters. Approved details will be implemented once external works (including landscaping) have been completed.

41. The Council’s Trees/Landscape Officer has raised no in-principle objections to the proposed variation, but has recommended that the condition be reworded as follows to ensure clarity:

‘16. A schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. The works specified in the schedule of landscape maintenance shall be implemented immediately following completion of external works.

A landscape management plan, including long term maintenance and management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all retained and proposed trees and landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The works specified in the landscape management plan shall be implemented immediately following the completion of external works.’

42. No objection is raised to the proposed variation as amended.

Condition 19

43. Condition 19 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘19. No development shall take place until a scheme to create a wildlife habitat has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented within 8 months of development commencing or prior to occupation of the development, whichever is the earlier period, or such longer period as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.’

44. It is proposed to vary condition 19 to read as follows:

‘19. The applicant shall submit a scheme for the creation of wildlife habitat for the approval of the LPA. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development or such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the LPA.’

45. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until a scheme to create a wildlife habitat has been submitted and approved by the Local

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 78

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Planning Authority. This is notwithstanding the fact that the scheme will be installed as part of wider landscaping works at the completion of other external works.

46. The proposed variation will therefore provide the applicant with the flexibility to commence development without having finalised wildlife habitat details. However, the Local Planning Authority will still retain control over these matters, including when the approved details are installed.

47. Accordingly, no objection is raised to the proposed variation.

Condition 20

48. Condition 20 of the extant permission reads as follows:

‘20. No development shall take place until details have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the recommendations for proposed mitigation within the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associated of June 2004 are to be implemented. This is to include a detailed conservation plan for the proposed conservation areas. This work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.’

49. It is proposed to vary condition 20 to read as follows:

‘20. The applicant shall submit details to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the recommendations for proposed mitigation within the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates of June 2004 are to be implemented. This is to include a detailed conservation plan for the proposed conservation areas. This work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

50. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until required details have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

51. The majority of mitigation measures proposed by the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates are to be installed post-construction. However the report does propose the installation of reptile fencing prior to development commencing, to ensure that reptiles are not harmed or killed by straying into the construction area.

52. The broad brush removal of existing timeframe may inadvertently lead to a situation whereby construction is commenced prior to the approval and installation of reptile fencing. This may result in adverse impacts on local wildlife, and protected species, contrary to Policy EC2.

53. Accordingly, it is proposed to vary condition 20 to read:

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 79

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS ‘20. The applicant shall submit details to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the recommendations for proposed mitigation within the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates of June 2004 are to be implemented. This is to include a detailed conservation plan for the proposed conservation areas. This work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding the above, reptile fencing as recommended in section 4.2.3 of the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates of June 2004 shall be installed on site prior to the commencement of development.’

54. The proposed variation will provide the applicant with the flexibility to commence development without having finalised longer term mitigation details, but will secure reptile fencing within an appropriate timeframe.

55. Accordingly, no objections are raised to the proposed variation.

Condition 28

56. Condition 28 the extant permission reads as follows:

‘28. Development shall not begin until details of all traffic arrangements (including where appropriate carriageways, footways, turning space, safety strips, sight lines at road junctions, kerb radii, car parking areas and marking out of spaces, loading facilities, closure of existing access and means of surfacing) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved development shall not be occupied until all such works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter, the parking areas, sight lines and loading areas (where appropriate) must be permanently retained and used for no other purpose at any time.’

57. It is proposed to vary condition 28 to read as follows:

‘28. Details of all traffic arrangements (including where appropriate carriageways, footways, turning space, safety strips, sight lines at road junctions, kerb radii, car parking areas and marking out of spaces, loading facilities, closure of existing access and means of surfacing) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with a timetable agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the parking areas, sight lines and loading areas (where appropriate) must be permanently retained and used for no other purpose at any time.’

58. The Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that the traffic arrangement details required by this condition also refers to temporary arrangements

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 80

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS employed during the construction process.

59. The school will continue to be utilized by pupils throughout the construction process. Details of traffic arrangements to be implemented throughout this period are therefore required in order to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety on an ongoing basis. The applicant has failed to support the application with information supporting the proposition that the proposed variation would not impact on traffic safety.

60. The Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that the Council has a duty of care in this matter, and that the Council should not accept the risks to highway users safety embedded within the proposed variation of this condition.

61. As such, it is recommended that the application to vary condition 28 be refused.

Condition 29

62. Condition 29 the extant permission reads as follows:

‘29. The roads, sight lines at road junctions and parking areas (including where appropriate the marking out of parking spaces) shown on the approved plans shall be constructed prior to occupation of the development, and thereafter permanently retained and used for no other purpose.’

63. It is proposed to vary condition 29 to read as follows:

‘29. The roads, sight lines at road junctions and parking areas (including where appropriate the marking out of parking spaces) shown on the approved plans shall be constructed after occupation of the development, and thereafter permanently retained and used for no other purpose.’

64. Whereas the existing condition requires roads, sight lines and parking areas to be provided prior to occupation of the development, the proposed variation would relax the requirement to enable their provision after occupation of the development.

65. The applicant has provided information demonstrating that temporary parking areas can be provided on site prior to occupation of the development for use until the completion of site works and the establishment of permanent parking areas. However, the Council’s Highways Engineer has advised that insufficient information has been provided to establish whether the effects of delaying the provision of satisfactory sightlines would impact on local road safety.

66. As such, it is recommended that the application to vary condition 29 be refused.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 81

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS Condition 30

67. Condition 30 the extant permission reads as follows:

‘30. Construction of the main school building shall not commence until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing suitable parking restrictions in the vicinity of the junction of Northwood Way and Northwood Road to ensure that buses and delivery vehicles have adequate clear carriageway width are implemented. Thereafter, the new main school building shall not be occupied until the approved details have been fully implemented and thereafter retained.’

68. It is proposed to vary condition 30 to read as follows:

‘30. Details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing suitable parking restrictions in the vicinity of the junction of Northwood Way and Northwood Road to ensure that buses and delivery vehicles have adequate clear carriageway width. After approval, these shall be implemented prior to the completion of the development and retained thereafter.’

69. The proposed variation would delay the implementation of approved parking restrictions until the completion of the development – which is scheduled for September 2008. Accordingly, there would a time period of up to one year (September 2007 – September 2007) where the new main school building would be in use with its associated traffic impacts, without the benefit of the required parking restrictions.

70. The parking restrictions are required to ensure that buses and delivery vehicles have adequate clear carriageway width. Without these, the proposal may result in local traffic congestion and impact on highway safety. The applicant has failed to provide any information demonstrating how the impact of the proposed variation could be negated.

71. The Council’s Highways Engineer has objected to the proposed variation for the above reasons. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application to vary condition 30 be refused.

Condition 31

72. Condition 31 the extant permission reads as follows:

‘31. The development shall not begin until a scheme which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is occupied and thereafter shall be retained and maintained in good working order for so

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 82

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS long as the site remains in use.’

73. It is proposed to vary condition 31 to read as follows:

‘31. A scheme which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is occupied and thereafter shall be retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the site remains in use.’

74. The existing condition precludes development from commencing until a scheme to control noise has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This is notwithstanding the fact that the approved details need only be implemented prior to occupation of the development. This condition does not relate to construction noise which is subject to other legislative controls including The Control of Pollution Act 1974 and British Standard Code of Practice BS 5228:1984.

75. The proposed variation will therefore provide the applicant with the flexibility to commence development without having finalised such details. However, the Local Planning Authority will maintain control over this matter, and the applicant will be required to adhere to existing time frames with respect to implementation.

76. Accordingly, no objections are raised to the proposed variation of condition 31.

Observations of the Borough Solicitor

When making their decision, Members must have regard to all relevant planning legislation, regulations, guidance, circulars and Council policies. Further, Members must make their decision on the basis of relevant planning considerations and must not take any irrelevant considerations into account. This will enable them to make an informed decision in respect of an application.

In addition Members should note that the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) makes it unlawful for the Council to act incompatibly with Convention rights. Decisions by the Committee must take account of the HRA 1998. Therefore, Members need to be aware of the fact that the HRA 1998 makes the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) directly applicable to the actions of public bodies in England and Wales. The specific parts of the Convention relevant to planning matters are Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life); Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Article 6 deals with procedural fairness. If normal committee procedures are followed, it is unlikely that this article will be breached.

Article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8 are not absolute rights and infringements of

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 83

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS these rights protected under these are allowed in certain defined circumstances, for example where required by law. However any infringement must be proportionate, which means it must achieve a fair balance between the public interest and the private interest infringed and must not go beyond what is needed to achieve its objective.

Article 14 states that the rights under the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on grounds of 'sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status'.

Observations of the Director of Finance

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That the application to vary conditions 28, 29 and 30 of planning permission 17709/APP/2006/825 dated 16/06/06 be refused for the following reason:

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed variations to conditions 28, 29 and 30 would not adversely impact on highway safety.

That the following conditions of planning permission 17709/APP/2006/825 dated 16/06/06 be varied to read:

6. The landscaping and driveways between Northwood Way and the Southern school boundary, as indicated on Plans A002/P2 and A003/P1 Rev 1 are to be implemented within the nearest planting season following the completion of the development.

7. Details and/or samples of all materials, colours and finishes to be used on all external surfaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the materials being incorporated into the works.

9. Details of facilities for the screened storage of refuse bins within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction of these facilities. Details shall address:- (i) Temporary facilities to be provided between first occupation of

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 84

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the main school building and completion of the external works; and (ii) Permanent facilities to be provided within one month of the completion of external works (or any other timetable agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority). The temporary facilities shall not be removed until the permanent facilities have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. The permanent facilities shall thereafter be permanently retained.’

11. A closed circuit television system shall be installed in accordance with the report titled ‘Harefield Academy: Response to Planning Conditions’ prepared by Buro Happold Job no. 007978 dated April 2005 Rev 01, prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The closed circuit television system shall thereafter be permanently retained.’

14. Within 6 months of the date of this variation, a landscape scheme providing full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. The scheme shall include: Planting plans (at not less than a scale of 1:100), Written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken, Schedule of plants giving species, plant sizes, and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate, Implementation programme

The scheme shall also include details of the following: - Proposed finishing levels or contours Means of enclosure, Car parking layouts, Other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas, Hard surfacing materials proposed, Minor artefacts and structures (such as play equipment, furniture, refuse storage, signs, or lighting), Existing and proposed functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage, power cables or communications equipment, indicating lines, manholes or associated structures), Retained historic landscape features and proposals for their restoration where relevant.

15. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme and shall be completed within the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development.

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 85

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS The new planting and landscape operations should comply with the requirements specified in BS 3936 (1992) 'Nursery Stock, Part 1, Specification for Trees and Shrubs' and in BS 4428 (1989) 'Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (Excluding Hard Surfaces)'. Thereafter, the areas of hard and soft landscaping shall be permanently retained. Any tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding shown on the approved landscaping scheme which within a period of 5 years from the completion of development dies, is removed or in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the same place in the next planting season with another such tree, shrub or area of turfing or seeding of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority first gives written consent to any variation.’

16. A schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 5 years shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation. The works specified in the schedule of landscape maintenance shall be implemented immediately following completion of external works. A landscape management plan, including long term maintenance and management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all retained and proposed trees and landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The works specified in the landscape management plan shall be implemented immediately following the completion of external works.

19. The applicant shall submit a scheme for the creation of wildlife habitat for the approval of the LPA. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development or such longer period as may be agreed in writing with the LPA.

20. The applicant shall submit details to the Local Planning Authority demonstrating that the recommendations for proposed mitigation within the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates of June 2004 are to be implemented. This is to include a detailed conservation plan for the proposed conservation areas. This work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Notwithstanding the above, reptile fencing as recommended in section 4.2.3 of the protected species report by Andrew McCarthy Associates of June 2004 shall be installed on site prior to the commencement of development.

31. A scheme which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise emanating from the site shall be submitted to and approved by

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 86

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented before the development is occupied and thereafter shall be retained and maintained in good working order for so long as the site remains in use.

Contact Officer: REBECCA STOCKLEY Telephone No: 01895 250525

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 87

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS

North Planning Committee – 2 November 2006 Page 88

PART 1 – MEMBERS, PUBLIC AND PRESS